Paint tote

[Ames]

Ames,

The side of truth. I agree with you though, no intruder placed the size-12's on JonBenet, who had green eyes and brown hair with highlights.


.

Thank you...my point exactly!

 

[Ames]

indeed.anyone who uses a security co. can tell you that they talk about burglars,'intruders'..so to speak.they want a quick in and out,they don't waste time,they get in,they get OUT,ASAP.It's planned that way in advance.
A KN in a sense is a burglar of sorts,only his target is human,which makes it even more important that he plan ahead and stick to that plan,being quick and efficient,NOT wasting time,and not strolling about the house while the occupants are at home.

LOL..and that is exactly what this or "these" intruder(s) did...strolled around the house. Have you noticed that I have asked Holdon, at least ten questions that he cannot or will not answer..my guess is "CANNOT". Anyway, one of which is.. why would an intruder CARE if JB's panties had the correct day of the week on them (supposedly like the ones that she wore earlier that day)...and how would they have known where they were kept...whether it be the drawers, or wrapped as a gift. AND...if they WERE found in the drawers...why wouldn't the intruder(s) just grab one that was in the drawer..and OUT OF THE PACK...not a brand spankin' new pair, out of the new pack??? AND..why would a kidnapper take the time to change her undies, wasting still MORE precious time. I am STILL waiting on an answer from him/her.

 

[Ames]

..not only that,it would be easier to just take her anyway,and get her another pair of blue contacts and dye her hair later,since an intruder would be already in the house and have ahold of her.beats finding another child,breaking in,risking getting caught,etc.
..and on THAT note...if 'they' are foreigners,I would think it would be easier to find a blond haired,blue eyed child in a EUROPEAN county,not in the USA.we're mix here of all different hair and eye colors,of course,and not only that,those countries are closer to places where they 'behead' ppl,and crossing the ocean isn't necessary to get there.

Exactly! And WHY would an intruder risk leaving even MORE fibers and evidence behind by killing her, instead of just leaving without her?? A REAL KIDNAPPER would be afraid that he had left evidence all over the place... (But, not THIS kidnapper...no, HE was very sterile)...so why risk leaving even MORE evidence that could have linked him to the crime by KILLING her?? It makes NO SENSE at all. If this had of been a real kidnapper and a real kidnapping...the perp would haven't have had any reason whatsoever to believe that he did NOT leave some sort of evidence behind, and you would think that he would have wanted to leave as little as possible. But...NO...not JB's kidnapper. No, he is different...what does HE do....he risks leaving even MORE evidence and fibers behind that could link him to being inside the Ramsey home... by killing JB.

 

[Ames]

Without wanting to go into this whole thing again...Coroner Meyer stated that JBR had been wiped down. He did NOT state or opine that it was either before OR after the size 12s were put on her. All he said was that she had been wiped down because there was no staining on her clothing that corresponded to the amount of blood that would have been there based on the fact that there was enough blood to be on her thighs. If she had been wiped down AFTER the size 12s, there would have been a LOT more blood on them. The fact that there were only a few drops in them signifies that the stagers never saw those few drops. Once they wiped her down and put the clean (at the time) new size 12s on her, at that point they put the long johns back on her too, and after that she was wrapped in the blanket. The stagers NEVER SAW that a few drops of blood had oozed out after she was redressed.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this. NO way those size 12s were on her before she was wiped. They'd have had MUCH more blood in them, and not just in the crotch. The leg bands, and fabric that was near her thighs would have been bloody also.

You are right...common sense says that those size 12's were placed on her AFTER she was wiped, not before. It's pretty simple....the size 6's were removed, the paintbrush handle (or a finger) was inserted, she bled, she was wiped down, then size 12 panties of the same style, color..etc. were placed on her. End of story....or beginning...depends on how you look at it.

 

[JMO8778]

LOL..and that is exactly what this or "these" intruder(s) did...strolled around the house. Have you noticed that I have asked Holdon, at least ten questions that he cannot or will not answer..my guess is "CANNOT". Anyway, one of which is.. why would an intruder CARE if JB's panties had the correct day of the week on them (supposedly like the ones that she wore earlier that day)...and how would they have known where they were kept...whether it be the drawers, or wrapped as a gift. AND...if they WERE found in the drawers...why wouldn't the intruder(s) just grab one that was in the drawer..and OUT OF THE PACK...not a brand spankin' new pair, out of the new pack??? AND..why would a kidnapper take the time to change her undies, wasting still MORE precious time. I am STILL waiting on an answer from him/her.

what is interesting is that JR doesn't even address the size 12 underwear in DOI at all..and he glosses over the pineapple issue completely,only saying that 'the kids were free to eat whatever they wanted at any time'.THAT doesn't explain the pineapple at all,just as the fiber evidence is glossed over by IDI's (JR doesn't address THAT either in DOI),saying that of course Patsy's fibers would be on JB.But THAT doesn't explain why they were tied INTO the garrote,etc.Forensic evidence can't just be tossed out of the equation so easily.

 

[DeeDee249]

You know what really was suspicious as far as the pineapple...with the flashlight on the counter, the bowl of pineapple with spoon, water glass with teabag...if, as JR said, the kids were free to eat whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, why not just say that it is possible that JBR and BR came down to the kitchen and helped themselves to the pineapple?
Of course we know the answer to that...ONLY PR's prints were found on that bowl. The pineapple in JBR's digestive tract got there one way and one way only...via her MOTHER.
My point about the pineapple has always been that it was such a non-issue for INNOCENT parents. But GUILTY parents have to distance themselves from it by completely denying knowledge or involvement. It is one of the main reasons I suspected the parents in the first place.

 

[UKGuy]

Without wanting to go into this whole thing again...Coroner Meyer stated that JBR had been wiped down. He did NOT state or opine that it was either before OR after the size 12s were put on her. All he said was that she had been wiped down because there was no staining on her clothing that corresponded to the amount of blood that would have been there based on the fact that there was enough blood to be on her thighs. If she had been wiped down AFTER the size 12s, there would have been a LOT more blood on them. The fact that there were only a few drops in them signifies that the stagers never saw those few drops. Once they wiped her down and put the clean (at the time) new size 12s on her, at that point they put the long johns back on her too, and after that she was wrapped in the blanket. The stagers NEVER SAW that a few drops of blood had oozed out after she was redressed.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this. NO way those size 12s were on her before she was wiped. They'd have had MUCH more blood in them, and not just in the crotch. The leg bands, and fabric that was near her thighs would have been bloody also.

DeeDee249,

Without wanting to go into this whole thing again...

I know but I think it may help to clarify things, especially for people new to the case.

All he said was that she had been wiped down because there was no staining on her clothing that corresponded to the amount of blood that would have been there based on the fact that there was enough blood to be on her thighs.

Now your description appears to me to be the opposite of the version of events that Det. Arndt outlined in her contribution to the affidavit. e.g. she maintains that there were blood stains on the panties but no blood on her corresponding pubic area.

Here is the quote from the Search Warrant

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.

So

Step 1. Dr. Meyer observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties.

Step 2. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood.

Step 3. Dr. Meyer carefully examines the panties.

Step 4. Dr. Meyer observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains.

Step 5. Dr. Meyer finds no visible reddish stains in this exterior pubic area.

Step 6. Dr. Meyer concludes that the child's pubic area was wiped with a cloth

Now in the autopsy report, unless I have missed something, there is no reference to blood on JonBenet's pubic area other than the following:

On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of
closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A
similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on
the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule.

So with no blood on JonBenet's pubic area, and with blood stains on her size-12 underwear, he concludes she had been wiped down.

Coroner Meyer obviously does not consider the blood around JonBenet's perineum area to be significant.

So accepting Coroner Meyer's conclusion then JonBenet must have been wiped down after being redressed in the size-12's, since there is blood on the pants, but no blood on the corresponding pubic area.


.

 

[UKGuy]

You know what really was suspicious as far as the pineapple...with the flashlight on the counter, the bowl of pineapple with spoon, water glass with teabag...if, as JR said, the kids were free to eat whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, why not just say that it is possible that JBR and BR came down to the kitchen and helped themselves to the pineapple?
Of course we know the answer to that...ONLY PR's prints were found on that bowl. The pineapple in JBR's digestive tract got there one way and one way only...via her MOTHER.
My point about the pineapple has always been that it was such a non-issue for INNOCENT parents. But GUILTY parents have to distance themselves from it by completely denying knowledge or involvement. It is one of the main reasons I suspected the parents in the first place.

DeeDee249,
You have to wonder why the Evidence Man Lou Smit conjured up so many explanations as to why JonBenet consumed that pineapple?

 

[BBB167893]

I would doubt your source, as tape cannot on its own show 'resistance'. Resistance is not a property of duct tape. Elongation or deformation is. If your source meant elongation or deformation, then lack thereof only suggests that when the tape was placed over JBR's mouth, she did not resist, not that she was necessarily dead.

Even granting that, do you really think a six-year-old kid would not fight? When I was six, it was a battle just to get me to make my bed!

So its a grand assumption to go from vinyl duct tape with a perfect set of lip prints, to a victim who was not alive.

I don't go on assumptions, Holdon. Remember that.

It also defies reason, as RDI tends to do, because tape over the mouth is much more commonly used by criminals to quiet a potentially screaming victim.

Yeah, with multiple wrappings!

If you want to claim staging again,

I do.

then what were the R's attempting to stage?

Well, now that might take a while to answer. Not because I can't do it, but because I need to get to sleep tonight. So let me sum up: an outside killing, something a parent could not do. Now, without the sexual angle, any sort of kidnapping scenario could be applied, but pedophile killers are all the rage now, at least in the media. Never let it be said that I think the Rs are stupid. There's a big difference between being stupid and not knowing what you've let yourself in for. They were smart enough to know that most people let their emotions take over when they hear about kids being molested. That's why we have "Jessica's Law" and the like, and why we ought to.

I thought JR wasn't from the south. Why did the RN author ask JR to 'use that good southern common sense' when he aint got none?

Well, holdon, you seem to be operating on the assumption that this was a premeditated killing. The trouble is, it's ALL over the place, employing the M.O's of pedophile killers, ransom kidnappers, foreign (presumably Islamic) terrorists and left-wing nutjobs, any of which a person watching "Law & Order" would know about. I agree with rashomon, to a point: I believe it was a slip by someone who did NOT have a well-thought-out plan. Think about it: have you ever said something you didn't mean to say? Why not write something you didn't mean to write? happens to me all the time.

But let me explore further. Many books have been written on the psychology of criminals. And a lot of them will tell you that some criminals have an overriding subconscious need to confess. Maybe, (and I use that well) that's the case here, and I'll offer some examples for you. Patsy Ramsey in several interviews, said things that made John's hair stand on end, such as the infamous "two people" gag. Boy, he nearly pooped his pants on that one!

Or, try this. I mentioned how the crime itself is all over the place. Well, so is the note. There are the various transparent references to foreign terrorists you seem to cling to, but other passages (like the known bonus) seem to suggest someone who is known to the parents. Indeed, Patsy and her mom, very early on in the case, named the housekeeper and several of John's co-workers. What does that tell you, Holdon? Even the Ramseys didn't think it was a foreign group, and they certainly had no reason not to, being innocent and all...

Was there any marriage counseling or domestic disputes the neighbors knew about? Was anything showing up at school or at the doctors? Nothing?

Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, there's the "Raoul" incident, where John became a raging bull. There's the frequent trips to the school nurse. There's Patsy's unwillingness to share John's bed, according to the housekeeper. There's the shouting matches (poosibly more) in JB's bathroom between her and her mother nearly everyday. Any of this sinking in, or am I just talking to myself? Let me be even more frank, Holdon. The average suicide bomber has no history of any kind of violence. Let me hit a little closer to home. Ten years ago come March, it will be ten years since a kid in my hometown was blown up by a mail-bomb. The bomber had NO history of any kind, not even a parking ticket. Yet he blew up someone he never met.

The RN is very specific on what JR was supposed to be doing that morning. You can probably recite everything JR was expected to do according to the RN. The RN was very thorough on the sequence of events, and was very clear on practically every point.

CLEAR?! Are you kidding? You must be reading a different note than the rest of us, which would explain a lot.

The author makes implicit and explicit references to both status and nationality, and closes the RN with a political salutation 'Victory!'

Explicit reference to nationality? WHERE?! It says small foreign faction, which everyone in the no dismisses. Does it say "People's Liberation Front of Palestine?" "Irish Republican Army?" "Islamic Jihad of Syria?" "Mujeheddin-e-Khalq of Iran?" "Japanese Red Army?" All of which are REAL organizations.

According to you, instead of extracting a pattern and a personality from the evidence,

Ah, but I have.

we should take all the evidence, toss it in a blender, turn it on, and claim RDI.

You got it just the other way, 'round, Holdon. You just described what we AND the FBI thinks the Ramseys did.

PR didn't write the note. And there are more than one ABFDE CDE's agreeing with that.

I can't find any that say that. At most, they say they can't say in court she wrote it. Same thing, legally.

Let me be even more succint. Let's you and me throw away the quaint, secular notions about "innocent until proven guilty" and admit to what no one else seems to want to admit: juries are made up of people, the same as you and me. And at the end of the day, they, not the experts, would decide the value of all of the evidence put before them. And when those people saw this: http://www.acandyrose.com/02182003dh911motion.pdf what do you think they would say?

If you want your murderous plan to backfire, start by leaving a handwritten note that you wrote at the crime scene. Then make it unnecessarily long. Then add little tidbits in the note that direct investigators to your group. Thats what PR did, according to you.

(As Christopher Walken): Just what part of that do you not understand? (Normal voice):

There are enough "smoking guns" in this case to arm a squadron of SFF.

All I'm missing is the proverbial busload of nuns.

If there was a smoking gun, there would've been an arrest. No arrest, no smoking gun.

if there had been a smoking gun against ONE person, there would have been an arrest.

I'd make it look like an accident. NOT like a capital murder

Yeah, but that's you. (DISCLAIMER: the following is my own spitballing.)
Okay, Holdon. We know what you might do, and I say might, because I seriously doubt the majority of us typing here are staring down the barrel of a long prison sentence with daily visits from "Bubba" with a plunger in his hands and an "abandon all hope" look on his face. But you are not Patsy. I won't ask if you have children, Holdon, because it's none of my business. But most people don't turn their kids into miniature showgirls. From the time JonBenet was born, Patsy Ramsey never stopped telling anyone who would listen about how her daughter was destined for greatness. Typical behavior from most parents, of course. But Patsy did her damnedest to make it come true, whether JB was ready for it or not. In other words, her daughter was not going to be just another girl. Heck no, man! That would not be proper. Only the best for Jonbenet. An admirable goal, no denying. But like everything else, you can take ambition a bit too far, especially when you fail to ask yourself the important question: is it for your child's glory, or yours? The line can become blurred, even accidentally. When people are determined to put someone on a pedastal, they can become fierce against anyone who naysays, even if it is the pedastalee. JonBenet was destined for greatness. Nothing else would do. Failure was not an option.

So cut forward to the night it happened. JonBenet, for all anyone knows, is dead. From common household domestic violence? Hell, no! Not good enough for a future Miss America! Patsy had seen to it that JB was spectacular in life. She HAD to be spectacular in death. A child beauty queen murdered by foreign terrorist pedophiles right under the noses of her rich, connected parents? How cool is that!

And that's not just my opinion. I can sense the odd looks from people reading this asking "where is he getting this from?" The answer is from Michael Kane, the head special prosecutor. In 2002, he said that one of the reasons he thought Patsy did it is because the staging was so overdone. His exact words, quote: "it was a very theatrical project and Patsy is a very theatrical person." More importantly, he said: "This is a woman who LOVES being the mother of a dead beauty queen." She has what she always wanted: international fame (or infamy; to most people of this mindest, it really doesn't matter. Look at the various schoolroom shooters in this country if you don't believe me). She's the ultimate victim! A MAGNET for sympathy! And being "targeted" by those "nasty police" makes her DOUBLE the victim! it's an exquisite deal! Even if she had been convicted, there would have been people still fighting for her! Look at Mumia Abu-jamal. Stanley "Tookie" Williams. Jeffery MacDonald. Darlie Routier. Convicted murderers all, yet objects of sympathy for very vocal groups rallying support behind them.

If history teaches us anything, it's that certain spectacular personalities can be worth more dead than alive, and I'll give you some examples: witness the cult of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, how Fidel Castro turned an incompetent, murdering coward into an international martyr for independence and youthful rebellion. Witness the assassination of John F. Kennedy, a modern-day King Arthur cut down in the prime of life because her dared to stand up for the little guy (that's the story!). And I could go on and on.

Holdon, before you think this the delusional ramblings of a crackpot, not long ago, there was a poster very much like yourself, who would fight me on any and every point. The very summation you just read nearly won him over, by his own admission. He was at least willing to give my analysis some thought. That's more than some people I know have done.

(The preceding summation reflects the personal opinions of SuperDave, and do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone else.)

By the way, manual strangulation and chronic abuse are RDI myths. They are imagined events that are only supported by opinions of those who were hired by the tabloids.

To wit:

that is just a load of cr*p and I think you know it,Hold.The forensic evidence wasn't imagined,just because *you say so.Dr Werner Spitz says she was manually strangled by her shirt collar FIRST.He would be able to tell that from the marks on her neck,and esp. from that thumbprint that was there.That is hallmark of someone being out of control-and in a rage.
And specimens of cells veiwed under a microscope most certainly can,and did,show signs of chronic infiltrate into the cells...which means chronic abuse.

That's telling him, JMO!

Why do you say 'bingo' as if looking at the parents was proven to be right. You know they weren't even arrested, right?

I think the person meant that it didn't fool him, Holdon.

Does RW make all such statements before any forensics are even done??

He was doing his job, Holdon, at which he knows a lot more than I do. That being, profile the note. Like he hasn't seen a million ransom notes in his career, right? In fact, I would advise you to read something else he said, Holdon, because he seems to have the "no history" people like yourself in mind:

"Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

Try that.

 

[IrishMist]

Wow. Excellent post, SuperDave.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

I know but I think it may help to clarify things, especially for people new to the case.


Now your description appears to me to be the opposite of the version of events that Det. Arndt outlined in her contribution to the affidavit. e.g. she maintains that there were blood stains on the panties but no blood on her corresponding pubic area.

Here is the quote from the Search Warrant


So

Step 1. Dr. Meyer observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties.

Step 2. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood.

Step 3. Dr. Meyer carefully examines the panties.

Step 4. Dr. Meyer observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains.

Step 5. Dr. Meyer finds no visible reddish stains in this exterior pubic area.

Step 6. Dr. Meyer concludes that the child's pubic area was wiped with a cloth

Now in the autopsy report, unless I have missed something, there is no reference to blood on JonBenet's pubic area other than the following:



So with no blood on JonBenet's pubic area, and with blood stains on her size-12 underwear, he concludes she had been wiped down.

Coroner Meyer obviously does not consider the blood around JonBenet's perineum area to be significant.

So accepting Coroner Meyer's conclusion then JonBenet must have been wiped down after being redressed in the size-12's, since there is blood on the pants, but no blood on the corresponding pubic area.


.

UKGuy you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I KNOW there was no blood observed on her pubic area at the autopsy. Because IT WAS WIPED OFF BEFORE SHE WAS REDRESSED IN THE SIZE 12 PANTIES. There were only a few drops on the new panties. If there was enough blood ORIGINALLY to make it necessary to wipe her down, the new panties would have much more blood on them than the few drops they do. The wiping came FIRST, then the redressing. I can't say it any plainer or in any different way. Meyer's conclusion was that she was wiped down. That is all. He makes NO statement when it was done, other than to INFER that it was done before she was redressed in the size 12 and long johns, AS THEY HAVE LITTLE TO NO BLOOD on them, they MUST HAVE been put on her after she was wiped down.
Is anyone else having this much trouble understanding me? because I am exhausted on this particular topic.

 

[JMO8778]

UKGuy you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I KNOW there was no blood observed on her pubic area at the autopsy. Because IT WAS WIPED OFF BEFORE SHE WAS REDRESSED IN THE SIZE 12 PANTIES. There were only a few drops on the new panties. If there was enough blood ORIGINALLY to make it necessary to wipe her down, the new panties would have much more blood on them than the few drops they do. The wiping came FIRST, then the redressing. I can't say it any plainer or in any different way. Meyer's conclusion was that she was wiped down. That is all. He makes NO statement when it was done, other than to INFER that it was done before she was redressed in the size 12 and long johns, AS THEY HAVE LITTLE TO NO BLOOD on them, they MUST HAVE been put on her after she was wiped down.
Is anyone else having this much trouble understanding me? because I am exhausted on this particular topic.

yes,(and not to take either side),but if she was wiped off after the size 12's were put on her,then come the questions,1-why was she wiped down twice,and 2-why did the stager not care if there was blood on the underwear,after being wiped down yet again? Or did the fact the underwear said Wed. on them override the need to get rid of all traces of blood? Some things had to have priority in the stager's mind,of course.
I say I think she had to have been wiped down at least once before the underwear was placed on her,as blood was shown to have been wiped from her thigh.

 

[DeeDee249]

yes,(and not to take either side),but if she was wiped off after the size 12's were put on her,then come the questions,1-why was she wiped down twice,and 2-why did the stager not care if there was blood on the underwear,after being wiped down yet again? Or did the fact the underwear said Wed. on them override the need to get rid of all traces of blood? Some things had to have priority in the stager's mind,of course.
I say I think she had to have been wiped down at least once before the underwear was placed on her,as blood was shown to have been wiped from her thigh.

I'll try once more and hope it will be easier to understand.

1. She was wiped down only ONCE, after whatever injury caused the bleeding. The original panties were very bloodstained. THAT is why they had to be replaced.
2. The stager did NOT KNOW that there was blood on the second pair of panties- the size 12s; because the few drops of blood occurred AFTER the long johns were put back on- the long johns did NOT have any blood on them. Just by looking at her at that point, it would not be apparent that there was a SMALL amount of blood drips in the panties.
YES, the replaced panties needed to say "Wednesday"- the size was not important, and the stagers did not think that it would be noticed that they were not her size- they were still kids' undies- and that was that.

Is there any one at all who follows my thinking?

 

[BBB167893]

Wow. Excellent post, SuperDave.

Thanks.

 

[Ames]

I'll try once more and hope it will be easier to understand.

1. She was wiped down only ONCE, after whatever injury caused the bleeding. The original panties were very bloodstained. THAT is why they had to be replaced.
2. The stager did NOT KNOW that there was blood on the second pair of panties- the size 12s; because the few drops of blood occurred AFTER the long johns were put back on- the long johns did NOT have any blood on them. Just by looking at her at that point, it would not be apparent that there was a SMALL amount of blood drips in the panties.
YES, the replaced panties needed to say "Wednesday"- the size was not important, and the stagers did not think that it would be noticed that they were not her size- they were still kids' undies- and that was that.

Is there any one at all who follows my thinking?

I do..and I agree. It makes perfect sense.

 

[JMO8778]

I'll try once more and hope it will be easier to understand.

1. She was wiped down only ONCE, after whatever injury caused the bleeding. The original panties were very bloodstained. THAT is why they had to be replaced.
2. The stager did NOT KNOW that there was blood on the second pair of panties- the size 12s; because the few drops of blood occurred AFTER the long johns were put back on- the long johns did NOT have any blood on them. Just by looking at her at that point, it would not be apparent that there was a SMALL amount of blood drips in the panties.
YES, the replaced panties needed to say "Wednesday"- the size was not important, and the stagers did not think that it would be noticed that they were not her size- they were still kids' undies- and that was that.

Is there any one at all who follows my thinking?

I see what you're saying,I was only saying that *if UK was right (since I said I wasn't taking either side) about her being wiped down after the underwear was applied, then we would have to ask the question,why would the stager not care if there was still blood on her underwear,after being wiped yet a 2nd time? I say 2nd time because it's obvious to me she was at least wiped down once before the underwear was ever put on her.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But most people don't turn their kids into miniature showgirls.

In my opinion, you'd have been booted from the jury, SD, because you're morally biased against the R's.

Your statement seems to indicate that you've decided the R's are bad people, and that mainly is the reason you think they killed JBR. You may never be able to view the facts and evidence in any way other than RDI.

There are some glaring omissions from the case against the R's. Missing evidence of purchase or other uses for cord and tape. This is an oft-quoted case fact. Missing smoking gun evidence. Examples are JBR's blood found where it shouldn't be, or scratches found on JR or PR. As a result of no smoking gun evidence, its 'the arrest that never came'. Remember, the R's weren't even arrested, let alone tried.

There are things present that shouldn't be there if the R's did it. DNA not yet ruled out as belonging to JBR's killer. Handwriting not yet ruled out as belonging to an intruder. Consistent and uniform brutality in both word and deed that is evident at the crime scene, a brutality not owned by PR or JR.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'll try once more and hope it will be easier to understand.

1. She was wiped down only ONCE, after whatever injury caused the bleeding. The original panties were very bloodstained. THAT is why they had to be replaced.
2. The stager did NOT KNOW that there was blood on the second pair of panties- the size 12s; because the few drops of blood occurred AFTER the long johns were put back on- the long johns did NOT have any blood on them. Just by looking at her at that point, it would not be apparent that there was a SMALL amount of blood drips in the panties.
YES, the replaced panties needed to say "Wednesday"- the size was not important, and the stagers did not think that it would be noticed that they were not her size- they were still kids' undies- and that was that.

Is there any one at all who follows my thinking?

I'll note the overall 'dressing activity,' where JBR was redressed in new new underwear, then long johns, then, what, the blanket?

Dressing activity is normally done in preparation for something, like going to bed, going outside, etc.

 

[BBB167893]

In my opinion, you'd have been booted from the jury, SD, because you're morally biased against the R's.

Your statement seems to indicate that you've decided the R's are bad people, and that mainly is the reason you think they killed JBR. You may never be able to view the facts and evidence in any way other than RDI.

That's a bold accusation, sir. Had I a glove, you would now be slapped with it. You don't know what I think, so don't presume that you do. You have thoroughly mischaracterized what I said. So let me clarify. My assertion about the "miniature showgirls" was perhaps a poor choice of words. Perhaps I should have said, "how many people make such a serious personal investment in one aspect of a child's life?" But my point was not to make a moral judgement. I'm leaving my personal feelings on child beauty pageants aside. Rather, it was an attempt to find possible motive. I was coming at it from her side, not mine. My decision is not based on who I think is "good" or "bad." Underline NOT. You forget that I was once a man of the IDI camp and damn proud of it. I don't think that they are bad, at least not completely. I think that they were essentially good people who got in too deep. It's happened to plenty of people. I feel legitimate sympathy for Patsy and John, if for no other reason than there, but for the grace of God, walk I.

Yeah, I suppose I would be booted off of a jury. All the defense attorney would have to do is ask me in the voir dire about how I feel about child pageants, and he'd have good reason to boot me. But last I checked, I wasn't volunteering. But I can understand your position. I think it WOULD prejudice a jury. All they'd have to do is watch the tapes of JB doing her thing while someone like John McCann or James Monteleone goes through the findings of abuse, and it'd be goodnight, sweet prince for J and P. And while I've always been of the mind that "a win's a win," I do have something of a sense of fair play.

Maybe I never will be able to view it any other way. But that's my problem, isn't it?

There are some glaring omissions from the case against the R's. Missing evidence of purchase or other uses for cord and tape. This is an oft-quoted case fact. Missing smoking gun evidence. Examples are JBR's blood found where it shouldn't be, or scratches found on JR or PR. As a result of no smoking gun evidence, its 'the arrest that never came'. Remember, the R's weren't even arrested, let alone tried.

Well, i would remind you that having a receipt for items that matched the prices of the cord and tape is one HELL of a coincidence. And I don't believe in coincidences. It may be oft-quoted, but it doesn't make it fact. As Goebbels said, a lie told often enough will be accepted as truth.

JB's blood? There wasn't that much, and what about the very clear redressing that took place. No scratches? How could there be scratches? Just about all the forensic pathologists say she couldn't have fought her attacker. Werner Spitz, I know says that.

The problem here is not the lack of a smoking gun, Holdon. People have been sent to prison, even death row, on much less. Look at Scott Peterson if you don't believe me. The problem is getting enough evidence against a single person. As long as they stay together, it's a dead-end. That's why no arrest. Wendy Murphy said the same thing, and she ought to know: her job is to put the bad guys away as a prosecuting attorney.

There are things present that shouldn't be there if the R's did it.

That could be said for any case, Holdon. I don't know about you, but I've been a true crime buff since before my voice changed and I have yet to see a case where every single piece of evidence clicks together as kosher as it does on TV. DON'T believe what you see in the movies.

DNA not yet ruled out as belonging to JBR's killer.

Well, even the DA has doubts about its case relevance, and she's on your side.

Handwriting not yet ruled out as belonging to an intruder.

The QD analysts I talked to told me it's more likely not to have a direct match, but more on who can't be eliminated. Handwriting analysis is still not an exact science.

Consistent and uniform brutality in both word and deed that is evident at the crime scene, a brutality not owned by PR or JR.

I don't see where you come up with that, Holdon. That's practically an article of faith among the IDi camp. But that's all it is. What's consistantly brutal about a strangling with no signs of resistance? A note that CARES if the reader is well-rested? And that's not just my opinion. Take a look:

"JonBenet's mom fits the profile of the person who wrote the phony ransom note found in the Ramsey home, reveals former FBI expert. Robert K. Ressler, who helped establish criminal profiling for the feds, says that the style and language and information contained in the note point to an approximately 40-year-old white woman from the South as the author. Language Feminine."Ressler points out that the language is feminine. 'There's almost a maternal quality to comments like, I advise you to be rested. A hardened criminal would never use those terms.'

Holdon, you seem to have glossed over the meat of what I had to say. I put a lot of effort into it, and I'd hate to think it was wasted.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I KNOW there was no blood observed on her pubic area at the autopsy. Because IT WAS WIPED OFF BEFORE SHE WAS REDRESSED IN THE SIZE 12 PANTIES. There were only a few drops on the new panties. If there was enough blood ORIGINALLY to make it necessary to wipe her down, the new panties would have much more blood on them than the few drops they do. The wiping came FIRST, then the redressing. I can't say it any plainer or in any different way. Meyer's conclusion was that she was wiped down. That is all. He makes NO statement when it was done, other than to INFER that it was done before she was redressed in the size 12 and long johns, AS THEY HAVE LITTLE TO NO BLOOD on them, they MUST HAVE been put on her after she was wiped down.
Is anyone else having this much trouble understanding me? because I am exhausted on this particular topic.

DeeDee249,
I understand what you are saying, you may be correct, the difference between us is simply one of interpretation regarding Coroner Meyer's verbal remarks and his autopsy report.

He makes NO statement when it was done, other than to INFER that it was done before she was redressed in the size 12 and long johns, AS THEY HAVE LITTLE TO NO BLOOD on them, they MUST HAVE been put on her after she was wiped down.

Use Det. Arndt's affidavit quote to show how or where Coroner Meyer's infers this.

I reckon we all appreciate that JonBenet was probably wiped clean prior to being redressed in the size-12's. But as you suggest Coroner Meyer does not offer a timeline, he simply makes a conclusion, based on the absence of evidence. Now if you can make the inference that the blood-stains on JonBenet's size-12's arrived there as the result of some unseen release of blood, why do you not think that Coroner Meyer did not make the same inference, and offer that as the basis for his conclusion that JonBenet had been wiped down?


.