Paradise Lost

[sissi]

i don't know, sissi. i think you're really reaching here. there is no evidence that points to the ramseys? give me a break! even lou smit wouldn't say that!

as for your assessment of my analysis, those two situations i gave were HYPOTHETICALS. i am not suggesting either was or could be true. i was merely showing how most of the evidence can lead you either way, depending on your personal opinion and interpretation.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, they were hypotheticals. Most of the evidence is what you really meant? Can you share something that isn't "hypothetical" that you feel is evidence that can lead "either way"?

 

[Voice of Reason]

Can you share something that isn't "hypothetical" that you feel is evidence that can lead "either way"?

in a general sense, any evidence that suggests an intruder, can also be viewed as a part of the staging.

in a more specific sense, the window in the basement was broken and open that morning. that could mean an intruder entered the house. or it could mean a ramsey wanted to make it look as though an intruder entered the house.

in other words, i feel there are very few pieces of evidence that can really point definitively one way or the other.

 

[sissi]

in a general sense, any evidence that suggests an intruder, can also be viewed as a part of the staging.

in a more specific sense, the window in the basement was broken and open that morning. that could mean an intruder entered the house. or it could mean a ramsey wanted to make it look as though an intruder entered the house.

in other words, i feel there are very few pieces of evidence that can really point definitively one way or the other.

That is very interesting, your choice. Why would a person stage a murder and then unstage it? You do remember John Ramsey shut the window after finding it open?

 

[RedChief]

The physical evidence:

The flashlight which had been wiped clean of prints as had it's voltaic cells, because? Why would the Ramseys need a flashlight for navigating in their own house? Why would they need to wipe it clean of their prints if it belonged to them and one would expect to find their prints on it?

The red fibers on the tape and entwined in the knot similar to (if not consistent with) those of the sweater that Patsy turned over to LE, representing that it was the one she wore that evening. Apparently these fibers were not similar to nor consistent with the fibers in the red turtleneck that she wore that evening?

The duct tape (which John said wasn't duct tape) which had been applied over bloody mucous on the mouth according to Thomas. Is there independent verification of this? This is rather peculiar, to say the least. Might indicate staging. This duct tape wasn't sold at McGuckins hardware. It's in Thomas' book.

The ligature loosely tied over the right wrist, again according to Thomas. Is there independent verification of this? Does is spell R-A-M-S-E-Y?

The too-big panties with hair/"fibers" from John's collared shirt in them; the shirt which he turned over to LE, claiming it was the one he had worn that evening. There's a mystery in those panties, alright; and, it ain't just the size and the hairs/"fibers"; it's also the male DNA which doesn't match the Ramseys'. I can't explain any of this.

The wiping--what appeared to be wiping of the pubic area and possibly the thighs, as evidenced by dark (blue?) fibers in the folds of the labia and adhering to a smear on the thigh, first thought to be semen. Actually, there is reference to a smear, and then smears, and then deposits. Kinda confusing.

The vaginal injury, maybe made with the paintbrush, and maybe not. It's hard to imagine that John, being the only adult male in the house that night, and presumably the only secreter, would opt to injure the vagina as an element of staging. He'd be sure to be number one on the suspect list for that injury alone. Another mystery. The splinter found in the vagina had been there for as long as a week according to one "expert".

The neck ligature with the "exotic" stick attached. Gotta be staging; the stick, that is.

The head injury. It's what got the ball rolling?

The location of the body. Why hide it in the wine cellar? Who would do that? Surely not an intruder.

The blanket, wrapped papoose-like around the body. Indian papoose--John's own words.

The Barbie gown. Out of place in the wine cellar. Gotta be staging.

JonBenet's pageantry. Her mom made her do it. Her mom was living vicariously through JonBenet. Mebbee so, yes, mebbee so, no.

JonBenet's incontinence. She was being abused? She wet the bed one time too many? Whack!

Clean sheets on a bed that hadn't been slept in; according to some. Looked slept in to me, but what do I know?

LongJohns instead of pajama bottoms or nightgown. The white GAP shirt. The "balled up" turtleneck on a counter in JB's bathroom. What did happen to those pajama bottoms anyway? The top was on the bed.

Something was on the pillow that the police were interested in; a stain?. Snot? From a blow to the head?

Calling all friends! Why on earth? Calling Father Rol! Why on earth? The more people you have milling around in the house and looking into storage rooms, the sooner the body will be found, no?

The pineapple in JB's small intestine and in the bowl on the table. The parents lied about it?

The door to JonBenet's room was closed. What intruder would bother to take the time to close her bedroom door during the abduction process, Thomas asks?

Speaking of Thomas, here's a list of evidence which he thinks convicts the Ramseys, that he mentioned in his book:

Oh, and lest we forget, Thomas, with the help of a "panel of experts" didn't come to the conclusion that JonBenet had been sexually abused. He came to the conclusion that she had been PHYSICALLY abused--his own words--by someone in the family. It's in his book--page 227.

Back to The List--Would an intruder: have taken the time to relatch the obscure cellar door peg; have placed JonBenet beneath a blanket (he doesn't say she was wrapped in it!) and taken care to provide her with her favorite (this is disputed) nightgown; have tied the wrists so loosely that a live child would have hardly been restrained; have wiped and/or redressed [sic] JonBenet after the assault and murder; have fed her pineapple and kept her alive for a couple of hours while she digested it; have known the dog was not home that night (the Ramseys knew the dog wasn't home so they killed JB?); have been able to navigate silently through a dark, confusing and occupied house without alerting anyone; have been so careless as to forget some of the items needed to commit the kidnapping but remembered to wear gloves while handling the ransom note; be a stranger that could write a note with characteristics so similar to those of Patsy; have been able to do all that he would have needed to do without alerting the occupants (a bit of a repeat here); have been so unprepared (the small foreign faction) that he failed to bring the necessary items (a bit of a repeat here); have been able to murder the child violently without waking the parents, despite a scream that was heard by a neighbor (a bit of a repeat here); have taken the pains to compliment John Ramsey's business, while in the home and vulnerable to discovery (????).

This concludes Thomas' highly convincing list of evidence which damns the Ramseys.

Start your list immediately following....

 

[skybluepink]

Could it be that:
1. They wiped the flashlight because it had blood & mucous & blonde hairs & stuff on it?
2. We're forgetting that (as reported somewhere) there were also red Patsy fibers in the paint box?
3. The heap-big DNA in the panties was so minimal that it got there as long ago as when the garment was manufactured (again, according to the same report)?
4. The nightdown was stuck to the blanket by static cling & fell to the floor, as postulated by a previous poster?
5. Bedwetting kills--as was indicated in the "Fatal Vision" case, which you brought up earlier?
6. JBR was playing in her room when she was supposed to be sleeping--putting ties in her hair, changing her wet pajamas, investigating her private parts, opening the package of too-big undies, etc.? (Could she have really fallen into such a heavy sleep on the short ride home from dinner that she couldn't be prompted to walk into the house?) (She didn't brush her teeth? & use the facilities?)
7. One invites friends & neighbors to a kidnapping because having an audience is a main theme of one's existence?
Thank you for your diligence in generating all of this fodder & wheat & chaff--& for doing it so amusingly.

 

[RedChief]

Could it be that:
1. They wiped the flashlight because it had blood & mucous & blonde hairs & stuff on it?
2. We're forgetting that (as reported somewhere) there were also red Patsy fibers in the paint box?
3. The heap-big DNA in the panties was so minimal that it got there as long ago as when the garment was manufactured (again, according to the same report)?
4. The nightdown was stuck to the blanket by static cling & fell to the floor, as postulated by a previous poster?
5. Bedwetting kills--as was indicated in the "Fatal Vision" case, which you brought up earlier?
6. JBR was playing in her room when she was supposed to be sleeping--putting ties in her hair, changing her wet pajamas, investigating her private parts, opening the package of too-big undies, etc.? (Could she have really fallen into such a heavy sleep on the short ride home from dinner that she couldn't be prompted to walk into the house?) (She didn't brush her teeth? & use the facilities?)
7. One invites friends & neighbors to a kidnapping because having an audience is a main theme of one's existence?
Thank you for your diligence in generating all of this fodder & wheat & chaff--& for doing it so amusingly.

1. Yes, could've wiped away all that blood and mucous and blond hairs & stuff, then went one step further and opened up the flashlight, removed the voltaic cells and wiped those clean and re-installed 'em, just in case some of that blood mucuous and blond hair and stuff penetrated the thick aircraft aluminum shell of the light. I absolutely concur. Then left that light right out there in the open for all to see and wonder about. Drama!

2. Yes, red Patsy fibers in the paintbox; I had forgotten about those. No black Patsy fibers in the box though, and no Patsy hair. Bet she wore a shower cap....and no Patsy teardrops there either. Cold and calculating.

3. You might speculate that the DNA got into the panties during manufacture, and, you're right, there wasn't much, and it was hard to separate out from JB's blood, but, but, the DNA was ONLY in those areas where the blood was. What a coincidence! And it was male, and it didn't match John's or Burke's. Hmmmm....is Patsy male? So, that's her secret! How long does a teensy weensy bit of extraneous DNA endure in the crotch of hermetically sealed (in plastic) Bloomi underwear? Remember the OJ case? Don't ever store DNA in plastic. Isn't it usually the case that when foreign DNA is found in the underwear of the victim of a sexual assault, it was deposited during the assault? Why are you so willing to give the intruder a pass? I tell you, that DNA is what's got this case stalled.

4. Frankly I have no qualms about concurring that the gown could have clung to the blanket as you postulate. Really, I have no qualms. The staging theorists don't like that hypothesis, however. Gotta keep them happy.

5. Yes, bedwetting kills, in the manner you've mentioned. Sure does. Especially when you need an excuse to cancel an artic expedition. Encopresis is even more deadly. Just a few possibilities to ponder about this subject: dontcha get used to these accidents after while? The Ramseys could and did afford expert pediatric advice on the matter. Whaddya 'spose Beuf told them--have a bat handy, just in case?

6. Your guess is better than mine. Considering that Patsy said she was in the habit of checking on JB around midnight; making her go potty, in order to avoid soiled bedsheets, why wouldn't she encourage her to go potty before she put her to bed???? Headscratcher? But, maybe there's something about a sleeping child that just makes you want to tip-toe away without disturbing her. Now, that flashlight, wouldn't that be a great tool for navigating through the parents' bedroom without waking the sleeping software distribution giant? Wait! I forgot about the melatonin.

7. This is one of those SWAG's ? But, could one not invite friends and neighbors in the event of a missing child, and even more justifiably and therefore convincingly? That was what I was driving at. Diligence, where diligence is due. Credit, where money is short. Fodder, where food for thought is scarce.

Addendum: The Ransom note seems incongruous with the remainder of the evidence and circumstances. Why did the intruder leave it? Why did the Ramseys manufacture it?

Flabbergasted in Florence....

 

[UKGuy]

Addendum: The Ransom note seems incongruous with the remainder of the evidence and circumstances. Why did the intruder leave it? Why did the Ramseys manufacture it?

Flabbergasted in Florence....

Because they intended JonBenet's body to leave the house and be relocated at least a few blocks away. That is a "no brainer" ! More difficult is why did they abandon this for a basement relocation and finally a wine cellar staging.

There is no forensic evidence inside that wine cellar other than what the stager wanted to be there. The stager had to leave the wine cellar, so it would have been no problem to remove the Barbie Gown, why allow it to remain and disturb a scene of violence: because the stager intended to finish redressing JonBenet in that Barbie Gown, and her size-12 underwear, no socks, all to convince whoever discovered JonBenet's body that she had been abducted from her bed, the stager nearly succeeded!

Did the Ramsey's discover JonBenet's body, lifeless, within their own household, and knowing the person who had taken her life had an unsavoury connection to their own regular celebration of a liberal lifestyle, decided to stage a ransom abduction , which was then revised to a basement relocation encompassing sexual violation and death by asphyxiation?

 

[RedChief]

Because they intended JonBenet's body to leave the house and be relocated at least a few blocks away. That is a "no brainer" ! More difficult is why did they abandon this for a basement relocation and finally a wine cellar staging.

There is no forensic evidence inside that wine cellar other than what the stager wanted to be there. The stager had to leave the wine cellar, so it would have been no problem to remove the Barbie Gown, why allow it to remain and disturb a scene of violence: because the stager intended to finish redressing JonBenet in that Barbie Gown, and her size-12 underwear, no socks, all to convince whoever discovered JonBenet's body that she had been abducted from her bed, the stager nearly succeeded!

Did the Ramsey's discover JonBenet's body, lifeless, within their own household, and knowing the person who had taken her life had an unsavoury connection to their own regular celebration of a liberal lifestyle, decided to stage a ransom abduction , which was then revised to a basement relocation encompassing sexual violation and death by asphyxiation?

Ah, so they intended JonBenet's body to leave the house? Not under it's own power I assume. So, why didn't JonBenet's body leave the house? There were two parents; one could have been writing the note while the other carted off the body. Also, once the body removal plan was abandoned, why didn't they also abandon the note, since it was, as you suggest in your "no brainer" assessment, an integral part of the plan?

That's really an interesting statement: it's obvious that they intended to remove the body from the house, but it isn't obvious why they failed to do so. I'm laughing....you made my day.

"..no forensic evidence.....wanted to be there.": OK, the stager wanted the grossly oversized 12/14 panties with blood and urine in them to be there, instead of panties that fit. He wanted the blanket wrapped (papoose-like) body to be there. He wanted the head injury to be there. He wanted the ligatures to be there. He wanted the vaginal injury (which is the most believable as staging) to be there, but not the blood. He wanted the evidence of wiping to be there. He wanted the Barbie gown from the Barbie doll to be there, but not on the body. He wanted the longjohns and white GAP shirt to be there, instead of her jammies. He wanted her barefoot in the wine cellar. He wanted her arms/hands to be reaching for California. All of these facets he wanted to be there, because he thought that'd convince "us" she'd been abducted from her bedroom?

The stager might well have succeeded except for the "no brainer" ransom note.

 

[UKGuy]

RedChief,

I've been over this one before, and I think it was unfinished. I like BlueCrab are suggesting this was someone elses crime. I am explicitly suggesting it may have been initially staged, possibly by another person, then restaged by the Ramseys.

But the wine cellar was unfinished or incomplete, this necessitated ad-hoc measures e.g. co-joining the ransom note with her staged location in the basement.

If the wine cellar staging had been wholly successful the Ramsays intended to fly out of colorado state ASAP.

In the stagers mind this may have been what they considered the staging was buying or securing, e.g. time, time to travel, escape and regroup.

If this is correct then the staging was a partial success, but due to incomplete staging, ie the Barbie Gown lying next to JonBenet and not her wearing it, they never evaded suspicion!

Even Columbo employs irony to underline the obvious.

 

[RedChief]

RedChief,

I've been over this one before, and I think it was unfinished. I like BlueCrab are suggesting this was someone elses crime. I am explicitly suggesting it may have been initially staged, possibly by another person, then restaged by the Ramseys.

But the wine cellar was unfinished or incomplete, this necessitated ad-hoc measures e.g. co-joining the ransom note with her staged location in the basement.

If the wine cellar staging had been wholly successful the Ramsays intended to fly out of colorado state ASAP.

In the stagers mind this may have been what they considered the staging was buying or securing, e.g. time, time to travel, escape and regroup.

If this is correct then the staging was a partial success, but due to incomplete staging, ie the Barbie Gown lying next to JonBenet and not her wearing it, they never evaded suspicion!

Even Columbo employs irony to underline the obvious.

With all due respect, UKGuy, you seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on the Barbie gown. You see it as an element of unfinished staging. You suggest that if she had been wearing the Barbie gown, the staging would have been complete. I say that the blanket-wrapped body completely wrecks the staging, Barbie gown or no. Also, I see no reason why the stager couldn't have dressed her in the gown. That he couldn't is also something you emphasize, yet you don't give a reason. You leave that question unanswered. I think the staging would have been more convincing as bedroom abduction if the Barbie gown had been absent. JonBenet wasn't in the habit of sleeping in her Barbie gown, and the parents said (fibbing or otherwise) that they hadn't put it on her. If they said they had put it on her (fibbing or otherwise) and she was found wearing it, that would reinforce the notion of bedroom abduction. I understand the need for that BA staging, if the parents are the culprits or are covering for someone, because their story has been that they put her to bed immediately after carrying her from the car to her bedroom. I don't have a serious objection to the longjohns, as a substitute for the jammie bottoms. Neither would be more or less disruptive during the clothing process than the other. If it were the case that JonBenet absolutely could not sleep in anything but her jammies, one might wonder why she wasn't dressed in them when found. I can think of no other reason to be suspicious off the top of my head.

As for leaving the state of Colorado right away, escaping and regrouping: for how long? A futile effort. They'd have been arrested and extradited back to Colorado in short order; then, they'd have been viewed with even more suspicion for exhibiting consciousness of guilt--running away.

"..co-joining the ransom note with her staged location in the basement." This was a major boo-boo on the Ramseys' part, in my estimation, assuming they're guilty...of something.

So, are you sticking pretty much to this theory, or is it subject to change without prior notice?

I can assure you the Ramseys wouldn't have evaded suspicion by dressing the body in a Barbie gown. It was the note in combination with the body in the basement that aroused (and still arouses) suspicion.

 

[UKGuy]

With all due respect, UKGuy, you seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on the Barbie gown. You see it as an element of unfinished staging.

Only because someone else is suggesting it arrived in the wine cellar by accident.

So I am attempting by imaginative crime scene reconstruction to place it within the jigsaw of staging.

If it is just an accidental artifact then it does not matter either way, but if you accept there was staging and you can see where the barbie gown slots in, from the stagers perspective, not ours 8-years later, then its reasonable to assume that the stager intended to dress her in it. That he never did is what we now have or know as partially incomplete staging!

New evidence or insights will always allow revisons, but the idea a friend/intruder did it, stays much as it is, if the concept of multiple staging is accepted, then those who consider the IDI theory may find this variant acceptable.

 

[RedChief]

Yes, UKGuy, I find your analyses fascinating, and you do make me think. Sometimes I think you've hit the nail on the head; at other times I'm not so sure. But your analyses do have a certain logic and feasibility to them.

I was all ready to go with you on the unified field theory--the intruder/acquaintance angle, when I first read your post outlining it. As I said, it accounts for a lot of the evidence, but is it indisputable?

Are we here to dispute one anothers' theories or to come to a concensus? Or, are we here to examine one anothers' hypotheses, and arrive at some compromise?

Are you ready, yet, to post your best theory in the administrator's thread--Posters' Theories? I, for one, am anxious to read it and evaluate it.

Champing at the bit....

 

[UKGuy]

I was all ready to go with you on the unified field theory--the intruder/acquaintance angle, when I first read your post outlining it. As I said, it accounts for a lot of the evidence, but is it indisputable?

Its hardly indisputable, but I feel it combines some aspects of the intruder did it/ramsey did it, perspectives more productively.

Are we here to dispute one anothers' theories or to come to a concensus? Or, are we here to examine one anothers' hypotheses, and arrive at some compromise?

Hopefully we are here to debate each others theories, and offer critical insights. I think we are coming to a consensus in terms of what to ignore, whats left we tend to dispute on its interpretation. There are only a limited number of theories as to who killed JonBenet, and I am quite happy to have any of mine shot down, or eliminated, rather than compromised since this will shine a searching light on the prevailing theories.

Are you ready, yet, to post your best theory in the administrator's thread--Posters' Theories? I, for one, am anxious to read it and evaluate it.

Not quite, prior to this, I'll attempt a profile of the case, and post it up if necessary, as a preliminary to deciding on which one is the most probable.

There are two variants on the intruder theme, one which is general in scope, and another I have alluded to, which is much more controversial.