Patsy's palm prints

[TheDrawingBoard]

So, I'm brand new here and pretty new to the Ramsey case. So if anything I'm about to say is wrong in any way, please correct me.
I've been working on a theory.
It's said that there was a urine stain in the carpet just outside the wine cellar. The exact location of carpet that investigators had cut out. I believe it was a tabloid that had released a photo, showing the exact location (attached below). I don't know how credible it is, but if it is credible, it could tell us what happened in the final moments of JonBenet's short life.
The stain appears to be in a "/" pattern. Now, picture her laying in the prone position, with her head near the door. The cord is already wrapped around her neck. Patsy standing above her, with her feet on either side of JonBenet. Using her dominant hand to pull on the garrote, which would lift her up a bit, (explaining the slight upward trajectory in the ligature furrow). Slightly leaning forward, her palm against the door, allowing her a bit of leverage. JonBenet then urinates at the time of death, accounting for the anterior urine stain in her clothing and the urine in the carpet.
This would also help account for the fibers in the paint tray as well. It'd place Patsy right next to it, allowing for the fibers to be transferred. (even more so if she is the one that created the garrote).
I also wanted to briefly touch on the urination. Yes, a person can urinate postmortem, even as late as rigor. But, livor and rigor are both consistent with her lying on her back no later than 20 - 30 minutes after death. If she had urinated postmortem, the stain would be consistent with someone on their back, not stomach. Is it possible that it happen before she was killed? Sure. But I just don't buy it. Especially given all the other circumstances. To me it makes most sense that it happened at the time of her death.

So is any of this plausible? I do realize that that her palm print could've gotten there innocently. It is after all, her home. And she had hidden gifts in that room so it could've gotten there that way. But, depending on the placement and which side of the door they were found on, it could be evidence that she killed JonBenet. And when you add everything else, it seems pretty convincing.

 

[UKGuy]

So, I'm brand new here and pretty new to the Ramsey case. So if anything I'm about to say is wrong in any way, please correct me.
I've been working on a theory.
It's said that there was a urine stain in the carpet just outside the wine cellar. The exact location of carpet that investigators had cut out. I believe it was a tabloid that had released a photo, showing the exact location (attached below). I don't know how credible it is, but if it is credible, it could tell us what happened in the final moments of JonBenet's short life.
The stain appears to be in a "/" pattern. Now, picture her laying in the prone position, with her head near the door. The cord is already wrapped around her neck. Patsy standing above her, with her feet on either side of JonBenet. Using her dominant hand to pull on the garrote, which would lift her up a bit, (explaining the slight upward trajectory in the ligature furrow). Slightly leaning forward, her palm against the door, allowing her a bit of leverage. JonBenet then urinates at the time of death, accounting for the anterior urine stain in her clothing and the urine in the carpet.
This would also help account for the fibers in the paint tray as well. It'd place Patsy right next to it, allowing for the fibers to be transferred. (even more so if she is the one that created the garrote).
I also wanted to briefly touch on the urination. Yes, a person can urinate postmortem, even as late as rigor. But, livor and rigor are both consistent with her lying on her back no later than 20 - 30 minutes after death. If she had urinated postmortem, the stain would be consistent with someone on their back, not stomach. Is it possible that it happen before she was killed? Sure. But I just don't buy it. Especially given all the other circumstances. To me it makes most sense that it happened at the time of her death.

So is any of this plausible? I do realize that that her palm print could've gotten there innocently. It is after all, her home. And she had hidden gifts in that room so it could've gotten there that way. But, depending on the placement and which side of the door they were found on, it could be evidence that she killed JonBenet. And when you add everything else, it seems pretty convincing.

 

[UKGuy]

So, I'm brand new here and pretty new to the Ramsey case. So if anything I'm about to say is wrong in any way, please correct me.
I've been working on a theory.
It's said that there was a urine stain in the carpet just outside the wine cellar. The exact location of carpet that investigators had cut out. I believe it was a tabloid that had released a photo, showing the exact location (attached below). I don't know how credible it is, but if it is credible, it could tell us what happened in the final moments of JonBenet's short life.
The stain appears to be in a "/" pattern. Now, picture her laying in the prone position, with her head near the door. The cord is already wrapped around her neck. Patsy standing above her, with her feet on either side of JonBenet. Using her dominant hand to pull on the garrote, which would lift her up a bit, (explaining the slight upward trajectory in the ligature furrow). Slightly leaning forward, her palm against the door, allowing her a bit of leverage. JonBenet then urinates at the time of death, accounting for the anterior urine stain in her clothing and the urine in the carpet.
This would also help account for the fibers in the paint tray as well. It'd place Patsy right next to it, allowing for the fibers to be transferred. (even more so if she is the one that created the garrote).
I also wanted to briefly touch on the urination. Yes, a person can urinate postmortem, even as late as rigor. But, livor and rigor are both consistent with her lying on her back no later than 20 - 30 minutes after death. If she had urinated postmortem, the stain would be consistent with someone on their back, not stomach. Is it possible that it happen before she was killed? Sure. But I just don't buy it. Especially given all the other circumstances. To me it makes most sense that it happened at the time of her death.

So is any of this plausible? I do realize that that her palm print could've gotten there innocently. It is after all, her home. And she had hidden gifts in that room so it could've gotten there that way. But, depending on the placement and which side of the door they were found on, it could be evidence that she killed JonBenet. And when you add everything else, it seems pretty convincing.

TheDrawingBoard,
Welcome to Websleuths. So yes what you suggest is pretty much what a lot of folks think.

Also you might want to consider splinters of wood found on the carpet next to the wall close to the wine-cellar door.

Possibly resulting from the paintbrush being placed against the wall then stepped on to break it in two.

Paintbrushes are difficult to snap just using your hands as they vary in thickness along the length.

This theory rases some questions: Does it mean JonBenet was not at this point wrapped in the white blanket?

I reckon not, suggesting this was a latter addition, but how much later, an hour or more, think how rigor mortis is setting in?

Did the blanket arrive the next day when JonBenet was moved into the wine-cellar?

Asphyxiating JonBenet outside the wine-cellar does not mean she was immediately deposited there?

Was her asphyxiation part of a prior staging, one that was then revised and dismantled?

There are no forensic reports citing urine stains on the blanket, so go figure?

Some also think that because JonBenet voided her bladder outside the wine-cellar door she could not have wet the bed as she would have released a similar amount of urine during this phase?

So the urine stain does present us with a few forensic puzzles worthy of Columbo's analysis.

.

 

[TheDrawingBoard]

Thank you for the welcome.

The paintbrush splinters.. yes! Thank you. I knew I was forgetting something.

I don't think the blanket was not around her at the time of death if in fact that's when she urinated. But I'm on the fence about whether or not the blanket was present during the crime at all or placed there later on. Did they ever determine if the blood on the blanket was a result from that night or not? If so, it'd seem that it was with her at some point while alive but then added to the staged wine cellar sometime late in the timeline.

I'm on the fence about whether or not she was placed in the wine cellar just after death. She could've been placed on her back for a while and then brought in that way later on.

There was apart of me that thought the garroting was a result of convenience. A spur of the moment decision. But it's such a unique method that I can't help but wonder if it was planned and that everything didn't go as planned and that's why everything seems so contradicting and muddled up.

 

[UKGuy]

Thank you for the welcome.

The paintbrush splinters.. yes! Thank you. I knew I was forgetting something.

I don't think the blanket was not around her at the time of death if in fact that's when she urinated. But I'm on the fence about whether or not the blanket was present during the crime at all or placed there later on. Did they ever determine if the blood on the blanket was a result from that night or not? If so, it'd seem that it was with her at some point while alive but then added to the staged wine cellar sometime late in the timeline.

I'm on the fence about whether or not she was placed in the wine cellar just after death. She could've been placed on her back for a while and then brought in that way later on.

There was apart of me that thought the garroting was a result of convenience. A spur of the moment decision. But it's such a unique method that I can't help but wonder if it was planned and that everything didn't go as planned and that's why everything seems so contradicting and muddled up.

TheDrawingBoard,

I don't think the blanket was not around her at the time of death if in fact that's when she urinated. But I'm on the fence about whether or not the blanket was present during the crime at all or placed there later on. Did they ever determine if the blood on the blanket was a result from that night or not? If so, it'd seem that it was with her at some point while alive but then added to the staged wine cellar sometime late in the timeline.

Nothing has been made public about the status of the blood on the blanket. Yet there were bloodstains on the Pink Barbie Nightgown and her size-12 underwear, so I assume there must be a common link?

With no urine on the blanket she must have been wrapped in it after being killed and not before, as if the blanket was intended as part of the staging, or a forensic barrier?

I'm on the fence about whether or not she was placed in the wine cellar just after death. She could've been placed on her back for a while and then brought in that way later on.

She could have been placed in the wine-cellar the next morning. Nothing mandates she was put in the wine-cellar before 911 was dialled.

Speculating: Its mid-morning of the 911 call and nobody has found JonBenet. John decides to find JonBenet, so he moves JonBenet to the wine-cellar, this makes it easier for him to say I discovered her.

There was apart of me that thought the garroting was a result of convenience. A spur of the moment decision. But it's such a unique method that I can't help but wonder if it was planned and that everything didn't go as planned and that's why everything seems so contradicting and muddled up.

It was planned but likely not premeditated. The staging mess is probably the result of multiple restaging events as the participants changed their minds about aspects of JonBenet's death?

Consider BDI:
Burke causes JonBenet to become unconciousness due to applying a choke hold. He then attempts some form of amateur staging that reflects his age.

Patsy then restages whatever Burke applied.

John then tweaks some of Patsy's staging elements, etc.

.

 

[TheDrawingBoard]

I think I need to look into the nightgown more before I can have an informed opinion. I've wondered if it was a sign of "care" but the fact that there's blood on it seems to dispute that.

She could have been placed in the wine-cellar the next morning. Nothing mandates she was put in the wine-cellar before 911 was dialled.

Speculating: Its mid-morning of the 911 call and nobody has found JonBenet. John decides to find JonBenet, so he moves JonBenet to the wine-cellar, this makes it easier for him to say I discovered her.

I've definitely wondered about that. Any information about the crawl space beyond them finding a canvas bag? Does anyone know if anything was found in that bag or if it was relevant? It'd certainly be interesting if she was put in the crawl space until John was ready to "find" her. But I have no idea if it was large enough, clean enough or accessible enough to maneuver that.

Consider BDI:
Burke causes JonBenet to become unconciousness due to applying a choke hold. He then attempts some form of amateur staging that reflects his age.

Patsy then restages whatever Burke applied.

John then tweaks some of Patsy's staging elements, etc.

I think it's an all of the above situation. Conflicts in staging between various people and them battling with what they thought they needed to do vs what they wanted to do. Example, adding the bit about not contacting police or anyone (even a stray dog) in the ransom note and then immediately doing exactly that. They felt like adding the threat was a necessity in a ransom note, but they wanted the witnesses, the contamination and the alibi.

It seems like their entire cover up story hinges on the "why would I do/say that if I was guilty" defense. "why would I leave her body in the house if I was guilty of killing her?" "why would I bring up the cleaning solution in a crime scene photo and mention that it seems odd and out of place if I was guilty of using it?" "why would I hand the detective the same notepad the note was written on if we were guilty of writing it?" I think they were hoping they'd be seen innocent by default.

 

[UKGuy]

I think I need to look into the nightgown more before I can have an informed opinion. I've wondered if it was a sign of "care" but the fact that there's blood on it seems to dispute that.



I've definitely wondered about that. Any information about the crawl space beyond them finding a canvas bag? Does anyone know if anything was found in that bag or if it was relevant? It'd certainly be interesting if she was put in the crawl space until John was ready to "find" her. But I have no idea if it was large enough, clean enough or accessible enough to maneuver that.



I think it's an all of the above situation. Conflicts in staging between various people and them battling with what they thought they needed to do vs what they wanted to do. Example, adding the bit about not contacting police or anyone (even a stray dog) in the ransom note and then immediately doing exactly that. They felt like adding the threat was a necessity in a ransom note, but they wanted the witnesses, the contamination and the alibi.

It seems like their entire cover up story hinges on the "why would I do/say that if I was guilty" defense. "why would I leave her body in the house if I was guilty of killing her?" "why would I bring up the cleaning solution in a crime scene photo and mention that it seems odd and out of place if I was guilty of using it?" "why would I hand the detective the same notepad the note was written on if we were guilty of writing it?" I think they were hoping they'd be seen innocent by default.

TheDrawingBoard,

I think I need to look into the nightgown more before I can have an informed opinion. I've wondered if it was a sign of "care" but the fact that there's blood on it seems to dispute that.

Yes, some have suggested aspects of the wine-cellar crime-scene exhibit undoing, e.g. wrapped in a blanket, not dumped outdoors, etc.

Yet the bloodstains on the nightgown, her bedroom pillow, her underwear, etc. All suggest there might be another interpretation?

The original plan might have been to hide JonBenet from view and claim she had been kidnapped?

Once John Ramsey realized he was not fleeing by plane interstate, he had to revise his plan, so some suggest he moved JonBenet to make finding her more credible, so allowing the kidnapping phase to come to an end?

Fleet White looked into the wine-cellar earlier that morning and saw nothing unusual. A few hours later John Ramsey looked in and immediately saw JonBenet!

Bear in mind John Ramsey's eyesight was poorer than Fleet White's which is why John Ramsey had to hire a pilot to fly his planes.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

<snip>Once John Ramsey realized he was not fleeing by plane interstate, he had to revise his plan, so some suggest he moved JonBenet to make finding her more credible, so allowing the kidnapping phase to come to an end?

Fleet White looked into the wine-cellar earlier that morning and saw nothing unusual. A few hours later John Ramsey looked in and immediately saw JonBenet!

Bear in mind John Ramsey's eyesight was poorer than Fleet White's which is why John Ramsey had to hire a pilot to fly his planes.

John didn't call or try calling his pilot until 30 minutes after he "found" JonBenet.

 

[proust20]

JB could have been hidden some place and then moved to the WC. Obviously, this raises the question as to where she had been concealed? The invitees swarming the house on the 26th limit what place this could have been.

For this to be a reasonable conclusion, it'd mean the at least one R did not want her discovered in order to carry the kidnapping scenario forward. When there was no way to fly, fly away, there was a change of course creating the circumstances with which we are all familiar.

 

[icedtea4me]

JB could have been hidden some place and then moved to the WC. Obviously, this raises the question as to where she had been concealed? The invitees swarming the house on the 26th limit what place this could have been.

For this to be a reasonable conclusion, it'd mean the at least one R did not want her discovered in order to carry the kidnapping scenario forward. When there was no way to fly, fly away, there was a change of course creating the circumstances with which we are all familiar.

Due to the change in the livor mortis, the coroner would be able to tell if the body had been moved.

 

[proust20]

icedtea4me

Yes. You are correct. I had forgotten that moving her would have been indicated as you say.

 

[UKGuy]

icedtea4me

Yes. You are correct. I had forgotten that moving her would have been indicated as you say.

proust20,
Not if the livor mortis had settled as it does after a period of time.

.

 

[UKGuy]

John didn't call or try calling his pilot until 30 minutes after he "found" JonBenet.

icedtea4me,
OK, I was typing from memory. Still does not invalidate the theory, i.e. JR moved JonBenet after Fleet White looked into the wine-cellar and saw nothing unusual.

With much the same circumstances when JR next looks in, voila, JonBenet is present.

wrt to Fleet White some say he never looked in far enough, never stepped in to look, was it left, so missed the white blanket.

OK, so how come JR manages to see JonBenet immediately?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
OK, I was typing from memory. Still does not invalidate the theory, i.e. JR moved JonBenet after Fleet White looked into the wine-cellar and saw nothing unusual.

With much the same circumstances when JR next looks in, voila, JonBenet is present.

wrt to Fleet White some say he never looked in far enough, never stepped in to look, was it left, so missed the white blanket.

OK, so how come JR manages to see JonBenet immediately?

.

John sees JonBenet immediately because he already knows she's there.

John Ramsey: The American public has been led to believe that we went to bed that night on Christmas, brutally beat JonBenet, sexually molested her, strangled her, woke up the next morning, wrote a three-page ransom note, called the police, sat around the house for four hours then I went down and discovered her body - Then was able to act distraught. Patsy was able to throw up that morning because of gut-wrenching anxiety - She faked it - Help me understand that. Where is our common sense as a society, as a race of people?

09281998aedocumentary.htm

Called the police = 5:52 a.m.
Sat around the house for four hours= 5:52 a.m. + 4 hrs = 9:52 a.m.

 

[UKGuy]

John sees JonBenet immediately because he already knows she's there.

John Ramsey: The American public has been led to believe that we went to bed that night on Christmas, brutally beat JonBenet, sexually molested her, strangled her, woke up the next morning, wrote a three-page ransom note, called the police, sat around the house for four hours then I went down and discovered her body - Then was able to act distraught. Patsy was able to throw up that morning because of gut-wrenching anxiety - She faked it - Help me understand that. Where is our common sense as a society, as a race of people?

09281998aedocumentary.htm

Called the police = 5:52 a.m.
Sat around the house for four hours= 5:52 a.m. + 4 hrs = 9:52 a.m.

icedtea4me,

John sees JonBenet immediately because he already knows she's there.

Looks that way, with Patsy in on the staging and Burke allegedly sound asleep, just what was going on?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

<snip>Nothing has been made public about the status of the blood on the blanket. Yet there were bloodstains on the Pink Barbie Nightgown and her size-12 underwear, so I assume there must be a common link?<snip>

Two lines BLACKED OUT
DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A, #15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
#13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey

DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

 

[UKGuy]

Two lines BLACKED OUT
DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A, #15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??
#13A, #13B Semen ??? stain from black blanket
Bloodstain Standard from John Andrew Ramsey

DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

icedtea4me,
So what does it all mean? We know where the bloodstains were, have they all been matched and if so, who to?

I just assume they are all linked to a common crime-scene, and might depict accidental spatter?

i.e. someone was wiping JonBenet down, so droplets might have splashed anywhere?

Were some of bloodstains caused by JonBenet's internal assault, suggesting she was wearing this item at this point in time?

I note the speculation regarding diffusion of the blood by osmosis, so take the white blanket did it test positive for urine, if not does this mean the bloodstain is spatter?

How come there is a bloodstain on the nightgown and the white gap top, you might think they should be separated in time and space, with the gap top going on last?

IMO the bloodstains originated from the person cleaning up JonBenet along with accidental cross-transer?

.

 

[icedtea4me]

icedtea4me,
So what does it all mean? We know where the bloodstains were, have they all been matched and if so, who to?

Yes, all of the stains I mentioned have been matched to JonBenet.

DNA revisited in light of James Kolar’s book

<snip>Were some of bloodstains caused by JonBenet's internal assault, suggesting she was wearing this item at this point in time?

I don't see how her vaginal assault could've resulted in blood stains getting on her white shirt. I'm thinking those bloodstains may have come from the two abrasions noted on her back.

I note the speculation regarding diffusion of the blood by osmosis, so take the white blanket did it test positive for urine, if not does this mean the bloodstain is spatter?

How come there is a bloodstain on the nightgown and the white gap top, you might think they should be separated in time and space, with the gap top going on last?

IMO the bloodstains originated from the person cleaning up JonBenet along with accidental cross-transer?

I'm the nightgown was accidentally brought down with the blanket. Then the nightgown was under her as she was wrapped in the blanket and the wounds on her back (perhaps made from sharp debris on the floor) bled down due to gravity.

 

[TheDrawingBoard]

John Ramsey: The American public has been led to believe that we went to bed that night on Christmas, brutally beat JonBenet, sexually molested her, strangled her, woke up the next morning, wrote a three-page ransom note, called the police, sat around the house for four hours then I went down and discovered her body - Then was able to act distraught. Patsy was able to throw up that morning because of gut-wrenching anxiety - She faked it - Help me understand that. Where is our common sense as a society, as a race of people?

He's so full of it. There's no reality where they didn't have anything to do with her death. What gives it away is time and the staging. Intruders are never afforded either. Nor would they risk it all for trying.

And the staging itself is a debunk all in it's own. Someone took the time to cover up a sexual assault and badly tried to make it look like a kidnapping gone wrong. The duct tape over her mouth was placed there postmortem for ef sakes! You can see the mucous and saliva on the right side of her face and it perfectly matches the mucous stain on the upper anterior portion of her right sleeve (from her arms being placed above her head, head tilted to the right). Meaning, she was placed in this position and long enough for the mucous to transfer before the duct tape was placed over her mouth.
The cord, was just a standard double loop and incredibly loose. Yet, it was placed right over her sleeve with no disturbance. Suggesting that, that too was placed there postmortem. This isn't evidence of a kidnapping gone wrong, but someone trying to make it look like it was. No one else in the world needed to fake it, except the Ramsey's.
Whether or not someone outside the family also had a hand in her death and/or cover up though, is a different story I suppose.

 

[icedtea4me]

He's so full of it. There's no reality where they didn't have anything to do with her death. What gives it away is time and the staging. Intruders are never afforded either. Nor would they risk it all for trying.<snip>

You don't get it, do you? John can't help but confess as to the order of the events of that night. His use of the word "we" shows that he and Patsy were both involved. (The "got up the next morning" part refers to Patsy and him having to have a cooling off period between the strangulation and writing the note.