Pictures of JonBenet's bathroom

[coloradokares]

Oh, ok then that explains it! You hit your head!!! :crazy: Just kidding, I'm glad you're alright. Peace.

Ok so you feel I require explanation? Perhaps a little more cognitive retraining is in order

 

[Deleted member 278]

Solace...what do I think happened? What day of the week is it? For 10 years I have flip flopped in all different directions, and I continue to do so to this day. I read here and at FFJ daily, but rarely have time to comment. Unless I see pictures of JBR from the White's party to prove me wrong, I'm currently leaning toward a hair dying/touch-up incident due to the three ponytails. There would be no reason to put a child to bed with hair done up like that and unless it was JBR's hair fashion statement for the evening at the White's, my only guess for the "do" would be, like I said, for a quick hair touch-up.

BUT, the problem I have with that scenario is the skull indentation which I believe was caused by the flashlight because we're told the flashlight fits right into the indent. I just can't see a reason for the flashlight to have been in either her bathroom or her bedroom. Andif an adult's hand is enough to dole out punishment or control during a hair touch-up, why use a flashlight UNLESS it was indeed meant to do grave harm? I believe her death was accidental. So...perhaps she was pushed in the bathroom and that fall or strike somehow caused her death and then maybe the flashlight was used to make it appear as murder.

Another thought that I have had re the flashlight that I haven't seen anyone else post involves the pineapple. I have often wondered if P or J (or even B, perhaps) used the flashlight in what they thought of as a sort of "pre" self defense. Could JBR have been in the kitchen by herself which awoke someone else in the house, and that someone else went to investigate with flashlight in hand and met up with JBR in the dark between the upstairs and the kitchen, was surprised by her presence, and instinctly swung the flashlight?

Ask me tomorrow what I think.

 

[Deleted member 278]

I wonder when these pics were taken. Is that a razor and tweezer on the counter? And, what is the name of the book on the back of the toilet?

 

[Albert18]

Probably the biggest problem I have with the flashlight is where it was found. If you say the flashlight was what struck JonBenet then you are saying of everything in that house, the flashlight is the one thing most responsible for JonBenet's death. Yet the flashlight was left sitting in the open in the kitchen. That doesn't match their behavior for that night.

If underwear can disappear then a flashlight can disappear. I don't think that flashlight meant anything to them as it was just used to navigate the house during the night. They had to suspect neighbors might see what looked like a flashlight in the house that night so it was wiped clean so it could be an intruder tool.

 

[Solace]

I wonder when these pics were taken. Is that a razor and tweezer on the counter? And, what is the name of the book on the back of the toilet?

I think Colorado said they are long after the incident.

Rocker, I think it was an accident and then damage control mode. I just don't believe in all these intruder, sexual games theories. I think it was an accident. I think Patsy was exhausted, having been up for almost 15 hours; she had a couple of glasses of wine at the Whites. I believe she still took medication, although others do not. I think she did not really want to go and I think her "nerves" were frayed and she lost it.

But looking at the tile, why is it not possible that she violently shoved JonBenet into the bathroom and JonBenet lost her footing and head on hit the tiled bathtup?

One other question. I don't ask much. Steve Thomas says she hit her head against something that was curved. I still don't understand that, maybe because of the rest of the break in her skull.

 

[Deleted member 278]

From what I have read, the 8-inch skull fracture indicates she fell or was thrown against a curved surface since a sharp surface would have lacerated the skin. But, if that is so, what caused the indentation? Surely not a curved surface. ??

 

[UKGuy]

From what I have read, the 8-inch skull fracture indicates she fell or was thrown against a curved surface since a sharp surface would have lacerated the skin. But, if that is so, what caused the indentation? Surely not a curved surface. ??

rocket,

You do not accidentally cave in the top of a six-year old girls head, and add contusions and abrasions to the side of her head, along with compression type bruising to her neck!

It does not happen in the real world, someone wanted JonBenet dead.

additionally In most domestic deaths resulting from rage type assaults the child is usuually presented as having had an accident.

That would have been the Ramsey's obvious strategy, because to stage an accident as a homicide means you may be charged with homicide!



.

 

[Deleted member 278]

First an accident, then the cover-up.

"may be charged". Precisely!

 

[UKGuy]

First an accident, then the cover-up.

"may be charged". Precisely!

There is no evidence of an accident, the same injuries presented in any other case would suggest an intentional homicide.

Its only unsubstantiated theories such as Lou Smit's or Steve Thomas' that offer an accident as the initial cause.


.

 

[Deleted member 278]

You believe it was intentional. I believe it was accidental.
Do you think the perp was a family member?

 

[coloradokares]

From what I have read, the 8-inch skull fracture indicates she fell or was thrown against a curved surface since a sharp surface would have lacerated the skin. But, if that is so, what caused the indentation? Surely not a curved surface. ??

Whoa Nelli........You say curved surface. The bathroom was photographed link provided.....Am I mistaken wasn't there a curvature to the bathroom vanity I am going back to revisit those photos to be sure I am not having a lapse in memory.

 

[coloradokares]

Whoa Nelli........You say curved surface. The bathroom was photographed link provided.....Am I mistaken wasn't there a curvature to the bathroom vanity I am going back to revisit those photos to be sure I am not having a lapse in memory.

http://jameson245_archive.tripod.com/jbrbedroom-A.htm

Look at the bathroom sink vanity. There is a curvature. Also a toiled bowl has curvature.....for that matter.

 

[Dru]

There is no evidence of an accident, the same injuries presented in any other case would suggest an intentional homicide.

Its only unsubstantiated theories such as Lou Smit's or Steve Thomas' that offer an accident as the initial cause.


.

Although I know your theory and mine don't exactly coincide, UKGuy, I do think we're kind of on the same page.

When I first got interested in this case I was more or less PDI, and I found the different accident theories plausible.

What changed it for me was the sexual wound inflicted before JBR died.

I could see a parent 'losing it' and going for a child. I could see a parent staging a crime scene to cover up that fact.

But I couldn't see a parent, for no apparent reason, inflicting a sexual wound on the child sometime between the initial assult and death, while the child is still alive!

There are only two motives possible for inflicting that wound at that time. If it had been inflicted after she was dead it might have been staging, but it wasn't.

The first motive is that the killer wants some kind of perverse gratificaton from the act. Notice, he's still injuring a dying child--there's simply no possible way that this wound was inflicted on JBR while she was alive, as it would have been extremely painful and she would have shown signs of struggling against it, signs which are absent from her body. This motive is really only plausible in the 'unknown intruder' theory; a parent, having accidently or purposely given the child a fatal head injury, isn't going to stop for a little 'fun' when there's so much cover-up to arrange.

The second, and more likely motive, is that the killer wants to confuse and contaminate evidence of prior abuse. I tend to believe that this makes it highly likely that the abuser is the killer, but I won't go into that now.

Either way, though, it just doesn't square with most of the accident theories, and neither does the condition of the body as you described it in an earlier post on this thread.

The initial blow might not have been premeditated in the strict legal sense of the term. But I think someone was finding JBR to be an increasing 'problem,' and was actually getting quite worried about someone finding out. Maybe he'd even thought about killing her.

So when the killer found himself provoked by something JBR said or did, and struck her, it wasn't something that hadn't occurred to him before, IMO. Means were at hand, motive had been present for a while, and now there was opportunity. And he took it.

 

[narlacat]

Why, Colorado said she fell back against a surface and it gave her a wound that did not break the skin, but it did crack her cranium. What is the difference?

Why are you using what happened to Colorado as a basis for what happened to JonBenet?
How does that work

 

[BlueCrab]

IMO the bathroom had nothing to do with the death of JonBenet. There's no evidence in the bathroom that suggests the fractured skull occurred there, accidentally or otherwise.

JonBenet died of asphyxiation with an associated crushing blow to the head. The elaborate cord bindings on JonBenet's wrists and neck are not for staging purposes. They are too elaborate. IMO the bindings and the acute and chronic internal injuries to the vagina fit evidence that strongly suggests some form of extreme sexual activity had been taking place, and had also taken place at an earlier date, and a bathroom scenario for this repeated sexual activity would not have been appropriate.

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

Why are you using what happened to Colorado as a basis for what happened to JonBenet?
How does that work

You have to go back and read the posts for the continuity.

 

[narlacat]

You have to go back and read the posts for the continuity.

I already have.

Just because something happened to Colorado, doesn't mean it happened that way for JonBenet.

 

[Solace]

I already have.

Just because something happened to Colorado, doesn't mean it happened that way for JonBenet.

I know that Narla.

Tumble says:

"For the skin to remain intact I think the strike must come from above straight down on the head. A strike with a flashlight is consistant with that. Maybe done by a taller person or against a sitting or kneeling JB."

Colorado was not struck from above. She fell back against a park bench and the skin was in tact yet she had fractured her skull and bled profusely. My point is that what Tumble says is not necessarily so; so that JonBenet could have possibly been pushed violently into the bathroom, lost her footing and her head hit the tiled bathtub. A theory of mine.

 

[JMO8778]

Although I know your theory and mine don't exactly coincide, UKGuy, I do think we're kind of on the same page.

When I first got interested in this case I was more or less PDI, and I found the different accident theories plausible.

What changed it for me was the sexual wound inflicted before JBR died.

I could see a parent 'losing it' and going for a child. I could see a parent staging a crime scene to cover up that fact.

But I couldn't see a parent, for no apparent reason, inflicting a sexual wound on the child sometime between the initial assult and death, while the child is still alive!

There are only two motives possible for inflicting that wound at that time. If it had been inflicted after she was dead it might have been staging, but it wasn't.

The first motive is that the killer wants some kind of perverse gratificaton from the act. Notice, he's still injuring a dying child--there's simply no possible way that this wound was inflicted on JBR while she was alive, as it would have been extremely painful and she would have shown signs of struggling against it, signs which are absent from her body. This motive is really only plausible in the 'unknown intruder' theory; a parent, having accidently or purposely given the child a fatal head injury, isn't going to stop for a little 'fun' when there's so much cover-up to arrange.

The second, and more likely motive, is that the killer wants to confuse and contaminate evidence of prior abuse. I tend to believe that this makes it highly likely that the abuser is the killer, but I won't go into that now.

Either way, though, it just doesn't square with most of the accident theories, and neither does the condition of the body as you described it in an earlier post on this thread.

The initial blow might not have been premeditated in the strict legal sense of the term. But I think someone was finding JBR to be an increasing 'problem,' and was actually getting quite worried about someone finding out. Maybe he'd even thought about killing her.

So when the killer found himself provoked by something JBR said or did, and struck her, it wasn't something that hadn't occurred to him before, IMO. Means were at hand, motive had been present for a while, and now there was opportunity. And he took it.

could be,but then PR fiber's are found too,and it doesn't seem to be from innocent transfer.No matter which one killed her,I suspect both participated in the cover-up,with the staged sexual assault done to cover past abuse.

 

[JMO8778]

http://jameson245_archive.tripod.com/jbrbedroom-A.htm

Look at the bathroom sink vanity. There is a curvature. Also a toiled bowl has curvature.....for that matter.

It does,but I suspect the rest of the fracture,extending from the hole to almost her nose,came from a long-handled object...the flashlight.IMO,it seems someone was standing in front of JB with it,and hit her intentionally,with intent to kill,whether it was planned in advance or not.