RDI poll/the Stines

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
OK, we have an innocent explanation for JonBenet's asymmetric ponytails. Just wonder why Patsy never said she fashioned them?


.

Patsy did discuss making bedtime ponytails with LE in on of her interviews. However, I am not sure whether she was asked specifically about that night.

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy did discuss making bedtime ponytails with LE in on of her interviews. However, I am not sure whether she was asked specifically about that night.

DeeDee249,
I guess you should reply: because the R's version of events said JonBenet was placed direct to bed.


Then we have PR saying JonBenet dressed herself in those size-12's? Yet we all know what JonBenet would have looked like wearing size-12 underwear beneath her black velvet pants to the White's?

And BPD have the photographs of JonBenet at the Whites, so they can very quickly confirm if she wore them.

Although the ponytails suggest bedtime and possibly that JonBenet arrived in her bed. There is the outside possibility that they were part of a prior staging enacted by Patsy, where JonBenet was to be the victim of a bedside sexual assault?

So assuming you are correct, lets assume JonBenet had her ponytails done then snacked pineapple, in either order, then returned to her room to sleep?

That scenario bring ST's theory into the frame, and all it suggests.

Yet Kolar is hinting that there might be a BR connection? So whose are the pajama bottoms found on the floor of JonBenet's bedroom, did BR visit JonBenet in her bedroom after having a little talk down at the breakfast bar, did he bring his tea with him as he chatted with JonBenet in her bedroom?

Did JonBenet poop as she was being molested, did this freak BR out, or was it the other way round? Just who was the freakiest of the pair, remember they were bed buddies, LHP attested to this.

I think this is my favorite theory since it explains the irrationality of it all. What actually happened is not something you might expect either PR or JR to do. They might do stuff but plan it well and make sure there was nobody to see what took place.

Consider both JR and PR's track record postmortem, does that sound like people who planned a Christmas molestation?


So again, just to labor the point. We have PR doing JonBenet's ponytails, suggesting JonBenet made it to her bed. Now I'm ruling PR out since I reckon it was a males who was abusing JonBenet.

Next I'll eliminate JR since he would plan any molestation to avoid detection, also he would never need to silence JonBenet in a physical manner.

So that allows me to arrive at BDI courtesy of the ponytails!

.

 

[Nom de plume]

DeeDee249,
I guess you should reply: because the R's version of events said JonBenet was placed direct to bed.


Then we have PR saying JonBenet dressed herself in those size-12's? Yet we all know what JonBenet would have looked like wearing size-12 underwear beneath her black velvet pants to the White's?

And BPD have the photographs of JonBenet at the Whites, so they can very quickly confirm if she wore them.

Although the ponytails suggest bedtime and possibly that JonBenet arrived in her bed. There is the outside possibility that they were part of a prior staging enacted by Patsy, where JonBenet was to be the victim of a bedside sexual assault?

So assuming you are correct, lets assume JonBenet had her ponytails done then snacked pineapple, in either order, then returned to her room to sleep?

That scenario bring ST's theory into the frame, and all it suggests.

Yet Kolar is hinting that there might be a BR connection? So whose are the pajama bottoms found on the floor of JonBenet's bedroom, did BR visit JonBenet in her bedroom after having a little talk down at the breakfast bar, did he bring his tea with him as he chatted with JonBenet in her bedroom?

Did JonBenet poop as she was being molested, did this freak BR out, or was it the other way round? Just who was the freakiest of the pair, remember they were bed buddies, LHP attested to this.

I think this is my favorite theory since it explains the irrationality of it all. What actually happened is not something you might expect either PR or JR to do. They might do stuff but plan it well and make sure there was nobody to see what took place.

Consider both JR and PR's track record postmortem, does that sound like people who planned a Christmas molestation?


So again, just to labor the point. We have PR doing JonBenet's ponytails, suggesting JonBenet made it to her bed. Now I'm ruling PR out since I reckon it was a males who was abusing JonBenet.

Next I'll eliminate JR since he would plan any molestation to avoid detection, also he would never need to silence JonBenet in a physical manner.

So that allows me to arrive at BDI courtesy of the ponytails!

.

Sorry UK, I have to totally disagree with you here.

To me JR's behavior does suggest a planned Christmas molestation.

Why would you think JR "would never need to silence JonBenet in a physical manner"? If she were screaming in pain he would. If she was threatening to expose him he would.

 

[UKGuy]

Sorry UK, I have to totally disagree with you here.

To me JR's behavior does suggest a planned Christmas molestation.

Why would you think JR "would never need to silence JonBenet in a physical manner"? If she were screaming in pain he would. If she was threatening to expose him he would.

Nom de plume,
Because JR is a parent. A hand over her mouth is sufficient. There was absolutely no need or requirement for an R to bash JonBenet on the head. An intruder yes, but not an R.

The head bashing is intended as staging, its the first attempt to explain away JonBenet lying lifeless on the floor.

Ted Bundy used the head bash as part of his MO, but it always came first, so to incapacitate his victim.

With JonBenet it comes after the asphyxiation, or if you do not accept that. You then must offer an explanation why an R behaved in the same manner as Ted Bundy so to assault JonBenet?


.

 

[Nom de plume]

Nom de plume,
Because JR is a parent. A hand over her mouth is sufficient. There was absolutely no need or requirement for an R to bash JonBenet on the head. An intruder yes, but not an R.

The head bashing is intended as staging, its the first attempt to explain away JonBenet lying lifeless on the floor.

Ted Bundy used the head bash as part of his MO, but it always came first, so to incapacitate his victim.

With JonBenet it comes after the asphyxiation, or if you do not accept that. You then must offer an explanation why an R behaved in the same manner as Ted Bundy so to assault JonBenet?


.

Ted Bundy has nothing to do with this. Millions of people have hit someone in the head, but they're not relevant either.

First of all, the physical evidence suggests the head bash came first. Second, there's nothing to say that the head bash was the result of the scream. The scream may have been the result of the head bash. In one scenario I think the head bash may have occured after JB bit someone in a very sensitive area, producing extreme pain and rage in the one bitten. This would make the head bash more of a reflex reaction than an intent to harm or stage. The other scenario I picture is that the head bash was just a deliberate attempt to kill her.

It all comes down to you are BDI, and I am JDI, so we're never going to agree. :seeya:

 

[otg]

Ted Bundy has nothing to do with this. Millions of people have hit someone in the head, but they're not relevant either.

First of all, the physical evidence suggests the head bash came first. Second, there's nothing to say that the head bash was the result of the scream. The scream may have been the result of the head bash. In one scenario I think the head bash may have occured after JB bit someone in a very sensitive area, producing extreme pain and rage in the one bitten. This would make the head bash more of a reflex reaction than an intent to harm or stage. The other scenario I picture is that the head bash was just a deliberate attempt to kill her.

It all comes down to you are BDI, and I am JDI, so we're never going to agree. :seeya:

(bbm)
Greetings, Nom. eace:

The scream could not have been the result of the blow to her head. Because of the amount of damage to emissary veins, nerve endings, and everything else involved in the skull injury, that blow would have resulted in immediate unconsciousness (regardless of anyone's BDI/JDI leaning).

 

[Nom de plume]

(bbm)
Greetings, Nom. eace:

The scream could not have been the result of the blow to her head. Because of the amount of damage to emissary veins, nerve endings, and everything else involved in the skull injury, that blow would have resulted in immediate unconsciousness (regardless of anyone's BDI/JDI leaning).

Thanks for the clarification OTG! We can always count on your expertise when we get confused on things.

So her scream could have been what caused someone to bash her in the head. Maybe she saw the head bash coming and screamed before she was hit? Or maybe the two incidents were not at all related, time wise. Of course they were both part of her murder, but may not have occured close together. I dunno...

What's your take on the scream/head bash OTG?

 

[UKGuy]

Ted Bundy has nothing to do with this. Millions of people have hit someone in the head, but they're not relevant either.

First of all, the physical evidence suggests the head bash came first. Second, there's nothing to say that the head bash was the result of the scream. The scream may have been the result of the head bash. In one scenario I think the head bash may have occured after JB bit someone in a very sensitive area, producing extreme pain and rage in the one bitten. This would make the head bash more of a reflex reaction than an intent to harm or stage. The other scenario I picture is that the head bash was just a deliberate attempt to kill her.

It all comes down to you are BDI, and I am JDI, so we're never going to agree. :seeya:

Nom de plume,
What physical evidence? JonBenet might have been choked via her collar, losing consciousness, with the head bash a form of staging.

Nobody needed to whack JonBenet on the head, she was a small 6-year old girl.

So either her head injury was sustained accidentally or it is a failed attempt at staging?

I reckon as JonBenet was being sexually assaulted someone was holding her by the neck, restraining her, at the end of the assault JonBenet was in a coma.

The rest is staging.



.

 

[Nom de plume]

Nom de plume,
What physical evidence? JonBenet might have been choked via her collar, losing consciousness, with the head bash a form of staging.

Nobody needed to whack JonBenet on the head, she was a small 6-year old girl.

So either her head injury was sustained accidentally or it is a failed attempt at staging?I reckon as JonBenet was being sexually assaulted someone was holding her by the neck, restraining her, at the end of the assault JonBenet was in a coma.

The rest is staging.



.

BBM

I'm not going to argue with you about the autopsy results. They're there for anyone to read that chooses to. They said she would not have bled internally had the head bash come after death. There also is a lack of evidence for her being manually strangled, or strangled with her shirt. Don't you think they would have noticed the shirt being all wrinkled and twisted had that been the case? You have your own "interpretation" of the evidence and autopsy report. Believe what you wish.

No on needed to molest her. No one needed to bash her in the head. No one needed to strangle her either, but they did all three anyway!

Why are we left with only two options, an accident or staging? Well it's pretty far fetched to think that anyone would swing a (choose your favorite weapon) hard enough to do that much damage "accidently". It can't be staging if it happened prior to her being strangled to death, as staging comes after death, not before. Why can't it have been an intentional blow to the head, either out of rage, or with the specific intent to kill?

 

[UKGuy]

BBM

I'm not going to argue with you about the autopsy results. They're there for anyone to read that chooses to. They said she would not have bled internally had the head bash come after death. There also is a lack of evidence for her being manually strangled, or strangled with her shirt. Don't you think they would have noticed the shirt being all wrinkled and twisted had that been the case? You have your own "interpretation" of the evidence and autopsy report. Believe what you wish.

No on needed to molest her. No one needed to bash her in the head. No one needed to strangle her either, but they did all three anyway!

Why are we left with only two options, an accident or staging? Well it's pretty far fetched to think that anyone would swing a (choose your favorite weapon) hard enough to do that much damage "accidently". It can't be staging if it happened prior to her being strangled to death, as staging comes after death, not before. Why can't it have been an intentional blow to the head, either out of rage, or with the specific intent to kill?

Nom de plume,

The autopsy results may have been choreographed. That is you will find out what they mean when Coroner Meyer relates to you from the stand how he thinks JonBenet met her end, and this might or might not be consistent with some intruder theory.

Actually on the lack of evidence you are plainly wrong. And on the shirt consider PR's remarks that JonBenet was actually wearing the red turtleneck, which of course has to be exchanged for the white gap top, so to conform to the R's version of events.

No on needed to molest her. No one needed to bash her in the head. No one needed to strangle her either, but they did all three anyway!

Absolutely but all three need not have taken place within the context of a molestation!

JonBenet's death is a sexually motivated homicide. It is not an accident and it is not an execution, i.e. head bash.

But someone did molest her. And during this molestation I reckon JonBenet was restrained by her neck, resulting in coma.

Why are we left with only two options, an accident or staging? Well it's pretty far fetched to think that anyone would swing a (choose your favorite weapon) hard enough to do that much damage "accidently". It can't be staging if it happened prior to her being strangled to death, as staging comes after death, not before. Why can't it have been an intentional blow to the head, either out of rage, or with the specific intent to kill?

Those two options are left on the table, as the consequence of applied reasoning. This is how you narrow down the options. Seriously nobody either planned or intended to kill JonBenet with a blow to her head, its that simple?

So we know the blow to the head did not come first, we also know she was sexually assaulted so which came first?

In a case such as that of Ted Bundy he would whack some of his victims over the head with a plaster cast, which was of course fake, but functioned as a blunt force weapon, thereby allowing to continue to sexually molest his now unconcious victim.

Summarising Ted Bundy whacked first then molested, but with JonBenet it appears she was molested first then whacked on the head, which is distinct from lets say an intruder agenda or MO?

So to explain JonBenet's head injury we are left with either an accident or staging, since any other interpretation either confounds common sense, and any intentional assumption since there are better ways of achieving the same result?

Its the staging in the JonBenet case that makes it appear so obviously XDI or that that the forensic evidence suggests X.

When at the end of the day it was the molestation that was being hidden not her homicide.

The homicide is on display to mask what took place before.




.

 

[Nom de plume]

Nom de plume,

The autopsy results may have been choreographed. That is you will find out what they mean when Coroner Meyer relates to you from the stand how he thinks JonBenet met her end, and this might or might not be consistent with some intruder theory.

Actually on the lack of evidence you are plainly wrong. And on the shirt consider PR's remarks that JonBenet was actually wearing the red turtleneck, which of course has to be exchanged for the white gap top, so to conform to the R's version of events.


Absolutely but all three need not have taken place within the context of a molestation!

JonBenet's death is a sexually motivated homicide. It is not an accident and it is not an execution, i.e. head bash.

But someone did molest her. And during this molestation I reckon JonBenet was restrained by her neck, resulting in coma.


Those two options are left on the table, as the consequence of applied reasoning. This is how you narrow down the options. Seriously nobody either planned or intended to kill JonBenet with a blow to her head, its that simple?
So we know the blow to the head did not come first, we also know she was sexually assaulted so which came first?

In a case such as that of Ted Bundy he would whack some of his victims over the head with a plaster cast, which was of course fake, but functioned as a blunt force weapon, thereby allowing to continue to sexually molest his now unconcious victim.

Summarising Ted Bundy whacked first then molested, but with JonBenet it appears she was molested first then whacked on the head, which is distinct from lets say an intruder agenda or MO?

So to explain JonBenet's head injury we are left with either an accident or staging, since any other interpretation either confounds common sense, and any intentional assumption since there are better ways of achieving the same result?Its the staging in the JonBenet case that makes it appear so obviously XDI or that that the forensic evidence suggests X.

When at the end of the day it was the molestation that was being hidden not her homicide.

The homicide is on display to mask what took place before.




.

BBM

No, it's not that simple. You cannot know what anyone's intentions were. You are simply presuming to know.

So because you feel there "was a better way" then that means any other possiblilities are automatically ruled out? Sorry, it might for you but it doesn't for me. There were a lot of better ways to do a lot of things regarding this murder, but they weren't done that way. It would have been better not to use PR's paintbrush handle, but they did. It would have been better to not have a War & Peace of a ransom note, but there was one. It would have been better for her not to be found in the house, but she was. It's pretty obvious to me that the R's didn't always take the "better way" approach.

Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. :seeya:

 

[UKGuy]

BBM

No, it's not that simple. You cannot know what anyone's intentions were. You are simply presuming to know.

So because you feel there "was a better way" then that means any other possiblilities are automatically ruled out? Sorry, it might for you but it doesn't for me. There were a lot of better ways to do a lot of things regarding this murder, but they weren't done that way. It would have been better not to use PR's paintbrush handle, but they did. It would have been better to not have a War & Peace of a ransom note, but there was one. It would have been better for her not to be found in the house, but she was. It's pretty obvious to me that the R's didn't always take the "better way" approach.

Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. :seeya:

Nom de plume,
Well I cannot pretend to what someones future intentions might be. But if I am aware of their past decisions and outcomes then surely I can claim to know what their intentions were.

Your better way paragraph is all about the staging. What about the head bash, who in the Ramsey family needs to whack a 6-year old girl on the head?

No, it's not that simple. You cannot know what anyone's intentions were. You are simply presuming to know.

Demonstrate why I cannot have this knowlege, do not simply assert that it is a presumption.

.

 

[DeeDee249]

Nom de plume,
Well I cannot pretend to what someones future intentions might be. But if I am aware of their past decisions and outcomes then surely I can claim to know what their intentions were.

Your better way paragraph is all about the staging. What about the head bash, who in the Ramsey family needs to whack a 6-year old girl on the head?


Demonstrate why I cannot have this knowlege, do not simply assert that it is a presumption.

.

No one NEEDED to whack her on the head to stage the crime. But someone might have wanted to whack her on the head to shut her up if she was screaming.
As far as the last comment- NONE of us can have that knowledge. We all PRESUME to know for the simple reason that we were NOT THERE and we are NOT ONE OF THE Rs.