Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[BBB167893]

Good question, even better one: who said it was odd that Meyer consulted other experts?
...

AK

YOU DID! Or that sure seemed to be where you were headed.

 

[BBB167893]

The Ramseys did not report an accident (head blow) because they were afraid that the prior abuse would be discovered. This is a prominent, pervasive theory amongst RDI across all discussion groups that I have encountered these last 15+ years. As is the idea that the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death was an attempt to cover up that prior abuse.

But, yes, there is a diversity of opinion. Of course.

Well, yes, there IS diversity of opinion, Anti-K. It's just that most people go with a winner.

BTW, I agree, this head blow was probably a deliberate act and not at all consistent with any explanation of an accident.

Every now and then, I think it's helpful to remind people that, generally speaking, when we say "accident," we mean that the person didn't INTEND to kill her, it just happened.

 

[BBB167893]

No, I have not forgotten the basement window; however, it is a fact that the Ramseys did not draw investigator’s attention to that window, and in fact, MR Ramsey claimed to have broken it himself. So, once again, the Ramseys did nothing to promote an intruder entry/exit point in contradiction to their supposed intent of having investigators believe in an intruder.
...

AK

Pardon my butting in, but just for the sake of argument, I'm not so sure you can dismiss that so easily. Just because he didn't scream to the police, "Hey, look at this!" and paint a giant red arrow pointing to it doesn't mean he wasn't thinking that way.

 

[BBB167893]

I wrote, “But, yes, there is a diversity of opinion. Of course.”

That means that I am not painting all people with the same brush. So, your accusation, as many of your accusations do, rings false.
...

AK

I think andreww took your statement for sarcasm, Anti-K. I sure did.

 

[BBB167893]

Is it known if JB was hit from the front or behind? I wonder if she was seated(possibly during the pineapple snack) when she was hit?

I'm not sure she was hit at all, but thrown into something.

But, FTSOA, if I had to guess, I'd say that whoever hit her was above her, likely from behind.

 

[BoldBear]

I reckon the ligature/paintbrush exists to trip you up, to indicate the COD as strangulation via the ligature.

I can feel my devil horns growing right now. And being buried in details, how does it matter? I was questioning the garrote, the construction of the device and the mechanics of its use because this thread started with and was originally about the garrote. (I read the entire thread.)

As far as I can tell, this case has 'tripped everyone up' or it would be solved by now. I also get to decide for myself what are and what aren't important details. My favorite example is the neverending debate about the magical properties of pineapple. There was pineapple on the table and pineapple in her stomach. No matter how much JR and PR deny it. It was there. It was on the table. It could have been on the table before they went to the Whites and left there when they went to bed. JBR didn't have to get it from the fridge because it was on the table. She could have gone down when no one was around and taken a few pieces pineapple out of the bowl--if the pineapple can be dismissed as easily as that, then why the endless pages of debate on it?

There could have been an important detail in those pages so I read them too.

Yes, I did come to this case a little late and have been playing catch-up, but these pages go back for years so I've read a lot of the arguments. I thought this would be a quick fascination. I'd learn about the case, get bored and move on. That almost happened, but then I got a theory. At first, I laughed it off as crazy but the more I reasoned what happened in that house that night, the more I can't laugh at it. I'm crazy, absolutely nuts, because the details fit for me. But I'm not that smart. This theory must have been dismissed somewhere in these pages so I go on reading.

I'm going to share it on the 'Member's Theories'. (Yes, I've read that thread too.) But I've got to read DOI first. I've ordered a used copy. I need to get more of the Ramsey background in order to solidify the story line. A story or vignette will help to explain motive.

:laugh: I suspect my theory will be dismissed as soon as I post it. Still, there's something there that makes the pieces fit....

 

[UKGuy]

I can feel my devil horns growing right now. And being buried in details, how does it matter? I was questioning the garrote, the construction of the device and the mechanics of its use because this thread started with and was originally about the garrote. (I read the entire thread.)

As far as I can tell, this case has 'tripped everyone up' or it would be solved by now. I also get to decide for myself what are and what aren't important details. My favorite example is the neverending debate about the magical properties of pineapple. There was pineapple on the table and pineapple in her stomach. No matter how much JR and PR deny it. It was there. It was on the table. It could have been on the table before they went to the Whites and left there when they went to bed. JBR didn't have to get it from the fridge because it was on the table. She could have gone down when no one was around and taken a few pieces pineapple out of the bowl--if the pineapple can be dismissed as easily as that, then why the endless pages of debate on it?

There could have been an important detail in those pages so I read them too.

Yes, I did come to this case a little late and have been playing catch-up, but these pages go back for years so I've read a lot of the arguments. I thought this would be a quick fascination. I'd learn about the case, get bored and move on. That almost happened, but then I got a theory. At first, I laughed it off as crazy but the more I reasoned what happened in that house that night, the more I can't laugh at it. I'm crazy, absolutely nuts, because the details fit for me. But I'm not that smart. This theory must have been dismissed somewhere in these pages so I go on reading.

I'm going to share it on the 'Member's Theories'. (Yes, I've read that thread too.) But I've got to read DOI first. I've ordered a used copy. I need to get more of the Ramsey background in order to solidify the story line. A story or vignette will help to explain motive.

:laugh: I suspect my theory will be dismissed as soon as I post it. Still, there's something there that makes the pieces fit....

BoldBear,
The details matter big time, once your horns become big enough you will want to publish your own book and tell the world how it happened.

On the pineapple, a particular detail matters, something that pineapple lovers might not miss. Its unlikely that JonBenet would eat old pineapple plus condensed milk since the latter would have an unwelcome taste.

James Kolar thinks the garrote/ligature was an intentional artifact, part of the homicide, I still reckon it was staging, and that Kolar is playing I have a prosecution game, but cannot disclose all?

Any theory must explain away what appears to be the staging, and the three R's roles?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Pardon my butting in, but just for the sake of argument, I'm not so sure you can dismiss that so easily. Just because he didn't scream to the police, "Hey, look at this!" and paint a giant red arrow pointing to it doesn't mean he wasn't thinking that way.

Anti-matter, Anti-What, a member of staff? Dont forget the suitcase that JR says, Oh I brought that downstairs myself, just like I broke the window, Oh did I mention I had a lot of forensic evidence to explain away, but only in the basement?

Somebody staged a crime-scene in the basement and JR tweaked it to point away from the R's!

.

 

[BoldBear]

The details matter big time, once your horns become big enough you will want to publish your own book and tell the world how it happened.

Nope. Once I present my case, I'll watch my theory get burned-down and then move on. I am, however, looking forward to reading SuperDave's book because of his attacks on the DAs and the other characters who were too frightened to stand-up to the Ramseys and money. I also love reading SDs posts here so the book should be fun.

On the pineapple, a particular detail matters, something that pineapple lovers might not miss. Its unlikely that JonBenet would eat old pineapple plus condensed milk since the latter would have an unwelcome taste.

I wouldn't have touched the pineapple, but I'm not 6 anymore. I know too much about germs. I can't speak for a 6 year old who's hungry when everyone has gone to bed. Neither can you.

As for the details mattering, maybe you missed the detail that I was focusing on the mechanics of the garrote. "The Mechanics" Murder weapon or not, there was still a rope around her neck. It was pulled tight somehow. I would guess it was the so called garrote. Or do you dispute that as well?

James Kolar thinks the garrote/ligature was an intentional artifact, part of the homicide, I still reckon it was staging, and that Kolar is playing I have a prosecution game, but cannot disclose all?

Yup. I read that book too. If the police haven't investigated the BDI theory enough, I support further investigation. BDI is a possibility. I'm just not solidly in that camp.

Any theory must explain away what appears to be the staging, and the three R's roles?

That was a joke. Right? Or was it sarcasm? Oddly enough, I'm not wondering about the purpose of the ransom note anymore. It makes sense to me now.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Anti-matter, Anti-What, a member of staff? Dont forget the suitcase that JR says, Oh I brought that downstairs myself, just like I broke the window, Oh did I mention I had a lot of forensic evidence to explain away, but only in the basement?

Somebody staged a crime-scene in the basement and JR tweaked it to point away from the R's!

.

Didn't JR say that he found the basement window open after FW had already gone down there and later reported that he didn't see it open? And that FW didn't find a chair in front of the train room door when JR said he did after FW had gone down to the basement? Or am I mistaken? If I'm not, if that's not JR staging the basement, I don't know what is!

 

[Detective Pinkie]

If they couldn’t figure out how to get rid of the body, then why invest so much effort and risk into faking a kidnapping and having the police come over?
...

AK

The note was the only item to solely point to a kidnapping, so they didn't invest all that much. If the police hadn't identified the note pad and pen, the only thing tying them to the note was the slight similarity to Patsy's hand writing. Not that risky.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

RDI really hinges on the prior sexual abuse.
Take that away, then there is no motivation to do everything else.
Now I understand why it is believed beyond dispute.

Actually I can believe it could possibly happen without the prior abuse (maybe not exactly but similar).

Strangely IDI's best defense is denying the prior abuse. I wonder why they stick to that?

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Of course, this another thing that bugs me: if the Ramseys committed the sexual assault at or near point of death to cover up prior abuse, then why would they turn around and cover up that sexual assault? Another very clear, b & w contradiction.
...

AK

Because like your stranger, perhaps after the event they are filled with shame, remorse, horror. Although it is not necessarily logical behaviour, like your stranger they have feelings and do illogical things to make themselves feel better.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

But, would it be fair to say that most RDI theories incorporate the prior abuse? After all, this is the reason RDI give for the Ramseys not reporting an accident; this is the reason RDI give for the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death (to cover up prior). it is central to BDI theories, and even JDI theories; etc.
.

The problem as previously stated: no one has been able to say what form that abuse took (innocent play by children; sexual abuse by mother and/or father; or other; corporal punishment by mother and/or father; etc), no one has even been able to show who might have known about it, and no one has ever presented a reasonable argument for connecting the abuse to the child’s murder.

If we view evidence through theory (BAD reasoning) then we can find ways to incorporate prior abuse into the crime; but if we go at it evidence-first, then prior abuse becomes less certain and it’s connection to the crime is lost.
...

AK

No AK. I see evidence that there was damage to her hymen and suspect that there was prior abuse, but I don't hinge my theory on that suspicion. I take it into consideration and say maybe it was a factor here but my theory stands with out it. Actually the inclusion or exclusion of the prior sexual abuse just changes who did what and why. If you remove it, it doesn't make my theory collapse.

It is one of the reasons that RDI give as a possibility for not reporting it as an accident, but it is not the only one. It is one of the possibilities for why the sexual assault happened, but it is not the only one.

I don't see it as central to BDI theories. In fact that is my most likely scenario if you take the prior abuse out.

For some reason, IDI like to reject even the evidence of the damaged hymen. They argue over the terminology and what it really means. They think that by removing it RDI have a hard time coming up with a viable theory. They are wrong. Maybe ask yourself why you are denying evidence, not just the theories it raises.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

What is being discussed here is EVIDENCE, and, if RDI is true, then much of the evidence is contradictory. To say that this is the result of agitation, etc is a rationalization not supported by that evidence.

I disagree with your opinion wholeheartedly. Where is your evidence of that? You claim it is contradictory but I say it is evidence that they made mistakes. The why of those mistakes IS conjecture but they are hardly stabs in the dark. What are the most likely reasons that they made mistakes? Inexperience, agitation, fear, time-constraints... there are more. Is there hard evidence? No. Is it a consistent leap in logic? Yes. IDI do that too.

However, if you substitute IDI, the contradictions virtually disappear (the note/body will always be contradictory; but in IDI there are several simple explanations; ex.: kidnapper had nowhere to take victim).

Nope! There are plenty of contradictions and inconsistencies. Show me, with evidence not "rationalisation" how the intruder got into the house. Explain, with evidence, why the intruder left the body. The kidnapper having nowhere to take the body is not a simple explanation. It raises more questions not answers any. Why didn't they? Was that their plan all along? If yes, why? If no then what went wrong? I have lots more. Explain the ransom note. Explain the sexual assault. Explain the "garrote". I think you require a higher level of proof from RDI than you apply to IDI.

There are many flavors of RDI, and BDI have no problem disproving JDI, and PDI have no problem discounting BDI, and then there’s J+PDI and... There just isn’t one scenario that satisfies and explanations become more and more complex the deeper one delves into any single possible theory. This should be telling us something. At the very least, the specter of doubt should be risen.
...

AK

This was one messed up crime. I have plenty of doubt but there is more doubt about the existence of an intruder than there is that somehow RDI. That's why I think RDI.

I haven't come up with some pat little theory, I have questions and doubts which is why I like discussing it here. I especially like discussing it with IDI; they can give you fresh ideas and ask questions you hadn't considered. But the frustration of dealing with belligerence, hypocrisy and sometimes deliberate misunderstanding that borders on trolling is too hard. You get angry and defensive and it stops being fun. I'd just once like to meet an IDI that was reasonable, could bend and admit occasionally that other people can have important points that differ from their own beliefs.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

To connect prior abuse to the crime we have to establish the nature of that abuse (FAIL), who was responsible for the abuse (FAIL), who knew about the abuse (FAIL); etc.
...

AK

Maybe I am reading this (and other statements by you) wrong but are you saying that unless we can establish, with absolute proof, every detail of the prior abuse (if it happened) then we can not include it in any theory?

What rubbish! The very nature of that sort of abuse is secretive and it can go on for a long time with out discovery until one of the people (usually the victim) speaks about it. Sometimes there is physical evidence but very often there is not. Even if others find out about it it it is hushed up to save face or other reasons. Exactly what happened inside the Catholic Church (among others) for a long time.

Just because no one could say who did what to whom and when does not mean there is no possibility that it happened. The damage to the hymen raises the possibility so it is not wild conjecture and I don't see a problem with including it in theories. If people use that as the only or most important piece of evidence then that is problematic.

 

[DeeDee249]

I believe the coroner had already concluded that there was prior abuse. He was THERE- he dissected her body, he saw the injuries to the vaginal area and evidence of healing which proved some of the injuries had occurred at a previous time. Yes, other forensic specialist agreed with him, though they were not present during the autopsy, they did have access to ALL the photographs. I don't know what more could prove it to those who refuse to believe it.

 

[BoldBear]

Pinkie,

I see your frustration. I see many of these posts as subterfuge. Some people post questions or objections when they already know what the answer will be. It's almost like there are some people who are employed by John or are Ramsey supporters who's only attempt is to detract from the argument or make these forums so unwieldy that no one will ever want to read them. The ignore button is a godsend because these people repeat their same arguments over and over again. They don't present anything new and/or seem insincere with their postings.

Then again, a good argument can be fun. It also sharpens your ability to argue what you believe.

I get enough of the arguments that I ignore through the answers that people post to them. So far only one person has made enough of a contribution to the discussion that I've taken them off of ignore.

 

[Anti-K]

The note was the only item to solely point to a kidnapping, so they didn't invest all that much. If the police hadn't identified the note pad and pen, the only thing tying them to the note was the slight similarity to Patsy's hand writing. Not that risky.

Well, there’s the wrist ligatures, the tape on the mouth and IMO these are also elements of the kidnapping, but I realize that I wasn’t very clear here. I was referring to the crime in its entirety –the creation of a 2 ½ page note and the breaking of the paint brush, the sexual assault, the asphyxiation, the body in the basement, etc

That’s a lot of time, planning, and creating, etc.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Actually I can believe it could possibly happen without the prior abuse (maybe not exactly but similar).

Strangely IDI's best defense is denying the prior abuse. I wonder why they stick to that?

“IDI's best defense is denying the prior abuse”

That seems a strange thing to say. Best defense from what?

Anyway, I always accept that the claim of prior abuse. I just don’t know what form it too, who was responsible for it, who knew about it; and, I notice that there is no evidence connecting it to the crime.

BTW, several IDI accept the claim, some think it’s connected to the crime, some do not.

As to why it is rejected by some (most?); see here: http://tinyurl.com/kbmkan4
...

AK