The actual vs. desired outcome

[Holdontoyourhat]

The cord does not link to anything outside of the Ramsey house, so you may want it to be suspect because it cannot be demonstrated to belong in the house, but that is different from linking directly to an intruder.


I do not suscribe to the accident theory, I reckon JonBenet was sexually molested then killed as a consequence, and that the staging was constructed to hide all of that. This profile is not without precedent, investigate other sex crimes where children are involved, and you will find a similar pattern, which sometimes includes the parent dumping the body outdoors away from the house. One case included a parent asphyxiating his daughter as he sexually assaulted her, then placing her to bed and staging a bedtime assault.


.

Your theory is not as easy to rule out as the rage accident coverup. Not being able to show the cord, a primary piece of evidence, as being among household items at the time of the murder is a major stumbling block for that theory. Proponents won't admit that ever, but its true.

Sexual assault and murder is what appeared to happen, but do you think the cord was a prop or actually used to strangle JBR?

 

[DeeDee249]

OMG.....:bang:

 

[UKGuy]

Your theory is not as easy to rule out as the rage accident coverup. Not being able to show the cord, a primary piece of evidence, as being among household items at the time of the murder is a major stumbling block for that theory. Proponents won't admit that ever, but its true.

Sexual assault and murder is what appeared to happen, but do you think the cord was a prop or actually used to strangle JBR?

Holdontoyourhat,
There were other household items that the Ramsey's could not verify as belonging to their household due to regular memory loss.

Sexual assault and murder is what appeared to happen,

Appeared? The autopsy report leaves no room for doubt, Coroner Meyer even opines verbally that JonBenet was digitally penetrated.

The crime-scene was staged, elements used were sourced from inside the house.

An intruder has no need to construct a fake crime-scene, particularly one where a ransom note indicates that the victim was to be removed from the premises, which then does not occur! All the specialized knowledge required to create the fake crime-scene outweighs any unknowns e.g. did the cord originate inside the house? Then there is the consideration that there is zero forensic evidence linking the death of JonBenet to any intruder, and conversely there is evidence linking the parents directly to the fake crime-scene.

but do you think the cord was a prop or actually used to strangle JBR?

It was patently a prop, part of the crime-scene staging. JonBenet could quite easily have been killed without the use of the cord. e.g. suffocation by a hand over her mouth. But it was used to kill her, it was the final nail in her coffin, after being whacked on the head, manually asphyxiated, and sexually assaulted, its true purpose was to hide or obsfucate the former assaults, to this end a garrote handle was added along with innefectual fake wrist restraints. Advocates of the Accident Theory have to explain why 911, ER or medical assistance was not called since JonBenet was alive after suffering her head injury. Plainly whomever inflicted her injuries wanted her dead, they did not want her alive and talking!

An intruder could have left the Ramsey house with JonBenet and then carried out whatever criminal purposes were intended, to hang around to write ransom notes, note the plural, search the house for clean clothing, wipe JonBenet down, wrap her in blankets and place her down in the wine-cellar, which the intruder would not even know existed, and to accomplish all this without leaving any trace forensic evidence, demonstrates why it never occured!

 

[JMO8778]

It was patently a prop, part of the crime-scene staging. JonBenet could quite easily have been killed without the use of the cord. e.g. suffocation by a hand over her mouth. But it was used to kill her, it was the final nail in her coffin, after being whacked on the head, manually asphyxiated, and sexually assaulted, its true purpose was to hide or obsfucate the former assaults, to this end a garrote handle was added along with innefectual fake wrist restraints.

Holdon states JB was garroted in her bed...but that leaves open his comment that the cord was brought w. the intruder,for why would an intruder bring his own cord along,but yet no stick to construct a garotte?
And then we have the fact that the stick ie-paintbrush,came from the basement...so both his comments are thus proved to be false...ie she was not garotted in her bed,and even so,an intruder who brought along his own cord for the purpose of making his own garrote would also have brought along his own stick.He could not have counted on finding this item in the house.

 

[UKGuy]

Holdon states JB was garroted in her bed...but that leaves open his comment that the cord was brought w. the intruder,for why would an intruder bring his own cord along,but yet no stick to construct a garotte?
And then we have the fact that the stick ie-paintbrush,came from the basement...so both his comments are thus proved to be false...ie she was not garotted in her bed,and even so,an intruder who brought along his own cord for the purpose of making his own garrote would also have brought along his own stick.He could not have counted on finding this item in the house.

JMO8778,
I guess to use the term garotted may be misleading, since the paintbrush handle was applied down in the basement whilst theoretically her ligature strangulation by cord could have occurred anywhere else, you decide?

After killing JonBenet why did the intruder bother writing a ransom note, he knows she is dead, he knows he is going to leave the body indoors, why waste the time, the intruder theory is plainly nonsense, all promoted by Lou Smit!

Why would an intruder wish to stage a crime-scene and remove some forensic evidence, when he can avoid all of that by simply removing JonBenet as per the ransom note?

The Intruder Theory has no forensic evidence that links to an intruder, it requires the intruder to have specialized knowledge of the Ramsey house and the clothing locations etc.

Its a valid theory to explain away a domestic homicide but in JonBenet's case it has no explanatory power, and zero forensic evidence, so it must go to the back of the theory queue, in preference to those theories that explain some of the crime-scene and admit forensic evidence.


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
I guess to use the term garotted may be misleading, since the paintbrush handle was applied down in the basement whilst theoretically her ligature strangulation by cord could have occurred anywhere else, you decide?

the paintbrush was part of the garrote,it would be logical to assume it was built where the brush was,ie-she was not strangled first with the rope in her bed,then the paintbrush added later in the basement,as per Holdon's IDI theory would demand.It makes no sense.

Why would an intruder wish to stage a crime-scene and remove some forensic evidence, when he can avoid all of that by simply removing JonBenet as per the ransom note?

indeed.the fact ALL of it wasn't taken doesn't point to an IDI..it points to the parents not being able to accommodate removing everything,so they take what they believe to be most imprt...the package of size 12 underwear,and what,if any,was left of the rope and tape.

The Intruder Theory has no forensic evidence that links to an intruder, it requires the intruder to have specialized knowledge of the Ramsey house and the clothing locations etc.

yes,esp the clothing,which is small and hard to find !!

 

[UKGuy]

the paintbrush was part of the garrote,it would be logical to assume it was built where the brush was,ie-she was not strangled first with the rope in her bed,then the paintbrush added later in the basement,as per Holdon's IDI theory would demand.It makes no sense.


indeed.the fact ALL of it wasn't taken doesn't point to an IDI..it points to the parents not being able to accommodate removing everything,so they take what they believe to be most imprt...the package of size 12 underwear,and what,if any,was left of the rope and tape.



yes,esp the clothing,which is small and hard to find !!

JMO8778,

the paintbrush was part of the garrote,it would be logical to assume it was built where the brush was,ie-she was not strangled first with the rope in her bed,then the paintbrush added later in the basement,as per Holdon's IDI theory would demand.It makes no sense.

Yes its logical to assume that the garrote was built where the paint-tote and and wooden shards were discovered, but not so logical to assume that she was ligature strangled there, that may have occurred elsewhere, I'm not maintaining that it did, simply that as a possibility it cannot be ruled out.


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Yes its logical to assume that the garrote was built where the paint-tote and and wooden shards were discovered, but not so logical to assume that she was ligature strangled there, that may have occurred elsewhere, I'm not maintaining that it did, simply that as a possibility it cannot be ruled out.


.

it could have been part of the staging that was added later,yes,but as far as an intruder doing that,it would make no sense at all.that's highly unlikely,why would an intruder care to add a paintbrush to the scene if she's already been strangled?

 

[Peter Hamilton]

I vote for number 6--parental Rage--the mother

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

the paintbrush was part of the garrote,it would be logical to assume it was built where the brush was,ie-she was not strangled first with the rope in her bed,then the paintbrush added later in the basement,as per Holdon's IDI theory would demand.It makes no sense.

How does my theory demand the paintbrush be added later in the basement?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

JMO8778,
I guess to use the term garotted may be misleading, since the paintbrush handle was applied down in the basement whilst theoretically her ligature strangulation by cord could have occurred anywhere else, you decide?

After killing JonBenet why did the intruder bother writing a ransom note, he knows she is dead, he knows he is going to leave the body indoors, why waste the time, the intruder theory is plainly nonsense, all promoted by Lou Smit!

Why would an intruder wish to stage a crime-scene and remove some forensic evidence, when he can avoid all of that by simply removing JonBenet as per the ransom note?

The Intruder Theory has no forensic evidence that links to an intruder, it requires the intruder to have specialized knowledge of the Ramsey house and the clothing locations etc.

Its a valid theory to explain away a domestic homicide but in JonBenet's case it has no explanatory power, and zero forensic evidence, so it must go to the back of the theory queue, in preference to those theories that explain some of the crime-scene and admit forensic evidence.


.

Saying there is zero forensic evidence of an intruder over and over again doesn't make it so:

DNA not yet sourced to anybody, was used to test JMK.
Fibers and hairs not sourced to anybody who lives there.
Handwriting not matched to an R conclusively.
Cord and tape not sourced to the R's.
Shoeprint not matched to anybody.

You're right about specialized knowledge, which the intruder had. Its the only way an intruder could arrive, stay for hours and hours, and leave with near impunity. There's no doubt in my mind.

 

[DeeDee249]

How does my theory demand the paintbrush be added later in the basement?

Paintbrush shards were found outside the wineceller door, in the basement.
There were NO white nylon cord fibers found in the bed. There were, however fibers found in the bed from a brown hemp rope, that was found in JAR's bedroom, right next to JBR's.
If any part of the strangulation occured in the JBR's bed, it conceivably coukld have been the hemp rope that was used for that. There was that horrible triangular abrasion on her neck, which could have been caused by the twisting of the much-thicker hemp rope. Of course, no hemp fibers were reported in the autopsy as being found in the ligature furrow, nor was it stated that these hemp fibers were found anywhere on JBR or anywhere else, other than in the bed.
Needless to say, there is no way an intruder could have known that hemp rope was in that bedroom, hidden under a bed in a paper bag.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Paintbrush shards were found outside the wineceller door, in the basement.

From this nobody can really conclude the paintbrush was added to the garrote in the basement. The shards could've been left there in the afternoon.

There were NO white nylon cord fibers found in the bed.

This is in contrast to what was apparently presented as case evidence to a federal judge. This judge was given information that cord fibers found in JBR's bed were from the cord used in the garrote.

 

[DeeDee249]

Do you have that info? Because I've never seen it. I have only read about the hemp fibers being found.

Anyone have either link to post?

I don't know how to do it... I'm old.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sure

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes71-80.htm

2nd paragraph

 

[DeeDee249]

Sure

http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes71-80.htm

2nd paragraph

Thanks! I read a lot of acandyrose, but not every word, and I like to consider all evidence. I am always willing to own up to missing something.
It does also mention the hemp rope that I mentioned. And I saw that the Rs denied ownership of this rope. (along with the flashlight, kleenex, pineapple etc).
BUT in many JBR sites (and I THINK acandyrose, too) there is a lovely picture of JBR with braids and wearing a gingham blouse and jeans, kind of a "Western" look- and there at her feet was the EXACT type of hemp rope.
Also somewhere among PR many depositions she is asked about the many Christmas trees and the other decorations. She said that there were decorated trees in every bedroom, as well as many other places, in preparation for the Christmas House Tour. She said that the tree in JAR's bedroom was decorated with little cowboy boots... and hemp rope was used as garland!

 

[UKGuy]

it could have been part of the staging that was added later,yes,but as far as an intruder doing that,it would make no sense at all.that's highly unlikely,why would an intruder care to add a paintbrush to the scene if she's already been strangled?

JMO8778, The intruder theory is nonsense, until there is evidence on the table its not worth considering. But someone in the house could have added the paintbrush after JonBenet had been ligature strangled, after all, it is intended as staging! Consider her original assault and death taking place elsewhere in the house, then JonBenet's body is prepared and wrapped for dumping outdoors away from the house. Then comes a change of plan, and they then proceed with staging in the basement? .

 

[UKGuy]

Saying there is zero forensic evidence of an intruder over and over again doesn't make it so:

DNA not yet sourced to anybody, was used to test JMK.
Fibers and hairs not sourced to anybody who lives there.
Handwriting not matched to an R conclusively.
Cord and tape not sourced to the R's.
Shoeprint not matched to anybody.

You're right about specialized knowledge, which the intruder had. Its the only way an intruder could arrive, stay for hours and hours, and leave with near impunity. There's no doubt in my mind.

Holdontoyourhat, Sure but all your unmatched evidence does not of neccessity link to anyone outside of the Ramsey household, just as you use the term conclusively to qualify an item of evidence, all the evidence may have its origin from a prior event source e.g. workmen repairing, past invited guest on guided tours etc. That is it may not be contemporary with the crime-scene. What you cite as evidence has no force, its circumstantial, it happens to be there, but not linked directly to any intruder, that means zero forensic evidence. In a trial all you are placing on the productions table is unmatched items, every crime-scene has these elements.

You're right about specialized knowledge, which the intruder had. Its the only way an intruder could arrive, stay for hours and hours, and leave with near impunity. There's no doubt in my mind.

Sure and that means one of two things either the killer is a family member or a family friend with the specialized knowledge? .

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778, The intruder theory is nonsense, until there is evidence on the table its not worth considering. But someone in the house could have added the paintbrush after JonBenet had been ligature strangled, after all, it is intended as staging! Consider her original assault and death taking place elsewhere in the house, then JonBenet's body is prepared and wrapped for dumping outdoors away from the house. Then comes a change of plan, and they then proceed with staging in the basement? .

yes,that's just what I said,and that's what I've been saying all along about getting her out of the house,why else bother to say her remains are going be denied?

 

[JMO8778]

Holdontoyourhat, Sure but all your unmatched evidence does not of neccessity link to anyone outside of the Ramsey household, just as you use the term conclusively to qualify an item of evidence, all the evidence may have its origin from a prior event source e.g. workmen repairing, past invited guest on guided tours etc.

yes,and the R's had a whole enterage of ppl coming and going throughout the house for many reasons..home tours,parties,etc,months b/f this crime occured.

That is it may not be contemporary with the crime-scene. What you cite as evidence has no force, its circumstantial, it happens to be there, but not linked directly to any intruder, that means zero forensic evidence. In a trial all you are placing on the productions table is unmatched items, every crime-scene has these elements.

even if someone bought a brand new home,there would still be evidence of others inside the house,it has to be weeded out as to what's imprt and what is not relevant.Patsy's fibers from the jacket she wore in the paint tote,and entwined in the wrappings of the garrote,when by her own admission she never wore that jacket to the basement,place her at the crime scene and are relevant.As well as JR's fibers also.
Artifact DNA that was not even fresh and placed there at the same time as JB's was is not relevent.BR's shoeprint and Melinda's palm print are irrelevant as well.(sry,I goofed earlier).Patsy's arm hair found on the blanket appears to be relevant.
And no 'intruder' would bother to garrote JB in bed,and later add a paintbrush handle in the basement.It makes no sense.