The Best Untainted Evidence-The Ransom Letter

[DeeDee249]

What would anyone do to cover up a previous molestation? We know a garotte was fashioned to hide previous strangulation of JonBenet.

Any ideas?

Well, for one thing you could jam a broken paintbrush in the vagina, causing an injury that would hopefully mask any evidence of previous molestation. Of course we know that failed- the erosion, bruising and hyperemia were seen at autopsy.
Actually, some THINK the garrote was fashioned to hide a previous strangulation, but it really isn't a known fact. The autopsy mentioned only ligature strangulation (not garroting, which is different) and one would hope that Meyer would have picked up on any evidence of either manual strangulation or strangulation with some other material which was then masked by the ligature. He made no mention of any other means of strangulation.

 

[JMO8778]

I'm wondering if Dr Spitz has any basis for saying she was manually strangled first by her shirt collar then,or was that speculation only? I don't have my book on me.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm wondering if Dr Spitz has any basis for saying she was manually strangled first by her shirt collar then,or was that speculation only? I don't have my book on me.

JMO8778,
I reckon it all hangs on how you interpret the forensic evidence. Either you think the lower abrasions are concurrent with the ligature strangulation, or they form part of a prior manual strangulation?


In the absence of additional evidence either interpretation is defensible. Coroner Meyer basically lists what he thinks is the cause of death e.g. Ligature Strangulation and associated Head Injury, both of which contributed to the asphyxia.

Now since any Manual Strangulation would not have killed JonBenet and like other external injuries itemised may have been discounted as contributing towards her death for the purposes of writing up the autopsy report?

Assuming there was a manual strangulation, possibly does not change much, since there is then a head bash followed by the ligature strangulation. What might be contentious if a manual strangulation is assumed is that her killer may have thought her already dead, since the lack of internal neck injuries suggest the ligature strangulation was not executed with much force?


It could be as simple as an initial Restraint Asphyxia via JonBenet's collar, followed by a Head Bash, either accidental or deliberate, with the garroting intending as part of the cover up, and the sexual injuries intended to mask prior molestation.

So it may be that instead of a straight forward PDI it may be a combination of both e.g. PDI plus JDI, this then offers a rationale for both being involved in the staging?

 

[UKGuy]

Well, for one thing you could jam a broken paintbrush in the vagina, causing an injury that would hopefully mask any evidence of previous molestation. Of course we know that failed- the erosion, bruising and hyperemia were seen at autopsy.
Actually, some THINK the garrote was fashioned to hide a previous strangulation, but it really isn't a known fact. The autopsy mentioned only ligature strangulation (not garroting, which is different) and one would hope that Meyer would have picked up on any evidence of either manual strangulation or strangulation with some other material which was then masked by the ligature. He made no mention of any other means of strangulation.

DeeDee249,

Actually, some THINK the garrote was fashioned to hide a previous strangulation, but it really isn't a known fact. The autopsy mentioned only ligature strangulation (not garroting, which is different)

Thats the issue, also we know Coroner Meyer was privy to additional information, which has not been made public. His Autopsy Report was suggesting a cause of death, not a summary of all JonBenet's injuries and their origin.

I reckon if Coroner Meyer were called to the stand in court he would offer another opinion for the source of JonBenet's lower neck abrasions.

Consider how the garrote is not required to achieve the same visual outcome, JonBenet would still appear to have been ligature strangled, the ligature furrow would bear testimony to this. So the garrote is deliberate staging, probably intended to confuse and mask, but not hide the origin of the lower neck abrasions. Compare this with JonBenet's hidden sexual injury, both aspects can then be construed as staging, since her genital injury need not be hidden beneath layers of clothing.

So it appears to me that someone has carried JonBenet's body to the wine-cellar enacted a crime-scene staging then authored an accompanying ransom note.

Just why would you do all that if her death had been as the result of an accident?



.

 

[KoldKase]

UK, I'm confused as to whether you understand the "prior molestation" issues some of us believe were the motive behind the cover up. You seem to follow that, then you seem to be unaware of it.

So for the record, here's the theory: the "motive" behind not simply taking JonBenet to the emergency room when there was an "accidental" head injury was the knowledge that "someone" had been molesting the child and that would be found out in the ER. Therefore the person who had been molesting the child would be arrested, and Burke would have been taken in by DFCS, as well. Those closet skeletons would be out and howdy. The Ramseys would have lost control of their own family, been professionally and socially ruined, if it was one of the adults in the family doing the molesting, and shamed and stygmatized, if it was any relative of JonBenet's. It would have been even worse if the abuse and murder were committed by an adult.

Alex Hunter's STUNNING refusal to allow the Ramseys' phone records to be obtained under subpoena leads me to believe the Ramseys called for help that night and that's what led to the rest of the staging. They had a choice: take control and stage the scene so they could hang onto whatever public face of innocence they could manage, or watch one or more of them being taken into custody for the taboo and violent abuse of JonBenet, complete with a prison sentence, loss of all they'd worked their whole lives for, that golden ring they so enjoyed slipping right out of their fingers as they fell into disgrace. I believe Patsy knew immediately she could pull it off. She had prepared her whole life for this role, after all. The ransom note was key, and she was "a born publicist", as John himself called her. The rest was just money and connections. They had both.

 

[UKGuy]

UK, I'm confused as to whether you understand the "prior molestation" issues some of us believe were the motive behind the cover up. You seem to follow that, then you seem to be unaware of it.

So for the record, here's the theory: the "motive" behind not simply taking JonBenet to the emergency room when there was an "accidental" head injury was the knowledge that "someone" had been molesting the child and that would be found out in the ER. Therefore the person who had been molesting the child would be arrested, and Burke would have been taken in by DFCS, as well. Those closet skeletons would be out and howdy. The Ramseys would have lost control of their own family, been professionally and socially ruined, if it was one of the adults in the family doing the molesting, and shamed and stygmatized, if it was any relative of JonBenet's. It would have been even worse if the abuse and murder were committed by an adult.

Alex Hunter's STUNNING refusal to allow the Ramseys' phone records to be obtained under subpoena leads me to believe the Ramseys called for help that night and that's what led to the rest of the staging. They had a choice: take control and stage the scene so they could hang onto whatever public face of innocence they could manage, or watch one or more of them being taken into custody for the taboo and violent abuse of JonBenet, complete with a prison sentence, loss of all they'd worked their whole lives for, that golden ring they so enjoyed slipping right out of their fingers as they fell into disgrace. I believe Patsy knew immediately she could pull it off. She had prepared her whole life for this role, after all. The ransom note was key, and she was "a born publicist", as John himself called her. The rest was just money and connections. They had both.

KoldKase,

UK, I'm confused as to whether you understand the "prior molestation" issues some of us believe were the motive behind the cover up. You seem to follow that, then you seem to be unaware of it.

Not so sure if I understand all the issues in there entirety, so thanks for your lucid outline.

Well I reckon your theory moves us into the land of conspiracy rather than that of a standard violent homicide.

Was Alex Hunter aware of any prior molestation, were any of the Ramsey defense team similarly aware, failure to report any knowledge is a serious offence?

Your prior molestation theory has a compelling logic to since it closely mirrors the subsequent sequence of post-mortem events.

My only reservation is that if a prior molestation was being obsfucated by the staging, and an intruder kidnapper was to be blamed for JonBenet's injuries, how does that change any analysis regarding JonBenet's prior molestation ?

Lets assume what should have occured that morning, after the 911 call, at some early point in the house search JonBenet's corpse should have been discovered in the wine-cellar, say 30-45 minutes?

So fairly soon afterwards that JonBenet had been molested would become evident, so why stage an apparent sexual assault then hide it beneath layers of clothing, including nice clean size-12's that no kidnapper can be assumed to know to exist?

The conspiracy assumptions and the staging, never mind any certainty about it being successful become inconsistent.


.

 

[Chrishope]

KoldKase,

Not so sure if I understand all the issues in there entirety, so thanks for your lucid outline.

Well I reckon your theory moves us into the land of conspiracy rather than that of a standard violent homicide.

Was Alex Hunter aware of any prior molestation, were any of the Ramsey defense team similarly aware, failure to report any knowledge is a serious offence?

Your prior molestation theory has a compelling logic to since it closely mirrors the subsequent sequence of post-mortem events.

My only reservation is that if a prior molestation was being obsfucated by the staging, and an intruder kidnapper was to be blamed for JonBenet's injuries, how does that change any analysis regarding JonBenet's prior molestation ?

Lets assume what should have occured that morning, after the 911 call, at some early point in the house search JonBenet's corpse should have been discovered in the wine-cellar, say 30-45 minutes?

So fairly soon afterwards that JonBenet had been molested would become evident, so why stage an apparent sexual assault then hide it beneath layers of clothing, including nice clean size-12's that no kidnapper can be assumed to know to exist?

The conspiracy assumptions and the staging, never mind any certainty about it being successful become inconsistent.


.

It's possible they thought the fresh injuries would obscure evidence of prior assualt?

I agree, the staging is still inconsistent.

 

[LI_Mom]

UK, I'm confused as to whether you understand the "prior molestation" issues some of us believe were the motive behind the cover up. You seem to follow that, then you seem to be unaware of it.

So for the record, here's the theory: the "motive" behind not simply taking JonBenet to the emergency room when there was an "accidental" head injury was the knowledge that "someone" had been molesting the child and that would be found out in the ER. Therefore the person who had been molesting the child would be arrested, and Burke would have been taken in by DFCS, as well. Those closet skeletons would be out and howdy. The Ramseys would have lost control of their own family, been professionally and socially ruined, if it was one of the adults in the family doing the molesting, and shamed and stygmatized, if it was any relative of JonBenet's. It would have been even worse if the abuse and murder were committed by an adult.

Alex Hunter's STUNNING refusal to allow the Ramseys' phone records to be obtained under subpoena leads me to believe the Ramseys called for help that night and that's what led to the rest of the staging. They had a choice: take control and stage the scene so they could hang onto whatever public face of innocence they could manage, or watch one or more of them being taken into custody for the taboo and violent abuse of JonBenet, complete with a prison sentence, loss of all they'd worked their whole lives for, that golden ring they so enjoyed slipping right out of their fingers as they fell into disgrace. I believe Patsy knew immediately she could pull it off. She had prepared her whole life for this role, after all. The ransom note was key, and she was "a born publicist", as John himself called her. The rest was just money and connections. They had both.

I also remember there was some talk about possible connections to child .... something about John's company computers?

Isn't that one more thing that was quickly hushed up & made to 'disappear?'

 

[DeeDee249]

I also remember there was some talk about possible connections to child .... something about John's company computers?

Isn't that one more thing that was quickly hushed up & made to 'disappear?'

Supposedly JR had offices in Amsterdam, where is acceptable (even some versions that are illegal here. I had read that those computers were searched, as well as the home computers. But I never read what, if anything, was found.
Here's something I recall reading years ago, when the case was new:
That pictures of little girls in bondage poses and appearing dead or unconscious (the thrill for the perv is in the inability of the victim to resist) on the Amsterdam computers. Does anyone else recall this? I can't source it because it was 11 years ago, and I never heard anything more about it. I am sure it must have been a tabloid story.

 

[Eulalie]

New here -- I've been lurking, and I hope it's okay to post.

I do believe that the paintbrush assault was meant to cover up prior abuse.

But I've always wondered whether the story of Burke whacking JBR in the head with a golf club when she was three was a cover story. Could it be that a parent snapped and whacked JBR back then, and then used the Burke story to explain the injury to the doctors? If that were true, and then the parent snapped again on Dec. 25, 1996, that could be part of the reason JBR wasn't taken to the hospital after a possible enraged collar choke/head bash. The parent may have figured that they got away with the "accident" excuse once, and feared that they weren't going to get away with it a second time.

Just an opinion/thought...?

 

[LinasK]

New here -- I've been lurking, and I hope it's okay to post.

I do believe that the paintbrush assault was meant to cover up prior abuse.

But I've always wondered whether the story of Burke whacking JBR in the head with a golf club when she was three was a cover story. Could it be that a parent snapped and whacked JBR back then, and then used the Burke story to explain the injury to the doctors? If that were true, and then the parent snapped again on Dec. 25, 1996, that could be part of the reason JBR wasn't taken to the hospital after a possible enraged collar choke/head bash. The parent may have figured that they got away with the "accident" excuse once, and feared that they weren't going to get away with it a second time.

Just an opinion/thought...?

Welcome Eulalie! Good idea.

 

[BBB167893]

New here -- I've been lurking, and I hope it's okay to post.

I do believe that the paintbrush assault was meant to cover up prior abuse.

But I've always wondered whether the story of Burke whacking JBR in the head with a golf club when she was three was a cover story. Could it be that a parent snapped and whacked JBR back then, and then used the Burke story to explain the injury to the doctors? If that were true, and then the parent snapped again on Dec. 25, 1996, that could be part of the reason JBR wasn't taken to the hospital after a possible enraged collar choke/head bash. The parent may have figured that they got away with the "accident" excuse once, and feared that they weren't going to get away with it a second time.

Just an opinion/thought...?

Welcome aboard!

Never thought of that.

 

[UKGuy]

It's possible they thought the fresh injuries would obscure evidence of prior assualt?

I agree, the staging is still inconsistent.

Chrishope,

That is possible, and probably the best explanation, but why bother hiding it beneath layers of clothing, when you then make the strangulation visibly evident by applying a garrote? Simply leaving JonBenet naked from the waist down, would then have suggested that the cause of her genital injury was some nasty intruder kidnapper?


The difficulty explaining this aspect away is that it appears to be concurrent with the wine-cellar phase of staging. So suggesting it was a prior staging event appears weak.

This appears to imply that it was some sort of acute sexual assault which went wrong rather than some accident that was transformed into a fake sexual assault?

So until a better explanation for the staging emerges my provisional theory remains that of a Sexual Rage followed by a physical assault to silence JonBenet. This pattern of behaviour is not without precedent in child murders.

 

[UKGuy]

New here -- I've been lurking, and I hope it's okay to post.

I do believe that the paintbrush assault was meant to cover up prior abuse.

But I've always wondered whether the story of Burke whacking JBR in the head with a golf club when she was three was a cover story. Could it be that a parent snapped and whacked JBR back then, and then used the Burke story to explain the injury to the doctors? If that were true, and then the parent snapped again on Dec. 25, 1996, that could be part of the reason JBR wasn't taken to the hospital after a possible enraged collar choke/head bash. The parent may have figured that they got away with the "accident" excuse once, and feared that they weren't going to get away with it a second time.

Just an opinion/thought...?

Eulalie,
Hey there , post away, lets hear your thoughts? The thing about the Accident theory the second time around is that it may be incorrect. You may be looking at the opposite of what it was staged to look like.

You may right about using Burke as an excuse, the difference being the second time around was, it was a life or death decision, so if there is no innapropriate behaviour regarding JonBenet, other than some accident, what is there to lose, except some social standing and dignity?


.

 

[JMO8778]

I sometimes wonder if BR hit her on purpose w the golf club(?).Sure, accidents happen,but,if so,then a BDI theory would be stronger,if he'd done it again,only fatally this time.

 

[Eulalie]

Thank you all for the warm welcome!

I think there are good arguments that JR or Burke did it, but I lean toward the PR did it theory. It seems plausible to me that she may have snapped, choked JB with her turtleneck collar and then hit her over the head or slammed her head into something. If that's true, I wouldn't characterize that as a pure accident -- PR may not have meant to kill JB, but physical abuse leading even unintentionally to a child's death would cause more than just some loss of social standing. It would mean the removal of Burke from her custody, loss of their lifestyle, and a probable jail sentence. Expecially if she had choked JB with the turtleneck before bashing her head, it would be very difficult to explain the incident as an accident in the emergency room (even moreso if there had been a prior headbash incident -- i.e., Burke with the golf club).

I see the point about the redressing -- that certainly would be a staging mistake if someone were trying to point to an intruder. But I tend to think that a parent may not have been able to leave JB exposed from the waist down. I see the staging as a panicked combination of staged intruder scenario and parental guilt. It's like the note -- on one hand, it tried to point to an intruder, but on the other, because of a variety of factors it actually ended up pointing back to the family.

Just IMO!

 

[coloradokares]

New here -- I've been lurking, and I hope it's okay to post.

I do believe that the paintbrush assault was meant to cover up prior abuse.

But I've always wondered whether the story of Burke whacking JBR in the head with a golf club when she was three was a cover story. Could it be that a parent snapped and whacked JBR back then, and then used the Burke story to explain the injury to the doctors? If that were true, and then the parent snapped again on Dec. 25, 1996, that could be part of the reason JBR wasn't taken to the hospital after a possible enraged collar choke/head bash. The parent may have figured that they got away with the "accident" excuse once, and feared that they weren't going to get away with it a second time.

Just an opinion/thought...?

Whoa this really could fit if my suspicions are correct. I had never thought of it. I bought it. But you could be right. Only Burke would know the truth and I doubt he will ever discuss any of it.

 

[Squishified]

Eulalie,
Welcome!!! Those were excellent posts.:clap::clap:

 

[Chrishope]

Eulalie

Good thoughts. It never occurred to me that the first "club" incident was a cover.

I've always had trouble with the rage-injury scenario, but the way you explain is more convincing. I still have reservations though.

If the Rs were normal loving parents they'd put JBR before themselves, even if it means jail. And the consequences are a lot more severe if she dies than if she recovers.

 

[Chrishope]

Let me try to articulate, a bit better, what I'm thinking as regards the rage theory.

First, look at the sequence. Rage (understandable for anyone who has kids) leads to unintended injury. Injury is followed by killing, and elaborate though inconsistent staging. So, Rage-injury-killing-staging.

I think we have to ask two questions right after the injury. Did she have vital signs? Were they checked? If the answer is no, she didn't have any vital signs, then the scenario could proceed as you've described it. They could have figured that she's dead, nothing can be done about that, so now go to damage control. We are still left with the problem that the staging is inconsistent.

If her vitals were present and checked, then they might have proceeded to steps 3 and 4, killing-staging, but, it seems to me this requires a change in psychology. (I'm the first to admit I know nothing of psychology and there is no "normal" reaction - but I think there are common reactions)

If the Rs reacted as many many parents do, then after the injury they'd have checked vitals, and if they were present, they'd have called an ambulance. Perhaps they'd lie to the EMTs and say JBR fell down the stairs. They know their story won't fly, but their primary concern is for their child. They'll take their lumps, the way many parents do. Finishing her off (killing her) and then staging the elaborate cover up seems inconsistent with "normal" parental psychology.

IOW, rage-injury could happen to the best of parents. Killing-staging wouldn't normally follow, assuming her vital signs were present. Of course the vitals may never have been checked, which suggests there was no accident in the first place.

This will all have to remain conjecture.

I hope that made some sort of sense.