The Grand Jury

[coloradokares]

What is inane about it is that with that law, if a child under 10 is involved, the crime never happened. So when the case "disappears"....it automatically points a finger at the child!

Now, is the Colorado law concerning a child if the child is GUILTY of the crime or merely INVOLVED in the crime?

Either it is moot, crazy eh?

 

[UKGuy]

What is inane about it is that with that law, if a child under 10 is involved, the crime never happened. So when the case "disappears"....it automatically points a finger at the child!

Now, is the Colorado law concerning a child if the child is GUILTY of the crime or merely INVOLVED in the crime?

DeeDee249,

Probably both, e.g. an innocent child witness would presumably be afforded the same protection else what is the point?


.

 

[BOESP]

What is inane about it is that with that law, if a child under 10 is involved, the crime never happened. So when the case "disappears"....it automatically points a finger at the child!

Now, is the Colorado law concerning a child if the child is GUILTY of the crime or merely INVOLVED in the crime?

DeeDee, I hope someone who knows can answer your question. Where I live, children are not exempt. If they are indicted, they are considered juveniles and their name is not made public, however, they still must be accountable. If the crime justifies it they can be tried as adults.

If you haven't read the old threads here by Blue Crab and the possible involvement of children in JonBenet's death, it is interesting reading.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee, I hope someone who knows can answer your question. Where I live, children are not exempt. If they are indicted, they are considered juveniles and their name is not made public, however, they still must be accountable. If the crime justifies it they can be tried as adults.

If you haven't read the old threads here by Blue Crab and the possible involvement of children in JonBenet's death, it is interesting reading.

I lurked here for a long time, so I remember Blue Crab's posts, though I notice he is no longer here. (what happened to him, BTW?) I am familiar with his basic theories about BR's guilt in the murder of his sister and how and why his parents (and Colorado law) have protected him.

 

[Albert18]

The problem with BlueCrab's theory is that it made no sense. A minor issue.

The logic goes like this.

It is obvious there was no intruder. Which means one or more of the three Ramsey's who survived the night was responsible. The parents won't say what happened. The Boulder DA seems to know what happened but won't do anything. Colorado has a law that protects children under 10 from prosecution. Therefore it must have been Burke.

Because Colorado has a law protecting children under 10 and no charges were ever filed in the case, Burke must have done it. Holy Fright!

Here are the problems with the theory.

There is zero evidence linking Burke to the crime.

The Boulder DA's office has a proven track record of not doing anything against adults. The Midyette case might be a hint.

The mechanics of the crime says Burke could not have done it alone.

Physical evidence points to Patsy.

The law protects Burke but not Patsy.

If Burke or Patsy said anything, Patsy would be in trouble.

John shields Patsy but doesn't do the same with Burke. They hire the best lawyers money can buy and nobody is worried a child (a child) might undo everything? Maybe that tells us the child doesn't know anything?

I think it boils down to this. This case involves real people. Burke was just a little boy when this happened and we aren't talking about who broke a lamp. This is about the death of his sister and it is being mean and heartless to implicate him in her death unless there is evidence to suggest he was involved. Colorado having a law isn't evidence.

The fact Patsy went to her death without clearing the air so Burke could live in peace tells me all I need to know about her, although there may have been concern about John's skin. So, if John doesn't have a statement released after his death explaining what happened and giving peace to Burke, Melinda and John Andrew, then he and Patsy really are contemptible people.

Of course if John does release a statement and it only implicates Patsy, then he will be accused of protecting himself and/or Burke.

Of course if John doesn't release a statement upon his death, it would be argued he is still protecting Burke.

 

[BOESP]

The problem with BlueCrab's theory is that it made no sense. A minor issue.

The logic goes like this.

It is obvious there was no intruder. Which means one or more of the three Ramsey's who survived the night was responsible. The parents won't say what happened. The Boulder DA seems to know what happened but won't do anything. Colorado has a law that protects children under 10 from prosecution. Therefore it must have been Burke.

Because Colorado has a law protecting children under 10 and no charges were ever filed in the case, Burke must have done it. Holy Fright!

Here are the problems with the theory.

There is zero evidence linking Burke to the crime.

The Boulder DA's office has a proven track record of not doing anything against adults. The Midyette case might be a hint.

The mechanics of the crime says Burke could not have done it alone.

Physical evidence points to Patsy.

The law protects Burke but not Patsy.

If Burke or Patsy said anything, Patsy would be in trouble.

John shields Patsy but doesn't do the same with Burke. They hire the best lawyers money can buy and nobody is worried a child (a child) might undo everything? Maybe that tells us the child doesn't know anything?

I think it boils down to this. This case involves real people. Burke was just a little boy when this happened and we aren't talking about who broke a lamp. This is about the death of his sister and it is being mean and heartless to implicate him in her death unless there is evidence to suggest he was involved. Colorado having a law isn't evidence.

The fact Patsy went to her death without clearing the air so Burke could live in peace tells me all I need to know about her, although there may have been concern about John's skin. So, if John doesn't have a statement released after his death explaining what happened and giving peace to Burke, Melinda and John Andrew, then he and Patsy really are contemptible people.

Of course if John does release a statement and it only implicates Patsy, then he will be accused of protecting himself and/or Burke.

Of course if John doesn't release a statement upon his death, it would be argued he is still protecting Burke.

I admit the evidence, as known to the public, suggests parental involvement. However, I seriously doubt all the evidence is public. I tend to go along with Steve Thomas's theory of who killed JonBenet and how. I do appreciate you making the above points since it is always good to argue both sides of a theory.

There are those who use Lou Smit's investigation results to exclude Patsy. So, there are two sides to each coin. I don't agree with much of what Smit said, especially the part about the taser and the use of the basement window as an entry point but some do believe his analysis.

As I see it, no one on the Internet can come to a fully accurate conclusion unless they have access to all the evidence. I don't have access, so I can't state with surety what is suggested by the evidence. I think Steve Thomas is as close as we can come to someone with first-hand knowledge without an ax to grind. Some say he just wanted to be a hero, however, he had no reason to personally target Patsy unless that is where he thought the evidence led. He could have picked anyone as his suspect if he was truly just wanting to be a hero. Instead, based on evidence available to the public (including the various Ramsey videos), it suggests Thomas made an accurate assessment of what happened in this case, in my opinion.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response, Albert. I appreciate the good discussion.

 

[UKGuy]

I admit the evidence, as known to the public, suggests parental involvement. However, I seriously doubt all the evidence is public. I tend to go along with Steve Thomas's theory of who killed JonBenet and how. I do appreciate you making the above points since it is always good to argue both sides of a theory.

BOESP,
Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence.

The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor.

Although other aspects of her staging were given attention e.g. garrote, wrist restraints, mouth gag, clean size-12 underwear, the one item pointing to a bedwetting was left ignored.

Patently the stager did not consider her urine-soaked longjohns as important evidence?

Also Steve Thomas states in his book that his theory is not conclusive, imo its simply there to pad the theory chapter out, his main suspect was always John, not Patsy!

.

 

[coloradokares]

BOESP,
Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence.

The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor.

Although other aspects of her staging were given attention e.g. garrote, wrist restraints, mouth gag, clean size-12 underwear, the one item pointing to a bedwetting was left ignored.

Patently the stager did not consider her urine-soaked longjohns as important evidence?

Also Steve Thomas states in his book that his theory is not conclusive, imo its simply there to pad the theory chapter out, his main suspect was always John, not Patsy!

.

I have tossed that around for years, was Steve Thomas regarding JR as his main suspect? Therefore going through the back door trying to break Patsy. Only because I have personally heard accounts from what I consider to be impeccable sources, I have to say that those sources felt firmly that Steve Thomas at least appeared to consider Patsy as the main suspect or at the least that was how it appeared. That is not to say that John did not play any role in this. I think it'd be hard to deny he had a role in the staging. Dont we all wish we could be with Steve Thomas a few hours in a sound proof room, what I do know is there are just to many indications the situations were totally off the charts to only point towards John. The train was totally derailed, simple as it appears, I think the truth was complicated.

 

[BOESP]

Responses below in blue:

BOESP,
Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence. Could you be specific about what current forensic evidence you are referring to? Based on my knowledge of the case, Thomas's theory is consistent with all that is known to the public so I'd like to hear your opinion on what new evidence is against the bedwetting theory and why.

The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor. Most dead people will evacuate the bladder and colon due to loss of muscle control but most bladders do not fully evacuate during natural urges. Some urine would likely remain in the bladder after normal evacuation and particularly if a bit of time passes between the discovered bed-wetting incident and the time of death. I can't discount the bedwetting theory based on the fact she was found in urine-soaked clothing. I'm not sure "soaked" is accurate either but maybe you could point to a source that indicates that. Also, could you source the info about her soiled pants being on her bathroom floor upstairs? TIA

Although other aspects of her staging were given attention e.g. garrote, wrist restraints, mouth gag, clean size-12 underwear, the one item pointing to a bedwetting was left ignored. It is possible postmortem urination could have gone unnoticed by whoever staged the scene. Hiding involuntary urination may not have been a concern of the stager but it is a possibility. If JonBenet was barely alive when taken to the basement, the staging could have been done perimortem with the stager, perhaps, thinking JonBenet was already clinically dead when in fact she was not. So, until a sequence is proved that she was dead before the staging was done I'm not comfortable saying postmortem evacuation means something that might discredit Thomas's theory.

Patently the stager did not consider her urine-soaked longjohns as important evidence? The stager may have thought she was dead when in fact she was not clinically dead (details, I hope, answered above ).

Also Steve Thomas states in his book that his theory is not conclusive, imo its simply there to pad the theory chapter out, his main suspect was always John, not Patsy! Yes, Thomas was clear that his theory was not conclusive. He was making a theory based on what he knew but leaving open the possibility, if new evidence arose, that he could be incorrect. I didn't read anything into his statements that makes me think he was padding the book.

 

[BOESP]

I have tossed that around for years, was Steve Thomas regarding JR as his main suspect? Therefore going through the back door trying to break Patsy. Only because I have personally heard accounts from what I consider to be impeccable sources, I have to say that those sources felt firmly that Steve Thomas at least appeared to consider Patsy as the main suspect or at the least that was how it appeared. That is not to say that John did not play any role in this. I think it'd be hard to deny he had a role in the staging. Dont we all wish we could be with Steve Thomas a few hours in a sound proof room, what I do know is there are just to many indications the situations were totally off the charts to only point towards John. The train was totally derailed, simple as it appears, I think the truth was complicated.

I have wondered the exact same thing (boldface above). I have also wondered if JonBenet may have acted defiantly about staying up a little longer to play since Burke was being allowed to do so. Maybe a family spat over her going to bed set the stage. Maybe there was pushing and shoving. Who knows. Regardless, it seems awfully far-fetched to believe an Intruder did this.

I think John Ramsey's behavior is consistent with someone who is expert at compartmentalizing. I'm also not satisfied JonBenet's death had anything to do with sexual molestation although it seems likely she was molested in some manner. I think Thomas's idea of corporal cleansing fits as well as digital penetration for sexual exploration or gratification, particularly if her mother inserted a douching tube.

 

[rashomon]

I have tossed that around for years, was Steve Thomas regarding JR as his main suspect? Therefore going through the back door trying to break Patsy. Only because I have personally heard accounts from what I consider to be impeccable sources, I have to say that those sources felt firmly that Steve Thomas at least appeared to consider Patsy as the main suspect or at the least that was how it appeared. That is not to say that John did not play any role in this. I think it'd be hard to deny he had a role in the staging. Dont we all wish we could be with Steve Thomas a few hours in a sound proof room, what I do know is there are just to many indications the situations were totally off the charts to only point towards John. The train was totally derailed, simple as it appears, I think the truth was complicated.

It is important to note that by the time Steve Thomas wrote his book, the underwear had not even been tested, therefore he could not have known that fibers from John's shirt had been found in the crotch area of JonBenet's underwear. I'm convinced that, had ST been aware of this evidence, he would not have given John Ramsey a pass, but considered the possibility that he aided Patsy in staging the scene.
Imo ST, guided by the evidence (fibers, handwriting analysis), identified Patsy correctly as the MAIN stager of the scene, and imo it is logical to assume that the main stager of the scene was also involved in the killing.

 

[rashomon]

. The case never got off the ground, thanks to the DA. This case is often categorized as a miscarriage of justice.

It wasn't a miscarriage.

It was an ABORTION!

Excellent!!! Brilliantly worded, Dave. And so very true.


S. Thomas writes about one of the most unbelievable briefings of the case he sat through as Commander Beckner explained Hofstrom's grand jury parameters:
After a meeting with Hofstrom, Beckner told the BPD the DA's 'game plan':
ST, p. 276 (bold type mine):

- The grand jury might have the sole mission of helping to secure records, testimony,and evidence.
- It might not hear the entire case at all.
- It would not be used to obtain an indictment.
- And if a runaway grand jury somehow returned an indictment on its own, the DA would not be obliged to prosecute.

More info on the grand jury farce:

ST's book, hardcover ed. chapter 29, p. 275-281
chapter 31, p. 299, p. 301
chapter 36, p. 349-351

Hunter also once seems to have been involved in a deal where he secretly promised the defense attorney of Thayne Smika who had shot Sid Wells, the boyfriend of Robert Redford's daughter, that the 1983 grand jury would not indict Smika. (ST, p. 350).

What is to be expected form a DA like Hunter?

The grand jurors were probably fed case info heavily slanted toward IDI (for example, Lou Smit testified, but Steve Thomas wasn't called), and in the end coward Hunter got what he wanted: he could hide behind the grand jury's back.

jmo

 

[coloradokares]

Excellent!!! Brilliantly worded, Dave. And so very true.


S. Thomas writes about one of the most unbelievable briefings of the case he sat through as Commander Beckner explained Hofstrom's grand jury parameters:
After a meeting with Hofstrom, Beckner told the BPD the DA's 'game plan':
ST, p. 276 (bold type mine):



More info on the grand jury farce:

ST's book, hardcover ed. chapter 29, p. 275-281
chapter 31, p. 299, p. 301
chapter 36, p. 349-351

Hunter also once seems to have been involved in a deal where he secretly promised the defense attorney of Thayne Smika who had shot Sid Wells, the boyfriend of Robert Redford's daughter, that the 1983 grand jury would not indict Smika. (ST, p. 350).

What is to be expected form a DA like Hunter?

The grand jurors were probably fed case info heavily slanted toward IDI (for example, Lou Smit testified, but Steve Thomas wasn't called), and in the end coward Hunter got what he wanted: he could hide behind the grand jury's back.

jmo

Exactlly!

 

[Albert18]

The theory that Steve Thomas put forth is that something (a toileting issue) hacked Patsy off and JonBenet bore the brunt of it. What evidence doesn't support that?

Toileting issues were a major issue in JonBenet's life.

The reason the staging sucks is because you have a mom, it's the middle of the night, it's dark, she has to work by flashlight at times, she hasn't read Mind Hunter, she's working with her daughter, not a doll, and she's working alone.

The staging was said to be overdone and clumsy. Read the above paragraph again and you can see why.

 

[UKGuy]

Responses below in blue:

BOESP,
Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence. Could you be specific about what current forensic evidence you are referring to? Based on my knowledge of the case, Thomas's theory is consistent with all that is known to the public so I'd like to hear your opinion on what new evidence is against the bedwetting theory and why.

The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor. Most dead people will evacuate the bladder and colon due to loss of muscle control but most bladders do not fully evacuate during natural urges. Some urine would likely remain in the bladder after normal evacuation and particularly if a bit of time passes between the discovered bed-wetting incident and the time of death. I can't discount the bedwetting theory based on the fact she was found in urine-soaked clothing. I'm not sure "soaked" is accurate either but maybe you could point to a source that indicates that. Also, could you source the info about her soiled pants being on her bathroom floor upstairs? TIA

Although other aspects of her staging were given attention e.g. garrote, wrist restraints, mouth gag, clean size-12 underwear, the one item pointing to a bedwetting was left ignored. It is possible postmortem urination could have gone unnoticed by whoever staged the scene. Hiding involuntary urination may not have been a concern of the stager but it is a possibility. If JonBenet was barely alive when taken to the basement, the staging could have been done perimortem with the stager, perhaps, thinking JonBenet was already clinically dead when in fact she was not. So, until a sequence is proved that she was dead before the staging was done I'm not comfortable saying postmortem evacuation means something that might discredit Thomas's theory.

Patently the stager did not consider her urine-soaked longjohns as important evidence? The stager may have thought she was dead when in fact she was not clinically dead (details, I hope, answered above ).

Also Steve Thomas states in his book that his theory is not conclusive, imo its simply there to pad the theory chapter out, his main suspect was always John, not Patsy! Yes, Thomas was clear that his theory was not conclusive. He was making a theory based on what he knew but leaving open the possibility, if new evidence arose, that he could be incorrect. I didn't read anything into his statements that makes me think he was padding the book.

BOESP,

I can't discount the bedwetting theory based on the fact she was found in urine-soaked clothing. I'm not sure "soaked" is accurate either but maybe you could point to a source that indicates that.

JonBenet Ramsey Autopsy Report:

There are long white underwear with an elastic waist band containing a red
and blue stripe. The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over
the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath
the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the
words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine
stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas
of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.

Could you be specific about what current forensic evidence you are referring to?

I already did: The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor. When JonBenet was placed into the wine-cellar she was wrapped in the white blankets, if she was sexually assaulted either digitally or by the paintbrush, or her underwear was replaced by the size-12's, it would be obvious that her clothing was urine-soaked? This lack of attention to this staging detail contrasts with other items, not least the wiped clean flashlight. The reference to the soiled pants is in one of the interviews.

Hiding involuntary urination may not have been a concern of the stager but it is a possibility. If JonBenet was barely alive when taken to the basement, the staging could have been done perimortem with the stager, perhaps, thinking JonBenet was already clinically dead when in fact she was not. So, until a sequence is proved that she was dead before the staging was done I'm not comfortable saying postmortem evacuation means something that might discredit Thomas's theory.

If JonBenet had wet the bed there would be nothing left to contribute towards a postmortem release! That the crime-scene was staged, and the stager ignored elements of the alleged original motivating factors, e.g. either the urine soaked longjohns, or the soiled pants, both indicate a prior toileting incident. These are inconsistent with the stagers desire to remove incriminating forensic evidence ie were her size-6's removed because they were urine-soaked or soiled too?

Also Steve Thomas states in his book that his theory is not conclusive, imo its simply there to pad the theory chapter out, his main suspect was always John, not Patsy! Yes, Thomas was clear that his theory was not conclusive. He was making a theory based on what he knew but leaving open the possibility, if new evidence arose, that he could be incorrect. I didn't read anything into his statements that makes me think he was padding the book.

With the case still open and unresolved, you do not need to be a brain surgeon to work out that Steve Thomas is not going to tell the Ramsey's what his No. 1 theory is, so he simply iterates over theories already discussed and probably discounted, since none of the theories discussed are wholly supported by the forensic evidence, and as already mentioned his bedwetting theory as it stands is currently inconsistent.




.

 

[coloradokares]

BOESP,

JonBenet Ramsey Autopsy Report:



I already did: The wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, and JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, whilst upstairs soiled pants were left lying on JonBenet's bathroom floor. When JonBenet was placed into the wine-cellar she was wrapped in the white blankets, if she was sexually assaulted either digitally or by the paintbrush, or her underwear was replaced by the size-12's, it would be obvious that her clothing was urine-soaked? This lack of attention to this staging detail contrasts with other items, not least the wiped clean flashlight. The reference to the soiled pants is in one of the interviews.


If JonBenet had wet the bed there would be nothing left to contribute towards a postmortem release! That the crime-scene was staged, and the stager ignored elements of the alleged original motivating factors, e.g. either the urine soaked longjohns, or the soiled pants, both indicate a prior toileting incident. These are inconsistent with the stagers desire to remove incriminating forensic evidence ie were her size-6's removed because they were urine-soaked or soiled too?


With the case still open and unresolved, you do not need to be a brain surgeon to work out that Steve Thomas is not going to tell the Ramsey's what his No. 1 theory is, so he simply iterates over theories already discussed and probably discounted, since none of the theories discussed are wholly supported by the forensic evidence, and as already mentioned his bedwetting theory as it stands is currently inconsistent.




.

There are times I wish I could say more, make a few introductions, however the Patsy lost it theory isnt dead , discarded or considered to be disproved at least not in Boulder.

 

[DeeDee249]

The soiled panties that were seen in a crime scene photo on the floor of JBR's room (or bathroom) were inside a pair of pants, which were also described as soiled. We haven't seen THAT photo, but there is reference to it in PR's interview where LE is showing her that photo and asking her about it. I do not recall if the pants were the black velvet pants she wore to the White's, but if they were, and if PR discovered them solied upon return from Christmas dinner, that would surely be a trigger for the events that followed.

As far as the post-mortem urine release, it is possible that it occured after she was wrapped in the blanket and left in the basement. Though this release occurs right after death at primary flaccidity, JBR may have been THOUGHT dead but not YET dead when she was left there. The stagers may not have known it happened. However I have not seen any mention of the white blanket having urine stains, so this has to be considered when exploring this theory. The autopsy report states the long johns were stained on the ANTERIOR (front) of the legs and crotch, so this means she was lying on her stomach when she voided. However, she was allegedly found on her BACK in the wineceller. If we had only JR as witness to this, it could be suspect, but FW was there too and saw the body in situ in the room. I think if she had been found otherwise, he would have said it, because he did tell LE he had looked in the room earlier and didn't see the body. Now, if JBR had been left dead on her stomach, livor mortis patterns would indicate that, as well as indicating if she'd been moved after death. The livor patterns were non-blanching (fixed) and so from that we can infer she either died on her back or was placed on her back within 30 minutes of death (when livor begins).
Urine STAINED (as the autopsy states) is not the same as urine SOAKED but we have to remember that the autopsy took place the morning of December 27th, well over 24 hours after death and certainly long enough for the garments to dry. When he first arrived to pronounce her dead, the coroner made no comment about the clothes being wet or dry.
As far as the release of the contents of the bowel, this occurs after death only when the fecal matter is ready to be excreted, and then is emptied when the sphincter muscle relaxes at death. In JBR's case, this did not happen, as the soft green fecal matter noted in the autopsy was found in her intestines. This represented whatever she ate at the White's and the previous meals Christmas Day. The pineapple, being the last thing she ate before death, was still in the small intestine and still partially identifiable.

 

[UKGuy]

The soiled panties that were seen in a crime scene photo on the floor of JBR's room (or bathroom) were inside a pair of pants, which were also described as soiled. We haven't seen THAT photo, but there is reference to it in PR's interview where LE is showing her that photo and asking her about it. I do not recall if the pants were the black velvet pants she wore to the White's, but if they were, and if PR discovered them solied upon return from Christmas dinner, that would surely be a trigger for the events that followed.

As far as the post-mortem urine release, it is possible that it occured after she was wrapped in the blanket and left in the basement. Though this release occurs right after death at primary flaccidity, JBR may have been THOUGHT dead but not YET dead when she was left there. The stagers may not have known it happened. However I have not seen any mention of the white blanket having urine stains, so this has to be considered when exploring this theory. The autopsy report states the long johns were stained on the ANTERIOR (front) of the legs and crotch, so this means she was lying on her stomach when she voided. However, she was allegedly found on her BACK in the wineceller. If we had only JR as witness to this, it could be suspect, but FW was there too and saw the body in situ in the room. I think if she had been found otherwise, he would have said it, because he did tell LE he had looked in the room earlier and didn't see the body. Now, if JBR had been left dead on her stomach, livor mortis patterns would indicate that, as well as indicating if she'd been moved after death. The livor patterns were non-blanching (fixed) and so from that we can infer she either died on her back or was placed on her back within 30 minutes of death (when livor begins).
Urine STAINED (as the autopsy states) is not the same as urine SOAKED but we have to remember that the autopsy took place the morning of December 27th, well over 24 hours after death and certainly long enough for the garments to dry. When he first arrived to pronounce her dead, the coroner made no comment about the clothes being wet or dry.
As far as the release of the contents of the bowel, this occurs after death only when the fecal matter is ready to be excreted, and then is emptied when the sphincter muscle relaxes at death. In JBR's case, this did not happen, as the soft green fecal matter noted in the autopsy was found in her intestines. This represented whatever she ate at the White's and the previous meals Christmas Day. The pineapple, being the last thing she ate before death, was still in the small intestine and still partially identifiable.

DeeDee249,
From memory her black velvet pants were in her bedroom.

if PR discovered them solied upon return from Christmas dinner, that would surely be a trigger for the events that followed.

So why was this evidence not removed like other items?

The autopsy report states the long johns were stained on the ANTERIOR (front) of the legs and crotch, so this means she was lying on her stomach when she voided. However, she was allegedly found on her BACK in the wineceller.

The size-12 underwear were also urine-stained, also it is possible that when JonBenet was redressed in the white longjohns that they were placed on her back to front?

It is more likely that not that the urine-staining represents a post-mortem release, so when was JonBenet redressed and does her acute sexual trauma indicate that to inflict this trauma that her then urine-soaked clothing was ignored, since if it was missed by the eye then the nose could not fail to notice?



.

 

[Albert18]

Dr. Wright said JonBenet's bladder appeared to be emptied beyond the point that it would empty at the time of death. I assume he is suggesting JonBenet didn't have any urine release at the time of the death but had emtied her bladder sometime before she died.

Water does transfer. If you wet your pants and then sit on a cloth chair, the cloth chair will have a urine stain. That doesn't mean you wet your pants while sitting in the chair.

It seems to me the staging only says two things. Somebody tried to create acts that could be blamed on an intruder and JonBenet was left in a condition that point towards a family member and not a cold blooded killer. I don't see anything to suggest the staging was done to hide anything.

 

[BOESP]

...

With the case still open and unresolved, you do not need to be a brain surgeon to work out that Steve Thomas is not going to tell the Ramsey's what his No. 1 theory is, so he simply iterates over theories already discussed and probably discounted, since none of the theories discussed are wholly supported by the forensic evidence, and as already mentioned his bedwetting theory as it stands is currently inconsistent.

I don't agree UKGuy since the autopsy does not indicate JonBenet was "soaked" as you say since, in my view, "urine stained" does not necessarily mean "soaked."

I am not a brain surgeon, however, unless Steve Thomas tells me otherwise, I have no reason to believe he's changed his mind about what he said in his book, particularly since his last public statement was he stands by what he said in the book. I don't see what you are seeing (or not seeing) since what is known publicly supports Thomas's theory.

Incidentally, brain surgeons don't necessarily make good detectives.