Thoughts and Logic

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH,

I agree there's a good probability that JonBenet was likely murdered by a male acting alone, but there is also a high probability that a coverup, involving the entire Ramsey family and others, is being carried out.

I used an example on another post, of police finding an adult female in the forest, in the same condition as JBR. The conclusion of police would likely be that the victim was sexually assaulted and murdered by strangulation and/or head trauma.

Further conclusions that would probably be made in the forest scenario is that the perp's motive for the sexual assault was personal gratification, and the motive for murder was to prevent the victim from becoming a witness.

 

[Tricia]

Me too armywife. I think the crack in her skull was way too big to have simply been 'knocked' against something. That would mean the intruder was careless and rushing - hardly fits in to not waking anyone up and Lord knows with the length of the RN we know the perp was in no hurry.

If you believe PDI then one of the theories is, while in the bathroom with JBR, Patsy reached over, twisted JBR's turtleneck, then slammed her head against the bathtub. In a fit of rage of course.

It could be as simple as what I just stated. Honestly, I don't know.

 

[Toltec]

To think that this "intruder" entered the home for the sole purpose of kidnapping....then changes his mind and decides to molest her is beyond belief.

This brute then writes a three page ransom letter...making horrible threats to behead JonBenet...but then requests that John be well rested.

The "intruder" shows respect for John by requesting he rest.

The "intruder" shows respect for a dead JonBenet by wrapping her "papoose" style before laying her on the floor.

A schizophrenic??? NO.

A IDD (split personality)??? YES

Patsy hit JonBenet over the head....causing Patsy to split, hence the threatening/compassionate mien.

 

[BlueCrab]

What is your theory on missing evidence ? I dont recall you addressing this issue .

sharpar,

IMO the missing crime scene evidence was removed from the house when the fifth person in the house that night, a secret guest of Burke and JonBenet, was ushered out the door by the Ramseys a couple of hours prior to the 5:52 AM 911 call by Patsy.

Some of the incriminating evidence he (they) took included camping materials consisting of Stansport brand white nylon cord and a roll of Shurtape brand black duct tape; the stun gun; the nine pages torn from the notepad; the indecently-carved tip of the paint brush handle; a pair of stained size 6 panties with DNA evidence on them; and the item of clothing he wore and he used to wipe down JonBenet's body.

That fifth person in the house that night, probably a juvenile, could have been either an accomplice or the actual killer.

BlueCrab

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

sharpar,

IMO the missing crime scene evidence was removed from the house when the fifth person in the house that night, a secret guest of Burke and JonBenet, was ushered out the door by the Ramseys a couple of hours prior to the 5:52 AM 911 call by Patsy.

Some of the incriminating evidence he (they) took included camping materials consisting of Stansport brand white nylon cord and a roll of Shurtape brand black duct tape; the stun gun; the nine pages torn from the notepad; the indecently-carved tip of the paint brush handle; a pair of stained size 6 panties with DNA evidence on them; and the item of clothing he wore and he used to wipe down JonBenet's body.

That fifth person in the house that night, probably a juvenile, could have been either an accomplice or the actual killer.

BlueCrab

Black duct tape. Isn't that a problem for RDI, since you don't know where it came from or where it went? Black duct tape adds to the criminal aspect of the crime, doesn't it. Why would an R bother with black?

 

[narlacat]

sharpar,

The representative from Air-Taser had a vested interest in trying to distance Air-Taser from the JonBenet murder. He flat-out misrepresented his product. They advertise their product as non-lethal, yet victims of stun gun shocks are dying regularly. Police departments all over the country who invested heavily in buying Air-Tasers are running into the problem. (I am personally not against police using stun guns, but the risks involved should not be covered up.)

IMO a stun gun had been used on JonBenet and is one of the items of evidence missing from the crime scene. The twin marks on JonBenet's back are identical to the spacing on a Taser brand stun gun. The information described in the website "The Stun Gun Myth" is erroneous. But you don't have to take my word for it. Measure the distances on the crime scene photos yourself and make your own comparisons. The distance between the twin metal prongs of a Taser and the distance between the twin marks on JonBenet's back are identical.

Moreover, the shape of the tiny rectangular burns on JonBenet are identical to the rectangular shape of the Taser's metal prongs.

Also, the slight misalignment of the twin marks on JonBenet was obviously due to the gun being pressed against JonBenet, thus slightly distorting her soft skin a fraction of a second before the trigger was pulled. Using a replica of the twin metal prongs, I successfully demonstrated this on my own arm several years ago. You can demonstrate this on your own forearm by pressing two fingernails (the middle and index fingers) hard and straight into your skin to leave twin marks on the skin; and then, several inches away do it again, only this time distort the skin with the two fingernails before pressing hard into the skin. The first mark will be in alignment and the second mark will be slightly out of alignment.

Incidentally, most medical experts who have had experience in analyzing stun gun injuries agree that the marks on JonBenet are consistent with stun gun injuries.

BlueCrab

I've heard even Doberson has gone on record to the press saying "You CANNOT tell by a photgraph" and apparently Meyer said "anything's possible".

 

[Becba]

Per the NE book. Patsy states JonBenet only wet the bed about once a week and that was usually when she did not take her to the potty before bed.

They had to get up very early and catch a plane the next day. Wouldn't you take the child to the toilet even if she were asleep. She had been at a party and slept thru the ride home which included dropping off packages. Her bladder would have been full by the time she was home. Very likely she would wet herself in the night. i've drug my sleepy children to the bathroom and basically held my sons up when they were little while they peed just to guarantee no accidents and a good nights rest for them.

Also Patsy states she doesn't believe John was aware JonBenet was wetting the bed. What? How could he not know?

 

[Nuisanceposter]

More lies and misdirection. Of course John knew JonBenet wet the bed. That's the type of things parents discuss about their children, especially when she's doing at age six and needs to see Dr. Beuf every month.

 

[Shanny]

Dragged??
I thought someone walked her in there because I read somehwhere that the bottom of her feet were dirty.

did not show loving care. JBR was simply dragged into the cellar room (arms were outstretched).....and the blanket thrown over her---her face and feet were sticking out. She was left with the garotte around her neck, and a crushed skull, and was stungunned in the face and back. The perp made an attempt to wipe her, leaving navy blue fibers on her. He wasn't that good--he left his DNA and footprint and handwriting on the note.

 

[UKGuy]

Dragged??
I thought someone walked her in there because I read somewhere that the bottom of her feet were dirty.

Maybe she was carried in, after being wrapped in the white blanket?

Depending on your favorite theory, her final resting place has some curiosities!

From memory I'll assume there was no urine staining on the white blanket, but that her size-6 white longjohns and size-12 underwear were urine stained.

So does thought and logic suggest she was redressed, say upstairs since thats where the size-12 underwear was sourced, as it was new out of the packet?

Dr. Meyer stated it appeared that JonBenet’s pubic area may have been wiped. Small dark blue fibers were recovered from the vaginal area.

From memory there was no blood in her pubic area, that corresponded with blood stains on her underwear.

So was she wiped prior to being re-dressed or later and after any post-mortem bladder release?


Why would it be important for an intruder to wipe JonBenet down and redress her in size-12 underwear that bore the correct day of the week, e.g. Wednesday?

Actually why any underwear at all, did JonBenet not have recurring infections?

Was it common practise for JonBenet to wear underwear to bed?

After all Patsy stated she had dressed her in the white longjohns, which I assume were some kind of preventitive insurance against bedwetting?

Patsy Ramsey: "By the time we got home, JonBenet had fallen asleep in the back seat."

John Ramsey: "I carried JonBenet upstairs and it was kind of a usual routine. I took her shoes off then Patsy would come in and get her ready for bed."

Patsy Ramsey: "So I undressed her down to her little knit top that she had on and put some long underwear bottoms on her and tucked her in real tight and kissed her goodnight."

So John only removed her shoes, not her socks. Patsy never mentioned any socks being removed, yet JonBenet was found without any socks and lint on her feet?

 

[Zman]

Maybe she was carried in, after being wrapped in the white blanket?

Depending on your favorite theory, her final resting place has some curiosities!

From memory I'll assume there was no urine staining on the white blanket, but that her size-6 white longjohns and size-12 underwear were urine stained.

So does thought and logic suggest she was redressed, say upstairs since thats where the size-12 underwear was sourced, as it was new out of the packet?

Dr. Meyer stated it appeared that JonBenet’s pubic area may have been wiped. Small dark blue fibers were recovered from the vaginal area.

From memory there was no blood in her pubic area, that corresponded with blood stains on her underwear.

So was she wiped prior to being re-dressed or later and after any post-mortem bladder release?


Why would it be important for an intruder to wipe JonBenet down and redress her in size-12 underwear that bore the correct day of the week, e.g. Wednesday?

Actually why any underwear at all, did JonBenet not have recurring infections?

Was it common practise for JonBenet to wear underwear to bed?

After all Patsy stated she had dressed her in the white longjohns, which I assume were some kind of preventitive insurance against bedwetting?



So John only removed her shoes, not her socks. Patsy never mentioned any socks being removed, yet JonBenet was found without any socks and lint on her feet?

Did she have socks on that night? Maybe she wore dress shoes. Do girls put on socks with dress shoes?

 

[capps]

Did she have socks on that night? Maybe she wore dress shoes. Do girls put on socks with dress shoes?

Zman,

To answer your question ... yes.

 

[LinasK]

Do girls put on socks with dress shoes?

Usually they'll be little white lacy ones, or something similar like bows or beads or such...

 

[UKGuy]

Did she have socks on that night? Maybe she wore dress shoes. Do girls put on socks with dress shoes?

Zman,

I should imagine JonBenet would be wearing socks to a party on xmas day, particularly a girl with her sense of dress.

Patsy would have vetted JonBenet in the appearance and bathing/hygiene area!

It was also winter and cold. During summer barefeet may not be cause for any comment.

Also just as Dr. Meyer noted although her underwear were stained with blood and she had suffered vaginal trauma, her pubic area had no matching blood stains, she had been wiped down!

So if you favor an intruder as the main suspect then we are looking for someone who has a preference for wiping down his victims and making certain that they are wearing underwear to bed and that it is the prior Day-Of-The-Week type. In this instance the same day that appears on her headstone, e.g. Wednesday!

 

[Zman]

Zman,

I should imagine JonBenet would be wearing socks to a party on xmas day, particularly a girl with her sense of dress.

Patsy would have vetted JonBenet in the appearance and bathing/hygiene area!

It was also winter and cold. During summer barefeet may not be cause for any comment.

Also just as Dr. Meyer noted although her underwear were stained with blood and she had suffered vaginal trauma, her pubic area had no matching blood stains, she had been wiped down!

So if you favor an intruder as the main suspect then we are looking for someone who has a preference for wiping down his victims and making certain that they are wearing underwear to bed and that it is the prior Day-Of-The-Week type. In this instance the same day that appears on her headstone, e.g. Wednesday!

Well page 4 of the AR would seem to indicate that a small amount of blood is found in her vaginal area. As far as whose blood it is I thought the official story was that most of it was JBR's with a small amount of DNA from another source mixed in. I can't jump to the wiped down theory from that. Who knows what posistion her underwear was in during the assualt. The underwear may have been pulled to one side in order to commit the assualt when it was stained. It is still possible that the "wednesday" underwear is the underwear she had on all night.

 

[UKGuy]

Well page 4 of the AR would seem to indicate that a small amount of blood is found in her vaginal area. As far as whose blood it is I thought the official story was that most of it was JBR's with a small amount of DNA from another source mixed in. I can't jump to the wiped down theory from that.

Zman,
Since this thread is titled "Thoughts and Logic", I'm going to guess 99% of readers will agree with what you penned above. But its not what I asserted, which is NOT that JonBenet had no blood on her pubic area, but that there was no matching blood on her genitals that corresponded with that on her underwear. Additionally Dr. Meyer stated small dark blue fibers were recovered from the vaginal area. The size-12 underwear she was wearing was white in color, so either she had previously been wearing underwear manufactured from dark fibers, or had been wiped down using them or some other similar piece of cloth?

Who knows what posistion her underwear was in during the assualt. The underwear may have been pulled to one side in order to commit the assualt when it was stained. It is still possible that the "wednesday" underwear is the underwear she had on all night.

Sure, who knows what, if any underwear, she was actually wearing when assaulted, or even if the vaginal assault was prior to her death?

But if she had been wearing the size-12 Day-Of-The-Week underwear all night , and by that I presume you include her wearing them to the White's party? Then this is testable since the size-12 underwear will contain transferred fibers that match her velvet black pants worn to the White's!

So if we are looking for an intruder, then the forensic evidence suggests he/she has a penchant for wiping victims down, and getting the day of the week correct?