True or False?

[BlueCrab]

I've heard it mentioned that the DNA represents saliva. Where did this rumor come from--Carol McKinley? What is saliva doing in her undies? Weird!

RedChief,

Come on now RedChief, I didn't peg you to be one who is naive. The foreign male DNA in JonBenet's panties was most likely saliva. There was no semen at the crime scene, yet it was a sex crime. Oral sex is likely more prevalent these days than is straight sex.

 

[sissi]

I guess he did a great job cleaning her body, why didn't he consider the underwear, and what kind of "conditions" are in the vagina that would kill off traces of the killers dna?

 

[RedChief]

Is rambling a bad thing?
I'm not too proud, here's a shot....
Perp comes to the house to visit the Ramseys, he wants to either say "hi", or he wants something, maybe he watched the scrooge mcduck version of a Christmas Carol and thought his arrival would spark some sympathy/money offering from Mr. Ramsey. He walked in, no one remembered to lock up, why should they, it was "Christmas in a postcard" land. The Chamber of Commerce was putting out ..to keep as much boulder burglary crap out of the news as possible. The day was about blazing cozy fires ,tinsel and glitter. However not so for our perp, his day was lonely enough to drop in uninvited ,I suppose he wasn't wanted anywhere else, he spent his day annoying his own family, bitchin' and complaining about what they didn't have, and absorbing his drug/alcohol of choice. House empty, no magic, no offer of money , so leave empty handed, or sit around and let the creative juices flow. Write the damn note , create a scenario on paper where ya get what ya want, ya get to torment the "cheapskate" for a few hours, and ya get the 118,000 that in some way you calculated as do you. Ya hear them coming in? Hide away in some dark corner of that basement, bored? fashion a leash of some sort to take the child like a dog. They go to bed,leave the note on the stairs, run up, pick up the child, she awakens, stun her, she empties her bladder , which is more than an inconvenience, take her out of that house, she screams , punish her for doing that to you, rage, hurt her, strangle her, kick her in the head, after all she wet you. The body is quiet, the Ramseys still asleep, dump her back in that house like debris on the basement floor.

sissi (rambling rose),

Questions/comments regarding the above: Does the note look like the work of a drunk man? Mervin Pugh comes to mind. How articulate is Mervin Pugh when he isn't drunk? Did any of the materials in his possession that he voluntarily turned over to LE, match any of the items at the crime scene?

The leash: that's a definite possibility. I've been re-examining the knots. There is a common knot referred to as a double loop knot. I have no way of knowing whether this common knot is the one the coroner referred to in the AR. (It is the knot on the end of the cord that was not fastened around the right wrist.) But, if it is, it'd make a good handle for the cord, like the handle in a leash. In the photos you see two loops. Whereas there have been other explantions for these two loops, they could also be explained as elements of the aforementioned handle. In the photos, these loops are separate and distinct; in use, the hand is slipped through both of them. This common double loop knot works good for a handle for the following reason, aside from it's being easy to tie: it doesn't slip, so would not tighten around the hand of the user while pulling whatever the cord is fastened to, and would, therefore, afford a comfortable grip. One wonders why this kind of knot wasn't also used on the garotte, instead of the stick. The garotte handle, actually seems more ad hoc than the wrist ligature. There are several variations of the standard double loop knot; the most basic double loop knot contains only one loop (the handle). The knot isn't named for the number of loops it contains, but for the doubling of the cord in fashioning the loop or loops.

Sequence of events in bedroom: the pattern of urine staining on the lj's strongly suggests she was lying on her tummy when she peed. So maybe it is stun first, or whack on the head first? Then install the leash. There were fibers consistent with the fibers of the cord, found in the bedroom. But, we don't know when she peed, so this might not have happened until later. I would think the perp would want to remove her from the bedroom ASAP, and if he put a leash on her, probably she was awake and ambulatory at that time, or soon after. The leash would be not very useful otherwise. She did have lint on her feet. This would be consistent with her having walked while being led on a leash. The eyes would have been untaped to enable her to see where she was going, to avoid tripping and falling, etc. Probably her wrists were bound together initially, maybe by half-hitching around the left wrist. John initially told investigators that the wrists were tied together. We know that the cord was not half-hitched around the right wrist, so that may have been the first wrist to be tied. You might be on to something here, with the leash hypothesis.

Kick her in the head: mighty hard kick; would need steel-toed boot at a minimum. Probably didn't happen. Are Hi-Tec boots steel-toed?

Wandered in: Doubt it; was probably planned out in advance. The perp was planning to leave by the butler pantry door, but something went awry; the child pulled loose and/or scratched him. They ended up in the basement. The rest is history. Whoever did this, if not a Ramsey, apparently knew the house well, and that the sleeping parents probably wouldn't hear him moving about in the house at lower levels, including on the 2nd floor.

Yes to the leash. Good rambling!

PS: Whoever did this, if not a Ramsey, apparently knew they'd be away for a few hours that evening.

PPS: Whoever did this knew where to leave the note.

PPPS: Whoever did this knew the dog was at the Barnhills. Whoever did this very likely had a key. Whoever did this knew about the "Christmas bonus". Whoever did this knew about joking in the household concerning John's "good southern common sense". Whoever did this looked upon John as a fat cat and envied his "bussiness", so probably wasn't rolling in dough himself. Whoever did this envied John but respected Patsy. Whoever did this also misspelled "posession". There is someone who knows someone who is in the habit of misspelling words such as these. Whoever did this was in need of the money. Whoever did this lost control of the "situation" and JB sought refuge in the basement? Whoever did this was possibly scratched by JB, and probably JB got a good look at him when his disguise malfunctioned. Maybe she pulled off his mask or whatever it was that he had disguised himself with. Whoever did this probably wore a red article of clothing and may have had pet animals in his establishment. Whoever did this might have gotten word to JB that he (Santa) was going to pay her a secret visit. Whoever did this may have been the person who spoke to JB directly; and not necessarily dressed as Santa when he spoke to her, but someone whom she trusted to know that Santa would visit her secretly. Whoever did this probably had to kill JB to keep her from ratting on him. Whoever did this knew one hell of a lot about the Ramseys, their habits, their plans, their house. Whoever did this probably left in a panic and probably through the basement window.

PPPPS: Probably JonBenet had already wet herself as she lay asleep in bed and was wet when the perp arrived in her bedroom. There is evidence to suggest that she was alive at the time she peed. There should have been evidence of the wetting on the bed sheet. There is uncertainty surrounding this matter. Thomas copped out by saying there is no presumptive evidence for urine, and that he was not aware that anyone in LE had checked for urine. Isn't this amazing, considering that his theory requires that JB wet the bed! Oh, my!

"Who will love you with a love true, when your ramblin' days are gone?"--NKK

 

[sissi]

Red Chief...A scratch? Is this why there is so little dna? Maybe not saliva at all, but a tiny speck of blood from a tiny scratch?

 

[RedChief]

Red Chief...A scratch? Is this why there is so little dna? Maybe not saliva at all, but a tiny speck of blood from a tiny scratch?

sissi,

Yes, it's possible 'twas blood from a small wound. Frankly, I've never understood the saliva hypothesis. Obviously I'm not well versed in child/adult sex and don't wish to be, except possibly for sleuthing purposes. Ignorant as I am of this subject, I don't hesitate to remark that saliva would make more sense in concensual sex between adults. Who could possibly want to perform oral sex on a 6 yr-old-girl? That's something done for the female partner's pleasure, with her permission. Further, why is there so little DNA and why wasn't any found AT ALL on/in the body? The cleansing didn't appear to be thorough. There were smears left. There should have been DNA in those too. If the pants don't fit, you must acquit. However, if you suspect kidnapping gone awry, you might want to explain the vaginal injury, which doesn't seem to fit with the kidnapping hypothesis. There will probably always be stuff that doesn't fit ANY theory and doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the theory.

"Why you wander, heaven knows."--NKK

 

[RedChief]

JonBenet's pink jammies (the one's on the bed in the CS photos) were two-piece? Those are the same jammies she was wearing Xmas morning?

When the first officer arrived, the parents showed him a ransom note?

Question/s and comments regarding the above: Except as a diversionary tactic to focus attention on an outsider ("there's somebody out there"), what reason might the Ramseys have had for writing the note? Is it possible that they might have wanted to protect someone in the extended family or some other person (the unsub), public knowledge of whose participation in the crime would reflect extremely badly on them?

Except as a genuine attempt to collect ransom, what reason might an outsider have had for writing and leaving the note? Is it possible that he might have wanted to send a message to the Ramseys; a message that, though cryptic to us, was much less so to them? Are the Ramseys afraid to tell us who that outsider is? Or, have they already identified him and the BPD have been unable to connect him, in any forensic way, to the crime?

The ransom note makes virtually no sense in connection with the very fact of the body, obscured from ready view, in the wine cellar; and with the injuries sustained, and the various artifacts discovered there, not least of which is the Barbie gown which seems to have materialized out of thin air.

That's how I see it.......

 

[UKGuy]

RedChief,

Really the only reasonable explanation is, multiple staging, any other rationale must assume, different perpetrators acting out different crimes with varying motives. Thus displaying these different aspects to the crime. This leads to a proliferation of whodunnits, any of whiich can be valid.

But we suspect this is not the case, most people think it is the work of one or two people and five at most!

An outsider might leave a ransom note simply to divert attention away from himself and onto an unknown child killer who could be seen as an external danger!

IMO the correct view is that the ransom note is part of prior staging which was not completed, even abandonded, due possibly to, if you suscribe to BlueCrab's suggestion, that is was Mother Nature, with a fall of snow!

I dont think the Ramsays intended the actual outcome that arrived to be as it was. Circumstance and accident allowed a lot of what we see as evidence of certain scenarios to transpire. Just think of all the evidence that the BPD messed up on that day. The Ramsay's never expected that to happen. So their ad-hoc staging accompanied by BPD charging all over the house, including the Ramsay's themselves and their friends makes a lot of the forensic evidence eqivocal, and this is why it probably never went to court. LE probably thought they knew who did it, but knew it could never be proved in open court.

Any explanation of JonBenet's death, has to account for the staging, so any theory that does not factor it in, however seductive it may be, you know may not be correct.

Personally I found once I allowed for staging and attempted to account for it, I arrived at a different person being responsible from nearly everyone else!


So why do you think those pink pijamas are relevant ?

 

[sissi]

Patsy is too emotional to have held back that grief and anguish for hours while pretending to wait for a kidnapper. She was struggling with fear, reading her Bible, holding the hands of friends, praying for the safe return of her child, nothing prepared her for the meltdown she experienced when her child was found dead. John, was trying to "do the right things", he was not experiencing grief either, his persona was one of a man used to taking charge and getting things done. I believe both thought the child would be returned unharmed.
Why the ransom note? It may have worked had he/they not decided she had to die.

 

[RedChief]

Why did she have to die?

That's the $118,000 question.

Here are some possibilities:

She was a pedophile's dream.

She was the John's daughter.

She was Patsy's daughter.

She was a rich kid.

She was ornery.

She flaunted her wealth.

She flaunted her talent.

She was a threat (real or imagined) to the success of some Colorado pageant mom's daughter; and hence to the mom herself.

She was the convenent target of a pack of hooligans--some of Burke's older playmates.

She wet the bed.

She became rebellious toward her mother.

She became a liability for her father.

She was high profile and her daddy was rich.

She knew too much.

She saw too much; recognized her abductor.

She rejected her suitor.

She pissed somebody off big time.

She got in the way of a swinging bat or flashlight.

She forgot to duck.

 

[RedChief]

An outsider might leave a ransom note simply to divert attention away from himself and onto an unknown child killer who could be seen as an external danger

Right. Can you think of some candidates for the outsider? Someone LE or the Ramseys might suspect if it weren't for the note? So, that would make the note fake, but not an element of staging, right? The note would be phony but considered a true element of the crime, even though diversionary.

Any explanation of JonBenet's death, has to account for the staging, so any theory that does not factor it in, however seductive it may be, you know may not be correct.

Yes, has to account for the possibility of staging.

Personally I found once I allowed for staging and attempted to account for it, I arrived at a different person being responsible from nearly everyone else!

Now THAT is an enigmatic statement.

So why do you think those pink pijamas are relevant ?

I think they're relevant because they are the jams she was wearing Xmas morning; they were on her bed in the CS photos; they were readily accessible for bedtime dressing or staging; and they somehow managed to circumvent the wine cellar.

 

[UKGuy]

RedChief,

Thanks for your reply,

Now staging in any crime scene is where someone alters some aspect of it to divert attention away from themselve(s).

Its a tricky concept to take on board since many people see it as either unimportant or simply the perp messing the crime scene up.

JonBenet's death is not only a domestic homicide, which is the normal classification, its also a staged domestic homicide, and to solve it you need to account for the staged elements as well as the non-staged ones. Doing this means you see why they are important!

So the note is fake in the sense you mean. But its also staging because its purpose is other than what its written content suggests.

e.g. If JonBenet had been discovered in the wine cellar, strangled and sexually violated , dressed only in her day of the week (wednesday) size-12 underwear and her favorite Barbie Gown.

Then everyone would assume she had been abducted from her bed, removed to the wine-cellar, and therein sadistically sexually assaulted whilst being garroted. The evidence would appear unassailable, any common sense thinking person would be looking for a violent pedophile predator!

But after reading the parents version of her dressing for bed routine, and how Patsy dressed her in those white longjohns for the stated reasons. You now can see there was a pair already under her pillow, awaiting re-use, so what appears to be inconsistent? What JonBenet would normally wear nightly, as evidenced by what is under her pillows, or how the parents version corresponds to what she was found wearing in the wine-cellar, but we can suggest, she should really be wearing her Barbie Gown, thats why its at the staged murder scene, like other elements at the scene , all brought together to paint a picture of intruder violence, which many assume to be the correct perspective.

But once you accept all that , it begs the question, was what she was wearing in the wine-cellar, the clothing she wore whilst being killed, and we can answer with some degree of certainty. Probably not since those size-12 pants were clean on, and so may have been the white longjohns, and she was wiped down. So was their prior staging, which was now being revised ? And the answer is a likely yes, so the manner in which she was killed and by whom and where is open to debate since we can now, hopefully, see through the staging??

The outsider candidate would be someone who may have been invited earlier, and who had been to the house before, knew the ramsay's socially. And took advantage of knowing their domestic routine. He would leave the house, say his goodbyes , but return later to commit his fowl deed, after everyone had settled down. This scenario assumes a degree of collusion in illegality between the Ramsays and the outsider in some other area e.g. its part of a conspiracy theory. So once they work out who might have done it they would be reluctant to name him/her, and just as likely to cover up for them!

 

[RedChief]

RedChief,

Thanks for your reply,

Now staging in any crime scene is where someone alters some aspect of it to divert attention away from themselve(s).

Yes, but in a staged domestic homicide, the person or persons involved in the staging are undertaking the staging to divert attention away from them or someone else in the domicile. If the Ramseys, being involved in some way, either directly or indirectly in the death, wrote a fake note, we can confidently call it a staged element; but, if an outsider wrote a FAKE note to divert attention away from himself, then we can no longer call it an element of staging; it's simply an element of the crime--something found at the scene that wasn't essential for the commission of the homicide, but deemed necessary by the perpetrator to send the investigators on a wild goose chase, or a wild foreign faction chase, if you prefer. As an example, the perpetrator could have arrived in Santa's sleigh, but we would not consider Santa's sleigh an element of staging on the part of the perpetrator; it would be considered part of a ruse to kill the girl and have folks think Santa did it.

Its a tricky concept to take on board since many people see it as either unimportant or simply the perp messing the crime scene up.!

Oh, I don't see it as unimportant at all, nor all that tricky.

JonBenet's death is not only a domestic homicide, which is the normal classification, its also a staged domestic homicide, and to solve it you need to account for the staged elements as well as the non-staged ones. Doing this means you see why they are important!

True, but let's suppose that JonBenet had been found beheaded in her bedroom with a sling blade laying beside her dead body. Where is the staging? I'll bet this will be a headscratcher.

So the note is fake in the sense you mean. But its also staging because its purpose is other than what its written content suggests.

Well, I guess here is where we differ, but it gets back to semantics. We can get untangled from that by simply being more specific. Let's say that either (1.) the Ramseys wrote the fake note or (2.) an outsider wrote the fake note. Either way, there has to be a purpose for the fake note, and I think that would be to confuse the investigators and/or the Ramseys. It may be that the outsider/perpetrator just has a fettish for fake notes.

e.g. If JonBenet had been discovered in the wine cellar, strangled and sexually violated , dressed only in her day of the week (wednesday) size-12 underwear and her favorite Barbie Gown.

Not so fast; the size 12-14 underwear would raise eyebrows, no? And perhaps even the Barbie gown, if it isn't her contemporary preference. I assume you're excluding the note from this scenario. But, again, it depends on who is trying to fool whom?

Then everyone would assume she had been abducted from her bed, removed to the wine-cellar, and therein sadistically sexually assaulted whilst being garroted. The evidence would appear unassailable, any common sense thinking person would be looking for a violent pedophile predator!

I'm not sure that would be the prevailing assumption; after all her sexual injury was MINOR and her panties were way too big. Some amateur perpetrator might expect that would be the outcome, however.

But after reading the parents version of her dressing for bed routine, and how Patsy dressed her in those white longjohns for the stated reasons. You now can see there was a pair already under her pillow, awaiting re-use, so what appears to be inconsistent? What JonBenet would normally wear nightly, as evidenced by what is under her pillows, or how the parents version corresponds to what she was found wearing in the wine-cellar...

I followed you this far. If I may paraphrase, you say the parents' version is suspicious because she was found in longjohns and should have been wearing the jammies. Yes? But, I would view the neglected jammies as a mistake on the stager's part rather than as staging in and of itself.

, but we can suggest, she should really be wearing her Barbie Gown, thats why its at the staged murder scene, like other elements at the scene , all brought together to paint a picture of intruder violence, which many assume to be the correct perspective.

This is where you lost me. She shouldn't be wearing her Barbie gown, unless you think she ought to be wearing it over her longjohns. I don't think that's the case. She was in the habit of throwing her covers off because it was too warm in the room. It seems to me that if the staging is to be convincing she'll be wearing her pink jammies. Explain to me why I'm wrong. I don't know this to be the case, but it seems reasonable, given that she was wearing them Xmas morning. It's possible that she got up out of bed that Xmas morning and put them on, but is that reasonable? Someone knows what she was in the habit of wearing to bed, and someone knows what she was wearing when she was put to bed that night. If that someone was involved in the staging, there is no reason why she shouldn't be found in those clothes in the wine cellar, if the intent was to stage a convincing bedroom abduction scene. But, again, it depends on who is trying to fool whom? Her sequined GAP shirt wasn't sexy enough?

But once you accept all that , it begs the question, was what she was wearing in the wine-cellar, the clothing she wore whilst being killed, and we can answer with some degree of certainty. Probably not since those size-12 pants were clean on, and so may have been the white longjohns, and she was wiped down. So was their prior staging, which was now being revised ? And the answer is a likely yes, so the manner in which she was killed and by whom and where is open to debate since we can now, hopefully, see through the staging??

Well, what does it prove that the size 12-14's were clean on or that the longjohns were clean on? If she had been found wearing the pink jammies they'd be clean on too, no? Unless they'd gotten dirty since she wore them the time before. Granted the size 12-14's are a headscratcher. I am not able to answer whether there was prior staging that was being revised. First, I would have to know the nature of the prior staging. Maybe what you mean by "clean on" is that they were fresh that night, but you'd only be guessing, as evidenced by "and so MAY have been the white longjohns". We don't know whether either the panties or the longjohns were clean on. That's the problem. How do you know the wiping wasn't done simply to clean her up after she wet herself, or worse? You can suspect, but you can't know.

What do you theorize that JonBenet was wearing when she was killed? What you see as staging in the wine cellar hinges on that and on who is trying to fool whom. If both parents were involved in the staging, then they might think they could re-dress her in longjohns and sequined shirt and Barbie gown (or suggest that she had been wearing it by placing it close by) and oversized Wednesday panties and get away with it--fool the authorities; make them think she'd been abducted from her bedroom. But, if only one parent were involved in the staging and the other parent were unaware of the death until 1:05 PM or so on the 26th, then how can the guilty (of staging or murder or both) parent hope to fool the other parent, if the other parent knows what JonBenet was wearing when she was put to bed? The best staging would be to re-install her pink jammies, if that's what she was wearing when she was put to bed (and which is what, I think, you suspect), and replace her "adequate size" panties with another pair of "adequate size". I'm not familiar with how female children are dressed for bed. Would it be likely that JonBenet wore a shirt under her jammies? Even better staging might be to place all those items in the wine cellar that she would be expected to have been wearing to bed that night, or that you, as stager, KNEW that she had worn to bed that night, and leave the body nude, at least from the waist down. That would be more convincing, by far, of an attack by a sexual sadist than the scene that was found. You could also place a fig leaf in a judicious location on the body. Boy, wouldn't that give us something to argue about!

The outsider candidate would be someone who may have been invited earlier, and who had been to the house before, knew the ramsay's socially. And took advantage of knowing their domestic routine. He would leave the house, say his goodbyes , but return later to commit his fowl deed, after everyone had settled down. This scenario assumes a degree of collusion in illegality between the Ramsays and the outsider in some other area e.g. its part of a conspiracy theory. So once they work out who might have done it they would be reluctant to name him/her, and just as likely to cover up for them!

Yes, to the conspiracy. Now, how do you account for the clean longjohns and underpants being urine soaked if you theorize that she was re-dressed after her death????? I think if you'll just walk us through what happened and include as much detail as you can, then maybe we can understand your staging hypotheses. We'll forgive you if you don't get it 100% correct.

 

[sissi]

I pick

She knew too much.

She saw too much; recognized her abductor.

There is a possibility that she "knew too much" before "a scheduled "murder?
Perhaps the perp had already stepped over some "line" with Jonbenet and needed to kill her before she left for Michigan and was out of his control?

hmm..edit to add...would he kill her himself or pay a "hit guy"? ..set the stage..order the scenario to include a nice ransom note?

I know this is out there, living where I live we still experience a hit on occasion..probably not so in Boulder

 

[UKGuy]

RedChief,

At any crime scene if anyone adds evidence, changes it, removes it, or destroys it etc. Then that is termed staging, regardless of whether its a domestic crime, or an outdoor crime.

Actually your Santa example would be an instance of staging, and if he repeated it, a sharp LEA would recognize it as part of his MO.

No I am not excluding the note, simply treating it as separate staging, its existence is obviously incongruous with the crime scene in the wine-cellar.

I followed you this far. If I may paraphrase, you say the parents' version is suspicious because she was found in longjohns and should have been wearing the jammies. Yes? But, I would view the neglected jammies as a mistake on the stager's part rather than as staging in and of itself.

Not exactly more that the parents version of JonBenet being put to bed correspond more or less with what she was discovered wearing in the basement. But we have a few reasons to suspect their version of JonBenet's bedtime events are less than candid.

The Pink Pijamas however you regard them, are similar to the size-12 underwear. We have someone attempting to stage a homicide, but using what we recognize as the least persuasive items. Its not proof, just as the size-12 pants are not proof. But we now have say two examples of inconsistant dressing. 1.) size-12 underwear. 2.) No Pink Pijamas. This is really more re-inforcement for BlueCrabs juvenile male perpetrator theory!

Once the wine cellar staging was completed, JonBenet should have had no extraneous items lying around her, since that will just raise suspicion. So ideally she should only be found in her Barbie Gown and underwear. I suggest this is what was in the stagers mind, but circumstance forced him to abandon it and leave the crime scene as it was found?

It seems to me that if the staging is to be convincing she'll be wearing her pink jammies. Explain to me why I'm wrong.

So you are not wrong, this why we can recogize the wine cellar as likely staging, and why Patsy had to come up with some reason for dressing JonBenet in longjohns the night before, when her Pink Pijamas were available inches away, under her pillow!

And if the bells are ringing just as they did about the size-12 underwear, then its hey why was her Barbie Gown in the wine cellar and not her Pink Pijamas.

If she had been wearing Pink Pijamas when her body was discovered, and Patsy had stated she was dressed in those the night before then not much has changed.

The longjohns "appear" to be clean on, then soiled, as do the size-12 underwear, she is wearing no socks, which suggests she was undressed, so that she could be dressed in the longjohns, possibly removing her missing size-6 underwear. When exactly she was wiped clean is difficult to pin down. And there was blood removed from her genital area, not simply urine etc. And you can have post-mortem release of urine, or you can suscribe to Steve Thomas's PDI via toilet rage? Another explanation is that she was naked, so some form of re-dressing was required. So basically she was in another state of dress prior to being relocated to the wine-cellar?

I hope there is enough there so you can recognize the wine-cellar as a staged crime scene, and that this implies there was another prior crime scene, staged or not? And that the proposed wine cellar staging corresponds with the inconsistencies in some of the participants interview replies and statements.

 

[RedChief]

RedChief,

At any crime scene if anyone adds evidence, changes it, removes it, or destroys it etc. Then that is termed staging, regardless of whether its a domestic crime, or an outdoor crime..

I agree with one proviso: the addition, changing, removal or destruction of evidence must have the objective of foiling an investigation. So, if the body were moved, and/or posed to effect a decency presentation, that wouldn't be considered staging. And it would be a simple matter for the person who engaged in the posing to admit that to the authorities so as to not mislead them. So, it boils down to motive. What if someone accidentally alters a crime scene? Is that still considered staging? I don't think so. So we have to allow for exceptions.

Here is an example of the staging of a crime scene: A man manually strangles his wife in a fit of passion. He drags her body over to the foot of a staircase and positions it such that it appears she has fallen down the stairs. He wants the coroner to think she died in an accident. The coroner, being a smart man, and accustomed to such deceit, takes a close look at the body and notices petechial hemorrhages in the conjunctiva. He says, aha! This is not an accident. He transports the body to the morgue and performs an autopsy. He discovers a broken hyoid bone, and neck strap muscle hemorrhages. He calls the cops and they arrest the husband. Classic example of staging attempted by a criminally unsophisticated person.

Actually your Santa example would be an instance of staging, and if he repeated it, a sharp LEA would recognize it as part of his MO.

Actually my Santa example would not be an instance of staging even by your definition above, for the simple reason that nothing was added, nothing was changed, nothing was removed and nothing was destroyed at the crime scene. If repeated, it might be considered an MO. If the perp repeatedly dressed as Jack the Ripper and used a machete, that also might be considered an MO; but not staging. QED

No I am not excluding the note, simply treating it as separate staging, its existence is obviously incongruous with the crime scene in the wine-cellar..

I agree that the note appears to be inharmonious with the scene in the cellar; however, if we dress the child in the Barbie gown and put the body on the Butler pantry floor, it becomes more consonant? Also, it matters whether the fake note was written by a Ramsey who committed the crime or by an outsider who committed the crime. If it was written by a Ramsey, it was probably something ADDED to the scene and that would make it staging. If it was written by an outsider it may or may not have been something added to the scene. If it wasn't added to the scene, it isn't staging, even though it's fake. Suppose a man holds up a liquor store with a water pistol. Would you consider the water pistol an item of staging? I don't think so. It's a fake item that was used in the commission of a crime. It fooled the clerk, and that was all it was intended to do. It wasn't intended to foil an investigation.

Not exactly more that the parents version of JonBenet being put to bed correspond more or less with what she was discovered wearing in the basement. But we have a few reasons to suspect their version of JonBenet's bedtime events are less than candid.

Well, if you have reason to believe that they lied about how JonBenet was dressed when she was put to bed, then I can understand how you might detect staging in the wine cellar scene.

The Pink Pijamas however you regard them, are similar to the size-12 underwear. We have someone attempting to stage a homicide, but using what we recognize as the least persuasive items. Its not proof, just as the size-12 pants are not proof. But we now have say two examples of inconsistant dressing. 1.) size-12 underwear. 2.) No Pink Pijamas. This is really more re-inforcement for BlueCrabs juvenile male perpetrator theory!.

Yes, you'd think the parents would be smart enough to do proper staging. However, then you must answer this: if the parents are lying about the child's attire--how they undressed her, dressed her, what she had on when they (or perhaps just he or she) tucked her in and left the room, etc., how do you explain that they (or he or she) didn't revise the staging to make it look more convincing? Did someone confess to them his part in the crime too late for them to make the necessary adjustments, but not too late for them to concoct a story for the investigators?

Once the wine cellar staging was completed, JonBenet should have had no extraneous items lying around her, since that will just raise suspicion. So ideally she should only be found in her Barbie Gown and underwear. I suggest this is what was in the stagers mind, but circumstance forced him to abandon it and leave the crime scene as it was found?

That's possible. And what might those circumstances have been?

So you are not wrong, this why we can recogize the wine cellar as likely staging, and why Patsy had to come up with some reason for dressing JonBenet in longjohns the night before, when her Pink Pijamas were available inches away, under her pillow!

Yes, the wine cellar scene certainly does arouse suspicion; no doubt about that. I think that's what John's lawyer friend thought too, and that's why he advised John to lawyer up.

And if the bells are ringing just as they did about the size-12 underwear, then its hey why was her Barbie Gown in the wine cellar and not her Pink Pijamas.

If she had been wearing Pink Pijamas when her body was discovered, and Patsy had stated she was dressed in those the night before then not much has changed.

The longjohns "appear" to be clean on, then soiled, as do the size-12 underwear, she is wearing no socks, which suggests she was undressed, so that she could be dressed in the longjohns, possibly removing her missing size-6 underwear. When exactly she was wiped clean is difficult to pin down. And there was blood removed from her genital area, not simply urine etc. And you can have post-mortem release of urine, or you can suscribe to Steve Thomas's PDI via toilet rage? Another explanation is that she was naked, so some form of re-dressing was required. So basically she was in another state of dress prior to being relocated to the wine-cellar?

Yes, however I think dressing her in those dubious items rather than leaving her naked, is even more suggestive of staging. I'm still not certain of the meaning of the urine-stained and bloody underwear. It would take some time to dress her in those items after the crime (even assuming she had not been undressed and wiped prior)--what WAS the crime at that point?--and take her down to the wine cellar, etc. Why is the urine waiting to be released in the wine cellar? You apparently don't think she was killed in or near the wine cellar? If that is so, then she must have urinated prior to being transported there. Maybe only the paint handle was added at that venue?

I hope there is enough there so you can recognize the wine-cellar as a staged crime scene, and that this implies there was another prior crime scene, staged or not? And that the proposed wine cellar staging corresponds with the inconsistencies in some of the participants interview replies and statements.

The body in the wine cellar, along with it's appurtenances, has always puzzled me. I'm unable to explain it at this juncture. Your explanation of amateurish and unfinished staging seems to have some merit. It sort of looks like the boy had a hand in the crime alright. And, it sort of looks like neither parent was aware of his participation until much later. Either that or the one parent who WAS aware, was too shook up to think straight. However, looks are often deceiving. They did manage to crank out a bonny ransom note.

hmmmm....

 

[UKGuy]

Staging the crime scene to effect decency appearances is recognized by LEA all over the world as such.

e.g. It is extremely common in cases of Autoerotic Asphyxiation, if you check over my post on Female Sexual Asphyxiation, you will also find reference to other examples.

I dont think JonBenet was killed in the wine cellar, many other people have also mentioned that there is no urine staining anywhere down there?

So I am fairly confident in suggesting that she was re-dressed at least twice and possibly three times.

The wine cellar staging may have been abandonded because JR ran out of opportunity to finish it off, he was likely making her decent or covering up a prior crime scene. The paint handle, duct tape, and the cord re-arranged, are among some items probably added at some point to effect the staging.

So JonBenet's murder is a staged homicide, since we can illustrate at least two instances e.g. the wine cellar and the ransom note, both of which were pressed into service and achieved there initial purpose by re-directing the police focus and buying time for the perpetrator.

There are apparently only two reasons why the Ramsays would collude in a cover up like this 1.) If Burke was a participant. or 2.) Either John or Patsy or both were materially involved, either as participants or party to a conspiracy involving a 3rd person.

 

[Nehemiah]

And, Patsy initially said that JB was wearing the red turtleneck, but later changed her story. If this were really true (that she was wearing the turtleneck), how could it fit into your staging scenarios?

 

[RedChief]

And, Patsy initially said that JB was wearing the red turtleneck, but later changed her story. If this were really true (that she was wearing the turtleneck), how could it fit into your staging scenarios?

Nehemiah,

The red turtleneck, yes. I thought about that while posting my blurb above. Do we have an official document corroborating Patsy's recanted testimony? I suppose that would be in a police report that isn't available for public consumption?

I believe Thomas said that it was found "balled up" on a counter in the JB's bathroom. I believe he also speculated that she had been wearing it when she wet herself and that may have been the reason for it's removal. How is that a reason for it's removal unless it got wet? Assuming it was actually found balled up on the counter, what would be the reason for balling it up, other than that it had been unceremoniusly deposited on the counter, just as clothes often are. Was Thomas implying that it had been rinsed out? What was he implying? If it had not been rinsed out, and if it had gotten urine on it, the urine could have been detected by LE and at least one question answered. Fresh urine has a strong odor, as you may know, being a farm person. So, the old smell test would probably be sufficient.

Here is another question regarding the mysterious red turtleneck. Isn't that the shirt Patsy wanted JB to wear to the Whites', but she refused? That's what Patsy tells us. Maybe that explanation is false also, and proffered to explain why JB wasn't wearing the red turtleneck when her body was found. This shirt business is one more in a long string of confusing evidence, thanks in part to the Ramseys, and thanks in part to LE.

The red shirt being found "balled up" (whatever that means) in her bathroom, could corroborate what Patsy said. JonBenet took it off and unceremoniously (as was her habit) tossed it on the counter and put on her white sequined shirt. Is it true or is it not true that she wore the white sequined shirt to the Whites'? This matter should have been resolved a long time ago. There were plenty of witnesses. We don't have to rely on the testimony of the Ramseys. Why would JB wear her white collarless shirt to the Whites', then come home and replace it with the red turtleneck, then remove the red turtleneck at some point, and re-dress in the white shirt and wear it to bed? A whole lot of dressing and re-dressing going on; but I guess that's what gals do.

Also, what did Patsy wear to the Whites', besides the bi-colored wool jacket? Didn't SHE wear a red turtleneck? How do we know she wasn't wearing that all-red shirt in her home that evening? That could account for the lack of dark fibers on the tape and in the knot. Maybe we should ask Gloria Allred.

In DOI, John says JonBenet didn't wear the red turtleneck to the Whites'; she wore an outfit that she had chosen. He doesn't describe the outfit, except for the boots, "which zipped up the front and had a bit of animal print trim along the top." Does this sound like John?

dumbfounded in Dubai...

 

[Nehemiah]

Nehemiah,

The red turtleneck, yes. I thought about that while posting my blurb above. Do we have an official document corroborating Patsy's recanted testimony? I suppose that would be in a police report that isn't available for public consumption?

The red shirt being found "balled up" (whatever that means) in her bathroom, could corroborate what Patsy said. JonBenet took it off and unceremoniously (as was her habit) tossed it on the counter and put on her white sequined shirt. Is it true or is it not true that she wore the white sequined shirt to the Whites'? This matter should have been resolved a long time ago. There were plenty of witnesses. We don't have to rely on the testimony of the Ramseys. Why would JB wear her white collarless shirt to the Whites', then come home and replace it with the red turtleneck, then remove the red turtleneck at some point, and re-dress in the white shirt and wear it to bed? A whole lot of dressing and re-dressing going on; but I guess that's what gals do.

I believe the red turtleneck recant was in the NE book of police interviews. Perhaps I can look tonight and make sure.

We don't know what, for sure, JB wore to the White's. The pictures have never been released, and I think the BPD has been silent on this one.

Another thing that I've recently wondered....Patsy goes to lengths to make sure that we know (via DOI) that she took time to wash out a jumpsuit of JB's, outside JB's bedroom in the sink area. I've always wondered what evidence there is (that the Rs know about and we don't) that Patsy is addressing here. (Much like she wrote about hanging the phone in the cradle...which I think she wrote to dispute the knowledge of the 911 call taping voices.)

Yes, as a farm person, I am qualified to detect urine. I've had official training in that capacity.

Are you really in Dubai?

 

[UKGuy]

I believe the red turtleneck recant was in the NE book of police interviews. Perhaps I can look tonight and make sure.

We don't know what, for sure, JB wore to the White's. The pictures have never been released, and I think the BPD has been silent on this one.

Another thing that I've recently wondered....Patsy goes to lengths to make sure that we know (via DOI) that she took time to wash out a jumpsuit of JB's, outside JB's bedroom in the sink area. I've always wondered what evidence there is (that the Rs know about and we don't) that Patsy is addressing here. (Much like she wrote about hanging the phone in the cradle...which I think she wrote to dispute the knowledge of the 911 call taping voices.)

Yes, as a farm person, I am qualified to detect urine. I've had official training in that capacity.

Are you really in Dubai?

Also one of the police officers at the crime scene relocated a bag of clothing.

From memory Patsy wore a red turtle top and black pants, she wanted JonBenet to dress similar, but she disagreed and went wearing her star sequined white gap top, and black velvet pants.

Nehemiah I reckon the jumpsuit and any other clothing lying around may be significant, since its possible some of it is what JonBenet wore prior to being relocated to the basement.

I have yet to factor in the JonBenet's red turtle neck, but my first "occam" attempt is, she was dressing up for Patsy, in a lets see how you look in this or that, with your next pageant in mind.

Next thought was Patsy demanded she dress in this or that since she disobeyed her earlier on.

Lastly was JonBenet dressing up, for her special xmas visitor ...

Also I've never seen any special mention of JonBenet's socks, she was wearing none when discovered, little mention of her black velvet pants, and of course her size-6 underwear.

My guess is she was killed wearing clothes other than what she was wearing in the basement, then re-dressed as per her longjohns and gap top, we can speculate if she was naked or not, but no socks, this has the appearance of bedtime staging, in the sense that it may have been the first considered attempt at staging, say some kind of bedroom homicide.

On reflection it was recognized it was far too obvious or risky, so she was relocated elsewhere, and it need not have been the basement. Speculating it may have been the back of some vehicle, wrapped in a blanket, ready for being removed as per the next staging idea: Abduction and the Ransom Note. This was also not completed for some reason ... so its possible they tried another, say down in the basement, but ran out of time, and circumstance forced the 2 or 3 staging events to tranfigure into what we know as the JonBenet Murder Scene.