Were there floor jacks in the Ramsey basement?

[rashomon]

I agree entirely. I really don't think John thought their staging would fool anyone for a long period of time so he created a Plan B for himself.

The term "Plan B" hits the nail on the head. John is definitely a caluclating type who planned ahead here.
He knew the staging was poor and when he had brought up JonBenet's body from the basement and looked in L. Arndt's eyes, he waited for the axe to fall. Arndt caught the terror in John's eyes, and became afraid he would attack her. But I think it was plain fear in his face. He expected them to be arrested on the spot.
They should have done that, or at least have taken them to the police station at once for separate questioning. The police would also have had the legal right to collect their clothes immeditaley.

 

[rashomon]

[Roy23]Then contaminate their own staging by carrying the body upstairs.

Makes perfect sense if the Ramseys knew their staging was poor (and at least John Ramsey for sure did!), so the more confusion they create after finding the body, the better.
Just think of those poorly tied wrist ligatures: one had already come off, the other was so loosely tied on top of a sleeve that the coroner could slide it off without having to cut it.
Carrying the body upstairs allowed John to tell LE the cockamamie story about "tightly bound wrists" which he allegely had tried to untie down there.
But when you read his stumbling, fumbling account of how the wrists were bound, you'll see it does not mesh with the evidence. John lied, no question about it imo.

 

[Ames]

Makes perfect sense if the Ramseys knew their staging was poor (and at least John Ramsey for sure did!), so the more confusion they create after finding the body, the better.
Just think of those poorly tied wrist ligatures: one had already come off, the other was so loosely tied on top of a sleeve that the coroner could slide it off without having to cut it.
Carrying the body upstairs allowed John to tell LE the cockamamie story about "tightly bound wrists" which he allegely had tried to untie down there.
But when you read his stumbling, fumbling account of how the wrists were bound, you'll see it does not mesh with the evidence. John lied, no question about it imo.

And imo...the reason that there was so much cord length...15 inches... between the two wrists, is because rigor had already started to set in. IMO...the cord on her wrists could have been the very last "touch" to their crime scene staging, coming even after the writing of the RN.

 

[Roy23]

Makes perfect sense if the Ramseys knew their staging was poor (and at least John Ramsey for sure did!), so the more confusion they create after finding the body, the better.
Just think of those poorly tied wrist ligatures: one had already come off, the other was so loosely tied on top of a sleeve that the coroner could slide it off without having to cut it.
Carrying the body upstairs allowed John to tell LE the cockamamie story about "tightly bound wrists" which he allegely had tried to untie down there.
But when you read his stumbling, fumbling account of how the wrists were bound, you'll see it does not mesh with the evidence. John lied, no question about it imo.

I don't buy that at all. And I don't see how you can say "no question about it". That attitude is why this case is where it is. I think we should all attempt to keep an open mind that even investigators are somewhat not positive about what exactly happened. There is evidence pointing in both directions. I really hope they figure all this out.

 

[Sophie]

And imo...the reason that there was so much cord length...15 inches... between the two wrists, is because rigor had already started to set in. IMO...the cord on her wrists could have been the very last "touch" to their crime scene staging, coming even after the writing of the RN.

That makes a lot of sense. Someone (forget who - maybe Smit??) claimed that the cord was so long because JBR had been suspended by the hands from this cord. Which makes no sense whatsoever given how loose the knows were and the fact that the autopsy didn't support this conclusion.

 

[Sophie]

The term "Plan B" hits the nail on the head. John is definitely a caluclating type who planned ahead here.
He knew the staging was poor and when he had brought up JonBenet's body from the basement and looked in L. Arndt's eyes, he waited for the axe to fall. Arndt caught the terror in John's eyes, and became afraid he would attack her. But I think it was plain fear in his face. He expected them to be arrested on the spot.
They should have done that, or at least have taken them to the police station at once for separate questioning. The police would also have had the legal right to collect their clothes immeditaley.

This is almost spookily convincing.

 

[JMO8778]

I don't buy that at all. And I don't see how you can say "no question about it". That attitude is why this case is where it is. I think we should all attempt to keep an open mind that even investigators are somewhat not positive about what exactly happened. There is evidence pointing in both directions. I really hope they figure all this out.

to keep such an open mind on that would require nothing less than our brains to fall out.
No intruder would bother to tie her wrists so loosely that the ligature would fall off,much less leave 15 inches of cord between them.there is *no reason to do so.none whatsoever.
otoh,if one wanted to attempt to tie her wrists *after rigor set in (perhaps to use up the rest of the cord??),then it makes perfect sense.

 

[Ames]

That makes a lot of sense. Someone (forget who - maybe Smit??) claimed that the cord was so long because JBR had been suspended by the hands from this cord. Which makes no sense whatsoever given how loose the knows were and the fact that the autopsy didn't support this conclusion.

Yeah, there are quite a few IDI's who believe this...nevermind the fact that the rope was not only loosely tied, but if she had of been suspended by her wrists...she would have had a terrible case of rope burn...which she didn't.

 

[Sophie]

to keep such an open mind on that would require nothing less than our brains to fall out.




LOL!

 

[JMO8778]

to keep such an open mind on that would require nothing less than our brains to fall out.




LOL!

I really have to give credit to SuperDave for that thought!!

 

[Sophie]

I really have to give credit to SuperDave for that thought!!

Well, congrats to Dave for the original idea and to you for finding so appropriate an occasion to resurrect it: it's made me day

 

[Roy23]

I really have to give credit to SuperDave for that thought!!

Well,

I think you have good people on both sides of the argument who believe different things. Especially before the new DNA findings. I like Thomas, Douglas, Lee, and Smit. And others that I have read of. So many different people have made mistakes and errors of judgement. And we all have read information that is not all factual and we quote from it when we shouldn't.

I am kind of glad that some of you guys and gal's keep me grounded, even though in my mind you are wrong. I tend to like Douglas' arguments best concerning the history he has with criminal behavior. But I also understand that his access to evidence was very limited.

I am really happy at what they are doing now. And I believe that at minimum they will once and for all clear the Ramsey's. But we will all have to wait and see. I do fear that they find more DNA and link it to someone but ultimately cannot win a case due to all the mistakes.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi Rashomon.

Very interesting post re "catastrophic" injury.

The divet in JBR's head.
Depressed skull fracture: http://books.google.ca/books?id=NYt...5-2RAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result



Persistent bleeding: Bleeding from the scalp is always profuse because of the rich blood supply......


Depressed skull fracture.... These fractures usually result when the child head hits the edge of a table or is hit by an object that has a sharp edge.
Before swelling occurs the parent may notice a large dent or depression in the skull. Because the depressed bone fragment can cause a local seizure or neurological defecit, the depressed part of the skull needs to be surgically elevated.

You should know, Tadpole, that it's not unknown for massive skull fractures to cause no bleeding. A Denver neurosurgeon named Kerry Brega was asked about it. She said that she's been known to see cases like that, "and they didn't get strangled on the way in."

 

[Roy23]

You should know, Tadpole, that it's not unknown for massive skull fractures to cause no bleeding. A Denver neurosurgeon named Kerry Brega was asked about it. She said that she's been known to see cases like that, "and they didn't get strangled on the way in."

I agree with you Dave. I think it could be either way so were at a stalemate on this.

 

[Sophie]

I have massive respect for John Douglas, too. There has been a lot of debate over here about profiling after a case in which profiling showed its limitations (totally dull unless English criminal justice interests you which I can't imagine it would given the myriad colours and textures of your criminal justice system). Douglas has been involved with law enforcement over here and gained a lot of respect for voicing the opinion of everyone in the country other than the idiotic police in Yorkshire during the search for the Yorkshire Ripper. However, his profile of the person who was pretending to be the Ripper turned out to be a tad erroneous (He predicted a felon with a massive grudge against the police etc. The guy turned out to be a smelly random with no major criminal record).

 

[BBB167893]

I don't buy that at all.

Well, for what it's worth, I came to the same conclusion COMPLETELY independent of anyone else, I might add.

And I don't see how you can say "no question about it".

Well, rashomon's the type who will tell you anything if you ask nicely enough.

That attitude is why this case is where it is.

I agree, but in a much different way than you're probably thinking!

I think we should all attempt to keep an open mind that even investigators are somewhat not positive about what exactly happened.

I believe my late father said it best: "son, always keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

There is evidence pointing in both directions.

Granted.

I really hope they figure all this out.

We all do.

 

[Sophie]

I am really happy at what they are doing now. And I believe that at minimum they will once and for all clear the Ramsey's. But we will all have to wait and see. I do fear that they find more DNA and link it to someone but ultimately cannot win a case due to all the mistakes.

I'm more concerned that people who have publicly opined on this case may be used by the defence. For example, were a Ramsey to be tried, Lou Smit would be wheeled in and used by the defence as an expert witness. Likewise, I worry that were an intruder involved (which I doubt), that Steve Thomas would be used by the defence as the lead investigator who doubted the DNA evidence and essentially stated `that Patsy did it as another expert for the defence.

I admire ST hugely but I do worry that his bravery might bite the investigation on its derriere at some point.

 

[BBB167893]

I really have to give credit to SuperDave for that thought!!

Yup, that's my line, all right!

 

[Roy23]

I have massive respect for John Douglas, too. There has been a lot of debate over here about profiling after a case in which profiling showed its limitations (totally dull unless English criminal justice interests you which I can't imagine it would given the myriad colours and textures of your criminal justice system). Douglas has been involved with law enforcement over here and gained a lot of respect for voicing the opinion of everyone in the country other than the idiotic police in Yorkshire during the search for the Yorkshire Ripper. However, his profile of the person who was pretending to be the Ripper turned out to be a tad erroneous (He predicted a felon with a massive grudge against the police etc. The guy turned out to be a smelly random with no major criminal record).

I don't think he is perfect either Sophie. He wrote the book on the parents being the most likely subjects to start with. I will say this about Douglas and I really believe this to be true. When you put him in front of a killer or liar, he will know it about 85 to 90% of the time. It could be in this case that he is just too smart. And he is not perfect. But he is and almost always has been the best at what he does. And his students who have even disagreed with him at times in the past will tell you the same.

 

[Roy23]

I'm more concerned that people who have publicly opined on this case may be used by the defence. For example, were a Ramsey to be tried, Lou Smit would be wheeled in and used by the defence as an expert witness. Likewise, I worry that were an intruder involved (which I doubt), that Steve Thomas would be used by the defence as the lead investigator who doubted the DNA evidence and essentially stated `that Patsy did it as another expert for the defence.

I admire ST hugely but I do worry that his bravery might bite the investigation on its derriere at some point.

That is why I want all these guys involved. Because I want all to admit once and for all that a Ramsey did it and they were wrong or an intruder did it and they apologize to the Ramsey family.