Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[CorallaroC]

But, even if IDI, once the deadline passed without a call from the kidnappers, we could expect Ramsey to become antsy, or agitated, etc.
It is an established fact that JBR’s body was not moved.
…

AK

(BBM)
Anti-K, I disagree with your statement! What source do you have to back up your bold statement about it being an "established fact" that the body was not moved?????? I believe you are absolutely wrong about that.

Of course I have no way to prove to you that you are wrong, can't prove a negative. IIRC there has never been ANY credible source saying one way or the other that the body was moved or NOT-moved. Please don't try to mince words with me on this. If you have a credible source, then provide it. TIA

 

[UKGuy]

(BBM)
Anti-K, I disagree with your statement! What source do you have to back up your bold statement about it being an "established fact" that the body was not moved?????? I believe you are absolutely wrong about that.

Of course I have no way to prove to you that you are wrong, can't prove a negative. IIRC there has never been ANY credible source saying one way or the other that the body was moved or NOT-moved. Please don't try to mince words with me on this. If you have a credible source, then provide it. TIA

CorallaroC,
Anti-K is simply playing Devil's Advocate, less diplomatically he is trolling websleuths, maybe he on the payroll, who knows?

JonBenet was patently moved to the wine-cellar after being wrapped in the white blanket, its only when this took place that is ambiguous.

Naturally Anti-K just makes stuff up, there is no requirement to take anything he says seriously!

.

 

[CorallaroC]

Thanks UK Guy, I agree with what you are saying.

I wish I had emphasized that I'm referring to whether or not the body had been moved within the wine cellar. That detail has fascinated me for a long time because I do not recall any source providing information as to whether it appeared the body had been placed on the blanket, or if the body appeared to have been dragged into the WC with the body already on it or wrapped in it.

And of course due to the fact that JR obviously unwrapped the blanket and carried JBR's body out of the cellar, I have often wondered if there was any way for CSI to determine if the marks in the floor dust gave any indication whether the body had been moved within the wine cellar prior to that. In fact, IIRC, we do not know precisely where the Hi-TEK boot print was located with a reference to how near the print was to where the body was found.

It's very frustrating to read misinformation in this forum, especially from a long-time member that should know better. I hope AK will retract his statement and clear things up. When I see something so blatantly wrong, if I have the time, I'm going to make a protest lol.

 

[Anti-K]

(BBM)
Anti-K, I disagree with your statement! What source do you have to back up your bold statement about it being an "established fact" that the body was not moved?????? I believe you are absolutely wrong about that.

Of course I have no way to prove to you that you are wrong, can't prove a negative. IIRC there has never been ANY credible source saying one way or the other that the body was moved or NOT-moved. Please don't try to mince words with me on this. If you have a credible source, then provide it. TIA

You do realize that I am referring to the body NOT being moved between the time that White looked in the room and the time that Ramsey found the body; right?
…

AK

 

[CorallaroC]

You do realize that I am referring to the body NOT being moved between the time that White looked in the room and the time that Ramsey found the body; right?
…

AK

It doesn't matter to me what time frame you are referring to, AK. We do not have any proof one way or the other, and no credible source saying it was or was-not moved during that time.

All we have, is FW saying that he did not see the body earlier. I feel that FW is a credible source and told the truth as he knew it. But that is a far cry from your assertion that it is an "established fact" that the body had not been moved. There simply is no proof either way, unfortunately. (Unless of course investigators have proof which they have not released to the public)

Like I said, if you have any source to back up your claim, please provide it. Otherwise, let's try to avoid confusing your speculation with what few established facts we really do have.

thanks

 

[Anti-K]

It doesn't matter to me what time frame you are referring to, AK. We do not have any proof one way or the other, and no credible source saying it was or was-not moved during that time.

All we have, is FW saying that he did not see the body earlier. I feel that FW is a credible source and told the truth as he knew it. But that is a far cry from your assertion that it is an "established fact" that the body had not been moved. There simply is no proof either way, unfortunately. (Unless of course investigators have proof which they have not released to the public)

Like I said, if you have any source to back up your claim, please provide it. Otherwise, let's try to avoid confusing your speculation with what few established facts we really do have.

thanks

Livor mortis, pooling of blood, patterns form – if the body had been moved evidence of it would be seen, but it is not.
It is not correct to say that my claim is speculation since no evidence of movement exists and no one associated with the case argues that the body was moved (remember the period of time in question). You can say that I exaggerated but I am not speculating. Saying that the body was moved is speculating, and it is speculating contrary to evidence (mortis, pooling, patterns).
…

AK

 

[questfortrue]

It doesn't matter to me what time frame you are referring to, AK. We do not have any proof one way or the other, and no credible source saying it was or was-not moved during that time.

All we have, is FW saying that he did not see the body earlier. I feel that FW is a credible source and told the truth as he knew it. But that is a far cry from your assertion that it is an "established fact" that the body had not been moved. There simply is no proof either way, unfortunately. (Unless of course investigators have proof which they have not released to the public)

Like I said, if you have any source to back up your claim, please provide it. Otherwise, let's try to avoid confusing your speculation with what few established facts we really do have.

thanks

CorallaroC, I understand what you're saying. Since the topic of livor mortis has been introduced, there's some additional explanation needed (supplementing AK's info).

It takes 20-30 minutes after death for livor mortis to begin. Then there’s an 8-12 hour window after death when livor mortis becomes fixed. During that time period, if her body were moved, a pathologist would be able to tell. However, if the livor mortis is fixed in the 8-12 hour window, moving the body gently after this window, leaving her still on her back, wouldn’t necessarily alter the pattern. This is my understanding. If JonBenét died at 12:00-1:00 am, it seems as though it would be possible for her body to have been gently moved to a more visible spot in the wc. (This could have taken place during the time of 10:00-11:00 am, when JR visited the basement.) But there certainly have been no factual statements supporting whether a move took place or not. Your viewpoint is well taken.

 

[icedtea4me]

Was this during his "Run For Office" period?

IMO his statement has got zero relevance to Burke as Burke was 9 when this crime was committed.

When John made his statement about wanting to see a law enacted that would make the murder of a child 12 years of age and younger a federal crime, he was referring from that point (April 2000) onward. Burke had just turned 13. Therefore, if he were to have been murdered, it would not have been a federal crime.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I think John's statement is completely irrelevant to Burke's age at the time. It probably has more to do with thirteen being the start of the teenage years. Besides 17 and 18 or 20 and 21, what other ages are there that are only a year apart but seem "different"? 13...you're a teenager now...18...you're an adult now....21...you can legally drink. It doesn't make any sense to me to act like John specifically chose that age so the murder of his son wouldn't be considered a federal crime.

 

[SapphireSteel]

CorallaroC, I understand what you're saying. Since the topic of livor mortis has been introduced, there's some additional explanation needed (supplementing AK's info).

It takes 20-30 minutes after death for livor mortis to begin. Then there’s an 8-12 hour window after death when livor mortis becomes fixed. During that time period, if her body were moved, a pathologist would be able to tell. However, if the livor mortis is fixed in the 8-12 hour window, moving the body gently after this window, leaving her still on her back, wouldn’t necessarily alter the pattern. This is my understanding. If JonBenét died at 12:00-1:00 am, it seems as though it would be possible for her body to have been gently moved to a more visible spot in the wc. (This could have taken place during the time of 10:00-11:00 am, when JR visited the basement.) But there certainly have been no factual statements supporting whether a move took place or not. Your viewpoint is well taken.

Nope

The minute the heart stops blood pools to the lowest point

this is immediate!

It "stains" the skin so even if a body is moved a tiny bit, it will be Obvious.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I think John's statement is completely irrelevant to Burke's age at the time. It probably has more to do with thirteen being the start of the teenage years. Besides 17 and 18 or 20 and 21, what other ages are there that are only a year apart but seem "different"? 13...you're a teenager now...18...you're an adult now....21...you can legally drink. It doesn't make any sense to me to act like John specifically chose that age so the murder of his son wouldn't be considered a federal crime.

It makes zero sense

However JR calling for Harsher Penalties for Children, DOES make sense. He hates kids.

 

[icedtea4me]

It makes zero sense

However JR calling for Harsher Penalties for Children, DOES make sense. He hates kids.

How in the world are you interpreting his statement?

 

[SapphireSteel]

How in the world are you interpreting his statement?

He wants the age of Criminal Responsibility lowered to 12.

 

[icedtea4me]

He wants the age of Criminal Responsibility lowered to 12.

He said that he would like to see a law enacted that would make the murder of a child who was 12 years of age or younger be a federal crime. The 12 years of age and younger refers to the victim, not the killer.

 

[questfortrue]

Nope

The minute the heart stops blood pools to the lowest point

this is immediate!

It "stains" the skin so even if a body is moved a tiny bit, it will be Obvious.

My post was pointing to the appearance (exterior visibility) of livor mortis vs. the actual physical initiation of it. Yes, when the heart stops pumping the blood stops circulating and pools due to lack of blood pressure and gravity to the lowest part of the body. This occurs within the body and may not be visible for 20 minutes to an hour.

[http://www.swast.nhs.uk/Downloads/Clinical Guidelines SWASFT staff/CG07_Cardiac_Arrest.pdf Livor mortis (post mortem hypostasis) - Settling of the blood due to the combined effects of cessation of the circulation, lack of blood pressure and the effects of gravity. – It is recognizable or apparent 30 minutes to 1 hours after death.]

[http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/rigor-mortis-and-lividity.html It is worth noting that lividity begins to work through the deceased within thirty minutes of their heart stopping and can last up to twelve hours.]

 

[CorallaroC]

My post was pointing to the appearance (exterior visibility) of livor mortis vs. the actual physical initiation of it. Yes, when the heart stops pumping the blood stops circulating and pools due to lack of blood pressure and gravity to the lowest part of the body. This occurs within the body and may not be visible for 20 minutes to an hour.

[http://www.swast.nhs.uk/Downloads/Clinical Guidelines SWASFT staff/CG07_Cardiac_Arrest.pdf Livor mortis (post mortem hypostasis) - Settling of the blood due to the combined effects of cessation of the circulation, lack of blood pressure and the effects of gravity. – It is recognizable or apparent 30 minutes to 1 hours after death.]

[http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/rigor-mortis-and-lividity.html It is worth noting that lividity begins to work through the deceased within thirty minutes of their heart stopping and can last up to twelve hours.]

Thank you for your post Questfortrue - you provided the most pertinent factual information IMO that applies to this case considering how little we know (relatively speaking) about this crime scene back in Dec 1996. I feel very confident there is more factual data that has not been made public, perhaps someday we (the public) will know more.

 

[Anti-K]

CorallaroC, I understand what you're saying. Since the topic of livor mortis has been introduced, there's some additional explanation needed (supplementing AK's info).

It takes 20-30 minutes after death for livor mortis to begin. Then there’s an 8-12 hour window after death when livor mortis becomes fixed. During that time period, if her body were moved, a pathologist would be able to tell. However, if the livor mortis is fixed in the 8-12 hour window, moving the body gently after this window, leaving her still on her back, wouldn’t necessarily alter the pattern. This is my understanding. If JonBenét died at 12:00-1:00 am, it seems as though it would be possible for her body to have been gently moved to a more visible spot in the wc. (This could have taken place during the time of 10:00-11:00 am, when JR visited the basement.) But there certainly have been no factual statements supporting whether a move took place or not. Your viewpoint is well taken.

The evidence as we know it is that the body was not moved. This is a factual statement, and it is not disputed by anyone associated with the case.

However, is seems that you’re saying that if Ramsey chose the right time – I guess he just got lucky - and if he moved the body in just the right way (why wouldn’t he just move it in the normal way) then MAYBE the body could have been moved without leaving any sign. This is purely speculative and necessarily contingent upon things occurring in an improbable fashion. It sounds far-fetched. It seems an unnecessarily complex explanation for White not seeing the body.

But, I’m interested in the timeline you present because – pause while I consider the reaction this is going to get from some – I’m skeptical (undecided) about the claim that Ramsey was in the basement between 10 and 11. Ramsey was in the basement before Arndt arrived (8:00). Contrary to reports, Ardnt never said that she lost track of Ramsey between 10:40 and 12:00. She said she “worded it in my report rather 14 vaguely, and what I worded and what has been put out in 15 the media are not the same. I said something during 16 that time frame I saw John reading his mail.” During her deposition Ardnt admitted that she, “did not watch John Ramsey the entire 22 time." But, this is a far cry from saying that he was missing for a period of time or that he was in the basement between 10 and 11.

I’m not even sure that I understand why he would want to move the body. If he wanted someone to find it wouldn’t he have just positioned it like that to begin with? If he decided he needed to discover it himself, why couldn’t he just do that without first moving it? Did he know that White had already looked in the room? If he did, would he still move the body? Of course, not, and etc...
…

AK

 

[AndHence]

This is something that has bothered me about the case since I first started looking into it. How/Why would an intruder know to place the note on the back staircase for Patsy to find? Wouldn't an intruder be more likely to place the ransom note on JonBenet's bed or perhaps on the kitchen counter next to where the pen and pad used to compose it were? Even if the intruder was someone close to the family and knew Patsy came down that way, they'd want to place the note where it was sure to be found by EITHER parent and not leave anything to chance. This coupled with the fact that the parents' fingerprints weren't found on the note are quite suspicious. I think it's highly unlikely the note was found on the staircase and both parents knew to keep their fingerprints off it given the lack of evidence for an intruder in the house. Thoughts?

 

[Ellie9]

This is something that has bothered me about the case since I first started looking into it. How/Why would an intruder know to place the note on the back staircase for Patsy to find? Wouldn't an intruder be more likely to place the ransom note on JonBenet's bed or perhaps on the kitchen counter next to where the pen and pad used to compose it where? Even if the intruder was someone close to the family and knew Patsy came down that way, they'd want to place the note where it was sure to be found by EITHER parent and not leave anything to chance. This coupled with the fact that the parents' fingerprints weren't found on the note are quite suspicious. I think it's highly unlikely the note was found on the staircase and both parents knew to keep their fingerprints off it given the lack of evidence for an intruder in the house. Thoughts?

A lot of people have said that the back staircase is where the housekeeper routinely left all her notes to Patsy.

If RDI then they may have been planning to blame the housekeeper or someone she knew doing this job on her behalf. If IDI it basically only leaves the housekeeper, who the investigators have ruled out.

Who else in the world would leave a note there? I lived in a house with two staircases to the kitchen area too. If someone left a ransom note there the police would have to find it because no one in my family ever used the back staircase. I can think of several other places to leave a note that all make perfect sense. The back staircase isn't on the list at all.

If Patsy was the first one to say she found it in the back staircase, then I can personally easily assume that this is due to Patsy being a terrible crime stager. If John said this first, I think he's smart, and knows crime better with his reading habits, I'd think then the plan was to blame the housekeeper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

If IDI, it is possible that the killer was not even aware that there was more than one set of stairs.

As a companion to my “theory” of intent, I have a detailed “theory” of movement through the house in which the note is placed as a final act before the killer exits the house. Using my “theory” as key, the note is placed last because the killer does not want it discovered while he is in the house, and it is placed on the stairs because once the crime is committed and the scene staged he is in a hurry to exit and does not want to risk going back to the second floor, and, more importantly, because of proximity to where he placed the notepad, plus, it was on his way out. He spreads the note out one page at a time so that it will be easily seen.

BTW, because of where the spiral staircase is located it becomes the natural set of stairs to use and an obvious place for persons to leave things that they want others to notice (yes, there are other obvious places). This is probably the reason why LHP would sometimes leave things there.
…

AK