Thanks, Blue Crab. Unsolved cases really get to me, as I had a pretty young cousin who has been missing out of her apartment for twenty years and I don't think that the cops got right on it like they should have. At least that is what I hear. They suspect foul play but now nothing could re-open that cold case except finding the bones, probably.BlueCrab said:
Why not very much blood?
- Thread starter Kaly
- Start date
Kalyopsis:
Why ST didn't note that theory in his book: For the simple reason that he was obssessed with the idea that the killing was an inside job from the very beginning?
Did it come along afterward?: It's not a new theory, by any means. Wecht, for one, expressed it right off the bat.
Did AES expert examine noose?: There was a fellow from Canada who came down and examined the knot; he was not an AES expert to my knowledge, but he was a knot expert. I'm not aware that his finding was ever made public. The F.B.I. examined the evidence and offered their opinion. I don't believe they championed the AES theory.
Assumes intruder theory to be correct: Not necessarily; I think Wecht's sex-play theory embraced the father.
Ignores fiber evidence and ransom note: Fiber evidence, maybe; ransom note, no. The most authoritative intruder theory, that of Lou Smit, has the intruder/kidnapper/pedophile writing the ransom note. The main troubles with that theory are that there was no glaring evidence of an intruder, and kidnappers don't usually grab kids for both sex and ransom money, not to mention leave their collateral behind.
Your guess is as good as anyones.
At the risk of inviting criticism, I advise you to read the Douglas book, Cases That Haunt Us. It contains a section about the Ramsey case. He makes some interesting observations.
Back to Steve Thomas: he says, in his book, that the tape was applied over blood that came from the mouth; yet the coroner said of the stuff which had come from her mouth that it didn't appear to be hemorrhagic, i.e. blood. Maybe Thomas meant to say that the tape had been applied over the stuff that had come from her mouth; assumed it was blood. He also said that the tape must have been applied after she'd died or while she was unconscious and approaching death, because there was no evidence that she had tried to reject it with her mouth or tongue-"there was a perfect lip impression." It would be one thing to be certain that the tape had been applied over the stuff that had come from her mouth, and another thing to be certain that it had been applied after her death. If the latter, then that would leave two possibilities: (1.) staging or (2.) some psychological need of the perp. Incidentally, Patsy said, that in her opinion, it was not duct tape; it wasn't sticky enough. BTW, duct tape can be rejected by movements of the mouth and pressure applied to it by the tongue. Except that it is readily available in the stores, it has little to recommend it. Surgical tape would be much better suited to the purpose. Don't try this at home.
pedophile: I don't know. Are pedophiles attracted to little girls who look like adults? Do you know one that we could ask?
"I can assure you that there is no killer roaming the streets of Boulder looking for little girls."
Why ST didn't note that theory in his book: For the simple reason that he was obssessed with the idea that the killing was an inside job from the very beginning?
Did it come along afterward?: It's not a new theory, by any means. Wecht, for one, expressed it right off the bat.
Did AES expert examine noose?: There was a fellow from Canada who came down and examined the knot; he was not an AES expert to my knowledge, but he was a knot expert. I'm not aware that his finding was ever made public. The F.B.I. examined the evidence and offered their opinion. I don't believe they championed the AES theory.
Assumes intruder theory to be correct: Not necessarily; I think Wecht's sex-play theory embraced the father.
Ignores fiber evidence and ransom note: Fiber evidence, maybe; ransom note, no. The most authoritative intruder theory, that of Lou Smit, has the intruder/kidnapper/pedophile writing the ransom note. The main troubles with that theory are that there was no glaring evidence of an intruder, and kidnappers don't usually grab kids for both sex and ransom money, not to mention leave their collateral behind.
Your guess is as good as anyones.
At the risk of inviting criticism, I advise you to read the Douglas book, Cases That Haunt Us. It contains a section about the Ramsey case. He makes some interesting observations.
Back to Steve Thomas: he says, in his book, that the tape was applied over blood that came from the mouth; yet the coroner said of the stuff which had come from her mouth that it didn't appear to be hemorrhagic, i.e. blood. Maybe Thomas meant to say that the tape had been applied over the stuff that had come from her mouth; assumed it was blood. He also said that the tape must have been applied after she'd died or while she was unconscious and approaching death, because there was no evidence that she had tried to reject it with her mouth or tongue-"there was a perfect lip impression." It would be one thing to be certain that the tape had been applied over the stuff that had come from her mouth, and another thing to be certain that it had been applied after her death. If the latter, then that would leave two possibilities: (1.) staging or (2.) some psychological need of the perp. Incidentally, Patsy said, that in her opinion, it was not duct tape; it wasn't sticky enough. BTW, duct tape can be rejected by movements of the mouth and pressure applied to it by the tongue. Except that it is readily available in the stores, it has little to recommend it. Surgical tape would be much better suited to the purpose. Don't try this at home.
pedophile: I don't know. Are pedophiles attracted to little girls who look like adults? Do you know one that we could ask?
"I can assure you that there is no killer roaming the streets of Boulder looking for little girls."
RedChief,RedChief said:
I am very impressed with your knowledge of the case material and command of the facts available in JonBenet's death. You list persuasive reasons, in this post and in the "SBTC" thread, that an intruder did not kill JonBenet.
You also have eliminated John being involvled in JonBenet's death and the staging -
If you've already posted what you believe happen that night, I apologize that I've missed it. If you have not posted your theory, how do you believe JonBenet died?
Miss Daisey
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,315
- Reaction score
- 1
RedChief, this post reads like a "user manual" AES. Far too graphic for editing "just for the fun of it"RedChief said:
IMO
RedChief said:
RedChief,
I too am impressed with your knowledge of the case and your reasoning with respect to the evidence.
IMO you are correct in regard to the note not being written by an intruder.
No one would be able to break into the occupied house, somehow get JonBenet to willingly go downstairs to snack on pineapple with him (while he drinks a glass of iced tea), then sexually assaults her, then kills her, then cleans her up and redresses her in clean underwear (size 12-14), then stays in the house for at least another hour to write a three-page ransom note, and then escapes without leaving any evidence of his having been there.
So common sense tells us that three people are left in the house who could have been involved in the killing, in the staging, and in the writing of the ransom note -- John, or Patsy, or Burke.
The six qualified document examiners, appointed by the CBI to examine 73 possible writers of the ransom note, eliminated John as the writer and came very close to eliminating Patsy as the writer. However, the QDE's could not eliminate Burke as the writer.
The information about Burke not being eliminated as the writer of the RN has been kept out of the media, except for early in the case. For instance, an article in the Daily Camera on 11/22/97 stated:
"Handwriting analyses conducted prior to the March search revealed John Ramsey did not write the ransom note, that it was "probable" Burke did not write the note,and possible that Patsy wrote it, according to documents released Friday."
The documents the article is referring to is the police warrant to search the Ramsey's Charlevoix house in Michigan.
Since then we know for sure that John was eliminated as the writer and Patsy was very close to being eliminated and (contrary to what Steve Thomas was falsely spreading around) a bunch of the 73 who were tested by the CBI could also not be eliminated -- including Burke.
IMO, based on the simple process of elimination, Burke likely wrote the childish-sounding ransom note.
BlueCrab
Camper
New Member
As Mrs. Doubtfire would say.
Hmmm, long time no see Blue Crab.
Yes, the self use of an erotic device crossed my mind over the past years, and in dicussing on Yahoo chat with MJenn, we collectively wondered if the handle was long enough to throw over a plumbing pipe in the basement, to accomodate a lone individual using it by themselves.
The best detective thingie that could have happened on the morning of December 26th would have been for the FIRST detective on scene to have THOROUGHLY SEARCHED THE HOUSE, and to have found the body and upon finding it, called for a blood hound and an experienced handler.
The Christmas holiday caught the BPD with their alertness down.
I would have suspected that the scent of the original adult ?, user of that device might have been found sniffed out in the Ramsey house IF IF they were still there. IF they were gone, why didn't they take their pet rope with em, cuz how did they know they would ever find such a great handle again as PR's personal paint brush handle was, hmmm.?
I do think the person who broke the paint handle was scooted outta Dodge Christmas night in a self owned plane. I also wonder if the BPD found a brush of the same size and brand, and practiced breaking one? Our very own store sold high quality art supplies and BRUSHES, and a brush of that size would take a GARGANTUAN amount of strength to break. Was there a vice in the basement, anyone know?
I need some help on this, did WE ever know if the break on the brush handle was a fresh break?
The BPD did call in a Canadian Mountie expert on knot tying, whom I would have thought should have been well schooled on detecting scents found on such rope.
Lest we forget, JR Jr's semen stained blankie in the obscure suitcase, was found in the basement.
.
Hmmm, long time no see Blue Crab.
Yes, the self use of an erotic device crossed my mind over the past years, and in dicussing on Yahoo chat with MJenn, we collectively wondered if the handle was long enough to throw over a plumbing pipe in the basement, to accomodate a lone individual using it by themselves.
The best detective thingie that could have happened on the morning of December 26th would have been for the FIRST detective on scene to have THOROUGHLY SEARCHED THE HOUSE, and to have found the body and upon finding it, called for a blood hound and an experienced handler.
The Christmas holiday caught the BPD with their alertness down.
I would have suspected that the scent of the original adult ?, user of that device might have been found sniffed out in the Ramsey house IF IF they were still there. IF they were gone, why didn't they take their pet rope with em, cuz how did they know they would ever find such a great handle again as PR's personal paint brush handle was, hmmm.?
I do think the person who broke the paint handle was scooted outta Dodge Christmas night in a self owned plane. I also wonder if the BPD found a brush of the same size and brand, and practiced breaking one? Our very own store sold high quality art supplies and BRUSHES, and a brush of that size would take a GARGANTUAN amount of strength to break. Was there a vice in the basement, anyone know?
I need some help on this, did WE ever know if the break on the brush handle was a fresh break?
The BPD did call in a Canadian Mountie expert on knot tying, whom I would have thought should have been well schooled on detecting scents found on such rope.
Lest we forget, JR Jr's semen stained blankie in the obscure suitcase, was found in the basement.
.
Miss Daisy,
Pleased to meet you!
I beg to differ. AES stands for auto-erotic stimulation. My comments were in regard to "snuff sex."
Far too graphic? Well, if John Ramsey can talk about it, we can talk about it. We'll never get to the bottom of this matter by skirting certain aspects because they are gruesome or disgusting or hard to talk about; besides, the answer to the question, who did it?, could very well be in the gruesome details.
Take the strangulation, for example; how much time was involved in that? How long did the perp have to maintain tension in the noose? Did he just tighten it and walk away, or did he have to stay there, pulling on the cord, until she was dead? My guess is the former, but it is only a guess. These are important questions because the answers to them may shed light on the perp's motives, intentions and personality. Furthermore, the answers to questions such as these-one must pose them first-could assist in ruling out some of the suspects. We can't know ahead of time where this will all lead, but we can hope it will lead us to the killer.
In short, the more we can know about this case in every minute detail, the more likely we are to know who was involved in the child's death. Either we're going to study it, investigate it and talk about it, or we're not. Which is it?
Thanks for your comment.
PS: I love to edit; it's my job.
Pleased to meet you!
I beg to differ. AES stands for auto-erotic stimulation. My comments were in regard to "snuff sex."
Far too graphic? Well, if John Ramsey can talk about it, we can talk about it. We'll never get to the bottom of this matter by skirting certain aspects because they are gruesome or disgusting or hard to talk about; besides, the answer to the question, who did it?, could very well be in the gruesome details.
Take the strangulation, for example; how much time was involved in that? How long did the perp have to maintain tension in the noose? Did he just tighten it and walk away, or did he have to stay there, pulling on the cord, until she was dead? My guess is the former, but it is only a guess. These are important questions because the answers to them may shed light on the perp's motives, intentions and personality. Furthermore, the answers to questions such as these-one must pose them first-could assist in ruling out some of the suspects. We can't know ahead of time where this will all lead, but we can hope it will lead us to the killer.
In short, the more we can know about this case in every minute detail, the more likely we are to know who was involved in the child's death. Either we're going to study it, investigate it and talk about it, or we're not. Which is it?
Thanks for your comment.
PS: I love to edit; it's my job.
Catfish,
Pleased to meet you.
I feel a special kinship with you; I subsisted one summer many moons ago almost entirely on catfish and fresh vegetables from my garden. Walking to and fro between my house and the river enabled me to get into pretty good physical shape also-good diet, good exercise.
I'm sure you'll be disappointed to learn that I haven't posted a theory on the website as to how she died; nor am I able to tell you at this moment with certainty. That's largely why I'm here at this website-to find out.
I'm leaning a little toward the "inside job" hypothesis these days. I'm pretty sure John wasn't involved, so whom does that leave? But, honestly, when I read books like Cases That Haunt Us and listen to Lou Smit and watch 48 Hours-Mystery, they do give me pause.
There was a time when I was pretty sure it wasn't a Ramsey-I'd have bet you money on it-but after studying the case for some time, I began to consider their involvement a possibility; then, I became almost convinced that Patsy did it-I could have written Thomas' book, his thinking and ideas were so similar to mine. Frankly, the Grand Jury's decision not to indict was a big letdown, and I felt a little ashamed for suspecting the Ramseys. Also, I was a little disappointed with the Thomas book (the factual errors, mischaracterizations, etc.) and with myself for advancing the same theory. But, after carefully considering all the additional evidence and discussion that is available to me these days via the internet, not to mention this website-quite a lot more information than I could access in the early days-I'm finding the accident theory somewhat more attractive-mother and son; God help me! You know there is just something about "the boy did it and the mom is protecting him" that I find worth considering. What puzzles me most about that scenario, though, is the severity of the head injury. If you can demonstrate that it was accidental and fits with the strangulation, you've got the cat in the bag. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the other way around. I keep thinking that Christmas figures into this somehow. Did JonBenet lay waste to one of Burke's toys? She was known to be a little ornery that way. Did that set him off? Did Patsy get a stun gun for Christmas? BTW, who was the strolling Santa in the Mall that year? It wasn't McReynolds. Whose lap did JonBenet sit in that year and go down her list of wished-for presents that year? Who filmed her performance in the Christmas pageant (was that also in the Mall?) that year-the one which won her the Santa Bear? And, there was those hours they were away at the White's. You see, even at this late date, I have all these questions. When it becomes known that a little girl who was murdered on Christmas day confided to a friend's mother that Santa was going to visit her after Christmas and it was a SECRET, that has to be thoroughly investigated, doesn't it?
I reserve the right to change my mind without prior notice.
Pleased to meet you.
I feel a special kinship with you; I subsisted one summer many moons ago almost entirely on catfish and fresh vegetables from my garden. Walking to and fro between my house and the river enabled me to get into pretty good physical shape also-good diet, good exercise.
I'm sure you'll be disappointed to learn that I haven't posted a theory on the website as to how she died; nor am I able to tell you at this moment with certainty. That's largely why I'm here at this website-to find out.
I'm leaning a little toward the "inside job" hypothesis these days. I'm pretty sure John wasn't involved, so whom does that leave? But, honestly, when I read books like Cases That Haunt Us and listen to Lou Smit and watch 48 Hours-Mystery, they do give me pause.
There was a time when I was pretty sure it wasn't a Ramsey-I'd have bet you money on it-but after studying the case for some time, I began to consider their involvement a possibility; then, I became almost convinced that Patsy did it-I could have written Thomas' book, his thinking and ideas were so similar to mine. Frankly, the Grand Jury's decision not to indict was a big letdown, and I felt a little ashamed for suspecting the Ramseys. Also, I was a little disappointed with the Thomas book (the factual errors, mischaracterizations, etc.) and with myself for advancing the same theory. But, after carefully considering all the additional evidence and discussion that is available to me these days via the internet, not to mention this website-quite a lot more information than I could access in the early days-I'm finding the accident theory somewhat more attractive-mother and son; God help me! You know there is just something about "the boy did it and the mom is protecting him" that I find worth considering. What puzzles me most about that scenario, though, is the severity of the head injury. If you can demonstrate that it was accidental and fits with the strangulation, you've got the cat in the bag. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the other way around. I keep thinking that Christmas figures into this somehow. Did JonBenet lay waste to one of Burke's toys? She was known to be a little ornery that way. Did that set him off? Did Patsy get a stun gun for Christmas? BTW, who was the strolling Santa in the Mall that year? It wasn't McReynolds. Whose lap did JonBenet sit in that year and go down her list of wished-for presents that year? Who filmed her performance in the Christmas pageant (was that also in the Mall?) that year-the one which won her the Santa Bear? And, there was those hours they were away at the White's. You see, even at this late date, I have all these questions. When it becomes known that a little girl who was murdered on Christmas day confided to a friend's mother that Santa was going to visit her after Christmas and it was a SECRET, that has to be thoroughly investigated, doesn't it?
I reserve the right to change my mind without prior notice.
Miss Daisey
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,315
- Reaction score
- 1
Beg pardon, Redchief. I missed your title of "snuff sex" ("user manual"). It's just that it's so discriptive and gone over so many times....it's just a bit creepy and.........RedChief said:
Welcome to the WS.......and carry on.
Greetings, BlueCrab,
Don't be fooled-I really don't know very much. What I lack in knowledge, I make up for in analysis.
Hasn't the fundamental problem with this case always been that the evidence in it's entirety doesn't fit perfectly with any of the plausible scenarios?
Does anyone honestly believe that Patsy clobbered the child, then made a hasty decision to finish her off with a noose and stage a cover-up? I can't see her doing this unless went she off the deep end and became totally wacko. According to the experts she'd have had no more than 40 minutes from the time of the head injury to the time of the asphyxiation; plus she'd have had to deliberately injure the child's vagina which no mother is apt to do no matter how desperate the circumstance. Plus she'd have had to do all this without her husband's and Burke's knowledge; no small feat.
If it is a fact that emotional attachment to the child is demonstrated by her being wrapped "papoose-like" in the blanket, then it's reasonable to conclude that the mom or the dad were involved at some point and to some degree. Since it doesn't appear that John was involved (if he was, he's too clever by half), which parent does that leave? It's hard to imagine that a stranger/intruder would show this much tenderness; however, it's remotely possible that, though a stranger to us, and perhaps even to the parents, an intruder known only to JBR was involved-someone who cared for the girl, even loved her, in his own sick way. I've read that when some of these weirdos are spurned by the object of their affection, they react violently. Perhaps you psych experts could weigh in on this one (probably already have).
I don't think Burke composed the note; though it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that he could have penned it. He may also have been consulted. Douglas (in TCTHU) said that to him it appeared to have been written by a younger person, perhaps a teenager, who had viewed a lot of techno-thriller movies (I paraphrase). He said it appeared to him that the writer was uncertain and insecure and that this uncertainty and insecurity could account for the lengthy note with it's many dire admonitions. He pointed in particular to the phrase, "We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction." He said he could imagine a young person repeating something he had heard in a movie, like "we represent a foreign faction." He also pointed out that the youth and inexperience of the perpetrator could account for his failure to remove his captive from the house. Further, youngsters are more apt to bluff than are adults. I have no idea what Burke's IQ was at the time, nor how well he could write, nor whether he could put two words together to form a sentence, let alone compose a little masterpiece. I have a faint recollection that someone once said that he was precocious. I have always thought, like Foster, that the quality of the writing was above average even for an ordinary adult and showed signs of intelligence and cleverness.
The intruder: how did he get in? What Smit saw, from viewing photos, as evidence of someone having entered through the broken basement window, I can see as evidence that the window had been open for some time-days, months-and the ledge swept clear of the sort of debris that had piled up in the corners and in front of the other two adjacent windows. What Lou Smit saw as evidence of entry through that window-the leaves and debris on the floor under it-I can see as evidence that when a window is left open, crap like that can be swept inside by wind currents. What Lou Smit sees as evidence of someone moving around in the basement that night by virtue of the plastic packing peanut found in the wine cellar, I can see as evidence that at some point prior to the night of the murder, an occupant of the house-not to mention others whose presence from time to time was authorized-tracked the peanut into the cellar during the normal course of human events. And so on and so on.
Do you really think someone who entered the house with the intention of kidnapping JonBenet, and leaving a ransom note, would fail to bring one with him? He remembered the cord, and the duct tape, and the stun gun, but he forgot to bring a note; so, he composed one on the scene? Balderdash! Well, don't forget that the Chicago Lipstick Murderer composed a ransom note on the scene in a spur-of-the-moment kidnapping maneuver during a burglary of the child's apartment while mom and dad were present in the house. He snatched the sleeping child (JonBenet's age, I think) out of her bed and removed her through a window and down a ladder. BTW, she didn't cry out and he hadn't gagged her nor taped her mouth. However, he wrote a proper note: have your kid, want x amount of money, don't notify the police.
I think no one intended to kill this child. But I could be wrong. Perish the thought!
Don't be fooled-I really don't know very much. What I lack in knowledge, I make up for in analysis.
Hasn't the fundamental problem with this case always been that the evidence in it's entirety doesn't fit perfectly with any of the plausible scenarios?
Does anyone honestly believe that Patsy clobbered the child, then made a hasty decision to finish her off with a noose and stage a cover-up? I can't see her doing this unless went she off the deep end and became totally wacko. According to the experts she'd have had no more than 40 minutes from the time of the head injury to the time of the asphyxiation; plus she'd have had to deliberately injure the child's vagina which no mother is apt to do no matter how desperate the circumstance. Plus she'd have had to do all this without her husband's and Burke's knowledge; no small feat.
If it is a fact that emotional attachment to the child is demonstrated by her being wrapped "papoose-like" in the blanket, then it's reasonable to conclude that the mom or the dad were involved at some point and to some degree. Since it doesn't appear that John was involved (if he was, he's too clever by half), which parent does that leave? It's hard to imagine that a stranger/intruder would show this much tenderness; however, it's remotely possible that, though a stranger to us, and perhaps even to the parents, an intruder known only to JBR was involved-someone who cared for the girl, even loved her, in his own sick way. I've read that when some of these weirdos are spurned by the object of their affection, they react violently. Perhaps you psych experts could weigh in on this one (probably already have).
I don't think Burke composed the note; though it is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that he could have penned it. He may also have been consulted. Douglas (in TCTHU) said that to him it appeared to have been written by a younger person, perhaps a teenager, who had viewed a lot of techno-thriller movies (I paraphrase). He said it appeared to him that the writer was uncertain and insecure and that this uncertainty and insecurity could account for the lengthy note with it's many dire admonitions. He pointed in particular to the phrase, "We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction." He said he could imagine a young person repeating something he had heard in a movie, like "we represent a foreign faction." He also pointed out that the youth and inexperience of the perpetrator could account for his failure to remove his captive from the house. Further, youngsters are more apt to bluff than are adults. I have no idea what Burke's IQ was at the time, nor how well he could write, nor whether he could put two words together to form a sentence, let alone compose a little masterpiece. I have a faint recollection that someone once said that he was precocious. I have always thought, like Foster, that the quality of the writing was above average even for an ordinary adult and showed signs of intelligence and cleverness.
The intruder: how did he get in? What Smit saw, from viewing photos, as evidence of someone having entered through the broken basement window, I can see as evidence that the window had been open for some time-days, months-and the ledge swept clear of the sort of debris that had piled up in the corners and in front of the other two adjacent windows. What Lou Smit saw as evidence of entry through that window-the leaves and debris on the floor under it-I can see as evidence that when a window is left open, crap like that can be swept inside by wind currents. What Lou Smit sees as evidence of someone moving around in the basement that night by virtue of the plastic packing peanut found in the wine cellar, I can see as evidence that at some point prior to the night of the murder, an occupant of the house-not to mention others whose presence from time to time was authorized-tracked the peanut into the cellar during the normal course of human events. And so on and so on.
Do you really think someone who entered the house with the intention of kidnapping JonBenet, and leaving a ransom note, would fail to bring one with him? He remembered the cord, and the duct tape, and the stun gun, but he forgot to bring a note; so, he composed one on the scene? Balderdash! Well, don't forget that the Chicago Lipstick Murderer composed a ransom note on the scene in a spur-of-the-moment kidnapping maneuver during a burglary of the child's apartment while mom and dad were present in the house. He snatched the sleeping child (JonBenet's age, I think) out of her bed and removed her through a window and down a ladder. BTW, she didn't cry out and he hadn't gagged her nor taped her mouth. However, he wrote a proper note: have your kid, want x amount of money, don't notify the police.
I think no one intended to kill this child. But I could be wrong. Perish the thought!
cappuccina
Former Member
there was not much blood as the major injury to JBR while traumatic and fatal was more of a "closed head injury" type of thing, and so the blood did not seep out the way it would have if someone were shot, for example...The hematoma she had would not bleed the same way as a gunshot wound...
The other injuries she had were more abrasions than anything else, and, again, would not produce huge amounts of blood..
Yes, I do see PR striking out at her daughter in a fit of rage, and then staging this cover-up.I do not beleive that the initial blow was premeditated, but was the culmination of a terrible set of circumstances..My guess is that this child was verbally and physically abulsed before this, however...The cover-up was clearly done by someone who was related to this child and had a lot of feelings for her. The entire crime/crime scene contains almost all of the elements LE looks for when a doemstic homicide with "staging" occurs, that is, when a family member is killed by another, and then an attempt is made either to cover up the crime, or to divert the blame onto a "stranger"...
All of this is just my opinion, of course..
The other injuries she had were more abrasions than anything else, and, again, would not produce huge amounts of blood..
Yes, I do see PR striking out at her daughter in a fit of rage, and then staging this cover-up.I do not beleive that the initial blow was premeditated, but was the culmination of a terrible set of circumstances..My guess is that this child was verbally and physically abulsed before this, however...The cover-up was clearly done by someone who was related to this child and had a lot of feelings for her. The entire crime/crime scene contains almost all of the elements LE looks for when a doemstic homicide with "staging" occurs, that is, when a family member is killed by another, and then an attempt is made either to cover up the crime, or to divert the blame onto a "stranger"...
All of this is just my opinion, of course..
sissi
Former Member
Everyone always brings up the "fact" that no scenario is complete. The missing piece to the puzzle..the fitting square pegs into lalala...
As much as I don't quite believe this, I am going to say it again, the LHP family scenario fits in every way, adds all of the needed "pieces" yet we don't believe it. Why should we ever believe any scenario?
She had a key
her hubby and other family members had been in that room at Thanksgiving
she was distraught over money
a check was to be left on the counter for her
she is the one that hid the knife
she showed paper pads and pens taken from the Ramseys to the cops
she cleaned there, knew the amount shown on the stubs
"BEST" on the 26th when police arrived Mervin said (in a drunken state) "did they strangle her"
Just what doesn't fit here??
As much as I don't quite believe this, I am going to say it again, the LHP family scenario fits in every way, adds all of the needed "pieces" yet we don't believe it. Why should we ever believe any scenario?
She had a key
her hubby and other family members had been in that room at Thanksgiving
she was distraught over money
a check was to be left on the counter for her
she is the one that hid the knife
she showed paper pads and pens taken from the Ramseys to the cops
she cleaned there, knew the amount shown on the stubs
"BEST" on the 26th when police arrived Mervin said (in a drunken state) "did they strangle her"
Just what doesn't fit here??
I agree with you. If that family were involved in any way, I tend to lean toward the older kids. Some of them had helped with the Christmas decorating and had been all thru the house. But then I go back to the DNA, and if the RST say the DNA belongs to the killer, then I have to believe that it was checked against the Pughs'. So...that should eliminate them, by RST standards. That leads me right back to an accident and cover-up.
Miss Daisey
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,315
- Reaction score
- 1
IMO, the "pieces" (evidence) at the crime scene were deliberatly scrambled to confuse the circumstances of the death of JBR. That's why we "sleuths" keep scratching our heads.:waitasec: All the pieces don't fit by design.
The evidence, developed by the grand jury, for an indictment is sealed by the court with a gag order firmly in place.
IMO, the only chance for prosecution would be brought by the US Justice Dept. as a civil rights case as in the Rodney King case in CA...where, you'll recall, the defendants were aquitted in the criminal trial but found guilty of violation of his civil rights. Some of the defendants went to federal prison.
Even if there was an indictment in federal court, there's a good chance there wouldn't be a successful prosecution because the crime scene and evidence were so trampled...contaminated....too many people were allowed into the house between 6:00am and 1:30-2:00pm on Dec 26th...and possibly on days following when family members were allowed inside to remove personal belongings.
_______________
IMO
The evidence, developed by the grand jury, for an indictment is sealed by the court with a gag order firmly in place.
IMO, the only chance for prosecution would be brought by the US Justice Dept. as a civil rights case as in the Rodney King case in CA...where, you'll recall, the defendants were aquitted in the criminal trial but found guilty of violation of his civil rights. Some of the defendants went to federal prison.
Even if there was an indictment in federal court, there's a good chance there wouldn't be a successful prosecution because the crime scene and evidence were so trampled...contaminated....too many people were allowed into the house between 6:00am and 1:30-2:00pm on Dec 26th...and possibly on days following when family members were allowed inside to remove personal belongings.
_______________
IMO
sissi
Former Member
Nehemiah, yes, "but", if we are using that dna to solve the crime then we must eliminate any possibility of a Ramsey ,as well?!
I don't recall the number of children LHP had, it rings a bell something like six or so? Would we be correct in expecting the BPD to have checked each ,along with their spouses..dates..friends? Arianna was swabbed TWO years after the murder, is this a bit telling of how the BPD handled that family?
BrotherMoon..belated Happy VD day to you too
I don't recall the number of children LHP had, it rings a bell something like six or so? Would we be correct in expecting the BPD to have checked each ,along with their spouses..dates..friends? Arianna was swabbed TWO years after the murder, is this a bit telling of how the BPD handled that family?
BrotherMoon..belated Happy VD day to you too
BrotherMoon
Former Member
sissi said:BrotherMoon..belated Happy VD day to you too
I'm glad you aren't hypersensitive and insecure like some some posters here.
"Everyone always brings up the "fact" that no scenario is complete."
sissi: My guess is that your comment alludes to my remark about the evidence not perfectly fitting the proposed scenarios. Since you have enclosed the word, fact, in quotes, I take it that you mean SUPPOSED facts. I didn't say that it was a fact that no scenario was complete. In fact, I posed the remark as a question. Even if I had asked, isn't it a fact that no scenario explains all the evidence, that would not be the same as declaring it a fact. That would be asking whether it was a fact or not. I am a stickler for the facts. People often say that this or that is a fact, when this or that is NOT a fact. I am keenly aware of that.
Regarding the Pughs: Yes, I have often thought they should be considered prime suspects; in fact, LE DID consider them prime suspects at first, but after interviewing them, analyzing their handwriting, checking their alibis, collecting DNA and hair samples, etc., put them on a back burner, where they have remained, insofar as I know, for lo these many years. Have they been cleared by DNA?
Now, here are some things I just thought of, and they're questions: Do you consider it a fact that the note was written on sheets of paper (pages) torn (or otherwise removed) from the infamous notepad which John Ramsey reportedly gave to the detective when samples of the Ramseys' handwriting were requested? Do you consider it a fact that the note was written by the perpetrator that night while he was in the house, either before or after the crime was comitted? Do you consider it a fact that there was evidence of a "practice" note? What are the facts, as you see them, regarding the pen, the pad and the note?
Now, here is an observation regarding what we may suppose are facts: That the note was written on paper which had at one time been a component of the notebook, assuming you consider that a fact, does not demand that the note was written in the house that night, nor does it demand that it was written by the person who killed the girl. What it does demand is that the note was written by a person (or a trained monkey) who had access to the notepad, and what it allows is that the paper may have been removed from the pad AND the house by some person who had access to the pad at some time prior to when the note was "found." The evidence seems to suggest, though, that when the note was written, the paper it was written on, at least the last page, page 25 of the pad (not the note), was attached to (a component of) the pad (there was bleedthrough to page 26) , implying that someone had flipped open the pad and written the note. It can't be known whether, at the time the note was written, assuming that the foregoing is correct, the pad or the paper (initially a component thereof) was in the house or someone had removed it from the house in order to write the note, or for some other initial purpose. But, the fact, if you consider it so, that the sharpie which was used to write it was found in the penholder in the house, seems to suggest that the writing occurred in the house. However, it is possible that the pen, also, at some point, had been removed from the house by either the perpetrator or someone associated with the perpetrator who did the actual writing, then returned it to the house. It would be helpful to know when Patsy last wrote in the pad, as that might indicate that the note was written after that, but we couldn't be certain even of that, because it is possible to go into the "middle" of a pad and remove blank pages, without anyone who uses the pad, afterward, knowing that it has been done, providing doing so doesn't leave a noticeable gap in the tablet as a whole. I'm not aware that any of the Pugh's fingerprints were found on the note or the pad. Also, didn't they fail the handwriting analysis? Do you suspect a conspiracy involving one or more Pughs and one or more non-Pughs?
What is the upshot of all this? Well, of course, LHP and company or perhaps just company, could have been involved in this crime. She had unlimited access to everything in the house that wasn't placed under lock and key or hidden away where even God couldn't find it. She admitted to having borrowed stuff from Patsy-including notepads. She could have known about the $118,000 bonus. She had remarked that JonBenet might be kidnapped ("Aren't you afraid...") so the thought had crossed her mind. She and her family weren't well to do. Her husband was a souse and not working. They were behind in their rent. But do you think she'd have admitted this to Patsy and then asked for an advance on her salary, then turned around and grabbed the girl?? That's hard to believe. But what about the company? Family members, including the husband, had been in the house, even the wine cellar, on more than one occasion; had even been asked to clean windows, so could easily have known about the broken and unlocked window in the train room. She had a key, could have used it or left a door ajar. Lots of possibilities. Well how DO you fit all this together? Give us a scenario, carefully explain it and leave out no details, that involves LHP and company or just company. Please! Why did they strangle her, abuse her and bash her head in and leave her behind in the cellar? Objection! Misstates the evidence.
Does anyone know whether any of the stuff (cord, tape, etc.) turned over by the Pughes matched any of the stuff found at the crime scene? I can't imagine that LE didn't scrutinize it carefully. Did LHP ever write a book? If not, why not? If so, what's the title?
Haven't I cautioned that we need to PIN DOWN the facts?
Thanks, sissi! Inquiring minds want to know.
Yours truly, George Johnson
sissi: My guess is that your comment alludes to my remark about the evidence not perfectly fitting the proposed scenarios. Since you have enclosed the word, fact, in quotes, I take it that you mean SUPPOSED facts. I didn't say that it was a fact that no scenario was complete. In fact, I posed the remark as a question. Even if I had asked, isn't it a fact that no scenario explains all the evidence, that would not be the same as declaring it a fact. That would be asking whether it was a fact or not. I am a stickler for the facts. People often say that this or that is a fact, when this or that is NOT a fact. I am keenly aware of that.
Regarding the Pughs: Yes, I have often thought they should be considered prime suspects; in fact, LE DID consider them prime suspects at first, but after interviewing them, analyzing their handwriting, checking their alibis, collecting DNA and hair samples, etc., put them on a back burner, where they have remained, insofar as I know, for lo these many years. Have they been cleared by DNA?
Now, here are some things I just thought of, and they're questions: Do you consider it a fact that the note was written on sheets of paper (pages) torn (or otherwise removed) from the infamous notepad which John Ramsey reportedly gave to the detective when samples of the Ramseys' handwriting were requested? Do you consider it a fact that the note was written by the perpetrator that night while he was in the house, either before or after the crime was comitted? Do you consider it a fact that there was evidence of a "practice" note? What are the facts, as you see them, regarding the pen, the pad and the note?
Now, here is an observation regarding what we may suppose are facts: That the note was written on paper which had at one time been a component of the notebook, assuming you consider that a fact, does not demand that the note was written in the house that night, nor does it demand that it was written by the person who killed the girl. What it does demand is that the note was written by a person (or a trained monkey) who had access to the notepad, and what it allows is that the paper may have been removed from the pad AND the house by some person who had access to the pad at some time prior to when the note was "found." The evidence seems to suggest, though, that when the note was written, the paper it was written on, at least the last page, page 25 of the pad (not the note), was attached to (a component of) the pad (there was bleedthrough to page 26) , implying that someone had flipped open the pad and written the note. It can't be known whether, at the time the note was written, assuming that the foregoing is correct, the pad or the paper (initially a component thereof) was in the house or someone had removed it from the house in order to write the note, or for some other initial purpose. But, the fact, if you consider it so, that the sharpie which was used to write it was found in the penholder in the house, seems to suggest that the writing occurred in the house. However, it is possible that the pen, also, at some point, had been removed from the house by either the perpetrator or someone associated with the perpetrator who did the actual writing, then returned it to the house. It would be helpful to know when Patsy last wrote in the pad, as that might indicate that the note was written after that, but we couldn't be certain even of that, because it is possible to go into the "middle" of a pad and remove blank pages, without anyone who uses the pad, afterward, knowing that it has been done, providing doing so doesn't leave a noticeable gap in the tablet as a whole. I'm not aware that any of the Pugh's fingerprints were found on the note or the pad. Also, didn't they fail the handwriting analysis? Do you suspect a conspiracy involving one or more Pughs and one or more non-Pughs?
What is the upshot of all this? Well, of course, LHP and company or perhaps just company, could have been involved in this crime. She had unlimited access to everything in the house that wasn't placed under lock and key or hidden away where even God couldn't find it. She admitted to having borrowed stuff from Patsy-including notepads. She could have known about the $118,000 bonus. She had remarked that JonBenet might be kidnapped ("Aren't you afraid...") so the thought had crossed her mind. She and her family weren't well to do. Her husband was a souse and not working. They were behind in their rent. But do you think she'd have admitted this to Patsy and then asked for an advance on her salary, then turned around and grabbed the girl?? That's hard to believe. But what about the company? Family members, including the husband, had been in the house, even the wine cellar, on more than one occasion; had even been asked to clean windows, so could easily have known about the broken and unlocked window in the train room. She had a key, could have used it or left a door ajar. Lots of possibilities. Well how DO you fit all this together? Give us a scenario, carefully explain it and leave out no details, that involves LHP and company or just company. Please! Why did they strangle her, abuse her and bash her head in and leave her behind in the cellar? Objection! Misstates the evidence.
Does anyone know whether any of the stuff (cord, tape, etc.) turned over by the Pughes matched any of the stuff found at the crime scene? I can't imagine that LE didn't scrutinize it carefully. Did LHP ever write a book? If not, why not? If so, what's the title?
Haven't I cautioned that we need to PIN DOWN the facts?
Thanks, sissi! Inquiring minds want to know.
Yours truly, George Johnson
Camper,
My understanding is that at least one of the breaks was fresh; they found splinters near the paint tray/tote/tree where what remained of the brush had been deposited. I've often wondered whether both breaks were fresh; but, why bother to break the brush? I've asked this question before on more than one occasion. If the perp just needed something he could use as a grip, wouldn't the entire brush have fit the bill? I have always thought that this twice-broken brush is suggestive of staging. Guess the brush was made in Korea, huh?
The devil is in the details and his DNA is in her underwear.
My understanding is that at least one of the breaks was fresh; they found splinters near the paint tray/tote/tree where what remained of the brush had been deposited. I've often wondered whether both breaks were fresh; but, why bother to break the brush? I've asked this question before on more than one occasion. If the perp just needed something he could use as a grip, wouldn't the entire brush have fit the bill? I have always thought that this twice-broken brush is suggestive of staging. Guess the brush was made in Korea, huh?
The devil is in the details and his DNA is in her underwear.
Staging of the crime scene is a specific type of precautionary act that is done to deflect suspicion away from the offender
Staging often involves the addition of, removal of, and manipulation of objects in the crime scene to change the apparent "motive" of the crime (Turvey 1999).
JonBenet's crime scene satifies the above, so to dwell on the staged aspects such as the ligature or the note must fulfill the stagers intentions. This is why the evidence is so equivocal.
The paintbrush handle was likely added to the staging. It needed to be broken to satisfy the twisting motion that would secure it to her neck as evidenced by strands of her hair caught up in the knotting, also to break it on two sides requires a lot of strength. Try it yourself one side is easy, the thicker side not so.
So you may ask why? Re-dressing can be excused on grounds of modesty, but creating and adding what can be interpreted as an AEA device is another matter.
I would suggest this was done deliberately to add the idea of a signature to JonBenet's staging. This was done by someone who had done some background reading in this area and had a good understanding of the required elements.
Attaching the paintbrush suggests its the tool of a sexual sadist!
There is evidence that JonBenet's body was relocated at least twice and possibly three times. She was similarly redressed at least twice.
So it appears she was asphyxiated, then possibly regained conciousness, only to be bludgeoned to death by a blow to her head. Applying Occams Razor, removes the AEA explanation since it requires evidence and accomplices external to the published evidence. That leaves any one of an Intruder, John, Patsy or Burke available as prime suspects.
To view JonBenets murder as a Staged Homicide and not a Sexual Homicide helps to eliminate some potentially confusing elements.
Staging often involves the addition of, removal of, and manipulation of objects in the crime scene to change the apparent "motive" of the crime (Turvey 1999).
JonBenet's crime scene satifies the above, so to dwell on the staged aspects such as the ligature or the note must fulfill the stagers intentions. This is why the evidence is so equivocal.
The paintbrush handle was likely added to the staging. It needed to be broken to satisfy the twisting motion that would secure it to her neck as evidenced by strands of her hair caught up in the knotting, also to break it on two sides requires a lot of strength. Try it yourself one side is easy, the thicker side not so.
So you may ask why? Re-dressing can be excused on grounds of modesty, but creating and adding what can be interpreted as an AEA device is another matter.
I would suggest this was done deliberately to add the idea of a signature to JonBenet's staging. This was done by someone who had done some background reading in this area and had a good understanding of the required elements.
Attaching the paintbrush suggests its the tool of a sexual sadist!
There is evidence that JonBenet's body was relocated at least twice and possibly three times. She was similarly redressed at least twice.
So it appears she was asphyxiated, then possibly regained conciousness, only to be bludgeoned to death by a blow to her head. Applying Occams Razor, removes the AEA explanation since it requires evidence and accomplices external to the published evidence. That leaves any one of an Intruder, John, Patsy or Burke available as prime suspects.
To view JonBenets murder as a Staged Homicide and not a Sexual Homicide helps to eliminate some potentially confusing elements.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 159
- Guests online
- 2,769
- Total visitors
- 2,928