Why not very much blood?

[RedChief]

BlueCrab,

Interesting observation!

What are some ways in which one might determine that a body has been moved, other than through lividity? If it were covered in mud, but had the proper lividity, would you conclude that it had been moved?

Why is it important to know whether the body had been moved? A stranger/intruder could have moved it just as easily as could a family member. Also, it could have been moved right away, from where the killing took place, to where the body was discovered, or it could, as you postulate, have been moved quite some time later after lividity had become established.

If we could know that it had been moved, what would that tell us?

Is it your belief that it was hidden, to some degree, by virtue of it's having been deposited in the wine cellar behind a closed and latched door, and, if so, what's your explanation for that?

 

[RedChief]

Allow me to weigh in:

I think we're having a semantical argument. If the perp/stager inflicted a sexual injury would you consider this a sexual assault? I would. It's a sexual assault by definition. A body part having to do with a primary sex characteristic, namely the vagina, was injured. The sexual injury, alone, doesn't mean the perp/stager was sexually attracted to JBR, nor does it mean that he/she inflicted it sadistically. If it were inflicted as staging, it's a sexual assault nonetheless, but, in that case, to be clear, one might more precisely refer to it as a STAGED sexual assault. If it were a staged sexual assault, then maybe as someone has observed, "sex had nothing to do with it."

Then there are the matters of alleged chronic abuse and unmistakable acute injury. Acute, in the context of injuries to the child's reproductive organ, simply means lasting a short time; there was evidence (the blood and abrasions) that some injury to the hymen and vaginal wall had been recent and of short duration. Chronic, in the context of the above injuries, simply means having a relatively (as compared to acute) long duration; in this case long enough for the child's immune system (loosely speaking) to attempt to make repair (to effect healing). The chronic pathology was the interstitial inflammation. Many experts (if not most) felt that this inflammation was attributable to her enuresis and less than salutory hygiene.

Don't overlook the hyperemia in and around the vestibule. It could have been caused by recent rubbing; and hence indicative of recent corporal punishment. There are also alternative explanations. Also, the labia were bruised.

Are we making any progress?

 

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by sissi
Have we discussed the blood on the barbie nightgown?
Was it Jonbenet's or dna x?

Wow, blood on the barbie nightgown? Say it isn't true. Tell me more!

It isn't. There was no blood on the nightgown. It was only "near" the body. There was no blood on the white blanket either.

 

[BlueCrab]

Why is it important to know whether the body had been moved?

RedChief,

If the body wasn't in the wine cellar when Fleet White opened the door and looked in at 9:20 A.M., as he says it wasn't; and the body WAS there when John opened the door at 1:05 P.M. later that day, as we know it was; then the body had been moved to its last position between those two times.

John was in the basement alone at about 10:00 A.M. If the body was moved, then John had to have been the one who moved it.

John admits in the interviews he didn't know Fleet White had been in the basement earlier that morning. IMO this is at the crux of the dispute between John and Fleet. FLEET KNOWS JOHN MOVED THE BODY. If Fleet knows it, then the cops know it too, and that's one of the reasons the Ramseys will never come from under the umbrella of suspicion.

BlueCrab

 

[RedChief]

BlueCrab,

Very good! Your logic is unassailable.

This may very well be the crux of the dispute. Didn't John look into the wine cellar some hours after White did? Maybe the lighting was better when John looked than when White looked. Maybe John can see in the dark, better than White. Maybe White, himelf, moved the body early that morning, and John moved it back. Maybe the body wasn't wrapped in the luminous white blanket when White looked and WAS wrapped in the white blanket when John looked. Maybe John was the one who wrapped it with a blanket he removed from the basement dryer. Maybe John knew about White's inquisitive nature and waited until after White had gone there to put the body there. If so, why invite him in the first place? Some have conjectured that John didn't intend to disobey the note, but that Patsy threw a wrench into his plan when she called 911; or vice versa with John insisting that she call 911. She says it was his decision. Maybe.....

John initially estimated the time of his first excursion to be at least an hour or so earlier than 10 AM, and when reminded by his interviewer that he was supposed to have been waiting by the telephone for the call that "morning" between 8 and 10, he revised his estimate.

Weren't the police just as suspicious of Fleet as of John early on; torn between two accounts?

The police have interviewed White, haven't they, so, if White told them he was sure there was no body there when he looked early that morning, why didn't they detain John immediately thereafter? I believe White also contradicted John with his account of what he noticed about the window-open or shut, latched or unlatched. It was sure great of White to mess with the crime scene wasn't it. Were prints found on the tape, I've forgotten. Oh, dear!

What do you make of John's assertion that he searched for JBR in the walk-in refrigerator? I believe he is also reported to have looked under a dust ruffle on one of the beds in her room (officer Reichenbach was present and cautioned him not to touch anything). If this is true, then he must have been entertaining the idea, at those junctures, that the note was not to be taken at face value. Maybe, by then he was suspecting an "inside job"; maybe expecting to find her alive and on the premises or thinking it was a prank. What does that imply?

"To err is human, to forgive is unforgiveable."--RC

 

[Seeker]

RedChief,

If the body wasn't in the wine cellar when Fleet White opened the door and looked in at 9:20 A.M., as he says it wasn't; BlueCrab

That is incorrect BC. Fleet never said the body was not in there, he said he didn't see anything in there because it was so dark and that he couldn't find the light switch.

 

[sissi]

Wolf vs Ramsey

JonBenet had black duct tape covering her mouth, a cord around her neck that was attached to a wooden garrote, and her hands were bound over her head in front of her: she was covered by a light-colored blanket. ( SMF 38: PSMF 38.) A "Barbie" nightgown belonging to JonBenet was also found in the wine cellar near her body. (SMF 149: PSMF 149.) JonBenet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown. (SMF 150; PSMF 150.) Mr. Ramsey ripped the duct tape off JonBenet's mouth and attempted to untie her hands. {SMF 39; PSMF 39.} He then carried her body upstairs. {SMF 39: PSMF 39.} It was only upon the discovery of JonBenet's body that the Boulder police began to secure properly the home as the crime scene. (SMF 53: PSMF 53.)

I believe in the Beckner deposition there was mention of the dna x, slightly suggesting dna found on that nightgown as well..the dna x


Oops..a little edit ..a question to BC..was this room warm? If so why did they choose a warm room to store wine?

 

[Seeker]

Wolf vs Ramsey
A "Barbie" nightgown belonging to JonBenet was also found in the wine cellar near her body. (SMF 149: PSMF 149.) JonBenet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown. (SMF 150; PSMF 150.)

Sissi, where did you find this? This is the only time I've ever seen anything regarding "blood" being on the nightgown. Oh and we all know it was a WHITE blanket, not a light colored blanket...

Seems someone has gotten their info mixed up.

 

[jubie]

When John carried JonBenet upstairs weren't her arms stiff above her head? How could she be wrapped like a cocoon if her arms are rigid above her head?

If an intruder did it he would have had to hang around for some time for rigor to set in and then wrap her up, either that or John wrapped her on one of his trips downstairs and he's lieing about it....


I'v been glued to this thread, thanks so much for all the great sleuthing!!


Jubie

 

[sissi]

Seeker ...

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cach...+carnes+barbie+nightgown+blood&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

it appears to be a smf..statement of material fact

 

[Kaly]

IMO, based on the simple process of elimination, Burke likely wrote the childish-sounding ransom note.

I just got the book, Mother Gone Bad, and it has a picture of the ransom note. That definitely does not look like a 9-year old kid wrote it. It looks like a woman's handwriting to me.

 

[Seeker]

Carnes? Well that explains all the incorrect facts doesn't it?
Like this one...

JonBenet's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrotte attached to her body. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67] at 19; SMF163; PSMF 163.) The slipknots and the garrote are both sophisticated bondage devices designed to give control to the user. (SMF 161, 164; PSMF 161, 164.)

Her body was "bound"? Her body was not bound at all. Complicated rope slipknots? Where? WHERE? Puleaze!!! None of this is correct and is fabricated to make it seem more complex than it was and to make the Ramsey's look like complete idiots that couldn't even tie a knot. " No evidence exists that either defendant knew how to tie such knots. "

Give me a forkin break already! John was in the military, NAVY to be precise. He knew how to tie knots, even complicated ones. He'd have to. He knew and he tied "complicated" knots while owning and sailing his own boat! This info trying to make the Rams seem like innocent ignorant little morons came from John Ramsey, a known liar. It's been vomited back up by Hoffman to help support his ignorant claims.

Carnes is a dupe and an idiot IMO. She relied on information from Wood, Ramsey and the ultimate moron Hoffman without having any firsthand knowledge or having ever seen any of the factual evidence.

PSMF=Darnay the Uber Moron Hoffman who was suppose to be representing Chris Wolf but only used Chris' name to further his own personal vendetta against Patsy. He was the real "plaintiff" in this case, not Wolf. Wolf was a dupe, used and thrown aside when his usefulness was depleted. Uber Moron didn't even show up for the appeal he requested...

There is no other reference anywhere but in this worthless document full of inaccuracies and fabrications that there was ever any blood found on the Barbie nightgown.

There is nothing in Beckner's depo about it either.

 

[RedChief]

How can anyone read this and come away believing that the Ramseys murdered their daughter????

Don't know how factual it is though, but, in any event, let us not shrink from the facts.

Thanks for the URL, sissi. This is quite a well-written overview, I might add. Succinct!

All those fibers and animal hairs not sourced to the house. hmmmmmm Food for thought.

Maybe Smit knows what he's talking about?

 

[UKGuy]

If the size-12 panties that JonBenet was wearing when her body was discovered, were a pair she herself had worn say to the Whites party. Then those pants will have fibers from her black velvet pants on them, and since they are new from bloomingdales, right out of the packet, there is likely to be NO prior fiber evidence to be found on them.

So the question as to whether she was redressed can be answered definitively.

All the elements suggesting a bedroom abduction were found in the basement. In terms of what it sets out to portray it is neatly ordered, there is no sign of a struggle, no scattered forensic evidence just JonBenet wrapped up in a blanket!

This is in contrast to the scene upstairs both in her bedroom and bathroom. Where there are items on the floor, items that belong in the bathroom on the bedroom floor. The bed has possibly been remade or never been slept in. Depending on what you decide determines where you think she may have met with an "accident" or been "sexually assaulted".

Picture John seated in his office wearing his Blue Bath Robe, was she sitting on Johns lap, whilst he practised drawing red hearts on a trade magazine, or was it her, did he then draw a red heart on her hand? John denied ever seeing the magazine before!

Why would Burke need rope and a re-fashioned paintbrush to indulge in sexual activity with JonBenet?

JonBenet regularly slept in Burkes bed, intimacy was not an issue with her.


Why would you relocate her body downstairs to the basement, if there were external accomplices, why did they not take the body with them on exiting as per the ransom note rationale?

If the ransom note points outwards from the ramsay house, and we know she was found in the house. Then what does the discovery of her body in the basement point away from?

 

[RedChief]

Which elements are suggestive of a bedroom abduction other than the white blanket and the Barbie nightgown and, possibly, her attire?

Who has suggested that Burke would need a cord and a re-fashioned paintbrush to engage in sexual activity with JBR?

Yes, why didn't they take the body with them? Good question! Also why would you transport her body to the basement? Another good question!

The discovery of her body in the basement seems to point away from a kidnapping attempt. This is what I've always maintained.

There's no evidence that John practiced drawing red hearts on the magazine. There was one person's photo circled (not a heart). Am I mistaken about this? Blue fibers? Where?

"So the question as to whether she was redressed can be answered definitively." Perhaps, providing we know what fibers, if any, were found on the underwear, especially the panties.

Good work, UKguy.

 

[Nehemiah]

So, what evidence have we definitely come up with?

 

[RedChief]

Which elements are suggestive of a bedroom abduction other than the white blanket and the Barbie nightgown and, possibly, her attire? Not that these aren't sufficient in and of themselves.

Who has suggested that Burke would need a cord and a re-fashioned paintbrush to engage in sexual activity with JBR?

Yes, why didn't they take the body with them? Good question! Also why would you transport her body to the basement? Another good question!

The discovery of her body in the basement seems to point away from a kidnapping attempt. This is what I've always maintained.

There's no evidence that John practiced drawing red hearts on the magazine. There was one person's photo circled (not a heart). Am I mistaken about this? Blue fibers? Where?

"So the question as to whether she was redressed can be answered definitively." Perhaps, providing we know what fibers, if any, were found, or not found, on the underwear, especially the panties.

Good work, UKguy...still there is this to be addressed: Granted that the scene doesn't satisfy one's expectations for kidnapping gone awry-what scene involving a body on the premises would?-one must nevertheless explain why the body was transported to the basement and "hidden" in the wine cellar. Leaving it in plain view would have aroused less suspicion, because the questions provoked by hiding it would never have arisen. The only explanation I can come up with so far is that the mysterious perp needed to keep the death a secret until others could be unwittingly summoned to the scene to reinforce his/her contention that the child had been kidnapped. Of course, the note was quite helpful in this regard.

I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but I'm worried about that rumbling noise.

 

[UKGuy]

The Ramsays account of putting Jonbenet to bed, then John discovering her dressed in her longjohns and white gap top suggest she went from her bed to the basement. But if you consult the evidence and witness statements you will find it contradictory.

But the staging was unfinished since she was really meant to be dressed in her barbie gown, and its quite likely her longjohns would have ended up in the washing machine.

Its part of BlueCrab's well reasoned BDI that Burke and an accomplice were engaging in AEA activity with JonBenet. Thats where the cord and the paintbrush come in!

But given her age I would claim the cord on its own would be sufficient.


So as a kidnapping gone wrong, you can see thats just staging. Look closer at the elements in the basement and it also becomes apparent that it also is staged. Why secret JonBenet down to the basement to commit a sadistic sexual assault then murder her. But then continue to run up and down the stairs to fetch a white blanket, barbie gown, her cross and necklace, her size-12 panties, her longjohns etc. Restyle her hair because it had become a mess during some kind of struggle? Why must this "bedroom abduction" staging be enacted?

What kind of killer is so interested in JonBenets deportment and fashion accessories. Why remove forensic evidence by wiping her down etc, but leave the paintbrush handle, just a little oversight by a psychopathic pedophile?

Speculation:
There was nothing to stop the Ramsays removing JonBenet from the house and dumping her body somewhere outside. I would have done that, then done exactly what they did , and phoned my buddies and asked them round knowing full well they would mess up the forensics! Did something go badly wrong, did someone not keep their part of the deal?

 

[Catfish]

...one must nevertheless explain why the body was transported to the basement and "hidden" in the wine cellar. It could have been left in plain view without altering one's perceptions. The only explanation I can come up with so far is that the mysterious perp needed to keep the death a secret until others could be unwittingly summoned to the scene to reinforce his/her contention that the child had been kidnapped. Of course, the note was quite helpful in this regard....

Imagine a family member has accidently/purposefully killed JonBenet. What do they do? Open the front door and leave it open, call the police, tell the police they heard a noise/scream, found JonBenet dead, and show the police the front door was wide open. Simple.....

"...explain why the body was transported to the basement and "hidden" in the wine cellar. "

Could it be that the perpertrator's natural reaction to any event in her/his life was to create a calculated perception, a drama?

 

[UKGuy]

Could it be that the perpertrator's natural reaction to any event in her/his life was to create a calculated perception, a drama?

Is this not part of what BrotherMoon suggests wrt Patsy?