Foresenic Evidence Discussion

[Ames]

Oh yeah, and my "long tirade" , I am sure..is going to be the thoughts of quite a few RDI's...and I BELIEVE that the RDI's will know exactly what I am getting at. Personally...I think...

Preserving Dignity + Making comfortable = PARENTS


JUST MY OPINION...AS ALWAYS!!!

[nuisanceposter]

Like I said, Ames, CASKU arrived at the same decision you did, and they're a lot more qualified than anyone on this board.

IDIs will refue this because the source is Steve Thomas, but I really doubt he was lying about what CASKU said - and Lou Smit was right there at the same time Thomas and CASKU were talking, and he's never refuted this.


http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

FBI Knocks Down Intruder Theory

As part of the Boulder police's investigation, they accepted an invitation from the FBI to put on a full presentation of the case to the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit based at Quantico, Va. As Thomas recounts in his book, over 20 CASKU team members, including hair and fiber experts, attended the August 1997 briefing. Police investigators reviewed the autopsy results, and crime scene photos. In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of 12, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present: JonBenet Ramsey. The agents told the Boulder investigators that while it might be possible that someone broke into the house that day, it was not very probable. The staging of the crime, the evidence presented to them by the Boulder police, and the totality of the case pointed in one direction: This was not the act of an intruder.

Thomas wrote that the FBI team said the crime "did not fit an act of sex or revenge or one in which money was the motivation. Taken alone, they said, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evidentiary granite."

Thomas reported that "CASKU observed that they had never seen anything like the Ramsey ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as 'We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you.' From a kidnapper's point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on."

The FBI, according to Thomas, "believed that the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship."

Thomas said the FBI deemed the entire crime "criminally unsophisticated," citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramsey, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting.

CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenet's body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They also stated, according to Thomas, that the ligatures "indicated staging rather than control, and the garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim." Thomas said the profilers had the gut feeling that "no one intended to kill the child." This would mean that the severe blow to the head was done in a thoughtless rage and that all the subsequent assault on JonBenet and the writing of the ransom note was staged to cover up the unintentional murder.

Whoever killed JonBenet didn't fear getting caught. Thomas said that FBI profilers conjectured that the crime "was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home. The murderer spent a good deal of time with the victim, bashing in her head, dragging her down two stories to the basement, wiping down her vaginal area, taping her mouth, tying up her wrists, garroting her, carefully, even lovingly, placing a white blanket over her, calmly writing what the Boulder police called the War And Peace of ransom notes, and then placing that ransom note just where Patsy Ramsey would be most likely to find it when she came down the backstairs in the morning.

[Ames]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

<snipped>
Like I said, Ames, CASKU arrived at the same decision you did, and they're a lot more qualified than anyone on this board.



Well, IMO...I am in good company then!!!

:D

[cantaloupe]

I wonder if there is a young male in the ramsey circle who might fit the bill--comfortable in the house, known to JBR,--who might be a suspect. A boyfriend of a house employee, a gardener, a friend of the older Ramsey boy, ?????

[Ames]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


<snipped>
Thomas said the profilers had the gut feeling that "no one intended to kill the child." This would mean that the severe blow to the head was done in a thoughtless rage and that all the subsequent assault on JonBenet and the writing of the ransom note was staged to cover up the unintentional murder.

<snipped>




I agree with the profilers....my gut feeling is that no one intended to kill JB, and that the severe blow to the head was done in a thoughtless rage. I totally agree with this scenerio...IMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Like I said, Ames, CASKU arrived at the same decision you did, and they're a lot more qualified than anyone on this board.

<snip>



Just like I've said before though - not everyone - including the Grand Jury - bought what CASKU had to say. JMO

[Coloradokares]

Respectfully I would remind you that the Grand Jury never interviewed under oath neither John Ramsey or Patsy. Personally there is more than one citizen of Boulder County Colorado that would like to have demanded that case be prosecuted. Politics were huge in the reason this case was
not prosecuted. Alex Hunter in my humble opinion would have
required a confession to prosecute it. In the best interest
of JonBenet Ramsey and justice being served would it not be
appropriate to have the Governor of the State of Colorado petitioned to appoint an Office of Special Prosecutor rather than let this case have reached a point of over $2,000,000.00 spent and nothing done except to extradite Karr? No one can say whether the Grand jury agreed or disagreed with what CASKU had to say, as the Grand Jury was SEALED. And remains so to this very day. I my opinion the whole of the State of Colorado owes JonBenet more, much much more. I am from Colorado.

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Just like I've said before though - not everyone - including the Grand Jury - bought what CASKU had to say. JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Respectfully I would remind you that the Grand Jury never interviewed under oath neither John Ramsey or Patsy.



Respectfully, I would remind you that the Grand Jury had the option of interviewing anyone they chose. They did not choose to interveiw John or Patsy Ramsey. Therefore, one can assume CASKU findings - nor other testimony/evidence presented - were enough to convince them to indict either John or Patsy. JMO

[Coloradokares]

So you believe that no politics were involved at all in this matter? You believe the grand jury didn't find the evidence didn't warrant interview with the only known people to have been present in the house at the time of the murder? I feel the Grand Jury owed that much to JonBenet but that is only my opinion.

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Respectfully, I would remind you that the Grand Jury had the option of interviewing anyone they chose. They did not choose to interveiw John or Patsy Ramsey. Therefore, one can assume CASKU findings - nor other testimony/evidence presented - were enough to convince them to indict either John or Patsy. JMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Just like I've said before though - not everyone - including the Grand Jury - bought what CASKU had to say. JMO

I believe that the CASKU unit is a little bit more knowledgeable about the crime, than the jury members from off the street. And just because the grand jury didn't decide to indict the Ramsey's ....that doesn't mean that they didn't believe the CASKU units theories. It just means that either they were stupid...it was political....or for some reason, they just didn't feel that it was enough evidence to indict them, just based on their opinion. As a government agent, my husband has had to testify at a Grand Jury, so I am a little more familiar than the average person, on how they work. IMO Why did they choose not to interview the Ramsey's??...That, in itself, is very odd. IMO IMO

[Coloradokares]

Odd yesI'd say it was odd. JonBenet gets murdered in her own home and the only known people in the home that night for sure were Burke, John and Patsy Ramsey and they only called on one to testify out of those 3. Burke. Colorado citizens were not happy campers. Odd to say the least. I fault the then DA Alex Hunter for being so accessible to Team Ramsey. He let them set the terms not visa versa. The Ramseys remain under the umbrella of suspicion to this day. To my way of thinking they should have been either exonerated or indicted and not used the Grand Jury as an investigative branch. But what can I say until we can convince a Governor to appoint and office of Special Prosecutor DA Alex Hunter wanted a sure thing. Apparently each DA since felt the same. Many of us believe that would require a confession. John Mark Karr confessed and they bring that dubious confessor all the way back to Colorado. Then couldn't prove he'd even been in Boulder that alone. TSK!! In the meantime JonBenet is without Justice of any kind.

Originally posted by Ames


I believe that the CASKU unit is a little bit more knowledgeable about the crime, than the jury members from off the street. And just because the grand jury didn't decide to indict the Ramsey's ....that doesn't mean that they didn't believe the CASKU units theories. It just means that either they were stupid...it was political....or for some reason, they just didn't feel that it was enough evidence to indict them, just based on their opinion. As a government agent, my husband has had to testify at a Grand Jury, so I am a little more familiar than the average person, on how they work. IMO Why did they choose not to interview the Ramsey's??...That, in itself, is very odd. IMO IMO

[Athena]

BOB GRANT, ADAMS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTY: You know, one of the things about a grand jury is they -- at this stage of an investigative grand jury, they do whatever the heck they want to do. So they are considering all of the evidence, all of the individuals who they've heard about, and, I'm sure, piecing through the evidence in a very meticulous fashion.

COSSACK: Well, Bob, usually we know that prosecutors usually guide the grand jury, a prosecutors usually -- often times tell the grand jury what to do and what not to do. Why should we suspect that this grand jury is any different?

GRANT: Well, you know, some of that is myth, some of it that is reality, but the fact of the matter is, nobody ever has the control they think they have. Grand jury is citizens that come off the street. They have, now, complete control of the case. They've had it for a long while. The prosecutors are there as their guide, you bet, but they don't dictate, the grand jury dictates.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/10111999scientistonbop.htm

[MyrDawn]

One of the strangest things about the whole Grand Jury episode to me is that the Michael Kane, the attorney appointed by the DA to run the Grand Jury, tried to very hard to keep Lou Smit from testifiying, and even went so far as to issue an injunction against him that demanded the surrender of all his evidence and sought court permission to 'permanently erase' it.

Evidence he put together while working for the Boulder DA's office!

I have NEVER heard of that before! Isn't it their job to protect evidence????? What were they trying to hide?

[Athena]

Originally posted by MyrDawn
One of the strangest things about the whole Grand Jury episode to me is that the Michael Kane, the attorney appointed by the DA to run the Grand Jury, tried to very hard to keep Lou Smit from testifiying, and even went so far as to issue an injunction against him that demanded the surrender of all his evidence and sought court permission to 'permanently erase' it.

Evidence he put together while working for the Boulder DA's office!

I have NEVER heard of that before! Isn't it their job to protect evidence????? What were they trying to hide?

Exactly. I posted something similar re: destroying Smit's evidence in another thread as well and he had to go to court to preserve it and wound up being allowed to keep it.

Something isn't right here and damn if I could put my finger on it. I'm really wondering where the "cover up" is and why? To make it clear -- I am not referring to the Ramseys. jmo

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Ames


I believe that the CASKU unit is a little bit more knowledgeable about the crime, than the jury members from off the street. And just because the grand jury didn't decide to indict the Ramsey's ....that doesn't mean that they didn't believe the CASKU units theories. It just means that either they were stupid...it was political....or for some reason, they just didn't feel that it was enough evidence to indict them, just based on their opinion. As a government agent, my husband has had to testify at a Grand Jury, so I am a little more familiar than the average person, on how they work. IMO Why did they choose not to interview the Ramsey's??...That, in itself, is very odd. IMO IMO

One of the female Grand Jurors was on Schiller's latest documentary saying she went into the GJ preceedings already of the mindset that a parent could not do something like this to their own child. That says a lot, imo. She never should have been allowed to sit on the GJ with an already-formed opinion like that. I've also heard she was not the only juror on the GJ who had that opinion. Fact is, parents DO do things this horrible to their own children. I still can't understand why they didn't have John and Patsy testify. They were the parents of the murdered child, and they were in the house at the time of the murder!

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Athena


Exactly. I posted something similar re: destroying Smit's evidence in another thread as well and he had to go to court to preserve it and wound up being allowed to keep it.

Something isn't right here and damn if I could put my finger on it. I'm really wondering where the "cover up" is and why? To make it clear -- I am not referring to the Ramseys. jmo

Maybe people wanted Smit's theory and evidence thrown out because it doesn't match up with the crime scene. How does Smit explain the fiber evidence linking the Rs to the body and crime scene? They magically floated into the basement and ended up in JB's undies and on the tape and tied into the knot?

You're darn straight something isn't right here. Something stinks really bad about this entire case, and poor JonBenet is the one being cheated more than anyone else.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


One of the female Grand Jurors was on Schiller's latest documentary saying she went into the GJ preceedings already of the mindset that a parent could not do something like this to their own child. That says a lot, imo. She never should have been allowed to sit on the GJ with an already-formed opinion like that. I've also heard she was not the only juror on the GJ who had that opinion. Fact is, parents DO do things this horrible to their own children. I still can't understand why they didn't have John and Patsy testify. They were the parents of the murdered child, and they were in the house at the time of the murder!

I can't understand why they didn't have the Ramsey's testify, either. If I'd been on the GJ, I sure would have wanted to hear what they had to say.

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


One of the female Grand Jurors was on Schiller's latest documentary saying she went into the GJ preceedings already of the mindset that a parent could not do something like this to their own child. That says a lot, imo. She never should have been allowed to sit on the GJ with an already-formed opinion like that. I've also heard she was not the only juror on the GJ who had that opinion. Fact is, parents DO do things this horrible to their own children. I still can't understand why they didn't have John and Patsy testify. They were the parents of the murdered child, and they were in the house at the time of the murder!

There was an updated documentary??? When? Never heard that a grand juror spoke? I would really like to read this.

[Athena]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


I can't understand why they didn't have the Ramsey's testify, either. If I'd been on the GJ, I sure would have wanted to hear what they had to say.

I have to admit I would have wanted to hear from them as well. But according to PM/PT they wanted more DNA evidence.

[Coloradokares]

Our DA at the time was known many times to have said he wanted something AIR TIGHT. Confession or irrefutable DNA. This may not be a case that DNA will resolve. If that degraded DNA turns out to be not the murderers DNA at all but some artifact DNA form as in example a factory workers sneeze on the underwear as Dr. Lee surmises, we shall not have resolution in this matter. Apparently the killer is sociopathic with no conscience at all. NONE. Colorado demands the appointment of a special prosecuto, it is not hard to see why. No matter what side of the fence your on or if you remain sitting on it. This is not about sides. Its about JonBenet.
Originally posted by Athena


I have to admit I would have wanted to hear from them as well. But according to PM/PT they wanted more DNA evidence.

[Athena]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nuisanceposter


One of the female Grand Jurors was on Schiller's latest documentary saying she went into the GJ preceedings already of the mindset that a parent could not do something like this to their own child. That says a lot, imo. She never should have been allowed to sit on the GJ with an already-formed opinion like that. I've also heard she was not the only juror on the GJ who had that opinion. Fact is, parents DO do things this horrible to their own children. I still can't understand why they didn't have John and Patsy testify. They were the parents of the murdered child, and they were in the house at the time of the murder!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Athena

There was an updated documentary??? When? Never heard that a grand juror spoke? I would really like to read this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nevermind Nuisance..... I remember this now back from June. Sorry about that. It was the "Anatomy of a Cold Case". Thanks.

I do think that a juror should not have any preconceived idea about what could have or could not have been done but thankfully a Grand Jury does not have to reach a unanimous agreement.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


<snip>

How does Smit explain the fiber evidence linking the Rs to the body and crime scene? They magically floated into the basement and ended up in JB's undies and on the tape and tied into the knot?

<snip>



I doubt that anyone expected Smit to "explain" every detail of the case. And again, what fiber evidence ended up in JB's undies? JMO

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Ames


I believe that the CASKU unit is a little bit more knowledgeable about the crime, than the jury members from off the street. And just because the grand jury didn't decide to indict the Ramsey's ....that doesn't mean that they didn't believe the CASKU units theories. It just means that either they were stupid...it was political....or for some reason, they just didn't feel that it was enough evidence to indict them, just based on their opinion. As a government agent, my husband has had to testify at a Grand Jury, so I am a little more familiar than the average person, on how they work. IMO Why did they choose not to interview the Ramsey's??...That, in itself, is very odd. IMO IMO

I think that other FBI resources should have been used since this was not an abduction. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by MyrDawn
One of the strangest things about the whole Grand Jury episode to me is that the Michael Kane, the attorney appointed by the DA to run the Grand Jury, tried to very hard to keep Lou Smit from testifiying, and even went so far as to issue an injunction against him that demanded the surrender of all his evidence and sought court permission to 'permanently erase' it.

Evidence he put together while working for the Boulder DA's office!

I have NEVER heard of that before! Isn't it their job to protect evidence????? What were they trying to hide?

I am RDI...(as everyone knows)...and THAT even sounds fishy to ME. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


I think that other FBI resources should have been used since this was not an abduction. IMO

My husband and I agree with you! (In OUR opinion)

[Coloradokares]

That would be John Ramseys fibers from the expensive tailored made in Isreal shirt he had on that night. Dark Blue in color. However playing the devils advocate he also was said to have carried his daughter up to bed that night. Patsy took over the details of getting jonbenet dressed for the night. But yes those blue fibers are hard to explain .

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


I doubt that anyone expected Smit to "explain" every detail of the case. And again, what fiber evidence ended up in JB's undies? JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
That would be John Ramseys fibers from the expensive tailored made in Isreal shirt he had on that night. Dark Blue in color. However playing the devils advocate he also was said to have carried his daughter up to bed that night. Patsy took over the details of getting jonbenet dressed for the night. But yes those blue fibers are hard to explain .



Not that anyone believes or thinks that Burke had anything to do with it but he was wearing blue pajamas on Christmas morning. He could have worn the same ones to bed that night.
Or else the blue fibers may have come from the cloth that was used to wipe her body down with.
I thought Johns shirt was black(?).

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
That would be John Ramseys fibers from the expensive tailored made in Isreal shirt he had on that night. Dark Blue in color. However playing the devils advocate he also was said to have carried his daughter up to bed that night. Patsy took over the details of getting jonbenet dressed for the night. But yes those blue fibers are hard to explain .



No fibers were found on JonBenet that could be linked to the Ramseys' clothes. PM/PT . JMO

[LindaA]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Not that anyone believes or thinks that Burke had anything to do with it but he was wearing blue pajamas on Christmas morning. He could have worn the same ones to bed that night.
Or else the blue fibers may have come from the cloth that was used to wipe her body down with.
I thought Johns shirt was black(?).

TWW!, I've often wondererd about the blue vs black shirt and the evidence that she was wiped down with a dark washcloth. How would they know that if not by fiber evidence? Are they speaking of these same fibers as coming from JR's shirt?

Did you abandon your BDI theory you posted here a few days ago?

[Coloradokares]

Odd I just reread that book and I sure didn't get that out of it. And the local news reports would update the fiber evidences etc. So I have to disagree Patsy Ramseys fibers were all over Jon Benet. Also John got quite outraged when in interview they mentioned his shirt fibers found on JonBenet's private area. He got very vocal in opposition to it. I took the books back to the library now but His words were That is Bull---- your not going to disgrace my relationship.....etc etc....

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


No fibers were found on JonBenet that could be linked to the Ramseys' clothes. PM/PT . JMO

[Coloradokares]

The reason why IMHO is because Lou Smit went to work for Team Ramsey. He was on their payroll. Granted I am not implying that occured till after he had resigned. But yes following his resignation he worked for Team Ramsey. That made it difficult not to further suspect the evidence he produced.

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Maybe people wanted Smit's theory and evidence thrown out because it doesn't match up with the crime scene. How does Smit explain the fiber evidence linking the Rs to the body and crime scene? They magically floated into the basement and ended up in JB's undies and on the tape and tied into the knot?

You're darn straight something isn't right here. Something stinks really bad about this entire case, and poor JonBenet is the one being cheated more than anyone else.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Odd I just reread that book and I sure didn't get that out of it. And the local news reports would update the fiber evidences etc. So I have to disagree Patsy Ramseys fibers were all over Jon Benet. Also John got quite outraged when in interview they mentioned his shirt fibers found on JonBenet's private area. He got very vocal in opposition to it. I took the books back to the library now but His words were That is Bull---- your not going to disgrace my relationship.....etc etc....



Yes, John did get outraged and the attorney Levin stopped that line of questioning - which had been given to him by BPD.

In PM/PT it states that no fibers found on JonBenet could be linked to the Ramseys' clothes. The paragraph ends with "BPD was stumped." The page is posted here somewhere. Do you really want me to go to the library and get the book again?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by LindaA


TWW!, I've often wondererd about the blue vs black shirt and the evidence that she was wiped down with a dark washcloth. How would they know that if not by fiber evidence? Are they speaking of these same fibers as coming from JR's shirt?

Did you abandon your BDI theory you posted here a few days ago?

Linda...to be honest, I no longer have a theory about which Ramsey did it. I still believe they were involved, though. The problem is, pieces are missing from the puzzle whether RDI or IDI.
I've hesitated to say this before but sometimes I wonder if JR and FW both had something to do with it. The entire series of events has to make you wonder....as does the abrupt ending of their friendship.
So many questions and so few answers. :shrug:

[LindaA]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

<snip>
So many questions and so few answers. :shrug:

I couldn't possibly agree more -- no matter which way you look at it, no matter who you think did it. It doesn't add up either way to me.

[MissOtisRegrets]

I often wonder if this was just one or two neighborhood kids (one older than the other) on a role playing "mission" for the hell of it. JonBenet's bed looks like she got up by herself. I wonder if she took her blanket to the basement to play games with someone she knew. Burke said he thinks he heard voices but isn't sure it wasn't a dream.

The note sounds different every time I read it, but it often sounds to me almost like a joke. Some kind of parody with the writing of it accompanied by peals of laughter. I do wonder if there were two people there encouraging each other, though one clearly dominant. If it weren't for the horrific garrotting that followed, I would think that it was a joke.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Odd I just reread that book and I sure didn't get that out of it. And the local news reports would update the fiber evidences etc. So I have to disagree Patsy Ramseys fibers were all over Jon Benet. Also John got quite outraged when in interview they mentioned his shirt fibers found on JonBenet's private area. He got very vocal in opposition to it. I took the books back to the library now but His words were That is Bull---- your not going to disgrace my relationship.....etc etc....



I really believe they were fishing and throwing everything out there in an attempt to make the Ramseys confess.

But anyway here's the statement sweet... was referring to:

Excerpt from PMPT p664

"The BPD reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers found on JBR’s labia or on her inner thighs and they did NOT match the Ramseys. The BPD admitted they were stumped."

[Coloradokares]

Sweet Charlotte that won't be necessary I just will simply decline in the future to reference PMPT as a credible source then. The whole problem why JonBenet's murder wasn't solved yet is it has been tried in the Tabloids the Media and Books vs the court of law. Ramseys didn't undergo the typical scrutiny of most suspects. But I believe the fiber evidence is what it is and would stand in a court where the Judge didn't allow the defense counsel to get away with ....well for lack of a better word....murder. I lived this case to an extent as I lived less than 10 miles from the murder at the time it occured. These are not just distant headlines or remote curiosity to me. We have friends that lived and still do within 3 blocks of and knew the Ramseys. They believe there is no way simply none that the Ramseys could have possibly done this to JonBenet. Yet how do you deny that we saw the lack of cooperation and the lawyering up in the first 24 hours. We saw the promises of cooperation that never came to pass. What I would say is, this case needs to be tried in the court of law vs the media and books. Let all the evidence and expert testimoney and tests stand before a judge and jury of peers vs letting Team Ramsey dictate terms to the office of the District Attorney, or declar that they are cleared when in truth they remain the only suspects under that Umbrella of Suspicion. JonBenet is who this is about. Not dream team attorneys. Its about facts and evidence. Fiber and otherwise. Not politics Its about a 6 year old little girl who died in what should have been the saftey of her own home. She died a pretty horrible death. Its time to put this in a special prosecutors office then proceed to a court of law. Thousands of pieces of evidence were taken. Lets put the test results and evidence where it belongs. In Court. Its true our DA wanted a confession or an airtight case to take to court. I wish you could ask DA Hunter who he felt killed JonBenet or any of the partys involved in the evidence gathering. Its time to stop the madness and put it to rest.

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Yes, John did get outraged and the attorney Levin stopped that line of questioning - which had been given to him by BPD.

In PM/PT it states that no fibers found on JonBenet could be linked to the Ramseys' clothes. The paragraph ends with "BPD was stumped." The page is posted here somewhere. Do you really want me to go to the library and get the book again?

[Coloradokares]

In my humblest opinion Fleet White and his family did more for Jon Benet than even her own parents. The disagreement at the funeral was over Fleet demanding they cooperate with the police in finding Jonnie B's murderer not stay on in Atlanta avoiding the questioning and interview by the investigators and the police. Again alot of my feelings regards FW come from being a local and seeing them stand firm demanding justice for JonBenet.

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Linda...to be honest, I no longer have a theory about which Ramsey did it. I still believe they were involved, though. The problem is, pieces are missing from the puzzle whether RDI or IDI.
I've hesitated to say this before but sometimes I wonder if JR and FW both had something to do with it. The entire series of events has to make you wonder....as does the abrupt ending of their friendship.
So many questions and so few answers. :shrug:

[Coloradokares]

I'll go check out that book yet again and also JonBenet Investigation of the Ramsey Murder Steve Thomas. Whether you like him or don't he worked that case. He knows the evidence as well as anyone. Give me a few days as I won't be to the library till next Tuesday. Got deliveries coming tomorrow. Closed on monday.

Originally posted by Athena


I really believe they were fishing and throwing everything out there in an attempt to make the Ramseys confess.

But anyway here's the statement sweet... was referring to:

Excerpt from PMPT p664

"The BPD reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers found on JBR’s labia or on her inner thighs and they did NOT match the Ramseys. The BPD admitted they were stumped."

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
Sweet Charlotte that won't be necessary I just will simply decline in the future to reference PMPT as a credible source then. The whole problem why JonBenet's murder wasn't solved yet is it has been tried in the Tabloids the Media and Books vs the court of law. Ramseys didn't undergo the typical scrutiny of most suspects. But I believe the fiber evidence is what it is and would stand in a court where the Judge didn't allow the defense counsel to get away with ....well for lack of a better word....murder. I lived this case to an extent as I lived less than 10 miles from the murder at the time it occured. These are not just distant headlines or remote curiosity to me. We have friends that lived and still do within 3 blocks of and knew the Ramseys. They believe there is no way simply none that the Ramseys could have possibly done this to JonBenet. Yet how do you deny that we saw the lack of cooperation and the lawyering up in the first 24 hours. We saw the promises of cooperation that never came to pass. What I would say is, this case needs to be tried in the court of law vs the media and books. Let all the evidence and expert testimoney and tests stand before a judge and jury of peers vs letting Team Ramsey dictate terms to the office of the District Attorney, or declar that they are cleared when in truth they remain the only suspects under that Umbrella of Suspicion. JonBenet is who this is about. Not dream team attorneys. Its about facts and evidence. Fiber and otherwise. Not politics Its about a 6 year old little girl who died in what should have been the saftey of her own home. She died a pretty horrible death. Its time to put this in a special prosecutors office then proceed to a court of law. Thousands of pieces of evidence were taken. Lets put the test results and evidence where it belongs. In Court. Its true our DA wanted a confession or an airtight case to take to court. I wish you could ask DA Hunter who he felt killed JonBenet or any of the partys involved in the evidence gathering. Its time to stop the madness and put it to rest.

Colorada, I know a lot of accusations have been that the Ramseys didn't cooperate and lawyered up....but I honestly do not think they were mentally or emotionally capable of dealing with anything immediately after their daughter's murder...their minds imho couldn't grasp they had just lost their daughter....it was a family friend, Mike Bynum who suggested he handle the situation with LE & attorneys!

[Coloradokares]

I know this sounds so very cold and impersonal. Of all the people I know, I least of all am cold or impersonal. Of course you don't know that about me at least not yet, but if your daughter or my son had died in that manner it wouldn't have mattered if we
felt emotionally able to cope or not. No more than Mark Klass or more recently Jessica Lunsford's dad. There is simply no
denying to Boulder or surrounding community citizens that they did not cooperate. It just did not happen. No one is emotionally prepared to handle the murder of their child. In Steve Thomases Book I think it was ....and I have done so much reading lately I could be in error on this, Fleet White was contacted by defense counsel before the end of the day on the 26th. According to Fleet Whites handwritten notes regards that call it was the 26th not the 27th. That means he was contacted for interview by defense counsel on the day they found the body. According to the time most likely before the body had been removed from the home. I know better than not to have a page number or link on this but I don't . It does not make it less true just because I am unorganized enough momentarily that I don't have that info available at this writing. I read this within just this the last week. I was floored stunned and it painted for me an even clearer picture of why Fleet was so disturbed by the time of the funeral. Ramseys arranged a press conference to smear the BPD before they'd even granted an interview with the officers in charge of finding the murderer of their daughter. I can fully understand emotional needs and grief yet valuable information was lost forever in firmly planting that wall of protection around themselves. I worked for Hospice so I am no stranger to grief. One would have to say they received some very very poor advice in retrospect. As hard as it would have been one must do what one must do and endure what one must endure to find the murderer of their child. The BPD gave them the respect and distance they could even submitting questions in writing. The Fernies home became a refuge from dealing with the realities that this was a homicide and unfortunately you no longer have the luxury of isolation it is all part of being victimized. They were the only known people who were there when JonBenet was murdered. As cold as it is that is how it was.

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Colorada, I know a lot of accusations have been that the Ramseys didn't cooperate and lawyered up....but I honestly do not think they were mentally or emotionally capable of dealing with anything immediately after their daughter's murder...their minds imho couldn't grasp they had just lost their daughter....it was a family friend, Mike Bynum who suggested he handle the situation with LE & attorneys!

[MissOtisRegrets]

Ck, with all due respect, in both the Klaas and the Lunsford case, their daughter's were missing. They had not been found murdered in their own home. In the Klaas case there were witnesses to the abduction. Do you feel the Ramseys were uncooperative before the body was found?

[Coloradokares]

With the same due respect returned honestly..... Mark Klaas and Mark Lunsford's cooperation with the LE didn't end upon the finding their respective daughters bodies. It continued till the murderer in each case was apprehended and continues through till this very day. Both knew they were immediately being treated as suspects that was not their primary concern. I would expect by their past cooperation that cooperation will continue till justice is finally served. Mark Klaas has gone on to advocate and be a force in other abductions. Mark Lunsford was and is to this minute cooperating and advocating to get Jessica's Law through and now enforced. And look at the horrible hand he's been dealt with that Couey. The relatives the whole of it. The Ramseys case bears a striking contrast to these two cases in that where they also found bodies at the end of their ordeals. Mark Klaass forged ahead and made himself available no matter what accusations flew. Mark Lunsford as well. Jessica was found only a short distance from her home. Grant their daughters were not found in their own home by them dead. Would I have handled myself the same as the Ramseys. I can't answer that and none of us who have not actually been in that postion could. But I think Most Parents cooperate full that have not later been convicted of their own childs murder. I am not your typical RDI or IDI. I am not even a fence sitter. I am like this. Innocent till proven guilty beyond a perpoderance of the evidence in a court of law by a jury of your peers. Let the evidence be weighed in court. But lets get this into a court.

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Ck, with all due respect, in both the Klaas and the Lunsford case, their daughter's were missing. They had not been found murdered in their own home. In the Klaas case there were witnesses to the abduction. Do you feel the Ramseys were uncooperative before the body was found?

[Athena]

I applaud those parents for their efforts but I really do not believe you can compare these cases. Their children were not found in THEIR homes and there were witnesses so the parents were not treated like the Ramseys as the primary focus/suspects. JMO

Colorado..... I find the posts a bit confusing to follow with the person's posts you are quoting at the bottom. Probably just me.

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Not that anyone believes or thinks that Burke had anything to do with it but he was wearing blue pajamas on Christmas morning. He could have worn the same ones to bed that night.
Or else the blue fibers may have come from the cloth that was used to wipe her body down with.
I thought Johns shirt was black(?).

It was black which is why I ask how and when did the dark blue fibers turn black all of a sudden during that interview? :shrug:

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
In my humblest opinion Fleet White and his family did more for Jon Benet than even her own parents. The disagreement at the funeral was over Fleet demanding they cooperate with the police in finding Jonnie B's murderer not stay on in Atlanta avoiding the questioning and interview by the investigators and the police. Again alot of my feelings regards FW come from being a local and seeing them stand firm demanding justice for JonBenet.



I don't have a link handy, but did you know that JR later recanted that he had ever even had an arguement with Fleet?
Wonder why he did that. :confused:

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I don't have a link handy, but did you know that JR later recanted that he had ever even had an arguement with Fleet?
Wonder why he did that. :confused:

Maybe he was out of it. It was right after the funeral.

Nothing to do with RDI v IDI - but personally I believe it was inappropriate for Fleet to bring anything controversial up right after the funeral. It was extremely insensitive and quite frankly very rude of him. JMO

[Coloradokares]

my opinion is again based on local discussion not links or books this time. John and Patsy tried at first it seem to get Fleet and Priscilla on board and keep the friendship. Fleet was voicing his opinion regarding the lack of cooperation to the police not to mention more puzzling behavior . The more they didn't cooperate with police the more the Whites distanced themselves. It became apparent that the Ramseys were throwing their friends under the bus left and right pointing the fingers in every direction. Yet simultaneously not cooperating with Boulder LE. They did not just point the finger however at Fleet and Priscilla White. The Ramseys had about one set of loyal friends left at the end of the matter. The Stines. Mostly that was because the Ramseys kept casting suspicion on nearly every one in their friendship circle. By the time they left for Atlanta many friendships had disolved in doubt suspicion and confusion.

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I don't have a link handy, but did you know that JR later recanted that he had ever even had an arguement with Fleet?
Wonder why he did that. :confused:

[lucky13]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I often wonder if this was just one or two neighborhood kids (one older than the other) on a role playing "mission" for the hell of it. JonBenet's bed looks like she got up by herself. I wonder if she took her blanket to the basement to play games with someone she knew. Burke said he thinks he heard voices but isn't sure it wasn't a dream.

The note sounds different every time I read it, but it often sounds to me almost like a joke. Some kind of parody with the writing of it accompanied by peals of laughter. I do wonder if there were two people there encouraging each other, though one clearly dominant. If it weren't for the horrific garrotting that followed, I would think that it was a joke.

You could actually believe that TWO KIDS were able to pull off the crime of the century, but no way it was the parents??? Wow. That's the wildest theory that I've heard yet!!( No offense to you)

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by lucky13


You could actually believe that TWO KIDS were able to pull off the crime of the century, but no way it was the parents??? Wow. That's the wildest theory that I've heard yet!!( No offense to you)

That's so wild about it? MissO didn't say two SMALL kids. What about Richard Loeb & Nathan Leopold? That was called the "crime of the centruy" when it happened. Yet, they were only 18 and 19 at the time they killed Bobby Franks. What about the fake ransom note they left after they murdered Bobby Franks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Leopold

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


That's so wild about it? MissO didn't say two SMALL kids. What about Richard Loeb & Nathan Leopold? That was called the "crime of the centruy" when it happened. Yet, they were only 18 and 19 at the time they killed Bobby Franks. What about the fake ransom note they left after they murdered Bobby Franks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Leopold

Why do you call it a fake ransom note? You think they were not serious about collecting the ransom? I know they were wealthy young men - at any rate from wealthy families- but collection would have completed the kidnapping -part of the "perfect crime" they had planned.

They didn't leave the body in the child's house.

They did leave evidence with the body which could be traced back to one of the killers (the glasses).

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


Why do you call it a fake ransom note? You think they were not serious about collecting the ransom? I know they were wealthy young men - at any rate from wealthy families- but collection would have completed the kidnapping -part of the "perfect crime" they had planned.

They didn't leave the body in the child's house.

They did leave evidence with the body which could be traced back to one of the killers (the glasses).

In case you didn't notice, I was addressing the comment to MissO about her theory about the possiblity of two kids pulling off the murder of JonBenet (which you called the "crime of the century" as being "the wildest theory" they'd heard yet.

I call it a fake ransom note for the same reasons RDI's call the Ramesy ransom note fake. Leopold and Loeb never intended it to be a kidnapping for ransom. They planned it as a murder from the very start.

IMO, kids are much more likely to think they can get away with a ransom for a fake kidnapping than older, more experienced, people would.

I didn't say it was identical in every respect to JonBenet's murder. :rolleyes:

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


In case you didn't notice, I was addressing the comment to MissO about her theory about the possiblity of two kids pulling off the murder of JonBenet (which you called the "crime of the century" as being "the wildest theory" they'd heard yet.



Yes, I'm aware of that.


I call it a fake ransom note for the same reasons RDI's call the Ramesy ransom note fake. Leopold and Loeb never intended it to be a kidnapping for ransom. They planned it as a murder from the very start.


It's my understanding that they did intend to collect the ransom. (I could be wrong).

It isn't the fact that there has been both a murder and a ransom note that makes RDIs think the note is fake. There is nothing particularly unusual about kidnappers killing their victims.

It's the fact that the note and the body are both in the house that makes RDIs think the note is fake.
It is highly unusual for a kidnapper to kill the victim and leave her in the basement of her own home. It makes collecting the ransom virtually impossible.

The cases are substantially different in that respect.


IMO, kids are much more likely to think they can get away with a ransom for a fake kidnapping than older, more experienced, people would.




I didn't say it was identical in every respect to JonBenet's murder. :rolleyes:

No, you didn't. I just wanted to know why you think the L&L note was fake. Again, it's my understanding that they intended to get the money. Perhaps I need to read the case again.

[Athena]

I still remain in the belief that the stangulation came first not the head injury. If the head injury came first the time it woud have taken to take JBR to the basement, construct the noose, break the paintbrush and then strangle her should have resulted in more bleeding/swelling of the brain. There was a little more than a teaspoon of blood found.

Brain contusions are especially difficult to analyze. The general rule is that trauma will be most severe on the opposite side of impact. This is because the brain floats around inside the head, but there may be what are called contrecoups where the pathway to brain trauma has to be reconstructed. Death results rapidly whenever a skull fracture is involved.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect12.htm

subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral hemisphere

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.c...al.autopsy.html

Subdural hematomas are usually the result of a serious head injury. When they occur in this way, it is called an "acute" subdural hematoma. Acute subdural hematomas are among the deadliest of all head injuries. The bleeding fills the brain area very rapidly, leaving little room for the brain, and are associated with brain injury.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/...icle/000713.htm

One teaspoon = 5 cc = 5 ml

http://parenting.ivillage.com/tp/tp...0,,hfbs,00.html

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


In case you didn't notice, I was addressing the comment to MissO about her theory about the possiblity of two kids pulling off the murder of JonBenet (which you called the "crime of the century" as being "the wildest theory" they'd heard yet.

I call it a fake ransom note for the same reasons RDI's call the Ramesy ransom note fake. Leopold and Loeb never intended it to be a kidnapping for ransom. They planned it as a murder from the very start.

IMO, kids are much more likely to think they can get away with a ransom for a fake kidnapping than older, more experienced, people would.

I didn't say it was identical in every respect to JonBenet's murder. :rolleyes:

Leopold and Loeb intended to murder their victim but they also intended to collect the ransom. It was part of their "game". They had constructed a very elaborate way to collect their ransom money too...and it is interesting that they were specific about how they wanted the bills to be in certain denominations and packaged in a certain way, much like the Ramseys RN.
I don't think it was "kids", though. Two people in the house would have left twice as much evidence and made twice as much noise. IMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Athena
I applaud those parents for their efforts but I really do not believe you can compare these cases. Their children were not found in THEIR homes and there were witnesses so the parents were not treated like the Ramseys as the primary focus/suspects. JMO

Colorado..... I find the posts a bit confusing to follow with the person's posts you are quoting at the bottom. Probably just me.


Athena does this work better for you. Is this the normal of this forum? I can certainly do it this way if it helps?

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena
I still remain in the belief that the stangulation came first not the head injury. If the head injury came first the time it woud have taken to take JBR to the basement, construct the noose, break the paintbrush and then strangle her should have resulted in more bleeding/swelling of the brain. There was a little more than a teaspoon of blood found.

Brain contusions are especially difficult to analyze. The general rule is that trauma will be most severe on the opposite side of impact. This is because the brain floats around inside the head, but there may be what are called contrecoups where the pathway to brain trauma has to be reconstructed. Death results rapidly whenever a skull fracture is involved.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect12.htm

subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral hemisphere

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.c...al.autopsy.html

Subdural hematomas are usually the result of a serious head injury. When they occur in this way, it is called an "acute" subdural hematoma. Acute subdural hematomas are among the deadliest of all head injuries. The bleeding fills the brain area very rapidly, leaving little room for the brain, and are associated with brain injury.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/...icle/000713.htm

One teaspoon = 5 cc = 5 ml

http://parenting.ivillage.com/tp/tp...0,,hfbs,00.html

I think that makes sense. The stragulation probably came first.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Coloradokares



Athena does this work better for you. Is this the normal of this forum? I can certainly do it this way if it helps?

This is what I'm accustomed to but I feel like such a nudge Colorado and plus I'm the only one that commented. Actually if that's your preference that is your prerogative.

Like I said it's me!! Just takes me a minute to get acclimated and to make sure I'm responding to the correct post. duh! :)

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Leopold and Loeb intended to murder their victim but they also intended to collect the ransom. It was part of their "game". They had constructed a very elaborate way to collect their ransom money too...and it is interesting that they were specific about how they wanted the bills to be in certain denominations and packaged in a certain way, much like the Ramseys RN.
I don't think it was "kids", though. Two people in the house would have left twice as much evidence and made twice as much noise. IMO

But not if one remained in the basement and the other went to get JBR. This case is so dang complex. Another thing about the ransom note -- why couldn't it have been two people and who one for some reason changed the game plan. Perhaps they really thought the $118K was a relatively reasonable amount to ask for and get quickly. Maybe their intention was to take JBR out of the house but were stumped when realizing they could get in but couldn't get out. Maybe they thought they would get the money and be gone long before JBRs body was found not counting on them to call the police. Maybe they were watching the house and realized their little plan was foiled when the police showed up unexpectedly.

I can't help wondering why Helgoth went around the neighborhood bragging that he would have $118K soon and then in Feb was killed in an attempt to make it look like a suicide. I know his DNA wasn't a match but maybe he did have an accomplice. If the DNA WAS an artifact seems to me many viable suspects could have been released unwittingly. :shrug:

I was also trying to find the actual ransom note written in Gail Jackson's case but I can't.

The Ramsey case is not the first ransom note and kidnapping scenario used to draw attention away from a murder. In 1978, the murder of Gail Jackson and several other women occurred in Columbus, Georgia. There was a ransom note in this case also and parallels can be drawn between the notes in both the Ramsey and Jackson cases. Below, the first lines of the notes are compared.

Ramsey: "We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction."

Jackson: "We are an organization composed of seven members."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/ransom.html

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


But not if one remained in the basement and the other went to get JBR. This case is so dang complex. Another thing about the ransom note -- why couldn't it have been two people and who one for some reason changed the game plan. Perhaps they really thought the $118K was a relatively reasonable amount to ask for and get quickly. Maybe their intention was to take JBR out of the house but were stumped when realizing they could get in but couldn't get out. Maybe they thought they would get the money and be gone long before JBRs body was found not counting on them to call the police. Maybe they were watching the house and realized their little plan was foiled when the police showed up unexpectedly.

I can't help wondering why Helgoth went around the neighborhood bragging that he would have $118K soon and then in Feb was killed in an attempt to make it look like a suicide. I know his DNA wasn't a match but maybe he did have an accomplice. :shrug:

I can go along with much of what you said as a possibility - except the notion of leaving the body in the house and still expecting to get the $.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


But not if one remained in the basement and the other went to get JBR. This case is so dang complex. Another thing about the ransom note -- why couldn't it have been two people and who one for some reason changed the game plan. Perhaps they really thought the $118K was a relatively reasonable amount to ask for and get quickly. Maybe their intention was to take JBR out of the house but were stumped when realizing they could get in but couldn't get out. Maybe they thought they would get the money and be gone long before JBRs body was found not counting on them to call the police. Maybe they were watching the house and realized their little plan was foiled when the police showed up unexpectedly.

I can't help wondering why Helgoth went around the neighborhood bragging that he would have $118K soon and then in Feb was killed in an attempt to make it look like a suicide. I know his DNA wasn't a match but maybe he did have an accomplice. If the DNA WAS an artifact seems to me many viable suspects could have been released unwittingly. :shrug:

I was also trying to find the actual ransom note written in Gail Jackson's case but I can't.

The Ramsey case is not the first ransom note and kidnapping scenario used to draw attention away from a murder. In 1978, the murder of Gail Jackson and several other women occurred in Columbus, Georgia. There was a ransom note in this case also and parallels can be drawn between the notes in both the Ramsey and Jackson cases. Below, the first lines of the notes are compared.

Ramsey: "We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction."

Jackson: "We are an organization composed of seven members."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/ransom.html

Did the killer leave the body and note together?

[humanpolygraph]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
In my humblest opinion Fleet White and his family did more for Jon Benet than even her own parents. The disagreement at the funeral was over Fleet demanding they cooperate with the police in finding Jonnie B's murderer not stay on in Atlanta avoiding the questioning and interview by the investigators and the police. Again alot of my feelings regards FW come from being a local and seeing them stand firm demanding justice for JonBenet.



From what Ive read about the Whites, they seemed like they truly cared for JB and that is why they are no longer friends with the Ramseys (IMO) and Im sure if I thought my best friend has something to do with the murder of her child, i would no longer be friends with her either. My guess is that when Fleet followed John down to the basement and JR found the body, thats when he (FW) became suspiscious, and the fact that the Ramseys avoiding police interviews etc, fueled his distrust.

[humanpolygraph]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Athena
[B]I still remain in the belief that the stangulation came first not the head injury. If the head injury came first the time it woud have taken to take JBR to the basement, construct the noose, break the paintbrush and then strangle her should have resulted in more bleeding/swelling of the brain. There was a little more than a teaspoon of blood found.

I agree with this, I know I said earlier that i thought she was accidently hit in the head or hit her head but after reading the autopsy, I agree that the strangulation had to have come first! There is no way that during all that time passing by would there have only been a small amount of blood, swelling and bruising...it would have been much more severe, I still believe the RDI theory but now I think Im leaning more toward JR because I cant think of one reason why the mother would strangle her. Maybe Det. Arndts book will clear alot up for us.

Also did anyone else notice this; in the autopsy report it claims that the rust coloured abraisions (originally thought to be stun guns by some) were actually to different lengths apart???I t couldnt possibly have been a stun gun if the lengths of the abraisions were different lengths, unless there were two sg's of two different sizes??? just seems to far fetched to me, Ive noticed alot of new things reading that painful autopsy report.

[Athena]

Originally posted by humanpolygraph
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Athena
[B]I still remain in the belief that the stangulation came first not the head injury. If the head injury came first the time it woud have taken to take JBR to the basement, construct the noose, break the paintbrush and then strangle her should have resulted in more bleeding/swelling of the brain. There was a little more than a teaspoon of blood found.

I agree with this, I know I said earlier that i thought she was accidently hit in the head or hit her head but after reading the autopsy, I agree that the strangulation had to have come first! There is no way that during all that time passing by would there have only been a small amount of blood, swelling and bruising...it would have been much more severe, I still believe the RDI theory but now I think Im leaning more toward JR because I cant think of one reason why the mother would strangle her. Maybe Det. Arndts book will clear alot up for us.

Also did anyone else notice this; in the autopsy report it claims that the rust coloured abraisions (originally thought to be stun guns by some) were actually to different lengths apart???I t couldnt possibly have been a stun gun if the lengths of the abraisions were different lengths, unless there were two sg's of two different sizes??? just seems to far fetched to me, Ive noticed alot of new things reading that painful autopsy report.

Hi -- I'm not sure where you are getting the measurements from. The measurements of what are believed to be stun gun marks are from the right side of her chin and her back. He doesn't even give measurements of the other abrasion on the right side of her chin. But notice the one he does identify on the chin say 3/16 x 1/8 and one of the marks on her back also is 3/16 x 1/8. Because he did not ID the second mark on her chin -- don't know what the measurement is.

I've posted a link to the photos as well -- but please note they are graphic.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

From the autopsy report:

"Located on the right side of the chin is a three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch area of superficial abrasion.

On the left lateral aspect of the lower back, approximately sixteen and one-quarter inches and seventeen and one-half inches below the level of the top of the head are two dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions. The more superior of the two measures one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


Yes, I'm aware of that.

It's my understanding that they did intend to collect the ransom. (I could be wrong).



Yes, Loeb & Leopold could have intended to collect the ransom, but I don't think they did it as their primary motive. I think the note was sent as part of their plan to commit the "perfect crime", in order to throw off the police in a different direction than just plain murder would.

It isn't the fact that there has been both a murder and a ransom note that makes RDIs think the note is fake. There is nothing particularly unusual about kidnappers killing their victims.

It's the fact that the note and the body are both in the house that makes RDIs think the note is fake.
It is highly unusual for a kidnapper to kill the victim and leave her in the basement of her own home. It makes collecting the ransom virtually impossible.

The cases are substantially different in that respect. [/QUOTE]

I think the note was written before JonBenet was killed.

I think the intruder may have intended to kidnap JonBent, but something happened and her death resulted. Maybe he'd already put the note on the stairs, and decided to just leave it there. Or, maybe he was in such a frenzied state of mind, he didn't even remember it.

But, I think it's more likely the intruder killed JonBenet and left the note as a way of hurting John as much as possible, by making him think it was his fault, and that's why it was written in such a personal way to John.

No, you didn't. I just wanted to know why you think the L&L note was fake. Again, it's my understanding that they intended to get the money. Perhaps I need to read the case again. [/QUOTE]

I call the L&L note fake because the victim (Bobby Franks) was already dead, so that means the money wouldn't be ransom per the definition "the redemption of a prisoner, slave, or kidnapped person, of captured goods, etc., for a price."

I think their main purpose in killing Bobby was to see if they could pull off a perfect crime, and the ransom note was written as part of that plan only to try to steer the investigation in the wrong direction (as a kidnapping rather than outright murder).

So, in both the L&L and Ramesy cases, I think the notes were written by the killer(s) primarily for reasons other than to get money.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Yes, Loeb & Leopold could have intended to collect the ransom, but I don't think they did it as their primary motive. I think the note was sent as part of their plan to commit the "perfect crime", in order to throw off the police in a different direction than just plain murder would.

It isn't the fact that there has been both a murder and a ransom note that makes RDIs think the note is fake. There is nothing particularly unusual about kidnappers killing their victims.

It's the fact that the note and the body are both in the house that makes RDIs think the note is fake.
It is highly unusual for a kidnapper to kill the victim and leave her in the basement of her own home. It makes collecting the ransom virtually impossible.

The cases are substantially different in that respect.

I think the note was written before JonBenet was killed.

I think the intruder may have intended to kidnap JonBent, but something happened and her death resulted. Maybe he'd already put the note on the stairs, and decided to just leave it there. Or, maybe he was in such a frenzied state of mind, he didn't even remember it.

But, I think it's more likely the intruder killed JonBenet and left the note as a way of hurting John as much as possible, by making him think it was his fault, and that's why it was written in such a personal way to John.

No, you didn't. I just wanted to know why you think the L&L note was fake. Again, it's my understanding that they intended to get the money. Perhaps I need to read the case again. [/QUOTE]

I call the L&L note fake because the victim (Bobby Franks) was already dead, so that means the money wouldn't be ransom per the definition "the redemption of a prisoner, slave, or kidnapped person, of captured goods, etc., for a price."

I think their main purpose in killing Bobby was to see if they could pull off a perfect crime, and the ransom note was written as part of that plan only to try to steer the investigation in the wrong direction (as a kidnapping rather than outright murder).

So, in both the L&L and Ramesy cases, I think the notes were written by the killer(s) primarily for reasons other than to get money. [/QUOTE]

Wow, you're really splitting hairs here.

The ransom as far as I can tell from the L/L case was part and parcel of the perfect crime.

I'd still call it ransom because even though the kidnappers knew Bobby was dead, the parents didn't, and would have paid.

Even if you're right that L/L didn't care aobut collecting the money, the case is still different in the very important fact that the body wasn't left in the house. In the L/L case it's plausible that a kidnapping occured. In the Ramsey case it was only plausible because no one was able to do a competent search of the house. The killer couldn't have figured on that. Given a competent police dept., it's likely JB's body would have been found around 6:15am. Thus, it's extremely unlikely the note was intended to throw police off the trail. Throwing a body in a culvert is substantially different than leaving a body in the basement of the victim's home.

The only plan that had to be changed -IMO- was the plan the Rs had for dispossing of the body. For some reason they couldn't do it, and had to go with the RN and body in the house.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver

Wow, you're really splitting hairs here.

The ransom as far as I can tell from the L/L case was part and parcel of the perfect crime.

I'd still call it ransom because even though the kidnappers knew Bobby was dead, the parents didn't, and would have paid.

Even if you're right that L/L didn't care aobut collecting the money, the case is still different in the very important fact that the body wasn't left in the house. In the L/L case it's plausible that a kidnapping occured. In the Ramsey case it was only plausible because no one was able to do a competent search of the house. The killer couldn't have figured on that. Given a competent police dept., it's likely JB's body would have been found around 6:15am. Thus, it's extremely unlikely the note was intended to throw police off the trail. Throwing a body in a culvert is substantially different than leaving a body in the basement of the victim's home.

The only plan that had to be changed -IMO- was the plan the Rs had for dispossing of the body. For some reason they couldn't do it, and had to go with the RN and body in the house.

Like I said in my last post, maybe the intruder intended to kidnap JonBent, but something happened and her death resulted. Maybe he'd already put the note on the stairs, and decided to just leave it there. Or, maybe he was in such a frenzied state of mind, he didn't even remember it.

I'm about 80% convinced an intruder killed JonBenet, but I don't pretend to know the reasons behind it, any more than many of the RDI's, although they think it was one of the Ramseys, don't have any idea which one or the reason why.

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I can go along with much of what you said as a possibility - except the notion of leaving the body in the house and still expecting to get the $.

Wally for whatever reason the kidnapper was thwarted from getting JBRs body out of the house. I do believe they did NOT count on the Ramseys calling the police BEFORE the money was obtained and BEFORE JBR's body was found. That ransom note was supposed to deter the Ramseys from calling 911.

Considering the body was not found until 1PM ii almost worked. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


In case you didn't notice, I was addressing the comment to MissO about her theory about the possiblity of two kids pulling off the murder of JonBenet (which you called the "crime of the century" as being "the wildest theory" they'd heard yet.

I call it a fake ransom note for the same reasons RDI's call the Ramesy ransom note fake. Leopold and Loeb never intended it to be a kidnapping for ransom. They planned it as a murder from the very start.

IMO, kids are much more likely to think they can get away with a ransom for a fake kidnapping than older, more experienced, people would.

I didn't say it was identical in every respect to JonBenet's murder. :rolleyes:

Kids might think they can get away with a ransom for a fake kidnapping but Leopold and Loeb had extremely high IQs.
They definately were not your average "kids".

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Like I said in my last post, maybe the intruder intended to kidnap JonBent, but something happened and her death resulted. Maybe he'd already put the note on the stairs, and decided to just leave it there. Or, maybe he was in such a frenzied state of mind, he didn't even remember it.

I'm about 80% convinced an intruder killed JonBenet, but I don't pretend to know the reasons behind it, any more than many of the RDI's, although they think it was one of the Ramseys, don't have any idea which one or the reason why.

A kidnapper would have grabbed the intended victim and left immediately, with a safe place already designated. The stairs is strange location to place the RN until you know that Patsy regularly used the stairs as a place to set things. How would an intruder know which stairs they'd come down? I think a kidnapper would have left the note on the kitchen counter or on JonBenet's bed before the stairs.

I think Patsy killed JonBenet, and I think so mostly because Patsy interacted with JonBenet more than the other members of the family, and because of the fiber evidence indicating Patsy was the person who tied the cord around JonBenet's neck.

I think JonBenet's death and the staging of the crime scene was brought about by Patsy inflicting the head wound, perhaps unintentionally. I do not think the crime scene indicates any premeditation, seeing as how many aspects of the crime are items found in the Ramsey's own house, and the crime scene is poorly constructed and shows it was set up by someone criminally unsophisticated, as per CASKU. Whoever did this was comfortable in the Ramsey home for hours, from pineapple to fetching redressing clothes to writing the RN. The crime scene aslo appears to have been staged by someone taking time to show great concern for JonBenet, seeing that she's properly clothed and wrapped in a favorite blanket in the basement, instead of naked and left in a ditch or shallow grave outside somewhere. An intruder would not have spent so much time in the house or taken the time and emotion to give JB respect in death - an intruder would have gotten the child, left, and then left her lying somewhere after he was done. If his goal was to hurt JR and not to kidnap, he would have left the child naked and perhaps posed for greater shock value.

I waver on how much I think John was involved. I think he knew the ransom note was a fake, though, or else he wouldn't have jeopardized JonBenet's head being cut off by calling the Whites and the Fernies to come over. I can see calling 911, you'd need the police, but I don't understand having hysterical Patsy being the one making the call or not even mentioning once to the 911 operator that the child will be killed if the kidnappers know they called police.

[lucky13]

Originally posted by Athena
I still remain in the belief that the stangulation came first not the head injury. If the head injury came first the time it woud have taken to take JBR to the basement, construct the noose, break the paintbrush and then strangle her should have resulted in more bleeding/swelling of the brain. There was a little more than a teaspoon of blood found.

Brain contusions are especially difficult to analyze. The general rule is that trauma will be most severe on the opposite side of impact. This is because the brain floats around inside the head, but there may be what are called contrecoups where the pathway to brain trauma has to be reconstructed. Death results rapidly whenever a skull fracture is involved.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect12.htm

subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral hemisphere

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.c...al.autopsy.html

Subdural hematomas are usually the result of a serious head injury. When they occur in this way, it is called an "acute" subdural hematoma. Acute subdural hematomas are among the deadliest of all head injuries. The bleeding fills the brain area very rapidly, leaving little room for the brain, and are associated with brain injury.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/...icle/000713.htm

One teaspoon = 5 cc = 5 ml

http://parenting.ivillage.com/tp/tp...0,,hfbs,00.html
Why do you think that "the time it would have taken" to construct the garrott & do the awful deed would be a long period of time? Like how long? If she were hit in the head first, while in the basement already, the garrotting could have been done in a matter of minutes, immediately afterwards. It wouldn't take any time at all to grab & break the paintbrush handle, construct the garrott & do the horrible act. Just minutes IMO.
Kerry Brega, cheif neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have much bleeding. Opinions vary.
IF she was strangled first, & no stun gun was used, .....WHY was there no sign of a fight/struggle? Do you think that she just allowed it to happen to herself? I don't. JB was too smart & too feisty to not have put up a wild struggle. Screaming, kicking, wiggling, fighting back in some way!! How did this perp accomplish the garrotting on a live, alert child?? I've never gotten an answer to that question yet....

[LindaA]

It's possible if she were strangled at least to the point of unconsciousness while she was still asleep. JMO

I agree that it would have taken more thana few minutes to locate the parts and fashion the garotte. The knot around the stick looks pretty elaborate to me. JMO.

And speaking of things that have never been explained satisfactorily, if those marks weren't made by a stun gun, what did make them?

[Athena]

Originally posted by lucky13

Why do you think that "the time it would have taken" to construct the garrott & do the awful deed would be a long period of time? Like how long? If she were hit in the head first, while in the basement already, the garrotting could have been done in a matter of minutes, immediately afterwards. It wouldn't take any time at all to grab & break the paintbrush handle, construct the garrott & do the horrible act. Just minutes IMO.
Kerry Brega, cheif neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have much bleeding. Opinions vary.
IF she was strangled first, & no stun gun was used, .....WHY was there no sign of a fight/struggle? Do you think that she just allowed it to happen to herself? I don't. JB was too smart & too feisty to not have put up a wild struggle. Screaming, kicking, wiggling, fighting back in some way!! How did this perp accomplish the garrotting on a live, alert child?? I've never gotten an answer to that question yet....

My opinion only: This is where it would make sense of the possible stun gun use which wore off as the perp was strangling her and then the perp bashed her in the head as she was coming to.

Also everything I've read with this type of skull fracture would either result in death rapidly or cause extensive bleeding in the brain. We are not just talking about a simple skull fracture -- this fracture encompasses a large mass and is 8.5 inches in length again which would indicate to me that the head injury was at or near close to death.
JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by lucky13

Why do you think that "the time it would have taken" to construct the garrott & do the awful deed would be a long period of time? Like how long? If she were hit in the head first, while in the basement already, the garrotting could have been done in a matter of minutes, immediately afterwards. It wouldn't take any time at all to grab & break the paintbrush handle, construct the garrott & do the horrible act. Just minutes IMO.
Kerry Brega, cheif neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have much bleeding. Opinions vary.
IF she was strangled first, & no stun gun was used, .....WHY was there no sign of a fight/struggle? Do you think that she just allowed it to happen to herself? I don't. JB was too smart & too feisty to not have put up a wild struggle. Screaming, kicking, wiggling, fighting back in some way!! How did this perp accomplish the garrotting on a live, alert child?? I've never gotten an answer to that question yet....

My opinion only: This is where it would make sense of the possible stun gun use which wore off as the perp was strangling her and then the perp bashed her in the head as she was coming to.

Also everything I've read with this type of skull fracture would either result in death rapidly or cause extensive bleeding in the brain. We are not just talking about a simple skull fracture -- this fracture encompasses a large mass and is 8.5 inches in length again which would indicate to me that the head injury was at or near close to death.
JMO

[shill]

Originally posted by lucky13

Why do you think that "the time it would have taken" to construct the garrott & do the awful deed would be a long period of time? Like how long? If she were hit in the head first, while in the basement already, the garrotting could have been done in a matter of minutes, immediately afterwards. It wouldn't take any time at all to grab & break the paintbrush handle, construct the garrott & do the horrible act. Just minutes IMO.
Kerry Brega, cheif neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have much bleeding. Opinions vary.
IF she was strangled first, & no stun gun was used, .....WHY was there no sign of a fight/struggle? Do you think that she just allowed it to happen to herself? I don't. JB was too smart & too feisty to not have put up a wild struggle. Screaming, kicking, wiggling, fighting back in some way!! How did this perp accomplish the garrotting on a live, alert child?? I've never gotten an answer to that question yet.... It may be true that you could fashion a garrote in a matter of minutes, but that is what made this garrote unusual. It was more involved than tying a rope to a stick with a simple knot. That has been an arguement for IDI, If RDI did it, why didn't they just make a quick to build garrote.
A 6yr old at the end of the Christmas day is going to be out cold. What kid gets much sleep Christmas eve, excited about Santa coming, waking to open presents, playing with new toys all day, and then visiting people until past your bed time.
IMO a bomb going off wouldn't wake her. JB was a 45lb dead tired 6yr old, what kind of fight could she put up.
Both her hands were bound with a Tautline Hitch knot that is a slip knot, and would be like putting handcuffs on her, it would take a few seconds. Her feet may have been duct taped, since there where pieces remaining on her legs. And her mouth was taped shut.
He put the garrote around her neck as she watched him in horror, totally helpless to do anything.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
It may be true that you could fashion a garrote in a matter of minutes, but that is what made this garrote unusual. It was more involved than tying a rope to a stick with a simple knot. That has been an arguement for IDI, If RDI did it, why didn't they just make a quick to build garrote.
A 6yr old at the end of the Christmas day is going to be out cold. What kid gets much sleep Christmas eve, excited about Santa coming, waking to open presents, playing with new toys all day, and then visiting people until past your bed time.
IMO a bomb going off wouldn't wake her. JB was a 45lb dead tired 6yr old, what kind of fight could she put up.
Both her hands were bound with a Tautline Hitch knot that is a slip knot, and would be like putting handcuffs on her, it would take a few seconds. Her feet may have been duct taped, since there where pieces remaining on her legs. And her mouth was taped shut.
He put the garrote around her neck as she watched him in horror, totally helpless to do anything.

I have never read that it was a slip knot around her wrists; nor have I ever read or heard anything about there being tape on her legs. Link please.
Also, I don't believe it took any special skill to make that "garrote", and it technically wasn't even a garrote.

[shill]

It's a garrote. How was it "technically" not a garrote?

Oh wow, could I possibly know some things you don't.
LINK< LINK< LINK< LINK

[lucky13]

Originally posted by shill
It may be true that you could fashion a garrote in a matter of minutes, but that is what made this garrote unusual. It was more involved than tying a rope to a stick with a simple knot. That has been an arguement for IDI, If RDI did it, why didn't they just make a quick to build garrote.
A 6yr old at the end of the Christmas day is going to be out cold. What kid gets much sleep Christmas eve, excited about Santa coming, waking to open presents, playing with new toys all day, and then visiting people until past your bed time.
IMO a bomb going off wouldn't wake her. JB was a 45lb dead tired 6yr old, what kind of fight could she put up.
Both her hands were bound with a Tautline Hitch knot that is a slip knot, and would be like putting handcuffs on her, it would take a few seconds. Her feet may have been duct taped, since there where pieces remaining on her legs. And her mouth was taped shut.
He put the garrote around her neck as she watched him in horror, totally helpless to do anything.

Okay, Shill. So according to you, this elaborately made garrote took him, what? an hour, maybe two, to construct? Try making one yourself, as quickly as you can. (It only takes a few minutes.) He put it around her neck as she watched in horror? And you're saying that she was asleep("out cold") as he did it- yet still watching him do it? Huh? I'm confused by your statements. The cords around her wrists were NOT like handcuffs!! C'mon! They were so loose they were practically falling off of her. And her feet were duct taped??? There were pieces on her legs? WHAT? Are you making things up as you go along?? If not, please provide proof of this.

[LindaA]

I've never heard anything about duct tape other than the piece that was on her face. Shill, could you elaborate and provide a link, please?

Lucky13, my guess about how long it took to make the garotte would be somewhere between the minute or two and your "guess" of an hour or two, but I certainly don't know. Ii guess it would depend on how experienced a person is in making them.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
It's a garrote. How was it "technically" not a garrote?

Oh wow, could I possibly know some things you don't.
LINK< LINK< LINK< LINK

I will explain why it's not a garrote when I have more time.

Oh wow...could you possibly know some things that NOBODY else knows? How can that be? Either you are A) making crap up as you go along or B) You were there.
Link please.

[shill]

I knew the other side of black duct tape was light in color. I didn't make that up. Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it's made up. I bring information here and get hassled wether I'm rude or polite. I thought people here would be more appreciative of new info, instead you're just vultures

I doubt it took an hour to make a garrote. Maybe 5 minutes for that one, maybe longer depending on if they needed the handle to be a certain distance from the neck. You could make one faster, but they didn't.

Sorry, but I didn't make that crap up, and you can find the links with out me.

[LindaA]

Shill, I understand your frustration. The RDIs don't want to hear it if it doesn't support their theory. Some of your first posts were very sarcastic and rude, so people see sarcasm in many of them when there isn't any. It is the expectation of the board to post a link to informatoin you are presenting or label it your opinion.

I"d also be interested in TWW1's description of how it is not a garotte. Whether it is technically a garotte or not, it did the job of one, IMO. JBR was not strangled with a scarf and then the garrotte just placed thee as window dressing. A look at the autopsy photos will tell you that. ALso IMO.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by shill
It may be true that you could fashion a garrote in a matter of minutes, but that is what made this garrote unusual. It was more involved than tying a rope to a stick with a simple knot. That has been an arguement for IDI, If RDI did it, why didn't they just make a quick to build garrote. ...



The garrotte didn't take much time to make. It's a rope, a stick, and a simple knot.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
I knew the other side of black duct tape was light in color. I didn't make that up. Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it's made up. I bring information here and get hassled wether I'm rude or polite. I thought people here would be more appreciative of new info, instead you're just vultures

I doubt it took an hour to make a garrote. Maybe 5 minutes for that one, maybe longer depending on if they needed the handle to be a certain distance from the neck. You could make one faster, but they didn't.

Sorry, but I didn't make that crap up, and you can find the links with out me.

With all due respect, you have not proven that the other side of the black duct tape was light in color. It is your speculation that it is. We are asked to provide links to back up what we say with facts so I don't think I was out of line by asking you for a link.
If you look at the autopsy pictures of the cord around JBs wrist, you can see that it is not a slip knot.
As far as the garrote, a typical garrote has a handle that is used to twist the garrote around the neck to tighten it. This was a device that was used much like a dog leash (noose) where the handle was used to pull the cord. How do you know how long it took them to make it?
You have a way of trying to make me look like I am a know it all, but check yourself out. I ask for links and you give me a hard time like I should just take your word for knowing something nobody else seems to know. Does the word hypocrite mean anything to you?

[WallyCleaver]

It was a garrotte because it fits the definition of one.

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
I knew the other side of black duct tape was light in color. I didn't make that up. Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it's made up. I bring information here and get hassled wether I'm rude or polite. I thought people here would be more appreciative of new info, instead you're just vultures

I doubt it took an hour to make a garrote. Maybe 5 minutes for that one, maybe longer depending on if they needed the handle to be a certain distance from the neck. You could make one faster, but they didn't.

Sorry, but I didn't make that crap up, and you can find the links with out me.


Take a CHILL PILL SHILL....
So sorry...I just couldn't resist....
:D

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
It was a garrotte because it fits the definition of one.

The correct definition of a garrotte is a torture device and they range from ones to such as this one used on JBR to professional weapons.

Short history of the garrotte

The garrotte had a couple of different forms. One had a metallic collar that was placed around your neck and the collar had a threaded hole that a bolt was inserted through. On the other end of the bolt was a large "T" handle for the executioner. The condemned was seated in a chair, the collar placed over a wooden post and the head of the prisoner, then, the executioner began to tighten the contraption until your neck was crushed or your vertebrae were dislocated, broken or crushed.

Later versions had a blade that ran through the bolt for what was thought to be a "mercy killing." The blade was slipped between the vertebrae, severing the spinal cord.

In a pinch, the improvised garrotte could be a seat, wooden post, strong cord and a metal bar. The noose being affixed around the post and neck of the condemned, the bar could be inserted and the cord twisted until death occurred. Much like using a tourniquet and stick.

These are "garrottes." The important thing to remember is, if someone says, "No, that’s not a garrotte, this is a garrotte..." And they are speaking in absolutes or anything other than an execution device, they’re incorrect.

http://www.donrearic.com/thegarrotte.html

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


With all due respect, you have not proven that the other side of the black duct tape was light in color. It is your speculation that it is. We are asked to provide links to back up what we say with facts so I don't think I was out of line by asking you for a link.
If you look at the autopsy pictures of the cord around JBs wrist, you can see that it is not a slip knot.
As far as the garrote, a typical garrote has a handle that is used to twist the garrote around the neck to tighten it. This was a device that was used much like a dog leash (noose) where the handle was used to pull the cord. How do you know how long it took them to make it?
You have a way of trying to make me look like I am a know it all, but check yourself out. I ask for links and you give me a hard time like I should just take your word for knowing something nobody else seems to know. Does the word hypocrite mean anything to you? You described a tourniquet, not a garrote. You do think you know every thing and have proven to me you know very little. I show you a photo of black duct tape with a light almost silvery sticky side and you still doubt it.
Your education is over. You deserve to remain ignorant. I don't care if you don't believe me because your opinion is a joke. You'd be happier with me gone then you would be to learn anything new. I'll leave you to your witch hunt.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
You described a tourniquet, not a garrote. You do think you know every thing and have proven to me you know very little. I show you a photo of black duct tape with a light almost silvery sticky side and you still doubt it.
Your education is over. You deserve to remain ignorant. I don't care if you don't believe me because your opinion is a joke. You'd be happier with me gone then you would be to learn anything new. I'll leave you to your witch hunt.

Directory > Reference > Wikipedia garrote
A garrote (a Spanish word; alternative spellings include garotte and garrotte) is a handheld weapon, most often referring to a ligature of chain, rope, scarf, or wire used to strangle someone to death. The term especially refers to an execution device, but is sometimes used in assassination because it can be completely silent. The garotte was allegedly employed by Thuggees. A garotte can be made out of many different materials, including ropes, tie wraps, fishing lines, nylon and iron wires. Due to its small size, it is easily concealed, and can, if made out of non-iron parts, bypass a metal-detector.

Some incidents of garroting have involved a stick used to tighten the garrote; the Spanish name actually refers to that very 'rod', so it is a pars pro toto where the eponymous component may actually be absent. One of the reasons possession of a nunchaku is illegal in many jurisdictions is that it can easily be employed as a garrote in some configurations.


Notice that when a "stick" is used, it is used to tighten the "garrote". In this case, the stick served only as a handle and JB could have been "garroted" with the cord without the handle.
A "professional" garrote would have a handle at each end of the rope or wire. I am only trying to point out that anyone could have made the garrote in JBs case. It required no skill or experience. I am not arguing that she was not "garroted" (which, by definition means strangulation).
You can "be done" talking to me all you want. Your little hissy fits do nothing to hide your ignorance.
All I asked you to do was provide links about the slip knots on her wrists and the tape on her legs. I am not going to take your word or anyones word for something I have not seen or read for myself by resputable source. It has nothing to do with whether I am an RDI or IDI. I believe it is a rule of the forum to provide links when asked (or even if not asked?).
I can't understand why you throw a tantrum every time someone disagrees with you or questions your information. You can believe I think I "know everything" if that makes you feel better. I just hate to see you cry. Send me your address and I'll Fed-X you a box of Kleenex.

[thewhitewitch1]

Sorry, Athena...missed your definition up there. I am not disputing that by definition it was a garrote....just that people tend to think of it as something a professional, or a terrorist would use and it was not that. It was something anyone could make with no skill at all.

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1



If you look at the autopsy pictures of the cord around JBs wrist, you can see that it is not a slip knot.

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Sorry, Athena...missed your definition up there. I am not disputing that by definition it was a garrote....just that people tend to think of it as something a professional, or a terrorist would use and it was not that. It was something anyone could make with no skill at all.

I think though someone would have had to have some knowledge of what a garrotte was - by any name. I honestly did not know what it was until I got involved in this case. I had no reason to have that knowledge. I would not have thought about wrapping cord around a stick.

I have to admit though I would think JR would have had knowledge of it because he did serve in the Navy and the description I found was out of a military manual. He also sails so he would have knowledge of knots as well. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


I think though someone would have had to have some knowledge of what a garrotte was - by any name. I honestly did not know what it was until I got involved in this case. I had no reason to have that knowledge. I would not have thought about wrapping cord around a stick.

I have to admit though I would think JR would have had knowledge of it because he did serve in the Navy and the description I found was out of a military manual. He also sails so he would have knowledge of knots as well. JMO

I think the "garrote" was used in keeping with the "small foreign faction" premise. It was part of the staging. I will not and cannot deny that it was used on her with some force, but I still believe the head blow came first and that she was nearly dead already when garroted, which is why the garroting injuries were not so severe. I don't see the need for the blow to the head after being strangled. If more force had been used, there would have been no need for the head injury at all. IMO
I have heard the word "garrote" and basically knew what one was. It isn't that uncommon of a thing to know about if you read true crime stuff or even the newspaper.

[Athena]

I am of the firm belief that the strangulation occurred first; that it was a sexual sadist; that the perp got mad when she moved or possibly attempted to fight back; bludgeoned her and then just finished strangling her until her last breath was taken. JMO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Athena
I am of the firm belief that the strangulation occurred first; that it was a sexual sadist; that the perp got mad when she moved or possibly attempted to fight back; bludgeoned her and then just finished strangling her until her last breath was taken. JMO I think you are probably correct, Althena! I believe there is someone out there that has a good idea of who it is, too......I wish they would come forward so this case could be solved!

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Leopold and Loeb intended to murder their victim but they also intended to collect the ransom. It was part of their "game". They had constructed a very elaborate way to collect their ransom money too...and it is interesting that they were specific about how they wanted the bills to be in certain denominations and packaged in a certain way, much like the Ramseys RN.
I don't think it was "kids", though. Two people in the house would have left twice as much evidence and made twice as much noise. IMO

I don't know. I do believe that kids in 1996 would have known a lot more about forensics than adults. Lord knows that murders perpetrated by intelligent children are very insane and hard to solve. MOO

[thewhitewitch1]

I am curious about something and wonder if someone here knows the answer.
When a person dies, do their eyes remain open? I can't find anything about it on the net. After my question is answered, I'll tell you why I asked it. ;)

[LindaA]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I am curious about something and wonder if someone here knows the answer.
When a person dies, do their eyes remain open? I can't find anything about it on the net. After my question is answered, I'll tell you why I asked it. ;)
I believe that they often do -- but not always -- remain open until someone closes them. They can then suddenly open again as the muscles cool and contract. That's why the practice of weighting the eyes with coins came into being. Even present day morticians have a device to prevent that sudden opening of a corpse's eyes, which can be somewhat disconcerting. I'm interesting in knowing whay you asked. Do tell!

[nuisanceposter]

Yes, their eyes remain open.


http://dying.about.com/od/afterthedeath/ht/telldeath.htm

The person's eyes remain open, as eyelid muscles can no longer close. The eyes remain in a fixed stare as muscles of the eye and the pupil no longer work.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I am curious about something and wonder if someone here knows the answer.
When a person dies, do their eyes remain open? I can't find anything about it on the net. After my question is answered, I'll tell you why I asked it. ;)

Whitewitch, my mother stayed with me during her last days and I was with her at the moment she died. She died with her eyes closed.

[Athena]

Not doing anymore research on this though because it kinda made my stomach turn. :(


It is indeed possible and common for eyes to open after death, even if they were closed at the time of death. This is due to chemical changes occurring in the muscles within the first few hours, causing them to contract and stiffen. This process is called rigor mortis. Rigor mortis tends to affect the smallest muscles first, and then spread throughout the larger muscles.

http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/dying.htm

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I am curious about something and wonder if someone here knows the answer.
When a person dies, do their eyes remain open? I can't find anything about it on the net. After my question is answered, I'll tell you why I asked it. ;)

YEP...if the person is awake and conscious during death, they do. It is possible though, if the eyes are closed during death...like if someone dies in their sleep...for the eyes to pop open (muscle reflexes).

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


I think though someone would have had to have some knowledge of what a garrotte was - by any name. I honestly did not know what it was until I got involved in this case. I had no reason to have that knowledge. I would not have thought about wrapping cord around a stick.

I have to admit though I would think JR would have had knowledge of it because he did serve in the Navy and the description I found was out of a military manual. He also sails so he would have knowledge of knots as well. JMO

I'd like to comment on this because I have served several years in both the Navy and Coast Guard.

I never heard of a garrotte until I started to follow this case. One should't assume that sailors get the same sort of training that Marines get. Different branches have different functions.

No doubt that JR learned some knots, but the knot in this garrotte wasn't complex. It didn't have to be made by someone with "expertise"

(Just for the record, you are IDI and I'm RDI - it seems we've switched here :-)

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I'd like to comment on this because I have served several years in both the Navy and Coast Guard.

I never heard of a garrotte until I started to follow this case. One should't assume that sailors get the same sort of training that Marines get. Different branches have different functions.

No doubt that JR learned some knots, but the knot in this garrotte wasn't complex. It didn't have to be made by someone with "expertise"

(Just for the record, you are IDI and I'm RDI - it seems we've switched here :-)

LOL -- just telling the truth! I do understand there may be no "expertise" involved but I would think someone would have to have knowledge of it?? What do I know? Never heard of one before this case and the first time I admitted it on this board I remember someone thinking it incredulous that I did not know because of "The Godfather" movie. :shrug:

What did you think about the Coast Guard??? My son is leaning towards that right now -- he's in his Sr year of HS. Of course, being a mom, and knowing that the Coast Guard is now part of Homeland Security I am not too thrilled; but alas it's his choice.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena
Not doing anymore research on this though because it kinda made my stomach turn. :(


It is indeed possible and common for eyes to open after death, even if they were closed at the time of death. This is due to chemical changes occurring in the muscles within the first few hours, causing them to contract and stiffen. This process is called rigor mortis. Rigor mortis tends to affect the smallest muscles first, and then spread throughout the larger muscles.

http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/dying.htm

Thank you Athena and all who answered.
You may be disapointed in why I wanted to know because it isn't a big deal but...Apparently someone closed JBs eyes after her death because I distinctly remember John saying in one of the interviews that her eyes were closed when he found her.
Is it common for a murderer to close their victims eyes?
I just thought that was kind of weird.
Now I have to go read the interviews again to confirm that JR said her eyes were closed.

[thewhitewitch1]

Barbara Walters interview:

BARBARA WALTERS Seven hours after the police first arrived-it was now around 1:00p.m.-the police asked you and a friend to search the whole house again. At that point you opened the door to the small room.(PAUSE) Tell me about it.

JOHN RAMSEY I knew instantly, instantly what I'd found. I'd found my daughter and…

BARBARA WALTERS What did you see?

JOHN RAMSEY I saw her lying on the floor with a white blanket-she was lying on a white blanket. Uh, her hands were tied above her head. She had tape over her mouth. Her eyes were closed. (SIGHS) I...immediately knelt down over her, felt her cheek, took the tape off-immediately off her mouth. I tried to untie the… the uh, the cord that was around her arms. And I couldn't get the knot untied. Umm… she was cool…

BARBARA WALTERS [OVERLAP] You felt she was dead. Did you scream?

[shill]

JR: She was laying on the blanket, and the blanket was kind of folded around her legs. And her arms were tied behind her head, and there was some pieces of black tape (inaudible) on her legs, and her head was cocked to the side.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
JR: She was laying on the blanket, and the blanket was kind of folded around her legs. And her arms were tied behind her head, and there was some pieces of black tape (inaudible) on her legs, and her head was cocked to the side.

Thank you, Shill. I had seen that before but that was the only time the tape on her legs has ever been mentioned; just like the LE seeing two blankets in the cellar was only mentioned once and that was in a search warrant.

[shill]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

Ligatures: The cord tied around JonBenet's wrist was fashioned into loops using slipknots, which Smit believes was done to enhance the assailant's bondage fantasy. "It's not something I would do if I were staging. I'd just tie the darn things on . . .

You can see in the autopsie photos that this slip knot is a Tautline Hitch knot AKA Rolling Hitch knot. It is used in boating but just as much if not more in camping. Sliding the knot, opens and closes the loop, but it is intended for tightening a line, like on a tent. Unlike the garrote, when you pull on the line, the noose does not tighten. You have to hold the knot while pulling on the cord. If John knew it was a Tautline Hitch knot, he would have been able to slip the cord off her hands in seconds.
IMO These knots where specific enough to guide detectives towards suspects with camping and sailing knowledge, like John Andrew.

From another interview of JR
LOU SMIT: Do you know anyone that

24 in the camping or tenting or anything that would

25 have that kind of cord?

0589

1 Any of your personal friends that

2 may be into that, anybody at Access Graphics

3 (INAUDIBLE)?

4 JOHN RAMSEY: Um, not that really

5 heavily into it. Well, yeah, the only friends

6 we had that were really into camping were Bob

7 and -- his son's name who is a friend of

8 Burke's, is Woody. They moved to Seattle, they

9 got divorced. Patsy would remember the name,

10 but I can't remember the last name. They were

11 really into camping. A lot. They also he was

12 also a big sailer.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by shill
[B]http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

Ligatures: The cord tied around JonBenet's wrist was fashioned into loops using slipknots, which Smit believes was done to enhance the assailant's bondage fantasy. "It's not something I would do if I were staging. I'd just tie the darn things on . . .

You can see in the autopsie photos that this slip knot is a Tautline Hitch knot AKA Rolling Hitch knot. It is used in boating but just as much if not more in camping. Sliding the knot, opens and closes the loop, but it is intended for tightening a line, like on a tent. Unlike the garrote, when you pull on the line, the noose does not tighten. You have to hold the knot while pulling on the cord. If John knew it was a Tautline Hitch knot, he would have been able to slip the cord off her hands in seconds.
IMO These knots where specific enough to guide detectives towards suspects with camping and sailing knowledge, like John Andrew.


And what would be the point for a perp to leave a more than 15-inch space of cord between the two wrist ligatures? JB could easily have freed herself from the wrist loops, for she could have moved her hands.
It all screams staging.
In terms of the garrote: Coroner Meyer spoke of a double knot which was tied around JB's neck. So it seems there was no noose which was tightened, but that this was simply a shoe-lace type overhand knot.

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

And what would be the point for a perp to leave a more than 15-inch space of cord between the two wrist ligatures? JB could easily have freed herself from the wrist loops, for she could have moved her hands.
It all screams staging.
In terms of the garrote: Coroner Meyer spoke of a double knot which was tied around JB's neck. So it seems there was no noose which was tightened, but that this was simply a shoe-lace type overhand knot.

JR untied one of the cords around the wrist and could not untie the other.

The cord was also wrapped around the stick:

Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the
neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick. It
appears to be made of a white synthetic material.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Thank you Athena and all who answered.
You may be disapointed in why I wanted to know because it isn't a big deal but...Apparently someone closed JBs eyes after her death because I distinctly remember John saying in one of the interviews that her eyes were closed when he found her.
Is it common for a murderer to close their victims eyes?
I just thought that was kind of weird.
Now I have to go read the interviews again to confirm that JR said her eyes were closed.

There was no time of death and we don't know how long she was there. It does say it can take a few hours for the eyes to open in the article I posted.

[Athena]

Originally posted by shill
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

Ligatures: The cord tied around JonBenet's wrist was fashioned into loops using slipknots, which Smit believes was done to enhance the assailant's bondage fantasy. "It's not something I would do if I were staging. I'd just tie the darn things on . . .

You can see in the autopsie photos that this slip knot is a Tautline Hitch knot AKA Rolling Hitch knot. It is used in boating but just as much if not more in camping. Sliding the knot, opens and closes the loop, but it is intended for tightening a line, like on a tent. Unlike the garrote, when you pull on the line, the noose does not tighten. You have to hold the knot while pulling on the cord. If John knew it was a Tautline Hitch knot, he would have been able to slip the cord off her hands in seconds.
IMO These knots where specific enough to guide detectives towards suspects with camping and sailing knowledge, like John Andrew.

From another interview of JR
LOU SMIT: Do you know anyone that

24 in the camping or tenting or anything that would

25 have that kind of cord?

0589

1 Any of your personal friends that

2 may be into that, anybody at Access Graphics

3 (INAUDIBLE)?

4 JOHN RAMSEY: Um, not that really

5 heavily into it. Well, yeah, the only friends

6 we had that were really into camping were Bob

7 and -- his son's name who is a friend of

8 Burke's, is Woody. They moved to Seattle, they

9 got divorced. Patsy would remember the name,

10 but I can't remember the last name. They were

11 really into camping. A lot. They also he was

12 also a big sailer.

Shill - thanks for posting this. Interesting - I did a search on the Stansport Nylon Cord and it comes up more often under camping supplies than anything else. So the BPD must have known that thus the line of questioning above.

http://www.google.com/search?q=stansport+nylon+cord&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by rashomon

And what would be the point for a perp to leave a more than 15-inch space of cord between the two wrist ligatures? JB could easily have freed herself from the wrist loops, for she could have moved her hands.
It all screams staging.
In terms of the garrote: Coroner Meyer spoke of a double knot which was tied around JB's neck. So it seems there was no noose which was tightened, but that this was simply a shoe-lace type overhand knot.

Yes, JR couldn't untie the knot, but Coroner Meyer was able to slip it right off over her hand...

Absolutely screams staging - there were NO defensive wounds whatsoever, no bruising or abrasions from the wrist restraints...which indicates her wrists were tied when she was either unconscious or already dead.

Why would an intruder tie the hands of an unconscious or dead child, and why would he tie the wrists over her shirt sleeves? Why would he leave 15 inches of length between the wrists?

An intruder wouldn't...but a parent wanting it to look like an intruder did it would.

This was a fixed knot and not a sliding noose knot. Meyer saw it, and he described it in the autopsy. As thorough as he was in the autopsy (nine pages is unusual), if it had been a sliding noose knot, he would have certainly described it as a sliding noose knot. He didn't, he said it was a double knot. Anyone who can tie a shoe could have tied that knot. As for the mummy-wrapped handle, again, anyone could have done that. It doesn't take a knot genius to wrap a cord around a stick.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


There was no time of death and we don't know how long she was there. It does say it can take a few hours for the eyes to open in the article I posted.

Yes, but hadn't rigor mortis already set in? In that case, her eyes would probably had been open. Also, she died violently so I can't believe her eyes would have been closed at all, especially after being strangled.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
JR: She was laying on the blanket, and the blanket was kind of folded around her legs. And her arms were tied behind her head, and there was some pieces of black tape (inaudible) on her legs, and her head was cocked to the side.

Was this a continuation of the Barbara Walters Interview or from what source was this obtained from. I don't see a link to it. Which interview if you would please clarify? Thank you for sending this information in. Its the first time I ever saw it.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Athena


Shill - thanks for posting this. Interesting - I did a search on the Stansport Nylon Cord and it comes up more often under camping supplies than anything else. So the BPD must have known that thus the line of questioning above.

http://www.google.com/search?q=stansport+nylon+cord&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

I am surprised in a way because John Ramsey was also an avid sailor. He would know the knots as well as anyone. Not that having a passion for sailing would make him the murderer automatically.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Yes, but hadn't rigor mortis already set in? In that case, her eyes would probably had been open. Also, she died violently so I can't believe her eyes would have been closed at all, especially after being strangled.

I would not want anyone uncomfortable with how I know this but nurses are trained to close the eyes in preparation for the body to be relinquished to the coroner or funeral home. Unless someone dies peacefully at sleep usually the eyes are open. Even then they may spontaneously open in rigor mortis. Just an observation not a medical fact necessarily about the postion of the eyes upon death . ( Hospice )

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


I would not want anyone uncomfortable with how I know this but nurses are trained to close the eyes in preparation for the body to be relinquished to the coroner or funeral home. Unless someone dies peacefully at sleep usually the eyes are open. Even then they may spontaneously open in rigor mortis. Just an observation not a medical fact necessarily about the postion of the eyes upon death . ( Hospice )

If JonBenet was unconscious before death, isn't it possible her eyes would remain closed?

My mother was in a coma for 8 days before she died and died with her eyes closed. She was in my house for several hours following her death. Her eyes never opened.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


If JonBenet was unconscious before death, isn't it possible her eyes would remain closed?

My mother was in a coma for 8 days before she died and died with her eyes closed. She was in my house for several hours following her death. Her eyes never opened.

Each case can be individual but more common would be the phenomenon you saw with the Schiavo situation. A patient can be totally comatose and indeed even brain dead and have their eyes open. I don't think medically it is a given either way if the eyes would be open or closed at that moment of death. In Jon Benets case it is something probably only one person could possibly know. The murderer. But just because someone could have closed them does not mean that was necessarily so. So what this says, is simply this If you did not witness that moment you would not know. Its is nothing but speculation if that makes sense. Conciousness or lack of it does not dictate open or closed positon of the eyes.

[Athena]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


If JonBenet was unconscious before death, isn't it possible her eyes would remain closed?

My mother was in a coma for 8 days before she died and died with her eyes closed. She was in my house for several hours following her death. Her eyes never opened.

The autopsy's description also did not indicate the eyes had been open either. This says the eyes change color if they remain open.

Tache noire de la sclérotique - Up to 2 days after death. This sign is only seen when the eyelids remain open after death. Spots - usually triangular, but sometimes round or oval - appear on the cornea, usually developing on the outer side before progressing to the inner side. They are usually initially yellow, but then turn brown and later black.

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon

And what would be the point for a perp to leave a more than 15-inch space of cord between the two wrist ligatures? JB could easily have freed herself from the wrist loops, for she could have moved her hands.
It all screams staging.
In terms of the garrote: Coroner Meyer spoke of a double knot which was tied around JB's neck. So it seems there was no noose which was tightened, but that this was simply a shoe-lace type overhand knot. JB was found with her hands tied above her head. IMO Something had to be holding her hands above her head when she died and rigor mortis set in, which implies to me that the cord binding her hands was suspended on a hook or around something. It's not a slip knot that's loose and you would wiggle your hands out of. And John didn't know how to loosen it, why would a six year old girl know how?
If it was staged, I would be interested in hearing an explanation for her hands being above her head.
What would be the point of the Ramseys leaving a more than 15" space of cord between the two ligatures?
For a garrote to work properly it needs to be a slip knot. If this garrote did not use a slip knot, how else would it become so tight around her neck? And there are other marks on her neck suggesting it was tightened and loosened more then once.
As far as the hand cuffs, you can tie your own Tautline Hitch knot and see for your self how it behaves.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


The autopsy's description also did not indicate the eyes had been open either. This says the eyes change color if they remain open.

Tache noire de la sclérotique - Up to 2 days after death. This sign is only seen when the eyelids remain open after death. Spots - usually triangular, but sometimes round or oval - appear on the cornea, usually developing on the outer side before progressing to the inner side. They are usually initially yellow, but then turn brown and later black.

I have to believe then, that somebody closed them. By everything you all have mentioned, because rigor mortis had set in, her eyes would have been open; yet JR stated that they were closed. Sorry to be graphic, but during an asphxiation, doesn't it seem as though one's eyes would be "bulging" as their oxygen was being cut off? I cannot imagine that they even could stay closed. Even if she were unconscious or nearly dead during the strangulation, that doesn't change the fact that by the time she was found, she was in rigor mortis and most definately her eyes should have been open due to the loss of muscle control.
I would really like to know all of this for a fact because if someone closed her eyes, that is surely as much of a sign of "caring" for her as the wrapping her in the blanket was. IMO

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by shill
JB was found with her hands tied above her head. IMO Something had to be holding her hands above her head when she died and rigor mortis set in, which implies to me that the cord binding her hands was suspended on a hook or around something. It's not a slip knot that's loose and you would wiggle your hands out of. And John didn't know how to loosen it, why would a six year old girl know how?
If it was staged, I would be interested in hearing an explanation for her hands being above her head.
What would be the point of the Ramseys leaving a more than 15" space of cord between the two ligatures?
For a garrote to work properly it needs to be a slip knot. If this garrote did not use a slip knot, how else would it become so tight around her neck? And there are other marks on her neck suggesting it was tightened and loosened more then once.
As far as the hand cuffs, you can tie your own Tautline Hitch knot and see for your self how it behaves.

For the garrotte to work, it had to have a knot capable of allowing the "noose" part of the garrotte to be pulled tighter through the knot. Since different people use different terms, it's always hard to know what is meant. I think this is what you meant by slip knot. If so, I agree.

[nuisanceposter]

-JB was found with her hands tied above her head. IMO Something had to be holding her hands above her head when she died and rigor mortis set in, which implies to me that the cord binding her hands was suspended on a hook or around something. It's not a slip knot that's loose and you would wiggle your hands out of. And John didn't know how to loosen it, why would a six year old girl know how?


It didn't need to be untied - it was already tied so loose around her wrist that Meyer slipped it off without untying it. There's no indication that she struggled against the wrist restraints at all.



-If it was staged, I would be interested in hearing an explanation for her hands being above her head.


Some people speculate that JonBenet had been dragged as well as carried during the staging, and her hands being above her head were from that.


-What would be the point of the Ramseys leaving a more than 15" space of cord between the two ligatures?


They didn't know how a real crime scene should look. An intruder who actually needed his victim restrained would not have constructed such a shoddy and ineffective restraint system. Parents staging the crime didn't know any better.



-For a garrote to work properly it needs to be a slip knot. If this garrote did not use a slip knot, how else would it become so tight around her neck?


By being tied tight and tightened as far as it could go. It didn't allow for any slack after being tied and tightened - once it was tied and yanked tight, it stayed like that.


-And there are other marks on her neck suggesting it was tightened and loosened more then once.


But not enough interior damage in her neck to support that. And if she was strangled with the cord in more than one place on her neck, then she didn't struggle against the strangler or cord at any point, no matter where the cord was placed. She had to have been unconscious for that.


-As far as the hand cuffs, you can tie your own Tautline Hitch knot and see for your self how it behaves.


I'll make sure to tie it over the cuff of my shirtsleeve loose enough for my hand to slip out, just like it was on JonBenet. I'm pretty sure I won't be restrained in the least, especially not with 15 inches of length between each wrist.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


For the garrotte to work, it had to have a knot capable of allowing the "noose" part of the garrotte to be pulled tighter through the knot. Since different people use different terms, it's always hard to know what is meant. I think this is what you meant by slip knot. If so, I agree.

Also in addition to the above provided by Wally yet in response toShill as to how her hands got above her head. Perhaps she was placed on the blanket she was found on shortly after death. Then laid out or positioned as she was found. Or if you adhere to the theory she had been moved later on into the wine cellar room ( which I am sure you as an IDI Shill you would not believe ) pehaps she was placed with hands above head where originally hidden and as Rigor Mortis was setting in would have prevented placing her hands at her side so this was out of necessity that she be placed that way on the blanket, with her hands above her head because where the body was prior to being placed in the Wine Cellar room had the hands above the body. Pure speculation on that perhaps it could be the empty chest freezer. I do NOT believe she was hung off hooks or suspended from anything by the cording she was bound in as there was not sufficient forensic evidence to suggest she was hung by her wrists or suspended by them or their would have been ligature to the wrists along with severe abrasion as proof that was so. Now as to hung or suspended by the neck...I doubt that as well due to the fact the hyoid bone was in tact and not fractured. Minimal damage to the internal structures of the neck. Which is atypical of garroting in the first place. However thats been debated round and round enough.

[shill]

The loops around her wrists weren't tied around her wrists. You make the knot first, and then put the loop around the wrist, and then slide it tight.
And NP, I'm sure I could keep you restrained with that ligature configuration for as long as I wanted.
And there would be little force on the wrists from being suspended over her head. Hanging was a bad choice of words. Her hands would be suspended over her head, wether she was sitting in a chair, or standing, or lying down.
I asked you to try it yourself to see how it works, not speculate on how it works.
It doesn't matter if the Ramseys or an intruder tied it, it's not going to change the type of knot used.

[MissOtisRegrets]

There is a mark on JB's right hand in the 9th photo down that could have been made by her having been suspended earlier. (It, also, could be an imperfection in the photo.)

Also, if she were not fully suspended, I wonder if there would have been bruises, since the cord was tied over her shirt.

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/photos2.htm

[shill]

The loops were over her sleeves and that added protection, and with that knot, you can slide the loops snug, but they won't tighten when you pull on the cord. They loop stays the same tension and don't tighten up.

[lucky13]

IMO, the loose cords around her wrists were only there for staging. If an intruder really put them there to restrain her, why weren't her hands bound TOGETHER? Who ties their victims hands so far apart?? Why apart & not together? What purpose could that have actually served to the killers benefit? If she had 'come to', she could've used her arms & hands to fight back- the way they were tied. Why didn't he just use more duct tape to secure her hands- together? It makes no sense that an intruder did it that way, but it does make sense if only for staging. MOO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by lucky13
IMO, the loose cords around her wrists were only there for staging. If an intruder really put them there to restrain her, why weren't her hands bound TOGETHER? Who ties their victims hands so far apart?? Why apart & not together? What purpose could that have actually served to the killers benefit? If she had 'come to', she could've used her arms & hands to fight back- the way they were tied. Why didn't he just use more duct tape to secure her hands- together? It makes no sense that an intruder did it that way, but it does make sense if only for staging. MOO

I agree, Lucky13....and apparently JR had no trouble removing one of the ties on her wrist, since he did it...and then, as nuisanceposter said, the coroner simply slipped the other one over her hand. If that isn't proof of how loosely they were tied, I don't know what is.
I am of the belief that her arms were over her head when she died, perhaps from being carried or simply placed that way and when it was thought of to stage the wrist bindings, her body was in rigor and her arms couldn't be moved; hence, the bizarre length of the cord used to tie them. IMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
There is a mark on JB's right hand in the 9th photo down that could have been made by her having been suspended earlier. (It, also, could be an imperfection in the photo.)

Also, if she were not fully suspended, I wonder if there would have been bruises, since the cord was tied over her shirt.

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/photos2.htm

I wasn't very clear I guess on that point. I went by the written autopsy report vs pictures regarding the wrists. It seems like had she been suspended by those little wrists and hands they would have been highly abrasioned and ligature marks as well. Shill seems not to agree with that however and he does seem to have some knowledge of how all that slip knot mechanism works. Which I confess I do not. Mercifully I might add. Some things the average person just never needed to know . shiver and chills.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


I wasn't very clear I guess on that point. I went by the written autopsy report vs pictures regarding the wrists. It seems like had she been suspended by those little wrists and hands they would have been highly abrasioned and ligature marks as well. Shill seems not to agree with that however and he does seem to have some knowledge of how all that slip knot mechanism works. Which I confess I do not. Mercifully I might add. Some things the average person just never needed to know . shiver and chills.

I asked Delmar England (aka as EasyWriter on FFJ):

"A question for EasyWriter or others with knowledge about cords and ropes -

EW, a poster on another forum wrote about the wrist ligatures:

'You can see in the autopsie photos that this slip knot is a Tautline Hitch knot AKA Rolling Hitch knot. It is used in boating but just as much if not more in camping. Sliding the knot, opens and closes the loop, but it is intended for tightening a line, like on a tent. Unlike the garrote, when you pull on the line, the noose does not tighten. You have to hold the knot while pulling on the cord. If John knew it was a Tautline Hitch knot, he would have been able to slip the cord off her hands in seconds.'


Is there any substance to this poster's claim?

Answer:

"No. It's utter nonsense unrelated to the evidence."

Delmar England btw wrote a letter to Mary Keenan, pointing out all the inaccuracies in the case. An abslolute must-read!

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by rashomon


I asked Delmar England (aka as EasyWriter on FFJ):

"A question for EasyWriter or others with knowledge about cords and ropes -
EW, a poster on another forum wrote about the wrist ligatures:
Quote:
You can see in the autopsie photos that this slip knot is a Tautline Hitch knot AKA Rolling Hitch knot. It is used in boating but just as much if not more in camping. Sliding the knot, opens and closes the loop, but it is intended for tightening a line, like on a tent. Unlike the garrote, when you pull on the line, the noose does not tighten. You have to hold the knot while pulling on the cord. If John knew it was a Tautline Hitch knot, he would have been able to slip the cord off her hands in seconds.
Is there any substance to this poster's claim?

Answer:

"No. It's utter nonsense unrelated to the evidence."

Delmar England btw wrote a letter to Mary Keenan, pointing out all the inaccuracies in the case. An abslolute must-read!

Most excellent information and post. Also remember John Ramsey was an avid sailor. He knew knots or one would think he should.

[shill]

Originally posted by lucky13
IMO, the loose cords around her wrists were only there for staging. If an intruder really put them there to restrain her, why weren't her hands bound TOGETHER? Who ties their victims hands so far apart?? Why apart & not together? What purpose could that have actually served to the killers benefit? If she had 'come to', she could've used her arms & hands to fight back- the way they were tied. Why didn't he just use more duct tape to secure her hands- together? It makes no sense that an intruder did it that way, but it does make sense if only for staging. MOO You sound like you think it was poorly staged.
So why didn't the Ramseys do a better job at staging it?

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon


I asked Delmar England (aka as EasyWriter on FFJ):

"A question for EasyWriter or others with knowledge about cords and ropes -

EW, a poster on another forum wrote about the wrist ligatures:

'You can see in the autopsie photos that this slip knot is a Tautline Hitch knot AKA Rolling Hitch knot. It is used in boating but just as much if not more in camping. Sliding the knot, opens and closes the loop, but it is intended for tightening a line, like on a tent. Unlike the garrote, when you pull on the line, the noose does not tighten. You have to hold the knot while pulling on the cord. If John knew it was a Tautline Hitch knot, he would have been able to slip the cord off her hands in seconds.'


Is there any substance to this poster's claim?

Answer:

"No. It's utter nonsense unrelated to the evidence."

Delmar England btw wrote a letter to Mary Keenan, pointing out all the inaccuracies in the case. An abslolute must-read! I don't know who this EasyWriter is.
Why is his opinion credible?
And why does he think;"It's utter nonsense"?

Funny, I think what he said is utter nonsense because he gives no reason why he thinks that,
and claims it is unrelated to the evidence,
when it is the evidence. The knots and ligature are solid evidence.

[lucky13]

Originally posted by shill
You sound like you think it was poorly staged.
So why didn't the Ramseys do a better job at staging it?

It WAS poorly staged, but it WAS good enough to pull off what was intended.
Why didn't the Ramsey's do a better job? IMO, limited time, confusion, panic, fear, sadness, lack of criminal knowledge.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by shill
I don't know who this EasyWriter is.
Why is his opinion credible?
And why does he think;"It's utter nonsense"?

Funny, I think what he said is utter nonsense because he gives no reason why he thinks that,
and claims it is unrelated to the evidence,
when it is the evidence. The knots and ligature are solid evidence.
Here is a link to Delmar England's/EasyWriter's garrote analysis on the ACandyRose site:

http://www.acandyrose.com/delmarengland.htm

D. England says that the knots and ligature are evidence that a bungling amateur has constructed them who knows next to nothing about ropes.
And that e. g. wrapping a rope multiple times around a stick would make garroting even more ineffective.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
There is a mark on JB's right hand in the 9th photo down that could have been made by her having been suspended earlier. (It, also, could be an imperfection in the photo.)

Also, if she were not fully suspended, I wonder if there would have been bruises, since the cord was tied over her shirt.

http://hellpainter.tripod.com/jbr/photos2.htm

If she was conscious while tied up and being strangled, there would definitely be bruising, even with the cord tied over the cuffs. She weighed 45 pounds - you're not going to fully suspend 45 pounds of child by the wrists without there being some physical evidence of her hanging by the wrists. There would at the very least be friction burn on her skin from struggling against the restraint over her sleeve - unless she already unconscious, and in that regard, there would still be evidence on her wrists of her entire weight hanging from them, perhaps even friction burn from her weight pulling against the fabric under the cord.

People being strangled operate on a survival instinct that kicks in and makes them fight as much as possible against the object (and person) preventing them from breathing. They injure themselves while fighting the suffocation because they can't help it - the need to draw another breath supercedes any pain or injury caused while fighting the source of the strangling. All that matters is the need to breathe.

Jon Benet shows no sign of struggle whatsoever - no defense wounds at all. She was not conscious when she was strangled, or she would have fought with all of the power her little body could possibly muster. Her hands and feet would be bruised from fighting the strangling, and her neck would show more internal damage from struggling as well. Her tongue and the insides of her cheeks would also show that she struggled to breathe - most strangulation victims bite their tongues and cheeks while being strangled in effort to get loose and draw a breath.

IMO, the lack of evidence of struggle or fight shows proves that JonBenet was already unconscious from the head wound, and the lack of bruising or abrasion on her wrists shows that she was not hanged by the wrists.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


IMO, the lack of evidence of struggle or fight shows proves that JonBenet was already unconscious from the head wound, and the lack of bruising or abrasion on her wrists shows that she was not hanged by the wrists.

I agree with your logic concerning the lack of evidence of a struggle, np. I think it is more likely that the head wound came first and was from a different phase of the attack. The lack of blood flow to the brain from the garrotting that followed would have contained the bleeding in the head wound. Inflicting a head wound to knock JB out cold would make sense as a first step. It wouldn't have been necessary after the garrotting. Maybe to make sure she died, or as a mercy killing. But, I think it is more logical that it came first. And, as you said, no sign of a struggle during the garrotting.

Her own fingernail marks at her throat were someone's conjecture based on the autopsy report. I have never heard that she had her own DNA under her nails.

[Zoey]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Her own fingernail marks at her throat were someone's conjecture based on the autopsy report. I have never heard that she had her own DNA under her nails.

I never thought about that until I read your post. Good point. I have never read that the DNA under her nails was her own, either.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Zoey


I never thought about that until I read your post. Good point. I have never read that the DNA under her nails was her own, either.

I have heard the DNA under JonBenet's nails was her own, but that's hardly surprising, considering we all have our own DNA under our nails.

I have never heard JonBenet had her own skin under her nails - and we know from the autopsy that she didn't. If she had been conscious and able to reach her throat while being strangled, she would have left deep scratches on her neck while trying to claw off the cord that would have left her skin under her nails.

Someone recently said that Lou Smit had said JonBenet had blood under her nails, but I wonder how accurate that is when Meyer said nothing about blood under JonBenet's nails and he would have if he had found any there.

[shill]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I have heard the DNA under JonBenet's nails was her own, but that's hardly surprising, considering we all have our own DNA under our nails.

I have never heard JonBenet had her own skin under her nails - and we know from the autopsy that she didn't. If she had been conscious and able to reach her throat while being strangled, she would have left deep scratches on her neck while trying to claw off the cord that would have left her skin under her nails.

Someone recently said that Lou Smit had said JonBenet had blood under her nails, but I wonder how accurate that is when Meyer said nothing about blood under JonBenet's nails and he would have if he had found any there. BP aren't going to tell everything they know.

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon

Here is a link to Delmar England's/EasyWriter's garrote analysis on the ACandyRose site:

http://www.acandyrose.com/delmarengland.htm

D. England says that the knots and ligature are evidence that a bungling amateur has constructed them who knows next to nothing about ropes.
And that e. g. wrapping a rope multiple times around a stick would make garroting even more ineffective. Dr England says,"Having only a single-angle picture to look at, I can't say with certainty exactly how the knot was formed"

He does not talk about the knots used in the hand restraints.

You haven't proven to me that the hand restraints didn't use a Tautline Hitch knot.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by shill
Dr England says,"Having only a single-angle picture to look at, I can't say with certainty exactly how the knot was formed"

He does not talk about the knots used in the hand restraints.

You haven't proven to me that the hand restraints didn't use a Tautline Hitch knot.
I can't prove anything because I know very little about ropes. But from I have read of D. England's analysis, he sure does, which is why I posted the link.
But I'll ask him on Forums for Justice if can explain why the restraints are not Tautline Hitch knots.

To me, those hand restraints don't even look as if tied with the same type of knot. One restraint (the one over her sleeve) even has bows tied like in a shoelace. Does a Tautline Hitch knot have bows?
Which perp would be so stupid as to tie ligatures loosely on top of a sleeve? One doesn't have to be a rope expert to see that someting isn't just right here.

And btw, the BPD hired a rope expert, Van Tassell, to analyze the knots to see if the way they were tied pointed to specific skills on the part of the perp. But Van Tassell never came forward and said, e. g. "this is a so-called Tautline Hitch knot as used for sailing and camping." So he obviously could not identify these knots as being in any way professionally done.

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon


To me, those hand restraints don't even look as if tied with the same type of knot. One restraint (the one over her sleeve) even has bows tied like in a shoelace. Does a Tautline Hitch knot have bows?

>Yes, if the knot has been pulled open by someone trying to remove it.

Which perp would be so stupid as to tie ligatures loosely on top of a sleeve?

>Not JR, but he did try and remove them, thus loosening them

And btw, the BPD hired a rope expert, Van Tassell, to analyze the knots to see if the way they were tied pointed to specific skills on the part of the perp. But Van Tassell never came forward and said, e. g. "this is a so-called Tautline Hitch knot as used for sailing and camping." So he obviously could not identify these knots as being in any way professionally done.

>Obvious! So they just questioned JR about knowing anyone who was into camping for no reason? And about him being a Sailor, and JR pointed to FW as being one too.

So why don't you tell me, how is camping and sailing relevant to a suspect?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by Athena
I am of the firm belief that the strangulation occurred first; that it was a sexual sadist; that the perp got mad when she moved or possibly attempted to fight back; bludgeoned her and then just finished strangling her until her last breath was taken. JMO
And then that perp sat down at the Ramsey kitchen table and wrote the ransom note? Without the slightest fear of being detected? He wrote a ransom note although the child was already dead, and then left both the body and the ransom note behind? A note with which he would only leave behind additional forensic evidence?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by shill
>Obvious! So they just questioned JR about knowing anyone who was into camping for no reason? And about him being a Sailor, and JR pointed to FW as being one too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why don't you tell me, how is camping and sailing relevant to a suspect?
So why don't you tell me, how is camping and sailing relevant to a suspect?
I think they asked about sailing/camping because of the type of cord, not because of the knots.
For rope expert Van Tassell had identifed the cord as being the same which SteveThomas had bought at the sporting goods section at McGuckin's. And so it was only natural for investigators to ask themselves who could have bought a cord like that. Someone who needed it for sailing or camping for example.

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


<snip>
Someone recently said that Lou Smit had said JonBenet had blood under her nails, but I wonder how accurate that is when Meyer said nothing about blood under JonBenet's nails and he would have if he had found any there.

I don't believe the entire autopsy report was released. There were blacked out lines. Maybe Smit knows something we don't. Not saying it is true -- just a thought. I don't understand why he would deliberately make a false statement though? For an example when he refers to the stun gun - he says it is possible not that it is a fact. JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by rashomon

And then that perp sat down at the Ramsey kitchen table and wrote the ransom note? Without the slightest fear of being detected? He wrote a ransom note although the child was already dead, and then left both the body and the ransom note behind? A note with which he would only leave behind additional forensic evidence?

You don't know when the ransom note was written do you? You also don't know if could have been someone that was in the house prior to that night and took paper out of that pad and a pen or even if it were the same pen. A marker is a marker.

Why would my belief be any less credible than an RDI's who believes that a parent after just killing their baby girl could write that note? Apparently there is no forensic evidence as to who wrote that note. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


You don't know when the ransom note was written do you? You also don't know if could have been someone that was in the house prior to that night and took paper out of that pad and a pen or even if it were the same pen. A marker is a marker.

Why would my belief be any less credible than an RDI's who believes that a parent after just killing their baby girl could write that note? Apparently there is no forensic evidence as to who wrote that note. JMO

Of course the pen came from the house. You think it's just some kind of coincidence that they used the same kind of marker?
Someone took paper out of the pad prior to that night and you think nobody would notice someone walking out with a bunch of paper? How do you explain the practice note, then? Or do you think "they" took the entire pad? Why? Easy enough to get your own pad of paper and discard the rest if you're so worried about it being traced to you.
As an RDI, I believe the Ramseys had to use what was available to them and take their chances.
You're right, though. There is no forensic evidence pointing to anyone conclusively. I just think that common sense would dictate that an intruder/kidnapper would have taken her body no matter what, and if not, at least have taken the ransom note when "things went wrong".
Then there is the mysterious pineapple which can't be ignored. An intruder doesn't fit in with that in any way. IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Of course the pen came from the house. You think it's just some kind of coincidence that they used the same kind of marker?
Someone took paper out of the pad prior to that night and you think nobody would notice someone walking out with a bunch of paper? How do you explain the practice note, then? Or do you think "they" took the entire pad? Why? Easy enough to get your own pad of paper and discard the rest if you're so worried about it being traced to you.
As an RDI, I believe the Ramseys had to use what was available to them and take their chances.
You're right, though. There is no forensic evidence pointing to anyone conclusively. I just think that common sense would dictate that an intruder/kidnapper would have taken her body no matter what, and if not, at least have taken the ransom note when "things went wrong".
Then there is the mysterious pineapple which can't be ignored. An intruder doesn't fit in with that in any way. IMO

Hi TWW -- We've been round and round on this so I'm not going to respond yet again. I am actually trying to wean myself off of this board because there is nothing new left that hasn't been addressed.

However, will make one comment: There is no "common sense" in this case that could dictate anything and I happen to believe I have quite a bit of common sense. JMO

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon

I think they asked about sailing/camping because of the type of cord, not because of the knots.
For rope expert Van Tassell had identifed the cord as being the same which SteveThomas had bought at the sporting goods section at McGuckin's. And so it was only natural for investigators to ask themselves who could have bought a cord like that. Someone who needed it for sailing or camping for example. Rope is sold for general use. Knots are made for specific use.
I told you about the knot, your loss if you want to ignore this evidence.

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon

And then that perp sat down at the Ramsey kitchen table and wrote the ransom note? Without the slightest fear of being detected? He wrote a ransom note although the child was already dead, and then left both the body and the ransom note behind? A note with which he would only leave behind additional forensic evidence? The perp obviously did a lot of things with out the slightest fear of being detected.

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
The perp obviously did a lot of things with out the slightest fear of being detected.

Who ELSE, but the people that LIVE in the HOME...could have felt comfortable enough to do those things...without the fear of being detected? IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Hi TWW -- We've been round and round on this so I'm not going to respond yet again. I am actually trying to wean myself off of this board because there is nothing new left that hasn't been addressed.

However, will make one comment: There is no "common sense" in this case that could dictate anything and I happen to believe I have quite a bit of common sense. JMO

Hi Athena. I know for a fact that you have quite a bit of common sense. You are one of my favorite IDI's. :)
I know what you mean about weaning yourself off this board...been trying to do that myself. Just wish we knew the truth about what happened to JonBenet and that her killer will be caught, no matter who it is.
If there isn't a board about Darlie Routier, there should be. I'd like to know more about what happened in that case.

[Ames]

Originally posted by Athena


<snipped>
I am actually trying to wean myself off of this board because there is nothing new left that hasn't been addressed.

However, will make one comment: There is no "common sense" in this case that could dictate anything and I happen to believe I have quite a bit of common sense. JMO

I am actually trying to wean myself off of this board too....AND HENCE the reason that you guys don't see me here as often as usual. I am also tired of the hashing, and re-hashing of the same old stuff. If I manage to completely wean myself though...I sure will miss your posts!! You make some excellent points...and have really done your homework on this case. IMO

[Zoey]

Originally posted by Ames


I am actually trying to wean myself off of this board too....AND HENCE the reason that you guys don't see me here as often as usual. I am also tired of the hashing, and re-hashing of the same old stuff. If I manage to completely wean myself though...I sure will miss your posts!! You make some excellent points...and have really done your homework on this case. IMO

You are all right. There is nothing new on this case. Until another John Mark Karr comes out or something to that effect, it is the same stuff over and over. New threads with the same stuff. Different boards with the same stuff. I just came to this board from the John Douglas board hoping for something, anything new. But there is nothing. I have read it all. Too bad for little JonBenet, isn't it?

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames


Who ELSE, but the people that LIVE in the HOME...could have felt comfortable enough to do those things...without the fear of being detected? IMO That's the only RDI arguement that I'm buying.

[bullmoose]

Okay, that's about the only argument that the RDI side makes that is plausible; but I myself have had the experiance of having someone repeatedly make unlawful entry into my home over the course of years, staying for as many as eight hours at a time; eating my food, selectively stealing odd items from my home, going through my private and financial records; even leaving an unflushed toilet to stink up my home until we returned on a half dozen occasions. He knew our movements[ daytrips to town, overnight trips to Canada] well enough that he obviously felt that he had no risk of discovery during his incursions. No, he didn't have a key to my home, he had masterkeys, so that when I changed the locks it made no difference. He is my brother-in-law; we know he is crazy; oddly many of the people who know him have not a clue that he is. Whoever killed Jonbenet I think knew their movements that night and knew their place pretty well. Being a psychopath helped him to not even consider what might happen should he be caught. I am an IDI, like I say my own in-laws have helped me see how it could have happened.

[shill]

There are lots and lots of cases of burglars entering homes knowing the people are sleeping. And a number of cases of children being taken right from their homes while the parents sleep. It's easy for me to believe an intruder would be comfortable doing this, but more likely he would be getting off on the rush from doing it right under there noses.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by shill
Rope is sold for general use. Knots are made for specific use.
I told you about the knot, your loss if you want to ignore this evidence.
What evidence? You posted an opinion, that's all.
I did not ignore your opinion about the ligatures being Tautline Hitch knot. I told you I'd ask EasyWriter on FFJ about it. He answered in detail. I posted the whole posting exchange here, and it's up to you what of it you want to ignore. But I must say I was somewhat surprised that you wrote he did not analyze the wrist ligatures. He did of course:

[Rashomon]:
Hi EW,
I gave the poster on the other forum (who is adamant about the
wrist ligatures being so-called Tautline Hitch knots) a link to
your analysis of the ligatures and garrote on the ACR site.
He/she replied:
[Shill]: ‘Dr England says,"Having only a single-angle picture to look at,
I can't say with certainty exactly how the knot was formed"’

[D.E]: Where’s the context of this quote? What does is say? In any loop
created by a slipping knot, especially with small, soft cord,
there is always the option of going over and under, or under and
over. In a photo of tight knotting, sometimes it is difficult to
tell the exact start of the routing. This does not mean I don’t
know how the knot was formed; just some obscurity dealing with
the initial start. However, it is relatively immaterial since the
physics of the knot function are the same.

“First, let's look at the cord around the neck and the knot.
Having only a single-angle picture to look at, I can't say with
certainty exactly how the knot was formed, so this is a little
iffy, but not much. From what I do see and don't see, I think my
conclusions are fundamentally correct.

One end of a rather long cord is passed under the throat and
around the neck. This end is then passed over and under the other
part of the cord after it encircles the neck. It is then passed
over and under itself, then over once more and through the space
created by the first over and under; then pulled tight to close
the knot and leave a small compressed slip loop created by the
action.” (From “garrote” analysis)

As you can see, the quote was separated from its context in the
middle of a sentence with the remainder of the relevant context
omitted as well. Gee, the full context makes quite a difference
doesn’t it?

[Shill]: “He does not talk about the knots used in the hand restraints.”

[D.E]: Say what? Not only have I talked about these “ligatures”, in
numerous posts numerous times, I have given detailed description
of how they were formed, including details of the how and why of
the amateurish blunders.

[Shill]:“You haven't proven to me that the hand restraints didn't use a
Tautline Hitch knot.”

[D.E.]: In the first place, there were no restraints; only an amateurish
feeble and failing attempt to bind. In tying a tautline hitch,
after the rope is brought around the post, the rope is then
looped around itself, then wrapped around itself twice on the
inside to make the loop - then it is brought outside of the loop
and finished with a single slip knot around the tie line going
away. In other words, with a tautline hitch, you wind up with two
turns inside the loop and one turn outside with the rope clamped
between the other two turns due to the slip knot finish.

It’s somewhat of a delicate operation. To function properly, the
turns must be squared with each other. Also, if finished too
loosely, it will come apart. If finished too tightly, the heavy
friction make movement very difficult. With this construction,
even if done to perfection, it works best by holding the knot
while slipping to reduce the size of the loop. Furthermore, the
type of material is a big factor. Even though I consider it a
poor hitch, it will work with large and stiff rope such as one
half inch or larger Manila. As for a rolling (tautline) hitch
with a small, soft cord, (especially flat, or near flat)forget
it.

The was no tautline hitch at the crime scene. There were only
slip knots to create loops. All turns are inside the loop with
each creating a slip knot. There is no two non knotting turns
inside and one slip knot outside. The crime scene constructions
do not appear in any knot book because they are contradictions
with this material. A loop created with intent to slip to reduce
loop size, then prohibited from slipping by compression upon
itself is clear evidence of ignorance of material and
construction. As stated above, a slipknot with large and fairly
stiff rope will work in some measure, but a slipknot around a
soft flat cord creating flanges via compression will not.

If you look at the junction of the large wrist “ligature”, you
can see the compression and flanges. I have no doubt the
perpetrator routed the cord with the intent of pulling if down to
the wrist. However, the perpetrator succeeded only in compressing
the cord upon itself preventing further movement, thereby,
preventing the loop from going down to the wrist.

Once this knot is made in the soft flat cord, the only way you
are going to get it loose is with a sharp object such as icepick
to get under the knot. It was left as is. When John said tied
tightly, he lied. The large loop fell off. When John said he
tried to untie the knot, he lied again. Look at the photo of the
“ligature” around the wrist over the sleeve before it was
removed. Now look at the same “ligature” after removal. Before
removal, it shows the cord twice around itself in a slip knot
form. After removal, the photo show only once around itself, but
what looks a bit like a half bow that wasn’t there before. What
happened? The cord was routed and left so loose that it distorted
in removing. In other words, fell apart. One loop so large, it
fell off. The other so loose it came apart at the touch. Had John
made any pass at the loose “ligature”, it would not have been
intact for the coroner’s photo. As I said, John lied. What’s new?
(What really galls is that so many “investigators” and
“interrogators” let him get away with it without challenge.)

[Rashomon]: “To me, those hand restraints don't even look as if tied with the
same type of knot.”

[D.E.]: Actually, they are. The difference is that the one over the
sleeve was never pulled to create the knot. In fact, the knot in
the cord around the neck was fundamentally the same as the knot
in the large loop; which is why it did not slip during post
mortem bloat, thereby creating a furrow all the way around the
neck. A circumferential furrow does not happen with an angular
pull, nor with an adjustable loop that would move away during the
post mortem bloat. In spite of this irrefutable evidence, some
still believe the loop around the neck was tightened by pulling
the stick tied on the end of the string AFTER the cord was tied
around the neck in a non slip fashion.

[Rashomon]: “And btw, the BPD hired a rope expert, Van Tassell, to analyze
the knots to see if the way they were tied pointed to specific
skills on the part of the perp. But Van Tassell never came
forward and said, e. g. "this is a so-called Tautline Hitch knot
used for sailing and camping." So he obviously could not identify
these knots as being in any way professionally done.”

[D.E.]: I’m not sure that Van Tassel can tie his own shoelace. I never
talked to Van Tassel, but I did correspond with someone who did.
(An official investigator in the case.) Without going into detail
of the correspondence, suffice it to say, this person did not get
anything from Van Tassel to help him understand this evidence.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by bullmoose
Okay, that's about the only argument that the RDI side makes that is plausible; but I myself have had the experiance of having someone repeatedly make unlawful entry into my home over the course of years, staying for as many as eight hours at a time; eating my food, selectively stealing odd items from my home, going through my private and financial records; even leaving an unflushed toilet to stink up my home until we returned on a half dozen occasions. He knew our movements[ daytrips to town, overnight trips to Canada] well enough that he obviously felt that he had no risk of discovery during his incursions. No, he didn't have a key to my home, he had masterkeys, so that when I changed the locks it made no difference. He is my brother-in-law; we know he is crazy; oddly many of the people who know him have not a clue that he is. Whoever killed Jonbenet I think knew their movements that night and knew their place pretty well. Being a psychopath helped him to not even consider what might happen should he be caught. I am an IDI, like I say my own in-laws have helped me see how it could have happened.

That's different, though because you were not IN your home when all of this occured.
A psychopath does not stay undetected for long. They don't randomly kill someone and then just go on to live a normal life.
Somebody would have noticed this "psychopath" somewhere and he would be caught by now. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
There are lots and lots of cases of burglars entering homes knowing the people are sleeping. And a number of cases of children being taken right from their homes while the parents sleep. It's easy for me to believe an intruder would be comfortable doing this, but more likely he would be getting off on the rush from doing it right under there noses.

There's a difference. She wasn't taken from the home. She was murdered there with 3 other people in the house. How often does that happen? How often does a murderer feel "comfortable" enough in someone elses home to write and leave a ransom note, feed a child, murder that child, go back into her bedroom to find a change of underwear, get a blanket out of the dryer (assuming he did that and not take it off her bed without messing up the comforter or taking it off the bed and then taking the time put the comforter back on) and then leave the childs body in the home, thereby forfeiting any ransom money?
In no way can you compare this crime with any other. How you or any other IDI can't even entertain the possibility that the Ramseys were involved is beyond me. It reeks of their personal involvement. IMO

[bullmoose]

Nobody has caught my Psychopath, not in 20 years of trying to trip him up have I gotten any real results. He is clever and cunning; his wife thinks I'm the crazy one. Out in Seattle there was a guy called the Green River Killer--Gary Ridgeway--convicted of 49 murders in King County, Washington who was caught by DNA evidence from one of his early murders--25 years ago, before the technology existed to test the evidence. I had a friend that was working at the Truck Manufacturer in the same building as him; when they came and arrested him; when the cops told him what he was being arrested for, he just said 'Oh Yeah'? My friend said that ,other than being a little slow, Gary Ridgeway was just another guy. So I firmly believe that whoever it was that killed Jonbenet can go about his daily living without the slightest chance of detection. Truthfully, I believe that in some cases psychpaths are able to live within normal society undetected for their entire lifetime.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
Nobody has caught my Psychopath, not in 20 years of trying to trip him up have I gotten any real results. He is clever and cunning; his wife thinks I'm the crazy one. Out in Seattle there was a guy called the Green River Killer--Gary Ridgeway--convicted of 49 murders in King County, Washington who was caught by DNA evidence from one of his early murders--25 years ago, before the technology existed to test the evidence. I had a friend that was working at the Truck Manufacturer in the same building as him; when they came and arrested him; when the cops told him what he was being arrested for, he just said 'Oh Yeah'? My friend said that ,other than being a little slow, Gary Ridgeway was just another guy. So I firmly believe that whoever it was that killed Jonbenet can go about his daily living without the slightest chance of detection. Truthfully, I believe that in some cases psychpaths are able to live within normal society undetected for their entire lifetime.

That is why I am adamant that where DNA can it should release those who are innocent. Convicted of crimes they did not nor could not have committed. However if this case is hung up on Artifact DNA.....then JonBenet's murderer got a free pass. Personally I don't think this is a case for DNA. But I also don't believe we'll ever see JonBenet's killer behind bars. if they have not killed again in 10 years they won't. Whether they were and Intruder or a parent.

[bullmoose]

To CK: I think you are right, whoever did it, if not caught by now is likely to stay uncaught, no matter who did it. And I couldn't agree more on the need to free those proven innocent by DNA.:shrug:

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


That is why I am adamant that where DNA can it should release those who are innocent. Convicted of crimes they did not nor could not have committed. However if this case is hung up on Artifact DNA.....then JonBenet's murderer got a free pass. Personally I don't think this is a case for DNA. But I also don't believe we'll ever see JonBenet's killer behind bars. if they have not killed again in 10 years they won't. Whether they were and Intruder or a parent. He may be killing still, just not in this country and maybe not the same M.O.
Even John Karr left the country to do what he wanted to do.

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
That's the only RDI arguement that I'm buying.


Well Shill...that's a start. Maybe we can sway you over to our side, afterall...:)

[Ames]

Originally posted by bullmoose
Okay, that's about the only argument that the RDI side makes that is plausible; but I myself have had the experiance of having someone repeatedly make unlawful entry into my home over the course of years, staying for as many as eight hours at a time; eating my food, selectively stealing odd items from my home, going through my private and financial records; even leaving an unflushed toilet to stink up my home until we returned on a half dozen occasions. He knew our movements[ daytrips to town, overnight trips to Canada] well enough that he obviously felt that he had no risk of discovery during his incursions. No, he didn't have a key to my home, he had masterkeys, so that when I changed the locks it made no difference. He is my brother-in-law; we know he is crazy; oddly many of the people who know him have not a clue that he is. Whoever killed Jonbenet I think knew their movements that night and knew their place pretty well. Being a psychopath helped him to not even consider what might happen should he be caught. I am an IDI, like I say my own in-laws have helped me see how it could have happened.

WOW!!!

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
There are lots and lots of cases of burglars entering homes knowing the people are sleeping. And a number of cases of children being taken right from their homes while the parents sleep. It's easy for me to believe an intruder would be comfortable doing this, but more likely he would be getting off on the rush from doing it right under there noses.

Yes, but they break into people's home to take something and leave...for example...jewelry or a child. They don't stick around for God knows how long, writing three page ransom letters..murdering a child, removing her long johns and panties..inserting a paintbrush, PULLING UP her panties and then her long johns. It just seems to me that WAY too much time was spent by the "intruder" in the Ramsey home, for it to have been an intruder. The burglars that get a rush out of breaking into homes and stealing...know that they are quick enough (usually called CAT burglars)...to get in AND OUT in a matter of minutes. Theres a difference between that and an intruder making themself at "home", murdering a child, staging the scene, writing a three page ransom note..when there are people asleep in the house. IMO

[Ames]

Sorry TWW...I just posted almost the same thing that YOU DID...I didn't read yours first. Sorry about that....

[shill]

The three page ransom note could be written in less then five minutes. The garrote and hand restraints have been claimed by some as taking minutes.
So in some peoples opinions, this crime could have been executed in less then 20 minutes.
Others think it took hours.
I'm not going to argue for either one.

Leaving a note with so much information IMO says he was not afraid of being caught.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by lucky13


It WAS poorly staged, but it WAS good enough to pull off what was intended.
Why didn't the Ramsey's do a better job? IMO, limited time, confusion, panic, fear, sadness, lack of criminal knowledge.

You RDIs can't have it both ways. Sometimes you say no intruder could have taken so much time in the house without fear of being caught. Then you turn around and say the Ramseys were too rushed to do a better job of staging it. Which is it?

[LindaA]

f there isn't a board about Darlie Routier, there should be. I'd like to know more about what happened in that case.

But whoever did, there is one on FFJ. But it is very one-sided.

[nuisanceposter]

Here's the Darlie Routier board at WS.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=51

[rashomon]

Originally posted by LindaA

You RDIs can't have it both ways. Sometimes you say no intruder could have taken so much time in the house without fear of being caught. Then you turn around and say the Ramseys were too rushed to do a better job of staging it. Which is it?
To me, 'rushed' in that case means 'panicky'. Of course the Ramseys did not have the fear like an intruder would have had: to be caught (unless Burke woke up and looked for them while they were down in the basement doing the staging).
But still I think that their panic prevented them from thinking clearly. For example, they threw everyting into the mix when concocting the ransom note, which is why the note as a whole is such a jumbled mess.

[andU]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I have never read that it was a slip knot around her wrists; nor have I ever read or heard anything about there being tape on her legs. Link please.
Also, I don't believe it took any special skill to make that "garrote", and it technically wasn't even a garrote.

But, have you seen the photos? It is there....

[andU]

I don't think the intruder meant to kill her at all; the note was a hoax, I believe it was written as a part of the stage, the intruder was playing head games.... the 'intruder' had a key, it was one of two people or both, neighbor White and Helgoth..... Yep, good ol' Fleet... IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by andU


But, have you seen the photos? It is there....

Yes, of course I've seen the photos and it does not look like a slip knot to me. I am no expert on knots, of course but anyone can tell how loosely that cord was tied around her wrist.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by LindaA
f there isn't a board about Darlie Routier, there should be. I'd like to know more about what happened in that case.

But whoever did, there is one on FFJ. But it is very one-sided.

I am very interested in the Darlie Routier case too, Linda. I've been surfing the net and have found a few forums but wish there was one about her here in CTN. I didn't really look, though so maybe there is...:confused:

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by andU
I don't think the intruder meant to kill her at all; the note was a hoax, I believe it was written as a part of the stage, the intruder was playing head games.... the 'intruder' had a key, it was one of two people or both, neighbor White and Helgoth..... Yep, good ol' Fleet... IMO

Nope not possible. Not Fleet White.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I am very interested in the Darlie Routier case too, Linda. I've been surfing the net and have found a few forums but wish there was one about her here in CTN. I didn't really look, though so maybe there is...:confused:

There used to be one here in one of the larger categories, but apparently it crashed. None of the Darlie sites I've seen are very active.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Nope not possible. Not Fleet White. Nope not possible. Not The Ramseys.

[shill]

Why did they take DNA from Karr when they know they have artifact DNA only?

[LindaA]

Originally posted by shill
Why did they take DNA from Karr when they know they have artifact DNA only?

Good question, Shill. I've never gotten an answer to that one either.

[andU]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Nope not possible. Not Fleet White.

Why is it not possible?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LindaA


Good question, Shill. I've never gotten an answer to that one either.

To erase all doubt.

Fleet White was cleared. They checked him and his family out and are satisfied they were not responsible for JonBenet's murder. Same with Michael Helgoth. He was investigated and cleared. Thomas talks about it in his book. He stops at more than one point and details exactly how much investigating police did.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I am very interested in the Darlie Routier case too, Linda. I've been surfing the net and have found a few forums but wish there was one about her here in CTN. I didn't really look, though so maybe there is...:confused: I am interested in that case, too! I know very little about the details of it, and would like to find out more! :seeya:

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by shill
The three page ransom note could be written in less then five minutes. The garrote and hand restraints have been claimed by some as taking minutes.
So in some peoples opinions, this crime could have been executed in less then 20 minutes.
Others think it took hours.
I'm not going to argue for either one.

Leaving a note with so much information IMO says he was not afraid of being caught. I believe the murderer had a personal vendetta against JR! In the ransom note imho he tried to deflect attention away from himself...ex. small foreign faction...the use of "we" often when I think this was one person.....but in writing it, imo he revealed a lot, he was younger rather than older, etc.:seeya:

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by LindaA


Good question, Shill. I've never gotten an answer to that one either. That's because I believe it is viable dna from the true killer of JB! There is also an unidentified pubic hair and animal hair! They will find this guy, it's just a matter of time! imho

[andU]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


To erase all doubt.

Fleet White was cleared. They checked him and his family out and are satisfied they were not responsible for JonBenet's murder. Same with Michael Helgoth. He was investigated and cleared. Thomas talks about it in his book. He stops at more than one point and details exactly how much investigating police did.
As well as the entire investigation was botched, I have reservations about the clearing of both of these men... personally, I believe (MO) Helgoth was murdered and another stage set up.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
That's because I believe it is viable dna from the true killer of JB! There is also an unidentified pubic hair and animal hair! They will find this guy, it's just a matter of time! imho

If that DNA was from the killer, then why was it old and degraded and fragmented, and JonBenet's DNA was fresh and complete? It's because the foreign DNA wasn't depostited in the underwear at the same time JonBenet's was, or it would have been just as fresh and complete as hers was.

The pubic hair could have come from any of the overnight guests Patsy said they sometimes had. She said more than one person had stayed in the extra bed in JonBenet's room.

The animal hair could have easily come from a make up brush or a paint brush. Many of those kinds of brushes use animal hairs, and from many different kinds of animals.

[LindaA]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the pubic hair found in the basement? Were the Ramsey's houseguests in the habit of running around in the basement nude?

[nuisanceposter]

Was it just loose, or was it on something, like a blanket?

[LindaA]

NP, I believe it was on the blanket.

[andU]

Originally posted by LindaA
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the pubic hair found in the basement? Were the Ramsey's houseguests in the habit of running around in the basement nude?

Yeah, as stated previously, pubic hair does not float in the air and get carried from one floor of the house to another ....

[andU]

Originally posted by LindaA
NP, I believe it was on the blanket.

Ok, if it was on the blanket, taken from JB's bed, then that offers some questions... BUT, if it came from the blanket that was in the dryer, then that could be something different... I can't fathom letting a friend sleep in JB's bed and not washing the bed clothes before JB sleeps in it again... I sure wouldn't let my child sleep in a bed that someone else had slept in without changing those bedclothes.
If the pubic hair didn't have root, would there be DNA?

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Why did they take DNA from Karr when they know they have artifact DNA only?

I wrote this whole long to do about the press conference explaining it from the DA Lacey perspective regarding confession
and saliva...It wasn't a real likely probability but one that had
to be put to absolute rest. That is why she was so adamant and John Ramsey was as well to let it all play out. She wanted to do this alot more discreetly and quietly than it all happened. They knew John Mark Karr was probably as bogus as could be but they did have to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


I wrote this whole long to do about the press conference explaining it from the DA Lacey perspective regarding confession
and saliva...It wasn't a real likely probability but one that had
to be put to absolute rest. That is why she was so adamant and John Ramsey was as well to let it all play out. She wanted to do this alot more discreetly and quietly than it all happened. They knew John Mark Karr was probably as bogus as could be but they did have to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. They were asked why they didn't get Karr's DNA in Thailand and the explained that they needed a direct sample or such.
Why didn't they tell the press they don't need to take DNA because there is no DNA to match to?
Why do they continue to perpetuate this lie of being able to match DNA?

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
They were asked why they didn't get Karr's DNA in Thailand and the explained that they needed a direct sample or such.
Why didn't they tell the press they don't need to take DNA because there is no DNA to match to?
Why do they continue to perpetuate this lie of being able to match DNA?

My understanding on that is this from the interview DA Lacey gave at the time from portions of JMK tapes etc. His story of his involvement meant there would have been his DNA most likely involved for his story to be true. Saliva. Minute and degraded and most likely artifact as it is....you can never be 200% sure till you run the dna. It will not rule anyone in. Not enough markers. But it could rule out. Which it did. It ruled out Karr. All this was discussed in some detail in that pressconference. So I am not sure that you could say that they continue to perpetuate a lie. They have said clearly its degraded minute older than the blood most likely most likely artifact. Where is the lie and the myth they but they would be totally remiss to have even that and not get it on CODIS... It may nevre hit. But since it exists would else could reasonably be expected. Then you got some guy confessing. Saying he has the panties That would be the details Lacey referred to knowing the underwear most likely were changed and her wiped down.... All stuff known. But clearly she would have been held criminally negligent not to obtain the testing. Considering you had someone who had some of the facts straight.

[Coloradokares]

my last post proves I am to tired to justify another post. I just wanted to remind you all. Monday night a special on Fox I know Julie Hayden is on it . I am not sure of all the details but this is about JonBenet. I hope you all can get this in your area. Please check your own local listings.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Saliva. Minute and degraded and most likely artifact as it is....you can never be 200% sure till you run the dna. It will not rule anyone in. Not enough markers. But it could rule out. Which it did. It ruled out Karr. Is it possible they have incriminating DNA other then this saliva mixed in blood on the underware, that they have withheld from the public?

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
Is it possible they have incriminating DNA other then this saliva mixed in blood on the underware, that they have withheld from the public?

I was wondering about that too!

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by shill
Is it possible they have incriminating DNA other then this saliva mixed in blood on the underware, that they have withheld from the public?

Underware? Is that like hardware? Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by andU


Yeah, as stated previously, pubic hair does not float in the air and get carried from one floor of the house to another ....

It doesn't? It can't? Why can't it? Other hairs do. Why is pubic hair exempt?

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Is it possible they have incriminating DNA other then this saliva mixed in blood on the underware, that they have withheld from the public?

Although DA Lacey has denied it. ? It'd take someone really inside the DA's office or the BPD when they had access to all the info to know that. I don't. I am not sure. I'd say probably not but how would I know that to be accurate at all. I wouldn't like thinking she lied to us straight faced saying they didn't when she did but ? I mean really.....? How would you know for sure?

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Although DA Lacey has denied it. ? It'd take someone really inside the DA's office or the BPD when they had access to all the info to know that. I don't. I am not sure. I'd say probably not but how would I know that to be accurate at all. I wouldn't like thinking she lied to us straight faced saying they didn't when she did but ? I mean really.....? How would you know for sure? Is that an answer?

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Is that an answer?

Shill iI dont have answes for you and don't know anyone i could get answers from regarding that. My information is everything is in the public domain after all these years. But a lie? Well how would one know if there was a conspiratorial lie of some kind? I doubt it but thats me and who am I to answer questions like did the DA lie about that.

[antares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Underware? Is that like hardware? Sorry, I couldn't resist. :) :)

[antares]

Originally posted by shill
Is that an answer?

Hey, Shill? What's your question? I might be able to answer it.

[andU]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


It doesn't? It can't? Why can't it? Other hairs do. Why is pubic hair exempt?

It certainly wouldn't float, it is heavier than air... it can fall from a person and be caught on fabric, etc... but not float freely in the air

[nuisanceposter]

Hey, Shill -

from what I understand, and I could be wrong, there is a sample of what's called DNA X. I don't know where it was found other than in the same room as JonBenet. I don't know why we never hear anything about it, either, and I'm having trouble finding more info on it.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by andU


It certainly wouldn't float, it is heavier than air... it can fall from a person and be caught on fabric, etc... but not float freely in the air

It didn't magically float around, it was on a blanket. Patsy herself said many people spent the night at their house, some of them even staying in JonBenet's room. It probably came from an overnight guest.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by shill
They were asked why they didn't get Karr's DNA in Thailand and the explained that they needed a direct sample or such.
Why didn't they tell the press they don't need to take DNA because there is no DNA to match to?
Why do they continue to perpetuate this lie of being able to match DNA?

I think you ask some very good questions, Shill. Why couldn'td they have gotten DNA in Thailand, tested it, and when it proved not to be a match, drop the matter? I know Lacy said it ws because some child in Thailand was in danger. wouldn't informiong the Thai authorities of this have been enough? But then, if the DNA is artifact, no need for even that to have taken place. It seems to me they are either perpetuating a lie about the DNA or that do belive it to be the murderer's beyond reasonable doubt.

[andU]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


It didn't magically float around, it was on a blanket. Patsy herself said many people spent the night at their house, some of them even staying in JonBenet's room. It probably came from an overnight guest.

...and that explains it being in the basement on a blanket how? I believe I asked this before: was the blanket from JB's room? If so, I cannot imagine anyone not washing bed clothes after a 'guest' had slept in the bed! I don't understand how the hair got to the crime scend ...

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by andU


...and that explains it being in the basement on a blanket how? I believe I asked this before: was the blanket from JB's room? If so, I cannot imagine anyone not washing bed clothes after a 'guest' had slept in the bed! I don't understand how the hair got to the crime scend ...

I don't know how the blanket got to the basement, and I don't know if it was ever in JonBenet's room. I also don't know that it was washed after the last person used it.

We keep blankets in our living room for the kids to use while watching tv. Many times they curl up in a chair or on the sofa with them, and they don't get washed after each time they are used. They get washed when they need it. It's quite possible that my oldest could go use the bathroom, then come back and pick up a blanket, wrap up in it, deposit a pubic hair from his hand or leg or somewhere on it, and I would pick it up and fold it up and put it back on the sofa, never realizing a pubic hair had gotten on it.

[andU]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I don't know how the blanket got to the basement, and I don't know if it was ever in JonBenet's room. I also don't know that it was washed after the last person used it.

We keep blankets in our living room for the kids to use while watching tv. Many times they curl up in a chair or on the sofa with them, and they don't get washed after each time they are used. They get washed when they need it. It's quite possible that my oldest could go use the bathroom, then come back and pick up a blanket, wrap up in it, deposit a pubic hair from his hand or leg or somewhere on it, and I would pick it up and fold it up and put it back on the sofa, never realizing a pubic hair had gotten on it.

I'm not sold on this at all... but you have a right to your opinion, just as we all do.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by andU


It certainly wouldn't float, it is heavier than air... it can fall from a person and be caught on fabric, etc... but not float freely in the air

You mean to say that a breeze couldn't blow a pubic hair around??

If the blanket had been dragged on the floor it could have picked up a pubic hair. There are any number of ways that hair could have gotten on the blanket.

[andU]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


You mean to say that a breeze couldn't blow a pubic hair around??

If the blanket had been dragged on the floor it could have picked up a pubic hair. There are any number of ways that hair could have gotten on the blanket.

One pubic hair, a breeze sure... from what source? From the third floor to the basement? I'm not saying the hair does not exist, I'm curious as to how it got in the basement or at the crime scene... and if it had DNA still attached. I had asked earlier whether a hair (from any source) has DNA if the root isn't attached. I still don't have the answer but it would seem not, especially if it had gone through the washer with the blanket or had been picked up by the blanket in either the washer or dryer.

[andU]

Shill, R U here? I'd like to know what you think about this one pubic hair that's causing such a fuss.....

[shill]

Originally posted by andU
Shill, R U here? I'd like to know what you think about this one pubic hair that's causing such a fuss..... I'm pretty sure it's not Burke's.
Most people wear shirts, pants and underwear, which contains the pubic hairs from leaping around.
Some one getting naked might transfer a pubic hair.

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


It didn't magically float around, it was on a blanket. Patsy herself said many people spent the night at their house, some of them even staying in JonBenet's room. It probably came from an overnight guest.

It was on a blanket that was washed over and over again including sheets that were washed after guests spent the night. I did not hear of any guests in the home between the 22nd and the 25th. LPH said clean sheets were put on JBR's bed the last morning she was there which was the 23rd. I doubt that a pubic hair would stick around days and days on something washed repeatedly. JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Just thought I would post this since I am still on that page.

Page 514 PM/PT

"For example, the pubic hair found on the blanket had to be thoroughly investigated. It was decidedly odd for public hair to be on a child's blanket - especially one that was washed often. At first the police understood the hair to be somewhat like Melinda Ramsey's, but the match didn't rise even to the level of consistency. Only John Ramsey had been excluded as the source of the pubic hair, which meant that a lot of work still had to be done. It also could turn out to be a secondary transfer."

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Hey, Shill -

from what I understand, and I could be wrong, there is a sample of what's called DNA X. I don't know where it was found other than in the same room as JonBenet. I don't know why we never hear anything about it, either, and I'm having trouble finding more info on it.

The X after DNA just means DNA could have been identified but it has not beenreleased in any reports that have been made public. It also was not found until 2000 so the Grand Jury would not have known about it either. I'm just guessing here that perhaps it is the DNA that was isolated and entered into CODIS that we found out about after this interview. You can read Beckner's depo to understand what I'm saying as it is too long to post but here's a sampling:

4 Q Is there any reason why FBI versus CBI? I
5 thought maybe the DNA testing had been done by FBI
6 all along. I don't know.
7 A Yes, there is a reason.
8 Q But wouldn't the specimens have been sent
9 from the Boulder Police Department, whoever the FBI
10 tested, wouldn't it have gone to the FBI from the
11 Boulder Police Department?
12 A Well some explanation is in order here.
13 Once you have the markers for DNA, you don't
14 necessarily have to have the DNA sample to compare
15 those markers to other DNA.
16 Q But the FBI didn't keep those markers on
17 file; the Boulder Police Department or CBI did I
18 would take it?
19 A CBI has those.
20 Q So somebody would have to send those
21 markers because there are reports that show the
22 markers, right?
23 A Correct.
24 Q Somebody would have to send that to the
25 FBI from either CBI or the Boulder Police Department,
137
1 right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Do you believe that samples -- clearly
4 there were some samples sent?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Possibly Chris Wolf's?
7 A Possibly.
8 Q Possibly a number of other individuals who
9 had been under the or were under the umbrella of
10 suspicion?
11 A Possibly.

20 Q Can you ballpark when you started getting
21 the results back?
22 A I'm not sure. I believe it was sometime
23 in 2000.

10 Q Well, I'm clearly speculating but I think,
11 with some degree of a reasonable basis, that John and
12 Patsy's DNA would have been sent to compare to DNAX.
13 So maybe the question ought to be just put to you,
14 were other individuals' DNA samples sent to the FBI
15 markers for comparison to DNAX, other than John or
16 Patsy Ramsey?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Okay. Would it be fair from your
19 recollection to say that it was a number of
20 individuals?
21 A Mr. Wood, I don't know that for a fact,
22 but that would be my guess.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.htm

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


It was on a blanket that was washed over and over again including sheets that were washed after guests spent the night. I did not hear of any guests in the home between the 22nd and the 25th. LPH said clean sheets were put on JBR's bed the last morning she was there which was the 23rd. I doubt that a pubic hair would stick around days and days on something washed repeatedly. JMO

Probably not, but it seems the blanket may have made it's way around the house that night. Couldn't the hair have been on the carpet in the bedroom? On the floor in the basement? Just about anywhere, in fact?

It could have been secondary transfer, just like the fibers.

[thewhitewitch1]

Just wanted to say that I've been reading "The Cases That Haunt Us" and I can't believe you IDI people find any validity in John Douglas's opinion. He can't even get the facts straight!
For example: he states that JB was wearing the red turtleneck to bed that night and that "a friend" suggested that John and Fleet search the house. I am not through reading it yet, but at this point, his opinion on the Ramseys guilt or lack thereof doesn't mean anything to me. Did you guys miss this stuff and just focus on him being pro-Ramsey?? :shrug:

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Just wanted to say that I've been reading "The Cases That Haunt Us" and I can't believe you IDI people find any validity in John Douglas's opinion. He can't even get the facts straight!
For example: he states that JB was wearing the red turtleneck to bed that night and that "a friend" suggested that John and Fleet search the house. I am not through reading it yet, but at this point, his opinion on the Ramseys guilt or lack thereof doesn't mean anything to me. Did you guys miss this stuff and just focus on him being pro-Ramsey?? :shrug:

That whole chapter of the book seems like he'd already made up his mind before hand. It really makes me wonder how much the Rs paid him.

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Just wanted to say that I've been reading "The Cases That Haunt Us" and I can't believe you IDI people find any validity in John Douglas's opinion. He can't even get the facts straight!
For example: he states that JB was wearing the red turtleneck to bed that night and that "a friend" suggested that John and Fleet search the house. I am not through reading it yet, but at this point, his opinion on the Ramseys guilt or lack thereof doesn't mean anything to me. Did you guys miss this stuff and just focus on him being pro-Ramsey?? :shrug:

TWW - and you give everything credibility that points to the Ramseys. Personally I believe IDIs have made a better case explaining away most of the so-called evidence pointing to them. Those "facts" you are referring to mean absolutely nothing re: JD's profile of the killer. EVERY single book written on this case has errors although most appear to be more factual than the media reports and has disproven much of what was out there. :shrug: JMO

[LadyFisher]

Did Patsy have a blouse under the plaid jacket she wore Christmas Day?

[Athena]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Did Patsy have a blouse under the plaid jacket she wore Christmas Day?

Yep - a red one. But those fibers were not consistent with the ones they found. They tested both. I'll try to find a link. The jacket though was consistent but could have come from secondary transfer because she put JBR to bed with it on. It's on the board somewhere but I can't search -- will try to find a link yet again. :eek:

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Athena


Yep - a red one. But those fibers were not consistent with the ones they found. They tested both. I'll try to find a link. The jacket though was consistent but could have come from secondary transfer because she put JBR to bed with it on. It's on the board somewhere but I can't search -- will try to find a link yet again. :eek: No need for a link, Althena...the point I am trying to make is....if the RDIs believe there was quite a time span before Patsy put JB to bed, including feeding her pineapple, she would more than likely removed her jacket....I can see her putting a sleeping child to bed with the jacket on upon their arrival home! jmho If I was an RDI I would be looking for fibers from the blouse not the jacket! imho

[Ames]

Originally posted by Athena


<snipped>

The jacket though was consistent but could have come from secondary transfer because she put JBR to bed with it on. . :eek:

Oh, I thought that John put her to bed...because at first he said that he had read to her,and then decided that she was asleep in the car, and he carried her in. Patsy wouldn't have been able to carry her up the stairs, while JB was asleep. Who carried her though, is not an issue...because John has already admitted carrying her to bed. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
No need for a link, Althena...the point I am trying to make is....if the RDIs believe there was quite a time span before Patsy put JB to bed, including feeding her pineapple, she would more than likely removed her jacket....I can see her putting a sleeping child to bed with the jacket on upon their arrival home! jmho If I was an RDI I would be looking for fibers from the blouse not the jacket! imho

LF...she fell asleep in the car, and JOHN carried her in and put her to bed, not Patsy.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Ames


Oh, I thought that John put her to bed...because at first he said that he had read to her,and then decided that she was asleep in the car, and he carried her in. Patsy wouldn't have been able to carry her up the stairs, while JB was asleep. Who carried her though, is not an issue...because John has already admitted carrying her to bed. IMO

John did NOT read to her for the hundredth time. He did carry her upstairs and laid her in the bed but Patsy completed the task and put her nightclothes on her.

Ames did you ever get any of the books suggested? It would help with some of the facts.

[Athena]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
No need for a link, Althena...the point I am trying to make is....if the RDIs believe there was quite a time span before Patsy put JB to bed, including feeding her pineapple, she would more than likely removed her jacket....I can see her putting a sleeping child to bed with the jacket on upon their arrival home! jmho If I was an RDI I would be looking for fibers from the blouse not the jacket! imho

Here's something interesting I found on a forensic site re: digestion/crime:

The digestive system and gut contents of a victim can provide important clues to the time of death of a victim. Chewed food will firstly pass through the oesophagus and then down into the stomach within seconds of the initial swallowing. After 3 hours, the food then leaves the stomach and heads toward the small intestines. 6 hours after eating a meal, the food will have traveled half way through the small intestines and begin moving through the large intestine. Where the victim's small intestine is empty, it suggests that the victim ate his or her last meal approximately 8 hours before death. The digestive process usually takes a bit more than a day, but it can be affected by sickness, liquid intake, fear or drug intake.

Pathologists also briefly note that correct level of food digestion corresponds to its location in the digestive system. In the case that a clever murderer wishes to delude investigators by attempting to bring forward the time of the victim's last meal (giving them an explanation for where they were at the victim's time of death), he/she may manually feed processed food (resembling that of chewed food) into the victim's stomach. If this is so, the food collected in the stomach will be much less digested than ennormal, since the periodic motion of the stomach stops after death. The food may indeed appear slightly broken down, due to the presence of the stomach acids, but any abennormalities are otherwise detectable.

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/text_ta_time_since_death.htm

[Ames]

Originally posted by Athena


John did NOT read to her for the hundredth time. He did carry her upstairs and laid her in the bed but Patsy completed the task and put her nightclothes on her.

Ames did you ever get any of the books suggested? It would help with some of the facts.

Oh, yeah...thats right...he said that he did..but, then changed his mind. I forgot!

[Athena]

Originally posted by Ames


Oh, yeah...thats right...he said that he did..but, then changed his mind. I forgot!

He never said that. It was transcribed incorrectly. Please note what I have highlghted. The word "her" should have been "for". It should have been "I read for a little bit". It is clear that whoever transcribed this interview did so incorrectly. John read in bed - not read to JBR.

JonBenet had fallen fast to sleep. Uh, I carried her inside and took her upstairs and put her in bed, put her on her bed. Uh Patsy came up behind me, and then I went down to get Burke ready for bed, he was down in the living room, working on a toy he got putting it together, and tried to get him to go to bed because we had to get up early the next morning, but he wanted to get this toy put together, so I worked with him on that for 10 15 minutes probably; and then I took him up to bed and got his pajamas on, probably brushed his teeth, and then I went up stairs from there and got ready for bed. I read her a little bit.The lights went out around ten-thirtyish or ten-forty.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Ames


Oh, yeah...thats right...he said that he did..but, then changed his mind. I forgot!

I think he said that what he had meant was that he carried her upstairs and then read, meaning after laying her in the bed (at which time PR took over) he sat down and read -not read to JB.

One still wonders when she ate the pinneapple.

[Ames]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I think he said that what he had meant was that he carried her upstairs and then read, meaning after laying her in the bed (at which time PR took over) he sat down and read -not read to JB.

One still wonders when she ate the pinneapple.

She ate it after she got home, because IMO...she wasn't asleep when they arrived. I know that it is said that Burke may have been confused when he changed his story, from JB walking in and heading upstairs, followed by Patsy....to...she was asleep. I say HOGWASH! IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Yep - a red one. But those fibers were not consistent with the ones they found. They tested both. I'll try to find a link. The jacket though was consistent but could have come from secondary transfer because she put JBR to bed with it on. It's on the board somewhere but I can't search -- will try to find a link yet again. :eek:

It was not a red blouse. It was a red sweater. I will find a link later but I believe it may have been a turtleneck...or she wore a red sweater over the turtleneck. Something like that...but not a blouse.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


TWW - and you give everything credibility that points to the Ramseys. Personally I believe IDIs have made a better case explaining away most of the so-called evidence pointing to them. Those "facts" you are referring to mean absolutely nothing re: JD's profile of the killer. EVERY single book written on this case has errors although most appear to be more factual than the media reports and has disproven much of what was out there. :shrug: JMO

And that is why I don't base my opinion on any of the books. I can barely get through reading any of them, with the exception of DOI since it was the Ramseys own version of what took place.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I think he said that what he had meant was that he carried her upstairs and then read, meaning after laying her in the bed (at which time PR took over) he sat down and read -not read to JB.

One still wonders when she ate the pinneapple.

No. That's the changed story. John and Patsy both originally said they tucked JonBenet in bed, Patsy singing to her, and John saying he read the kids a book. Later he changed it and said he had been misunderstood, and he read a book. Patsy said she sang to JB while she was asleep.

ST noted the contradiction, and even asked John about it, noting that if he had been misunderstood, then three independent police officers talking to him at different times all would have had to have misunderstood him.

She ate the pineapple at home. The pineapple in her intestine had been poorly chewed and was consistent down to the rind with what was in the bowl on the breakfast table.

And Athena, that bit about digestion refers to food in the stomach. The pineapple had moved out of JonBenet's stomach into her small intestine, and was behind the crab she ate at the White's which was in her large intestine.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


No. That's the changed story. John and Patsy both originally said they tucked JonBenet in bed, Patsy singing to her, and John saying he read the kids a book. Later he changed it and said he had been misunderstood, and he read a book. Patsy said she sang to JB while she was asleep.

ST noted the contradiction, and even asked John about it, noting that if he had been misunderstood, then three independent police officers talking to him at different times all would have had to have misunderstood him.

She ate the pineapple at home. The pineapple in her intestine had been poorly chewed and was consistent down to the rind with what was in the bowl on the breakfast table.

And Athena, that bit about digestion refers to food in the stomach. The pineapple had moved out of JonBenet's stomach into her small intestine, and was behind the crab she ate at the White's which was in her large intestine.

I can't keep all the Ramsey's different stories straight.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


No. That's the changed story. John and Patsy both originally said they tucked JonBenet in bed, Patsy singing to her, and John saying he read the kids a book. Later he changed it and said he had been misunderstood, and he read a book. Patsy said she sang to JB while she was asleep.

ST noted the contradiction, and even asked John about it, noting that if he had been misunderstood, then three independent police officers talking to him at different times all would have had to have misunderstood him.

She ate the pineapple at home. The pineapple in her intestine had been poorly chewed and was consistent down to the rind with what was in the bowl on the breakfast table.

And Athena, that bit about digestion refers to food in the stomach. The pineapple had moved out of JonBenet's stomach into her small intestine, and was behind the crab she ate at the White's which was in her large intestine.

I can't keep all the Ramsey's different stories straight.

If it takes 6 hours for food to get through the small intestine, it's looking as if she ate pineapple shortly after arriving home. Though to be fair, just before leaving the party would work too, if there was any pineapple at the party.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I can't keep all the Ramsey's different stories straight.

If it takes 6 hours for food to get through the small intestine, it's looking as if she ate pineapple shortly after arriving home. Though to be fair, just before leaving the party would work too, if there was any pineapple at the party.

And we know there wasn't any because not one single guest from that party has come forward to say that there was.

[Ames]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I can't keep all the Ramsey's different stories straight.

If it takes 6 hours for food to get through the small intestine, it's looking as if she ate pineapple shortly after arriving home. Though to be fair, just before leaving the party would work too, if there was any pineapple at the party.

I can't keep all of their inconsistant stories straight, either. GEEZ..

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


No. That's the changed story. John and Patsy both originally said they tucked JonBenet in bed, Patsy singing to her, and John saying he read the kids a book. Later he changed it and said he had been misunderstood, and he read a book. Patsy said she sang to JB while she was asleep.

ST noted the contradiction, and even asked John about it, noting that if he had been misunderstood, then three independent police officers talking to him at different times all would have had to have misunderstood him.

She ate the pineapple at home. The pineapple in her intestine had been poorly chewed and was consistent down to the rind with what was in the bowl on the breakfast table.

And Athena, that bit about digestion refers to food in the stomach. The pineapple had moved out of JonBenet's stomach into her small intestine, and was behind the crab she ate at the White's which was in her large intestine.

That is NOT a changed story. You have to realize the interviews were done and released to the public AFTER the media reports were all over the place and inaccurate including Thomas' book If you read that interview I posted that is where the confusion starts. It is a simple typo - "her" should have read "for" - and it is not at all difficult to realize that.

Alot of these posts are based on old misinformation and Steve Thomas" book was also published before the interviews were released that is why he tried so hard to seal his depo because he knew it would directly contradict what he had been feeding the public.

The biggest, most erroneous report that was published was by Vanity Fair. Read Beckner's depo -- it was Thomas that leaked all that stuff incorrectly to the media that caused the public to turn against the Ramseys early on in an effort to feed his theory.

Show me an OFFICIAL legal document that says what you posted above. JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


I can't keep all the Ramsey's different stories straight.

If it takes 6 hours for food to get through the small intestine, it's looking as if she ate pineapple shortly after arriving home. Though to be fair, just before leaving the party would work too, if there was any pineapple at the party.

What everyone needs to do is take what was reported earlier and compare them to the transcripts. The BPD never expected the interviews to be made public and it was a free for all with what they reported to the media for publishing -- again why there is so much misinformation out there.

I literally took Thomas' book and compared it to his depo and was sickened that a law officer could stoop to the level he did in an effort to be a hero. JMO

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Athena


That is NOT a changed story. You have to realize the interviews were done and released to the public AFTER the media reports were all over the place and inaccurate including Thomas' book If you read that interview I posted that is where the confusion starts. It is a simple typo - "her" should have read "for" - and it is not at all difficult to realize that.

Alot of these posts are based on old misinformation and Steve Thomas" book was also published before the interviews were released that is why he tried so hard to seal his depo because he knew it would directly contradict what he had been feeding the public.

The biggest, most erroneous report that was published was by Vanity Fair. Read Beckner's depo -- it was Thomas that leaked all that stuff incorrectly to the media that caused the public to turn against the Ramseys early on in an effort to feed his theory.

Show me an OFFICIAL legal document that says what you posted above. JMO

Thank you for the clariffication.