Scarves, Scarves and More Scarves

[KingCoyote]

I have noticed that the topic of scarves keeps repeating itself throughout this case, not only in the books written but especially in the Law Enforcement Interviews with both John and Patsy. Here is a list of what I found:

1. John Ramsey 1997 Interview with LE/BPD - Very early in the interview the detectives ask about the scarves Patsy gave as gifts at the 12/23 party; then ask about the scarf Beth gave to John; and then refer to black/plaid scarves in the sink area. Then the BPD make a point of telling John that they will also ask Patsy about the scarves.

2. Patsy Ramsey 1997 Interview with LE/BPD - At almost the end of the interview the BPD bring up the scarves given by Patsy as gifts and specifically refer to a representative scarf given to her husband.

3. John Ramsey 1998 Interview with LE/DA-Scarves are brought three times. First on P. 57 (scarves given as gifts); P. 65 John Fernie's scarf; and maybe P. 774 where the refer to a "cloth object" at the top of the stairs.

4. Patsy Ramsey 1998 Interview with LE/DA - Scarves are again discussed in two sections of the interview at PP 341/342 and again beginning at P. 525 where the scarves seem to move from photo to photo. (Note that the discussion beginning at P. 525 in PR's interview seems to be connected with the discussion in JR's 1998 Interview beginning at P. 505 where the plastic garbage bags seem to appear and move in photos.) [Also note that in PR's interview when she is discussing the moving scarf and realizes the photo was probably taken on 12/26 while the search for JBR is evolving she uses the exclamation "Oh God." I checked and found that another time she used the exclamation 'Oh God' was when she was reviewing Crime Scene Photos of JBR's bathroom where she notes JBR's balled up red turtleneck and then a crown or tiara. I found that coincidental.]

5. PMPT Page 81 - A reference is made to JAR's Red Scarves in the Wine Cellar.

Note that all scarves in discussion seem to be Red and Black in color and the predominant fiber evidence many use to point fingers at JR and PR just happens to be Red and Black colored fibers. Hmmmmm? I have also read and seen Autopsy photgraphs where a scarf has been used as a ligature device that could create the triangular mark on JBR's neck. Hmmmm?

6. Finally, in DOI P. 41 John places a "beautiful silk scarf" which he had "recently purchased" in JBR's coffin giving the appearance that he is "wrapping her in love."

The whole point of my Database project was to determine suitable data from which algorithms, which are nothing but repeat issues that logically have some correlation/cause-effect relationship to the matter at hand, can be determined. I am not patting myself on the back but do we have a "where there's smoke, there's fire" situation here or am I simply going nutso like Professor John Nash (played by Russell Crowe) in the movie A Beautiful Mind, and beginning to see things that aren't really there?

KingCoyote

[Zoey]

I have noticed that the topic of scarves keeps repeating itself throughout this case, not only in the books written but especially in the Law Enforcement Interviews with both John and Patsy. Here is a list of what I found:

1. John Ramsey 1997 Interview with LE/BPD - Very early in the interview the detectives ask about the scarves Patsy gave as gifts at the 12/23 party; then ask about the scarf Beth gave to John; and then refer to black/plaid scarves in the sink area. Then the BPD make a point of telling John that they will also ask Patsy about the scarves.

2. Patsy Ramsey 1997 Interview with LE/BPD - At almost the end of the interview the BPD bring up the scarves given by Patsy as gifts and specifically refer to a representative scarf given to her husband.

3. John Ramsey 1998 Interview with LE/DA-Scarves are brought three times. First on P. 57 (scarves given as gifts); P. 65 John Fernie's scarf; and maybe P. 774 where the refer to a "cloth object" at the top of the stairs.

4. Patsy Ramsey 1998 Interview with LE/DA - Scarves are again discussed in two sections of the interview at PP 341/342 and again beginning at P. 525 where the scarves seem to move from photo to photo. (Note that the discussion beginning at P. 525 in PR's interview seems to be connected with the discussion in JR's 1998 Interview beginning at P. 505 where the plastic garbage bags seem to appear and move in photos.) [Also note that in PR's interview when she is discussing the moving scarf and realizes the photo was probably taken on 12/26 while the search for JBR is evolving she uses the exclamation "Oh God." I checked and found that another time she used the exclamation 'Oh God' was when she was reviewing Crime Scene Photos of JBR's bathroom where she notes JBR's balled up red turtleneck and then a crown or tiara. I found that coincidental.]

5. PMPT Page 81 - A reference is made to JAR's Red Scarves in the Wine Cellar.

Note that all scarves in discussion seem to be Red and Black in color and the predominant fiber evidence many use to point fingers at JR and PR just happens to be Red and Black colored fibers. Hmmmmm? I have also read and seen Autopsy photgraphs where a scarf has been used as a ligature device that could create the triangular mark on JBR's neck. Hmmmm?

6. Finally, in DOI P. 41 John places a "beautiful silk scarf" which he had "recently purchased" in JBR's coffin giving the appearance that he is "wrapping her in love."

The whole point of my Database project was to determine suitable data from which algorithms, which are nothing but repeat issues that logically have some correlation/cause-effect relationship to the matter at hand, can be determined. I am not patting myself on the back but do we have a "where there's smoke, there's fire" situation here or am I simply going nutso like Professor John Nash (played by Russell Crowe) in the movie A Beautiful Mind, and beginning to see things that aren't really there?

KingCoyote


In regards to your #4, please don't tell me that you feel because Patsy says Oh, God twice she must be hiding something? Regardless of where she said it in her interviews or what she was looking at could not possibly have any meaning other that the pictures were very disturbing to her. I can't post on here what I say on a regular basis when things upset me, but that doesn't mean anything other than that is what I say when I am upset.

[KingCoyote]

Zoey:

It appears that I did not make myself clear with my post. My apologies if I led you to believe any particular inference or deduction from 2 situations in which Patsy Ramsey reacted similarly. In no way am I implying any reason for her reaction.

The purpose of my post was to merely point out situations where the same events tend to repeat themselves. If I may refer you to some of my original posts,(See A Newbie with an Idea), my reason for entering the forum was to gain assistance in the formation of a database of information. As is stated in my later paragraph of the post to which you are replying, I am merely using some scientific analysis to establish algorithms within a suitable database to determine logical cause effect situations. My comments are intended to be neutral but, hopefully, thought provoking. As I have stated before in my previous posts I have drawn only two incontrovertible conclusions about the JBR death. They are 1. JonBenet Ramsey is dead. 2. I do not know who caused her death. I am trying to hold as steady to those beliefs as are possible but I cannot prevent "data" when grouped by obvious similarities from presenting subjective conclusions which others may draw.

Again, I apologize if my post offends you in any way.

KingCoyote

[Zoey]

Zoey:

It appears that I did not make myself clear with my post. My apologies if I led you to believe any particular inference or deduction from 2 situations in which Patsy Ramsey reacted similarly. In no way am I implying any reason for her reaction.

The purpose of my post was to merely point out situations where the same events tend to repeat themselves. If I may refer you to some of my original posts,(See A Newbie with an Idea), my reason for entering the forum was to gain assistance in the formation of a database of information. As is stated in my later paragraph of the post to which you are replying, I am merely using some scientific analysis to establish algorithms within a suitable database to determine logical cause effect situations. My comments are intended to be neutral but, hopefully, thought provoking. As I have stated before in my previous posts I have drawn only two incontrovertible conclusions about the JBR death. They are 1. JonBenet Ramsey is dead. 2. I do not know who caused her death. I am trying to hold as steady to those beliefs as are possible but I cannot prevent "data" when grouped by obvious similarities from presenting subjective conclusions which others may draw.

Again, I apologize if my post offends you in any way.

KingCoyote

Oh no, your post did not offend me. I just was hoping that you weren't going down the road of, oh, she said this, she must be guilty. I have seen that too many times on too many forums.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I appreaciate very much what you are attempting to do.

[LindaA]

KC & Zoey, I was just gong to post the same response. We are so used to seeing people deduce that PR is guilty if they read she so much as sneezed.

BTW, KC, thanks for sending me the database. I'm going to download it to a flash drive shortly.

[Eagle1]

January 1, 2007

KC & Zoey, I was just gong to post the same response. We are so used to seeing people deduce that PR is guilty if they read she so much as sneezed.

BTW, KC, thanks for sending me the database. I'm going to download it to a flash drive shortly.

Are you saying these scarves may have been used in (since we know The Thugee, for one example, had trademark scarves, yellow) some kind of ceremonies? You're raising a good point, I think. Will you just elaborate on it a little more? In the thread USES for a Celtic harp, I'm suggesting the possibility also, is that's what you're meaning.

Not claiming this is fact, of course, but is it possible they were experimenting with their very own new cult, borrowing some things from previous ones which have been around thruout history??? I can't think why. Do we feel it's possible? Why the apparent obsession with scarves, otherwise?

[shill]

January 1, 2007

Why the apparent obsession with scarves, otherwise?
It's Colorado and it's cold and scarves are fashionable.

[KingCoyote]

Eagle1:
I am trying my darndest not to suggest anything. I am trying to let the evidence, however grouped or connected, to suggest what happened in this matter. I, too, have toyed with the idea of a ceremonial, ritualistic slaying but that is just too "outside the box" for an "inside the box" guy like me. I will reread the USES thread, though.


Shill:
I feel the weather does play a role in this case especially as to the "footprints/snow dusting" issue and possibly as to the clothing issue. I will think some more on the weather issue.

KingCoyote:read:

[Athena]

Comments on the use of "oh, God:In her1997 interview she uses that phrase 7 times, in the June 1998 interview she uses this phrase 24 times and in the August 1998 phrase is used 25 times. It appears to me that it was used appropriately within the context. I did not however read it in connection with any of the "scarf" questions.

It seems the significance of the scarf issue is because the crime scene photos show them in different locations from their Christmas photos on their roll of film that was developed. The BPD did not take their photos until later in the day and who knows who moved the scarves. However I would think if the scarves had anything to do with her death they would not only have just not been moved but at least hidden?? Also it also seems that quite a few of those photos were not clear -- and if all of the men, FW, JF and JR had similar scarves who's to say who owned which scarf? The only one that seems absolutely clear to me is the one that JR's daugther Beth gave to him. JMO

[KingCoyote]

Athena:

Thank you!! Since my parenthetical reference was based on a very limited amount of actual reading, your much expanded research on the number of times the expression "Oh, God" was used seems to render harmless the use of that term. It seems that it should be taken in the context that it was so often found: simply as a logical and commonplace reaction. It also shows how an "off the cuff" reference without more thorough research can lead to all sorts of myths, rumors and misperceptions. I must be more careful in the future.

I am still thinking about the issue of scarves.......

I will, though, continue to offer up suggestions so we may all research the significance.

KingCoyote

[shill]

FYI; saying "Oh, God" repeatedly during sex on Sunday morning does not count as going to church.

[LadyFisher]

FYI; saying "Oh, God" repeatedly during sex on Sunday morning does not count as going to church.

Shill, you're a hoot! Your posts often make me laugh. And imho we can certainly use some lighthearted humor on this board! .........................................I have always wondered if the perp (which I believe to be an "intruder" didn't have on a shirt with red in it, since it was Christmas. Many men wear something with red in it at this time of year....were those fibers found ever conclusively matched with Patsy's? ...................Hope everyone here had wonderful holidays with their families! Coloradokares, how's your weather out there?

[KingCoyote]

LadyFisher:

Your post regarding clothing of the "intruder" (as opposed to the issues of clothing of the Ramseys) is an interesting one. I will be inserting that into my Database as an issue to consider. Good Idea LadyFisher!!!

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

I have debated posting this because it is very long and requires me to speculate in order to maintain a balance or neutrality between IDI and RDI.

Earlier in this thread I remarked about PR using the term "Oh God." Athena correctly pointed out that PR frequently used that term. I decided to analyze all times PR used the term to see if there was a pattern (algorithm) and any significant deviations. My figures were different than Athena's but that is neither here nor there. The number of times PR used the term "God,"
"Oh,God," or "Oh my God" within each of her interviews are as follows:

1.1997 Interview (IV) - 7 times
2.1998 Interview " - 21 times
3.2000 Interview " - 0 times
(I excluded use of the term "gosh" in all interviews and note that the 2000 interview was mostly a debate between Lin Wood and T. Haney, and in which Patsy was usually quite reserve in her answers.)

I then developed three categories of usage of the term "Oh God" for initial cause/effect analysis. Those categories were:

1. Accenting a statement - used 5 times (Ex.-98 IV P.601 - Line 19 "...By God you would have known...")
2. Display of Frustration - 6 times (Ex. - 98 IV P. 248 - L. 17 "...God, I just can't remember..."
3. Excited Utterance - 17 times (Ex. - 98 IV P. 156 - L. 8 "...Oh my God, they're talking about me..."

I then analyzed the 17 excited utterances for any deviations from the usual comment of "Oh God." I found two utternances with significant other reactions besides the comment itself. Both were in connection with viewing a Crime Scene Photo (CSP) or in regards to the content of a CSP. These were also the only times PR used the term "Oh God" with all of the dozens of CSPs shown to her.

1. In 98 IV 266 Line 7 PR reacts to a crown/tiara? next to the red turtleneck sweater in JBR's bath, begins crying and takes a break.

2. In 98 IV 527 L20 PR reacts to an red/black scarf and the fact that it is in a picture JR may have inadvertently snapped on the morning of 12/26. Within this discussion PR asks "Do you want to see me" and I assume she is speaking to her Attorney Burke. It sounds like Atty. Burke wants PR's attention. At line 533 Atty. Burke calls for a break at 12:01 which is not that unusual except when he started the IV that morning he suggested that if at nooon...12:20 they were close to being finished, we would "forge on." He didn't even ask how long was left but unilaterally called for a break.

I felt these two deviations from the somewhat mundane situations where only the statement "Oh God" was used were significant enough to warrant further analysis. Here is where I must speculate to remained balanced between IDI and RDI. The process becomes a little "strained" but bear with me.

In a light most favorable to PR and the IDI camp these two situations can be dismissed by saying that the photos or discussions immediately prior to the breaks and/or crying were simply highly emotional situations. This is logical.

In a light not so favorable to Patsy and more favorable to the RDI camp the analysis is much more complex. In this scenario you assume that PR somehow recognizes the scarf and tiara within the photos as connected to the death of JBR. (How or why I won't go into right now. It is just an assumption. Analysis requires assumptions.)

Earlier I have hypothesized that a scarf may have been a strangulation instrument. In order to be that the scarf must be of somewhat thin material to be knotted (or maybe bunched up) to cause the triangular mark on JBR's neck. But a scarf as one of two strangulation devices and events, i.e. before and after the headblow would answer the question of which came first, the headblow or the strangulation and could explain the wider swath of abrasions on the right side of JBR's neck underneath the ligature furrow. I have a theory as to how that happens but I don't have enough room here.

This analysis begs the question: where is this "thin material scarf?" Well, look to PP341-342 of the PR 98 IV and you see a discussion of a red/black scarf in CSP #67 that is described as "a ribbon," " a sock" or something all bunched up. Shortly after that PR volunteers that JR's scarf is a heavier wool meaning the scarf in question must be of a lighterweight material. Could this be a "thin cloth" scarf; even a silk scarf? By the way CSP #67 photo was also part of the discussion that called for that quick lunch break. Enough about scarves for a moment.

As to tiaras or crowns we have seen them in connection with PR (Miss. W. VA) and JBR (pageants with tiaras normally present.) We have also seen a tiara/crown - as well as a silk scarf - being placed in JBR's coffin. Those incidents are not quite enough to be a pattern but are merely coincidental.

The biggest question is how you fit the tiara (and the scarf) into the events of strangulation. Since everybody and their brother has come up with a cause of the abraisions on JBR, let me throw another one in. The points of a crown/tiara, if dull and rounded enough not to cause a puncture, could cause metal friction burns or abrasions in a circular fashion. Also, imagining the descending points of a tiara as to height and size (and spaced 3.5 cm apart) two of those might cause the two dissimilar sized abrasions on the back while the top point of the tiara caused the one on JBR's cheek. Now you must somehow dress JBR in a scarf and a tiara while she is being accosted and then get these items back to where they are seen in the photos. I have already developed a sequence of events (strictly following the evidence and statements of the case) that puts JBR in the scarf and tiara and how they abrasions and strangulation marks are caused but I am not so far as to getting the items back to where they were photographed. But I am working on it.

This analysis is merely a hypothetical based upon my opinions, logic and conclusions. It is not intended to be fact but offered only for discussion purposes. It is intended, as best is possible, to let the evidence present a hypothesis.

Have at it Forum

KingCoyote

[Vanillyn]

Oh God.

[thewhitewitch1]

Very interesting, Kingcoyote. When I read that portion of the interview, I thought that Patsy was more disturbed by the sight of the balled up turtleneck. At that point, when shown the picture, didn't she abruptly change the subject?
The idea that the tiara caused those marks is quite interesting. Is it possible she may have fallen on it? I have also always had an interest in the frequent mentioning of scarves and am suspicious of why she was buried with one that had only been "recently purchased". It is interesting, in light of what you've written, that she was buried with the tiara as well. I had not thought of the possiblity that it may have been evidence. I believe the silk scarf played a part in her death. I believe she was strangled with it before the garrote was put in place.
I have to say that I am very impressed with the dedication you have to this case and you have come up with some things that I am sure none of us have thought of before. I look forward to hearing more.

[KingCoyote]

In reviewing Crime Scene and Autopsy photos the most striking strangulation mark to me was the "triangular" mark and the wider swath of marks on the right side of JBR's neck below the ligature line. In one side view photo I noted that the swath marks appeared to be on the same circumferential line as the triangular mark. This indicated to me that one device may have caused both marks. Since the ligature furrow was so distinctively different in appearance I contemplated two strangulation devices.

Next, I just sat and stared at the "triangular" mark. It wasn't a true triangle but it was more like a possible isosceles triangle or better yet an isosceles trapezoid. It then hit me. It looked like a knot men sometimes use when tying a necktie. But females don't wear neckties; they wear scarves.

Staying constant with my unscientific analysis (See Did the Ransom Note Grow Legs? Thread), I took an oversized handkerchief - since I don't own a scarf - and began tying it around the area immediately above my knee. (After having worked in Retail Mens' Clothing at one point in my life I found that frequently the area immediately above your knee is roughly the same circumference as your neck.)

Anyway, after rather tightly tying the kerchief around my knee with the knot at the underneath inside portion of my knee paralleling the front left side of JBR's neck I simply inserted my hand between the kerchief and my skin and pulled/tightened for several few seconds. Three things showed up: 1. A series of knuckle indentions where my hand was inserted 2. A somehwat consistent line of swath marks paralleling about 2/3 of the circumference of the kerchief and 3. An indentation at the knot. This pattern did not match the pattern on JBR's neck from what I could see in a front, right side and back view of JBR's neck. (I can't remember finding a left side view of the neck.)

I began hypothesizing the strangulation of a person but my thoughts turned to cutting off the blood supply which ties into the discussion involving the amount of blood in the headwound. You cut off blood flow with a tourniquet. To transform the scarf into a tourniquet you need a twisting device but I had no 4-6 inch piece of wood immediately available in the room. I simply retied the knot in a much looser fashion, inserted my hand and started to twist clockwise and counterclockwise to a 90 - 180 degree point to tighten the scarf.

I noticed that there was considerable "strangulation." effect. There was still an indentation at the knot, but no knuckle indentations on the top of my knee because the scarf and its newly created "V" or "X" portion created by the twisting shielded my skin from the knuckles and if I pulled ever so slightly to the left I left more of a swath mark on the right side of my knee. I had, to some very limited extent, recreated the pattern on JBR's neck.

I then realized that the wider swath of scarf material could limit JBR's ability to find the outer edge of the ligature to present scratch marks or alternatively present very limited or limited and imperceptible scratch marks.

The big question, in order to connect the scarf back to its location in the crime scene photos, (which started all this discussion), is Why do you remove the scarf from the crime scene? because no scarf, to our knowledge, was in the wine cellar (or was it...what was that deleted entry in the 12/26 Search Warrant..was it the Duct Tape or something else?...just food for thought.) Here we must start speculating as to events and participants for purpose of analysis of the movement of the scarf only. This is not an analysis to determine Whodunnit, it is an analysis of the scarf . I realize the two go hand in hand, but I must keep them separate if, for no other reason, to prevent a digression into the battles between two rivaling factions: the IDIs and the RDIs. I must, in order to remain neutral and balanced, present scenarios that are both favorable and not so favorable to each faction. Again as a disclaimer, this speculation is merely my opinion and logic for analysis and discussion purposes. It is in no way meant to imply any guilt on the part of any party to this matter. My scenarios are as follows:

1. You don't need to remove the scarf because there was no scarf involved. OK, without a scarf you can still explain the wider swath of marks on the right side of JBR's face as friction marks of initially applying and adjusting the "cord" ligature. Fine, that's very logical and sequential as to events and activities but, explain the triangular mark. I discount the gold cross from causing the mark since there is no obvious "cross indentation." I then hypothesized that JBR did manage a defensive maneuver and inserted her finger, probably from her left hand, in between the cord and the skin. But there is no evidence of injuries to either set of fingers on either hand from the autopsy.

2. An Intruder who is just a burglar accosted and struck JBR after being surprised but stays to stage a scene of a Kidnapping Pedophile attack to divert attention away from his profession of burglary. This assumes

a. no scream occurred because most logically a burglar would hightail it out of there after a scream or

b. a scream occurred and the burglar -or pedophile- bolts to the top the basement stairs, hears no noise or movements toward his/her area and returns to the basement to complete his tasks, however sadistic or "staging" they may be.

3. A Ramsey did it. (Now the scream becomes irrelevant or at least mitigated in its importance, since John is under the effect of Melatonin and sound travels to the Stanton house rather than upstairs and Patsy is the "sleep queen" according to one of JR's interviews.) A parent could rationalize, even in a traumatic, high stress situation, that no parent would put a child to bed with such a naturally dangerous "ligature" as a scarf encompassing their child's neck. A parent could extend into the theory of staging a pedophile kidnapping attempt by replacing the scarf ligature with a cord ligature. The parent, in this confusion, could leave the scarf on the first floor just like someone left the flashlight out in the open.

4. An Intruder did it, a scream occurs, the intruder flees, the parents arrive at the scene, go into shock, somehow realize that they could surely be blamed for this since one, or both, see no obvious entry/exit by an intruder, and proceed to stage the scene. (This idea of "dual perpetrators" comes from a much later point in my Organizational Analysis where I create Stages and Phases of the Corpus Delicti and insert the Matrix of Participant Hypotheses where, if there can be separate Stages and Phases of the act, there can be separate participants within each Stage and Phase.) Here the Ramseys, again, just leave the scarf out in the open ala flashlight.

OK...Next up (I think): Why would JBR being wearing a scarf? (I will get to crowns and tiaras at a later time...one step at a time.)

[LindaA]

I'm impressed. :beer:

[KingCoyote]

Thank You LindaA but.....I forgot a very, very important scenario in No. 1 of my most recent post. That is the shirt that JBR was wearing. You will not need to utilize a scarf if you believe that the first strangulation device was the shirt JBR was wearing. Let me analyze that now:

The shirt could clearly and logically cause the wide swath of marks on the right side of JBR's neck, but can it cause the triangular mark? In order for it to cause the triangular mark it must do so by bunching and be part of a first strangulation event, not just one stranulation event, IMO.

I note that the shirt she was wearing did not possess a collar. A collar would go a long ways as to being able to bunch in a trapezoidal isosceles triangle fashion since a collar would have more that one distinctive edge. A collar could be of thicker material which could aid in the severity of the triangular mark as compared to the other marks.

The shirt cannot be part of the only or second strangulation event which includes the ligature cord because the shirt is not bunched up under the ligature in the autopsy photos nor is there any evidence that JR removed the ligature allowing the bunched material fall. It had to have been used as a first strangulation device and then a loosening of the first strangulation "grip" would allow the bunching, if any, to fall to natural position.

I also don't remember that the shirt was represented in the autopsy as being torn or abnormally stretched or anything out of the ordinary. I do not know the material from which the shirt is made but I would think such strong force to create the triangular mark could disfigure the shirt in some way.

Just a few more thoughts and opinions....(like I don't have enough of them...hear the Coyote yip yip yip yip yip ;)

[nuisanceposter]

KC, ST points out in his book (hb, page 165) that the police reports say Patsy said on 12/26 that JonBenet went to bed in the red turtleneck that was found balled up on the sink by her bedroom. Patsy changed her story about that in the police interview of April 30, 1997, where she said JonBenet had gone to bed in the white Gap shirt.

So perhaps the collar of her red turtleneck, had it actually been what she was wearing at the time, was the source of the mark. I've always thought that someone roughed her up by grabbing her collar and that's what made that mark. I also think that's why the ligature was used - it's staging to cover up any signs of abuse that may have already been on her neck.

We really need to see the pictures from the White's party and the official police reports. I doubt we ever will.

[KingCoyote]

NuisancePoster:

I could have sworn that I saw a statement somewhere that Steve Thomas had to admit that JBR wasn't wearing a red turtleneck at the White party because a photo from the Whites party was referred to in a deposition. I have quickly scanned the sections of the Steve Thomas Depo especially P358 and 359 regarding this discussion. Apparently ST still proclaims that JBR's red turtleneck as that which she "may have indeed worn home." I noted that Lin Wood did not address this statement (which is somewhat strange because if LW could slam ST with anything about the red turtleneck it sure would be proof that she didn't have it on at the party) but merely chose to address the fact that ST was wrong in his assertions or had no first hand knowledge as to the turtleneck being wet much less urine stained.

In any event this makes the red turtleneck a possible "shirt" for "stangulation" purposes. But I still run into the cause of the triangular mark. A turtleneck which would have a thicker collar would probably still be very pliable cotton, wool or acrylic which wouldn't IMHO bunch in with such definitive lines as to produce the triangular mark. But then again....truth is much stranger than fiction. :confused:

Lets keep it in mind.

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html
[…]
crimeADM: Was JonBenet definitely wearing the red turtleneck at the Whites' party?

stevethomas: no, she was wearing the white top in which her body was eventually found the next day.
[…]

[KingCoyote]

Louisadelmar:

Well, it just goes to show....multiple heads are better than one....just not on the same body....:eek:

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

I have been continually rethinking my idea that a knot in a scarf may have caused the pronounced triangular mark on JBR's neck. I am not so sure that even a knot is rigid enough to make such a pronounced and defined mark. I am thinking that possibly a clasp of some type, maybe even a funnel type clasp, which got turned upside down during a strangulation event could have caused the mark.

Continuing with the issue of clothing and what JBR was wearing at her death or at the White's party, I have been analyzing the red turtleneck sweater vis a vis the white sequin shirt.

We know there was a disagreement between PR and JBR as to wearing the red turtleneck. We know that JBR was found in the sequin shirt. We know ST alleged that PR stated JBR was put to bed in the red turtleneck, that statement allegedly coming from officers at the scene early that morning. We know the red turtleneck was photographed in JBR's bath balled up on the sink with a tiara, the photo/tiara eliciting a strong emotional response from PR.

To further set the foundation for my analysis, we can note that ST stated in 11/00 to a CRADM chat that JBR wore the sequin shirt at the FW party. (emphasis added) [See http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html] We have very little info and no photos from the party but apparently FW has given ST and Lin Wood private info. (sorry, no cite on FW giving LW private info)

In STDeposition P356-358 (9/01), ST, being questioned by LW, admits he had no proof of red turtleneck being wet/wet with urine which was part of his bedwetting/rage theory that PR killed JBR. But ST also states that part of his theory included "the red turtleneck which she may have indeed worn home ." (emphasis added)

As another part of my foundation for this analysis the STDepo has considerable discussion by all attorneys that indicate a desire for confidentiality under a protective order of the court. Police seem to want confidentiality to protect personal info as well as, possibly, case info. Atty. Diamond for ST wants the whole Depo confidential. (See STDepo P441-442)
Even LW remarks that he tried to phase it in a way to avoid confidentiality and he doesn't want to face a judge about violating an order. (paraphrased) I also noted that at P218 of STDepo that areas of confidential nature were to be discussed around the same time as the issue of the turtleneck. [There were two specific areas of the Depo redacted as to B. McReynolds and possibly ST's income/social security #, but those may not address LW's careful phrasing. I would speculate that the LW's questions were not so carefully phrased as to require deletion.]

Could this careful phrasing be why LW did not jump all over ST's hypothetical assumptions that JBR wore the turtleneck home? LW did not even address that issue. He concentrated on the wet/wet with urine issue only. LW seems waaaaaaaaay too thorough and competent to miss an opportunity like that.

Now introduce a discussion about the exceptions to the hearsay rule and the admissibility of statements heard, especially statements of PR as to the turtleneck being worn to bed, by the BPD. If my understanding of two exceptions is correct then excited utterances and utterances made while an event is unfolding (res gestae, I think is the latin word) are admitted for the "truth of the matter asserted." In other words weight can be given to these statements as truthful because someone blurts them out in an emotional situation and doesn't have time to think up an answer. If a court might accept PR's first statements as true, so can I.

Next, consider why the JBR red turtleneck is balled up with a tiara next to a sink. If PR wanted JBR to wear the red turtleneck, wouldn't if be logical to wear a clean turtleneck from a drawer to a party than a turtleneck balled up next to a sink. (But then again, PR wears red turtlenecks two times in a row.)

OK, just because JBR wore the sequin shirt AT the White's party doesn't preclude the possiblity that she wore something different home. All you need is a quick change of shirts to accomplish this. Here is where the pure speculation comes in.

Could PR have taken JBR's red turtleneck to the party anyway because, lets say, she wanted a photo of her and JBR dressed alike for a Christmas memory? Hey, maybe she took a recent tiara JBR won with her as well as one of PR's tiaras to recount JBR's recent Christmas Pageant wins. (I remember two recent JBR wins; the Little Miss Christmas on 12/17 and the SW Plaza on 12/22). Remember now that a tiara was found balled up with the turtleneck next to the sink.

The problem with this is that we now have to find a convoluted way to get JBR back into the sequin shirt but this whole case is convoluted so what the heck.

Just a few thoughts and opinions none of which contain any express or implied theory or statement of fact as to who killed JBR.

KingCoyote :read:

[Louisadelmar]

I have been continually rethinking my idea that a knot in a scarf may have caused the pronounced triangular mark on JBR's neck. I am not so sure that even a knot is rigid enough to make such a pronounced and defined mark. I am thinking that possibly a clasp of some type, maybe even a funnel type clasp, which got turned upside down during a strangulation event could have caused the mark.

Continuing with the issue of clothing and what JBR was wearing at her death or at the White's party, I have been analyzing the red turtleneck sweater vis a vis the white sequin shirt.

We know there was a disagreement between PR and JBR as to wearing the red turtleneck. We know that JBR was found in the sequin shirt. We know ST alleged that PR stated JBR was put to bed in the red turtleneck, that statement allegedly coming from officers at the scene early that morning. We know the red turtleneck was photographed in JBR's bath balled up on the sink with a tiara, the photo/tiara eliciting a strong emotional response from PR.
[...]
Just a few thoughts and opinions none of which contain any express or implied theory or statement of fact as to who killed JBR.

KingCoyote :read:

Off the top of my head -

On page 218 there are 2 redacted Q&As. Based on the subsequent talk they sound financial.

15 Q. (BY MR. WOOD)
16
17 A.
18 Q.
19
20 A.
21 Q.
22 MR. DIAMOND: He's doing well by
23 some standards.
24 MR. WOOD: He's doing well by my
25 standards. You don't need to put that on
220
1 the record in case my wife, present wife, and
2 last wife number four sees it.

My impression is Wood did not have free rein in what areas he could question ST. Probably because this depo was in connection to the Wolf suit and not the Ramsey suit. I’ll see if I can find the relevant part.

Though it doesn't defy any laws of physics that Patsy could have taken the red shirt to the Whites I wouldn't put money on it. If she had done soshe'd have brought it iin with her and we'd have heard from the Whites via Thomas that Patsy arrived carrying the red shirt and a tiara. The tiara being by the sink doesn't ring any bells. Is that in a depo or a book?

I'm not surprised by a strong emotional response from Patsy at seeing the red shirt. Both because of the contrast between her life when the shirt was put by the sink and perhaps great sadness that one of her last one on one interactions with JonBenet was a squabble.

I think Thomas very much wanted to keep it from the public that he was a source for Bardach and others as well as the fact he didn't do much about making sure his book was up to date regarding the facts of the case before it was published. I believe Carnes mentions something about this when she releases the depo.

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

Thanks for the info. I had made note of that and agree it appears to be financial.

My above post #14 goes into some detail about the "Oh God", crying, taking a break reaction to seeing the sweater and the tiara. PR actually had this reaction to the tiara as opposed to the sweater. The basis for that analysis was 1998 PR Interview Page 266. Please note, though, that that one reaction of PR was analyzed along with about 25-30 other similar reactions.

I am not sure what to make of all of this to be honest with you. I am just trying to link pieces of evidence and statements and photographs, etc., together to see if there is some kind of fit.

I could be imagining those pictures in the clouds again.

KC :shrug:

[KingCoyote]

Earlier I hypothesized about a tiara/crown causing the abrasions on JBR's face, back and leg and I decided to analyze tiaras and crowns to see if there was any pattern or connection to the crime. Other than my own hypothesis connecting a tiara to the abrasions, I must admit there is little mention of Tiaras throughout the case for analysis or discussion. I will list what I have found and let the reader decide for him/herself.

(All book references are to paperback edition)

1. PMPT P. 123 - Pam Griffin statement: JBR loved to look at crowns...the prize of prizes...overall pageant winner.

2. PMPT P. 52-54 - PR statement on 12/27 to Pam Griffin's daugher Kristine: All JBR ever wanted to do was win a crown like yours.

3. PMPT P. 52-54 - Kristine brings PR one of her crowns - JBR's favorite. (Unstated as to which specific crown was given)

4. ST P. 57 - Pam Paugh removes tiaras from Ramsey home on 12/28. (Unstated as to which tiaras were removed)

5. DOI P. 40-41 - Pam Paugh places Little Miss Christmas Tiara in JBR coffin
(This must be one of the crowns/tiaras Pam removed from Ramsey House but there is no statement I could find as to where that Tiara was in the Ramsey house. In DOI P. 32/33 JR makes note that Pam Paugh did retrieve the Medallion that JBR won for the talent portion of the Little Miss Christmas Pageant from JBR's bedroom but makes no mention of Pam retrieving any Tiaras.)

6. Patsy Ramsey 1998 Interview with Law Enforcement P. 266 - PR reacts emotionally to the sight of a tiara/crown next to the red turtleneck sweater balled up on the sink in JBR's bathroom (Crime Scene Photo), remarks "Oh, God," begins crying and takes a break from the interview.

Other than a reference to the Miss America crown that fell from Phyllis George's head when she was walking down the runway and seen by PR on TV, an event with no connection to the crime, but did influence PR as to pageants, thats all folks. While researching the tiaras I did note a large number of references and comments regarding pageant activity but that is another project for the back burners and I have others on the front burners for the near future. :eek:

KingCoyote :read:

[Louisadelmar]

I have faith in you and I'll listen...but I'm not so sure about this crown/tiara causing an abrasion idea.

Here are a bunch:

http://www.victoryfashion.com/CategoryView.asp?C=Headpieces&CN=7

and beyond the fact each prong? seems awfully smooth to cause an abrasion they also seem like they would bend fairly easily. It would be nice to see a lineup of JonBenet's crowns.

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

Thanks for the vote of confidence and patience. I will admit the crown/tiara causing the abrasions is a longshot. First I have to create a sequence of events that even puts JBR in a crown. Then a sequence of events that causes the abrasions and there is very little evidence of a struggle by JBR. Then I have to cause three sets of abrasions, one set with a noticeable abrasion on her cheek with the other abrasion being almost imperceptible from the pictures I have seen; then you have to move down to her back/side and then move to the back of the foot/heel. I don't "see" that much of a struggle by JBR. I think she was incapacitated fairly quickly by a first strangulation event using a scarf which sapped her of her strength and consciousness, at least temporarily, until such time as she screamed whereupon she was hit in the head and subsequently strangled more definitively with the cord. JMHO

I have looked at the cluster ring theory and can "see" that if PR was wearing two rings on one hand but they would have to be on her forefinger and ringfinger of her right hand and I haven't seen any screen captures of PR wearing rings that way. But how do you sequence the events to get one set on her face, back and foot? A half missed slap on the face, a open palmed slap/punch in the ribs and a pull on the leg? Holding JBR down while you pull on the garrote or scarf (?).

The same goes for a stun gun...if you believe a stun gun you must believe in three "stuns" and thats if you ever find a stun gun to truly match and believe that no one heard the noise of the stun gun, especially the first "stun" which may have been in JBR's room. Do you "stun" her on the back of the heel while she is trying to crawl away on carpet which should have caused noticeable rug burns?

I just don't know what type of objects could cause such marks.

KC :confused:

[rashomon]

Shill, you're a hoot! Your posts often make me laugh. And imho we can certainly use some lighthearted humor on this board! .........................................I have always wondered if the perp (which I believe to be an "intruder" didn't have on a shirt with red in it, since it was Christmas. Many men wear something with red in it at this time of year....were those fibers found ever conclusively matched with Patsy's? ...................Hope everyone here had wonderful holidays with their families! Coloradokares, how's your weather out there?
The CBI lab found the fibers on the duct tape, in the wrappings of the garrote handle and in the paint tray to be consistent with fibers from the jacket Patsy had been wearing to the Whites' party on that fatal night.

Aside from these hard facts: do you really believe a sexual predator celebrated Christmas in red cothing before going to snuff JB's life out?

[rashomon]

http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html
[…]
crimeADM: Was JonBenet definitely wearing the red turtleneck at the Whites' party?

stevethomas: no, she was wearing the white top in which her body was eventually found the next day.
[…]
But wasn't the issue about Patsy Ramsey lying to the investigators about what JB was wearing to the party/ to bed?
Didn't Patsy state somewhere that JB had either been been wearing the red turtleneck to the Whites' party (or to bed, I can't remember exactly, but will look it up)?
This is a crucial issue! For how many times has it been posted on the forums: if only the Whites' Christmas party pictures would be released, but there is Steve Thomas (who of course has seen the actual Christmas party pictures) saying that she definitely wore the white sequined top to the Whites' party, the clothing in which her dead body was later found.

Where did ST say that? Was it in some chat room? Could you give me a link? TIA!

[rashomon]

But wasn't the issue about Patsy Ramsey lying to the investigators about what JB was wearing to the party/ to bed?
Didn't Patsy state somewhere that JB had either been been wearing the red turtleneck to the Whites' party (or to bed, I can't remember exactly, but will look it up)?
This is a crucial issue! For how many times has it been posted on the forums: if only the Whites' Christmas party pictures would be released, but there is Steve Thomas (who of course has seen the actual Christmas party pictures) saying that she definitely wore the white sequined top to the Whites' party, the clothing in which her dead body was later found.

Where did ST say that? Was it in some chat room? Could you give me a link? TIA!
Louisadelmar: In my excitement over this issue I overlooked that you had already given the link to the chat room where ST participated.

[Kor]

Aside from these hard facts: do you really believe a sexual predator celebrated Christmas in red cothing before going to snuff JB's life out?

Well, a lot of sexual predators tend to be opportunists, why do many pedophiles want to be a school teacher, a Santa Claus, a coach, a foster parent, a celebrity for children, or a volunteer to help at places of crisis like 2004 Indian Ocean’s tsunami where many children lost their parents? If McReynolds weren’t the ones who killed JB, then maybe someone else in Santa clothing did it, I was thinking of Mervin, Linda’s husband dressed up as Santa. I recalled JB had a note of secret visit with Santa; I am questioning if it was given by Linda or someone in her circle.

[shill]

But wasn't the issue about Patsy Ramsey lying to the investigators about what JB was wearing to the party/ to bed?
Didn't Patsy state somewhere that JB had either been been wearing the red turtleneck to the Whites' party (or to bed, I can't remember exactly, but will look it up)?
This is a crucial issue! For how many times has it been posted on the forums: if only the Whites' Christmas party pictures would be released, but there is Steve Thomas (who of course has seen the actual Christmas party pictures) saying that she definitely wore the white sequined top to the Whites' party, the clothing in which her dead body was later found.

Where did ST say that? Was it in some chat room? Could you give me a link? TIA!Why would she lie about the red sweater? Could she be mistaken with all that was going on and her chemo?
What would she gain by lying about what JB wore to the party, when she would be aware that there were numerous witnesses and photos.

Unless your saying she was lying so she would get caught lying so everyone would know she was a liar, there is no point for her to lie.

There is no logic to your argument that she lied about the sweater.
If she got it wrong, it is logical to conclude she was mistaken.

Please explain to me the logic in her lying about JB wearing the red top, since it seems to escape me.

[KingCoyote]

Shill:

You are correct; there really is no logic to PR lying and she would easily be caught in the lie...unless for some reason JBR was changed from the white sequin shirt on the way home and then changed back later after the killing. I can't even come close to concocting a reason for that. But then again we really haven't heard a lot from the people at FW's party or the party itself, the people who were there and definitely haven't seen any pictures. Could there be something going on that everybody, and I mean everybody, police and all people at the White's party are keeping there mouth shut about? I don't remember who was at the party but it would take one heckuva "conspiracy" of silence to keep something quiet with that many people involved.

Maybe PR did change JBR into the red turtleneck for some pictures and simply had it in her mind that JBR was in the red turtleneck when she got home and simply made a mental error when she first spoke.

Just a few thoughts and opinions

KingCoyote

[thewhitewitch1]

If JB was not asleep when she got home, could she have worn the turtleneck to bed and urinated on it? She could have then changed back or been changed back into the white shirt.
The turtleneck was photographed "balled up" in her bathroom. I wonder what, if any, significance there is to that.
Perhaps Patsy did not have the presence of mind to think about the clothing JB wore to the Whites and that there could be photos of her and/or that she would be questioned about it by the LE. Again...they were not criminal masterminds and were panicked. IMO
Shill...Patsy was in remission at the time. There was no chemo.

[KingCoyote]

tww1:

I really wonder what a red turtleneck is doing balled up in the sink when PR so badly wanted JBR to wear it...Can't you just imagine PR saying...."OK...JoniB...go get that balled up red turtleneck I saw on your bathroom sink and wear it to the party tonight??!!

Shame on you KC...shame shame shame

[Louisadelmar]

I think in her panic that morning she remembered what she'd planned, thought about, and mentally pictured that JonBenet would wear to the Whites. The last minute switch to the white shirt would not be nearly as firm a memory as the red shirt/black Gap set that she'd planned for JonBenet to wear.

[thewhitewitch1]

tww1:

I really wonder what a red turtleneck is doing balled up in the sink when PR so badly wanted JBR to wear it...Can't you just imagine PR saying...."OK...JoniB...go get that balled up red turtleneck I saw on your bathroom sink and wear it to the party tonight??!!

Shame on you KC...shame shame shame


Maybe "someone" balled it up and threw it there because they were a bit ticked off. :shrug:

[thewhitewitch1]

I think in her panic that morning she remembered what she'd planned, thought about, and mentally pictured that JonBenet would wear to the Whites. The last minute switch to the white shirt would not be nearly as firm a memory as the red shirt/black Gap set that she'd planned for JonBenet to wear.

Maybe but she was very clear in her statements about wanting JB to wear that shirt and JB refusing to. She remembered that quite well.
She remembers quite clearly what she wants to remember. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

Maybe but she was very clear in her statements about wanting JB to wear that shirt and JB refusing to. She remembered that quite well.
She remembers quite clearly what she wants to remember. IMO

But those statements weren't until the first interview. (Unless I'm misremembering something -always possible- perhaps even likely.)

My impression is the police asked, on the morning of the 26th, what she was wearing. I assume for an APB.

I would think if the 1997 interview was the first time she changed from red to white the interviewers would have said something to verify that this was different from what she had been saying.

I don't recall reading anywhere exactly when she changed from the red top story to the white one.

[KingCoyote]

I was checking ST P.40 where he notes that the crime scene technicians had taken video the night the body was removed which showed her in the white shirt and the video showed the red turtleneck balled up next to the sink. At this point it is ST that claims PR told the Police officers at the scene that morning that JBR was put to bed in a red turtleneck. I doubt if PR made any further statements to the police until the 97 Interview. I will check the 97 interview but DOI clearly goes into a discussion about the disagreement over what JBR would wear but it is from John Ramsey, not PR.

Louisa: I think it is possible that PR clearly pictured JBR in her mind as wearing a red turtleneck but that is kind of weak for me if there was such a disagreement as JR states in DOI P 7. PR makes no statements in DOI that I remember about JBR's clothing. My memory might not be that good either.

TWW1: I have thought of that possibility as well that the red turtleneck was thrown at the sink...possibly by JBR or PR if a spat occurred in JBR's bedroom when JBR was getting dressed. But what about the tiara/crown...did it just happen to be in the bathroom on the sink counter and the turtleneck landed on it? Was that the tiara that Pam Paugh got so she could place it in the coffin? How could the police let a tiara with the turtleneck get away?...(never mind....it was the BPD) I just think there are a lot of strange things that could have happened that put the turtleneck and the tiara on that sink counter. We may have another "pineapple bowl/tea glass situation on our hands. Oh me!!

KingCoyote

[Louisadelmar]

I was checking ST P.40 where he notes that the crime scene technicians had taken video the night the body was removed which showed her in the white shirt and the video showed the red turtleneck balled up next to the sink. At this point it is ST that claims PR told the Police officers at the scene that morning that JBR was put to bed in a red turtleneck. I doubt if PR made any further statements to the police until the 97 Interview. I will check the 97 interview but DOI clearly goes into a discussion about the disagreement over what JBR would wear but it is from John Ramsey, not PR.

Louisa: I think it is possible that PR clearly pictured JBR in her mind as wearing a red turtleneck but that is kind of weak for me if there was such a disagreement as JR states in DOI P 7. PR makes no statements in DOI that I remember about JBR's clothing. My memory might not be that good either.

[...]

KingCoyote

DOI p.7
She [Patsy] wanted JonBenet to wear a red turtleneck with her black velvet pants so that mother and daughter would be dressed alike, but JonBenet wanted to wear the complete outfit she'd chosen. Finally Mom gave in.

I'm disappointed. From your "such a disagreement" I was fully expecting to read about a knockdown dragout fight. :-( Even so, I still think the color shirt she wore to the White's wasn't uppermost in her mind that morning so the memory her brain offered up was the red shirt. Particularly since she wore red and black and had planned for them to be dressed alike. (Too cutesy for my taste but I've seen pictures where she and John had on matching shirts so apparently it was something she did.)

The only recollection I have of when ST says she changed her story is "later." Maybe he's more specific somewhere. But since he seldom lets pass a chance to make comments about the Ramseys it seems unlikely he would not say something along the lines of "It wasn't til 4 months later in her interview that Patsy suddenly remembered..." Maybe he does and I missed it.

We know she talked to Arndt (though supposedly not about the case), we know they talked with Smit and the DA's people and we know they talked with their own lawyers who talked with the DA. Plus John met with Arndt and Mason for 40 minutes on the 27th p. 53, ST. Patsy could have at some point on the 26th/27th corrected herself to John and he passed it along to them. Or she could have said it to Arndt or Smit or any one of a number of people.

Or maybe she first changed the color in the 1997 interview and neither interviewer mentioned it. (Although, again, I would think they would want to clarify that if it was a sudden change)

Whatever, I don't think one can simply assume she didn't correct the shirt color until 4 months later.

I once had to give testimony about the events of a particular evening. It was all quite clear in my memory and I was good to go. To this day I am very grateful that at the last minute I suddenly realized the particular evening I was remembering so well was the wrong one. I don't know why but my brain was handing up something from a week earlier. I have a great deal of respect for the tricks our mind can play when we are under stress.

[shill]

Patsy most likely had decided on those matching outfits days before the party and it was going to be a given they wore it and was stuck on her brain.
IMO it's obvious she had a brain fart when asked about it the next day when she was traumatized from the events unfolding.

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

Sorry for the misleading use of terminology as to "such a disagreement." That was not intending to increase the severity of the disagreement, it was intended to accent the fact that there was a disagreement, which, IMHO would seem to negate any memory of wearing the red turtleneck as opposed to PR keeping a memory of a red turtleneck. That is the unfortunate thing about communicating solely in writing. I will be more careful in the future.

KC

[Louisadelmar]

No worries. It was more or less tongue-in-cheek although I was expecting the argument to be a somewhat bigger deal than what John appears to have described.

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

One more thing. I am not sure it is as important that Patsy changed her statement or when she changed her statement as to what JBR was wearing when she went to bed as much as the fact that her statement that she was wearing a red turtleneck to bed doesn't coincide with what was found on the body. This inconsistency would seem to be that which made ST suspicious that some activity of changing shirts occurred after JBR was put to bed and possibly the change was in connection with the actual killing event.

KC

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

One Christmas I gave my sister, BIL, niece and nephew matching sweatshirts and they apparently thought is was a little too cutesy as well...never did get a picture of them all wearing the sweatshirts...different strokes for different folks....

KC

[Louisadelmar]

De gustibus non est disputandum :-)

[Louisadelmar]

Louisa:

One more thing. I am not sure it is as important that Patsy changed her statement or when she changed her statement as to what JBR was wearing when she went to bed as much as the fact that her statement that she was wearing a red turtleneck to bed doesn't coincide with what was found on the body. This inconsistency would seem to be that which made ST suspicious that some activity of changing shirts occurred after JBR was put to bed and possibly the change was in connection with the actual killing event.

KC

You're quite right. I seem to have headed us all down a garden path. Sorry 'bout that, I'm very attracted to red herrings.

My mental image of what happened is along the lines of JonBenet had on the red/black outfit but continued wanting to wear the white shirt. Perhaps they were in JonBenet's bathroom and Patsy was doing her hair. Finally Patsy says wear what you want. JonBenet peels off the red shirt, drops it by the sink and puts on the white one. I wonder if they tested the red fibers found at the crime scene against JonBenet's red shirt?

Thomas has Patsy changing JonBenet from the white shirt, not into pajamas, but into a different shirt for sleeping. The party's over. Why would she do that?

And if she is asleep as John and Patsy say - No parent in their right mind changes a pullover top on a sleeping child if they want the child to remain asleep.

It just doesn't fit with my own experience as a parent.

[KingCoyote]

Louisa:

Your mental images are very logical....I don't know much about parental experiences....

KC

[thewhitewitch1]

No worries. It was more or less tongue-in-cheek although I was expecting the argument to be a somewhat bigger deal than what John appears to have described.


JMO but I hardly think that either Ramsey would tell LE that the arguement over the shirt was "a bigger deal", if it was. They seem to downplay anything that may show them in a bad light. It would certainly raise some eyebrows if JR described the disagreement between Patsy and JB as a yelling match or anything like it. So, once again, we have only the Ramseys word on how "mild" the disagreement was. It certainly has the possibility of "being a bigger deal".

[bullmoose]

But since they were the only ones present, who are we to believe? If you tend to disbelieve the Ramseys, that is if you are a RDI,which you are, nothing that they say will be believable unless it is a 'confession'. On the other hand, if you are an IDI, like I am, you would tend to believe the Ramsey account on its face. Unless there is a videotape of the incident to be analyzed by an independent lab, which there is not, I do not think we will ever agree on the intensity[or lack of it] of the disagreement.:shrug:

[User615]

2000 March 18
John and Patsy Ramsey book
"Death of Innocence"

DOI (HB) Page 7:

"When I returned home in the afternoon, JonBenet and Burke were playing outside with the neighborhood gang. Soon Patsy called for the kids to come in to clean up a little before the party."

"She wanted JonBenet to wear a red turtleneck with her black velvet pants so that mother and daughter would be dressed alike, but JonBenet wanted to wear the complete outfit she'd chosen. Finally Mom gave in. JonBenet put on her outfit with her black boots which zipped up the front and had a bit of animal print trim along the top. JonBenet loved to dress up. Burke could care less."

[KingCoyote]

User615:

Thanks for that post from DOI. I never really saw that line "JonBenet loved to dress up" or at least it didn't register with me before. I just wonder if she liked to wear scarves....since this whole thread started with the idea that there was a lot of discussion in the Police interviews about scarves and I have hypothesized that a scarf might have been a strangulation device with a knot or clasp that caused that unusual mark on her neck....Hmmmmmmm...

KingCoyote

[andU]

I picked up on JB's boots having fur on them... could that be what was found near the body scene? I don't recall reading before (or perhaps it went by without catching my attention) that it was JB's boots that had the fur trim... I had assumed that JB liked to dress up, most little girls do, and then ... she was involved in pageants, which would require her to dress up.

[LindaA]

I took "animal print trim" to mean fabric, not fur. Would fur be printed? Just wonderinng.

[andU]

I took "animal print trim" to mean fabric, not fur. Would fur be printed? Just wonderinng.

Sorry, I mis-read... maybe my mind went to quickly to the fur ... and that's how inaccuracies begin. I am very sorry.

[rashomon]

Unless your saying she was lying so she would get caught lying so everyone would know she was a liar, there is no point for her to lie.

There is no logic to your argument that she lied about the sweater.
If she got it wrong, it is logical to conclude she was mistaken.

Please explain to me the logic in her lying about JB wearing the red top, since it seems to escape me.

I'll try to explain the logic:
This is from NP's post (emphasis mine)

ST points out in his book (hb, page 165) that the police reports say Patsy said on 12/26 that JonBenet went to bed in the red turtleneck that was found balled up on the sink by her bedroom. Patsy changed her story about that in the police interview of April 30, 1997, where she said JonBenet had gone to bed in the white Gap shirt.

Shill, Patsy may initially have told the police the truth about JB wearing her red turtleneck to bed, but then later backpedaled after realizing how incriminating this was:
For which sexual predator would, after brutally killing his victim, then redress her in the shirt she had worn to the Whites' party before?
Imo Patsy realized she had made a terrible mistake in redressing JB in the white gap shirt for the staging, which is why she later changed her story, alleging she had put JB to bed in that white shirt.

[andU]

Ok, what if the intruder were, in fact, someone who had a vendetta, (and someone outside the family who was aware of Patsy's plans and JB's contradictory decision) wouldn't that be another 'jab'? To put JB back in the white shirt? (Now I am thinking who, outside the family, could have known about the disagreement about the shirts?) Hmmm... Linda, maybe? I'm not a super sleuth, never claim to be, and I am attempting to instill thought, not argument.

[Louisadelmar]

I'll try to explain the logic:
This is from NP's post (emphasis mine)



Shill, Patsy may initially have told the police the truth about JB wearing her red turtleneck to bed, but then later backpedaled after realizing how incriminating this was:
For which sexual predator would, after brutally killing his victim, then redress her in the shirt she had worn to the Whites' party before?
Imo Patsy realized she had made a terrible mistake in redressing JB in the white gap shirt for the staging, which is why she later changed her story, alleging she had put JB to bed in that white shirt.

So what logical process gets her out of the white shirt she wore to the party, into the red shirt and then out of the red shirt and back into the white one?

[KingCoyote]

Other than PR having JBR to switch to the red turtleneck just for some last minute pictures to be taken at the White's Party (after she may have been photographed in the White shirt earlier while at the Party), I cannot think of any logical reason for her to be changed to the red turtleneck. And if this did happen, then we have a conspiracy of silence from everyone at the White's party not to talk about it publicly. Of course we really don't know that much about the party....no one has talked about it that much and we sure haven't seen any pictures.

Either I have read too much suspicion into the words of the ST Depo or there is something we just don't know. I go back to Linda Arndt's statements that 90% of the information about this case isn't accurate (or something to that effect). Could this be one of those things or is Linda Arndt's statements just a little overdramatization....Heck I Don't Know!

I am all ears for comments and willing to listen to anything even close to logical.

KingCoyote

[rashomon]

So what logical process gets her out of the white shirt she wore to the party, into the red shirt and then out of the red shirt and back into the white one?
That would have been a very good question to ask Patsy Ramsey.
For example, removing the red turtleneck from JB and putting on the white shirt may have been an impulsive act by Patsy of 'undoing' the crime in her mind, of 'disassociating' herself from her rage attack on JonBenet.

But do sexual predators redress dead children to 'undo' their crimes? Of course not. And I think Patsy realized later that it would have sounded incredibly silly if she had told investigators: "the intruder must have redressed JonBenet in the white shirt which she had worn to the Christmas party, since I put her to bed wearing the red shirt."
Which is why I think she changed her story, claiming that she had put JB to bed in the white shirt.

[KingCoyote]

Andu:

I think we have statements that LHP did know about the disagreement PR and JBR may have had about wearing a dress to the 12/23 party because LHP was in the R's house on 12/23. I cannot find that she was in the house on 12/24; in fact she did not come in that day because of her fight with her sister over rent. It's going to be kind of tough to put knowledge with LHP as to the red turtleneck issue unless you know something I don't which is every bit possible in this case. Everytime I turn around I find something new or different.

KingCoyote

[shill]

I'll try to explain the logic:
This is from NP's post (emphasis mine)
Shill, Patsy may initially have told the police the truth about JB wearing her red turtleneck to bed, but then later backpedaled after realizing how incriminating this was:
For which sexual predator would, after brutally killing his victim, then redress her in the shirt she had worn to the Whites' party before?
Imo Patsy realized she had made a terrible mistake in redressing JB in the white gap shirt for the staging, which is why she later changed her story, alleging she had put JB to bed in that white shirt.
Yes, if she had put Patsy in that red turtle neck, it would be a problem for her.
But her account of it to LE was on the morning of the 26th, before they found JB, and she was in shock and she may have been stuck on the thought that she had picked the red turtleneck for the party.

If PR had redressed JB after murdering JB and staging the crime, why did she forget that she had put JB back in the white top? That seems like a detail that would stand out if you had done it a few hours earlier and dragged the body into the wine cellar.

And why would she put her to bed in a clean shirt that was suited for a party that was a turtleneck. Pulling off one top, and pulling on a turtle neck (which are tight around the head going on) and then later taking the turtle neck off after killing her because she didn't wear it to the party, and then forgetting that she changed the turtleneck for the white top when asked about it, is quite a stretch of the imagination don't you think?

Why not leave her in the red turtleneck after killing her and then tell LE you changed her into the RTN when you put her to bed?

Or under the stress, Patsy was mistaken and did not change her into the RTN, hence JB was found in the white top.

[bullmoose]

Careful, there, shill; countless native speakers on other boards will not agree with you. You may just be emotionally upset because you are an IDI.:biggrin:

[rashomon]

Yes, if she had put Patsy in that red turtle neck, it would be a problem for her.
But her account of it to LE was on the morning of the 26th, before they found JB, and she was in shock and she may have been stuck on the thought that she had picked the red turtleneck for the party.

If PR had redressed JB after murdering JB and staging the crime, why did she forget that she had put JB back in the white top? That seems like a detail that would stand out if you had done it a few hours earlier and dragged the body into the wine cellar.

And why would she put her to bed in a clean shirt that was suited for a party that was a turtleneck. Pulling off one top, and pulling on a turtle neck (which are tight around the head going on) and then later taking the turtle neck off after killing her because she didn't wear it to the party, and then forgetting that she changed the turtleneck for the white top when asked about it, is quite a stretch of the imagination don't you think?

Why not leave her in the red turtleneck after killing her and then tell LE you changed her into the RTN when you put her to bed?

Or under the stress, Patsy was mistaken and did not change her into the RTN, hence JB was found in the white top.

Good points Shill. Why would Patsy put JB to bed in a red turtleneck which she had not worn to the Whites' party, and not put the child in the nightgown?
While it may happen that parents just put their asleep child in bed in the clothes she is wearing, it doesn't make sense to take the white sequined shirt off, and then put on a turtleneck (which indeed is no nightwear!) for bed, disregarding the nightgown. A turtleneck which was originially meant for JB to wear at the party.
But it it was Patsy who first stated that JB went to bed in the red turtleneck.

Does anyone know if the police in the later interview (where she changed her story) confront her with her first version and ask questions?

[KingCoyote]

Rashomon:

I don't have any specific link to where PR may have contradicted the Red Turtleneck comment with a white sequin comment. I will tell you that in my reading of the three interviews I did not get any impression whatsoever that the interrogators became even the slightest bit confrontational regarding anything including inconsistent statements. I would imagine with PR and JR having attorneys present that a confrontational attitude would have been objected to by any attorney present. I think the interrogators simply tried to confirm any statement a second or third time in the interview if they thought it might be inconsistent with a prior statement.

In fact I will tell you the one time I did see somewhat of a confrontational or challenging statement by law enforcement and that was by Lou Smit when he was interviewing JR about the window well area and the debris immediately inside the broken window. At one point around P227 in the 98 interview with JR he seems to "challenge" (for lack of a better word) the issue of an intruder by talking about strong winds in the window well/metal grate area that could have blown debris into the basement. That was about the toughest I saw LE get except for the confrontations regarding the existence of fibers of PR and JR on the panties/body/paint tray/garotte/duct tape, etc., that occurred when Lin Wood was sitting in on the interviews in 2000.

I can feel comfortable saying that the interviews might have been a lot different if there had not been attorneys present with so many ground rules but that is your right to have attorneys present...heck...I don't think you really even have to talk to the police. But what we have as far as interviews go is all we have to work with, so lets just do the best we can.

KingCoyote

[Letree]

Does anyone remember a tv program about a private investigation of this case and a local guy was interviewed? He talked about a friend that was into dressing as a ninja, sneaking into houses, spending lots of time, and taking things for the thrill of it. He also related as to how the friend almost shot him while they were shooting pistols in a junkyard. It was years ago when I saw this and that is as much as I can recall. I thought at the time that the ninja intruder sounded like a real POI.

[thewhitewitch1]

Does anyone remember a tv program about a private investigation of this case and a local guy was interviewed? He talked about a friend that was into dressing as a ninja, sneaking into houses, spending lots of time, and taking things for the thrill of it. He also related as to how the friend almost shot him while they were shooting pistols in a junkyard. It was years ago when I saw this and that is as much as I can recall. I thought at the time that the ninja intruder sounded like a real POI.


That would be Michael Helgoth. He is dead. Suspicious suicide (possibly murdered and made to look like a suicide). I believe his DNA didn't match but they found Hi-Tech boots and a stun gun close to his body. Sounds like a set-up to me. IMO

[Letree]

That would be Michael Helgoth. He is dead. Suspicious suicide (possibly murdered and made to look like a suicide). I believe his DNA didn't match but they found Hi-Tech boots and a stun gun close to his body. Sounds like a set-up to me. IMO

Thanks, that was it I suppose.

[sweetcharlotte]

That would be Michael Helgoth. He is dead. Suspicious suicide (possibly murdered and made to look like a suicide). I believe his DNA didn't match but they found Hi-Tech boots and a stun gun close to his body. Sounds like a set-up to me. IMO

Any ideas on who did the "set-up?"

[bullmoose]

Any ideas on who did the "set-up?"The only possible suspects for a masterful set-up like this would have to be the evil Ramseys, to attempt to throw the BPD off their trail. Of course, LE ruled his death a suicide, so the case was closed and all of the resources of the LE were focused on the Ramsys with Synthroid Stevie leading the gallant charge against the master criminals themselves. Only by their evil machinations were they able to escape Supersleuth Steve and his lesser sidekicks, the rest of the BPD.JMHO, of course.:biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

Any ideas on who did the "set-up?"


Nope, but you have to admit it was pretty convenient having those boots and that stun gun right in the vicinity of his dead body.

[shill]

Posting response to the "Housekeeper and more" link.

No. IMO, JonBenet was bludgeoned in the head first and then strangled with a scarf approximately 20-60 minutes after that. Sometime after that, the neck ligature was tied around her neck after which the paint brush handle was added for the "fake garrote" portion of the ligature. (IMO)

The scarves in question were red and black, like Patsy's jacket.
Cross reference the scarf questions to see if it was ever asked about AFTER they matched the fibers to the jacket.

If LE new a scarf was used, why would John make a show of it putting it in the casket?
And if LE didn't know about it, just get rid of it, don't wave it around and put it in a casket.

This is the most ludicrous theory presented and makes me wonder how people who believe this could doubt the possibility of an IDI.

This is the most ludicrist theory presented and makes me woder how people who believe this could doubt the possibility of an IDI.

[createthis]

Posting response to the "Housekeeper and more" link.


The scarves in question were red and black, like Patsy's jacket.
Cross reference the scarf questions to see if it was ever asked about AFTER they matched the fibers to the jacket.

If LE new a scarf was used, why would John make a show of it putting it in the casket?
And if LE didn't know about it, just get rid of it, don't wave it around and put it in a casket.

This is the most ludicrous theory presented and makes me wonder how people who believe this could doubt the possibility of an IDI.

This is the most ludicrist theory presented and makes me woder how people who believe this could doubt the possibility of an IDI.

I don't think LE questioned them about scarves until after the funeral so why would JR think they were suspicious of scarves?

[thewhitewitch1]

I don't think LE questioned them about scarves until after the funeral so why would JR think they were suspicious of scarves?

You are absolutely right. If LE suspected she was strangled with something else first, they certainly wouldn't have let the Ramseys in on it. For all they knew, the Rs believed LE thought the garrote alone was the instument of death. Once JB was buried (with the scarf) and JR didn't want her body exhumed, the scarf being used became just a "theory". I bet some of those fibers found on/near her body could have been sourced to that scarf. Why in the hell didn't someone in authority order her body to be exhumed? I bet this case would have been solved by now.

[sweetcharlotte]

I read recently that Santa Bill is still on Mary Lacy's list of suspects. And I still find it strange that Ms. Santa was only questioned once during this entire investigation. JMO

[bullmoose]

You are absolutely right. If LE suspected she was strangled with something else first, they certainly wouldn't have let the Ramseys in on it. For all they knew, the Rs believed LE thought the garrote alone was the instument of death. Once JB was buried (with the scarf) and JR didn't want her body exhumed, the scarf being used became just a "theory". I bet some of those fibers found on/near her body could have been sourced to that scarf. Why in the hell didn't someone in authority order her body to be exhumed? I bet this case would have been solved by now.tww1: I know we don't agree about very much on this case; and I don't agree with you again about the scarf, but I do agree with you in that I wish the body had been exhumed and re-examined. We would then maybe know if your scarf theory and also the taserburn theory were valid or not. Maybe the case would be solved by now, or maybe the investigation would have taken a different direction. But we'll never know know, I don't think. JMHO:shrug:

[andU]

I read recently that Santa Bill is still on Mary Lacy's list of suspects. And I still find it strange that Ms. Santa was only questioned once during this entire investigation. JMO

Isn't McReynolds deceased? I think Ms. moved to one of the New England states....

[thewhitewitch1]

tww1: I know we don't agree about very much on this case; and I don't agree with you again about the scarf, but I do agree with you in that I wish the body had been exhumed and re-examined. We would then maybe know if your scarf theory and also the taserburn theory were valid or not. Maybe the case would be solved by now, or maybe the investigation would have taken a different direction. But we'll never know know, I don't think. JMHO:shrug:


This is the reason I find JRs excuse about "not wanting to disturb JB" so lame when asked about exhuming her body. If the Ramseys are such devout Christians, then they know that the body is only a shell after death. We know that they "believe she is in a better place" and we can assume they meant "Heaven" as opposed to in the ground. Why wouldn't they have her body exhumed if they were really interested in finding her killer?
I know you don't agree with me, but I believe it's because of what would have been found out implicating them if they had allowed it. Someone in law authority should have ordered her body to be exhumed. Why didn't they? Fear of rath from the Ramseys, perhaps? Lawsuits? Legal battles? Who knows. But it should have been done. I wonder what, if anything, could be found out if she were to be exhumed now? Most likely it's too late.

[sweetcharlotte]

Isn't McReynolds deceased? I think Ms. moved to one of the New England states....


Yes, they moved to NE and he has seen passed away. Here's an article that includes some of his comments just FYI...

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_908882,00.html

[bullmoose]

This is the reason I find JRs excuse about "not wanting to disturb JB" so lame when asked about exhuming her body. If the Ramseys are such devout Christians, then they know that the body is only a shell after death. We know that they "believe she is in a better place" and we can assume they meant "Heaven" as opposed to in the ground. Why wouldn't they have her body exhumed if they were really interested in finding her killer?
I know you don't agree with me, but I believe it's because of what would have been found out implicating them if they had allowed it. Someone in law authority should have ordered her body to be exhumed. Why didn't they? Fear of rath from the Ramseys, perhaps? Lawsuits? Legal battles? Who knows. But it should have been done. I wonder what, if anything, could be found out if she were to be exhumed now? Most likely it's too late. When you say someone in authority should have ordered her body to be exhumed; whom, though? I, too,think an exhumation may have answered everybodies questions. But its a little lame to claim that Ramseys blocked exhumation;maybe they were not for it, but if it had been formally requested, it would IMO, have happened. Why were they reluctant? After the autopsy photos were leaked, for a price, to those ELFF's at the Globe, I understand why they were against a later exhumation. I don't think it has anything with how devout of Christians they 'claim to be'; I think its because of their love of their daughter and their desire that she rest in peace. Of course, this is JMHO.

[elvislives]

When you say someone in authority should have ordered her body to be exhumed; whom, though? I, too,think an exhumation may have answered everybodies questions. But its a little lame to claim that Ramseys blocked exhumation;maybe they were not for it, but if it had been formally requested, it would IMO, have happened. Why were they reluctant? After the autopsy photos were leaked, for a price, to those ELFF's at the Globe, I understand why they were against a later exhumation. I don't think it has anything with how devout of Christians they 'claim to be'; I think its because of their love of their daughter and their desire that she rest in peace. Of course, this is JMHO.

Think about it as a parent--it would be very hard to have your child's body exhumed.
And while its easy to play armchair quarterback, this could have been prevented if the ME had biopsied one or more of the abrasions. They could then be examined at a later date without having to exhume the body.

[elvislives]

Well she said that she was going to have a secret visit with Santa AFTER CHRISTMAS. Wouldn't Santa be wearing RED clothing? That is probably why she left her romm willingly with him and did not scream. She had no reason to be afraid of Santa.

Hmmm, maybe Santa arrived on his sled then came down the chimney. That would explain the absense of footprints in the snow and the lack of forced entry.
;)

[nuisanceposter]

Think about it as a parent--it would be very hard to have your child's body exhumed.
And while its easy to play armchair quarterback, this could have been prevented if the ME had biopsied one or more of the abrasions. They could then be examined at a later date without having to exhume the body.

Call me cold, but I would have no problem giving the go ahead for people exhume my child, especially if I was suspected of killing her and there was evidence on her body that would help clear me and get the police on the trail of the real killer. That's not my child - that's just the physical remainder of her. She's not in that coffin, and her body doesn't care if it's being unearthed.

Very good point about Meyer taking samples of the wounds in question. I really wish he had done that. I really wish he had kept the body for more questioning when BPD asked him to. Of course, Lou Smit wasn't on the case yet, and no one else, including Meyer himself, suspected a stun gun may have been used.

[thewhitewitch1]

When you say someone in authority should have ordered her body to be exhumed; whom, though? I, too,think an exhumation may have answered everybodies questions. But its a little lame to claim that Ramseys blocked exhumation;maybe they were not for it, but if it had been formally requested, it would IMO, have happened. Why were they reluctant? After the autopsy photos were leaked, for a price, to those ELFF's at the Globe, I understand why they were against a later exhumation. I don't think it has anything with how devout of Christians they 'claim to be'; I think its because of their love of their daughter and their desire that she rest in peace. Of course, this is JMHO.

If the soul is not in the body after death, there can be no "disturbance" of peace by exhuming it, as the body is just an "empty shell". I think this is a basic Christian belief.
I believe that if the Rs were really interested in "justice" and in finding the killer, they would have done whatever it takes and put all else aside, including notions of disturbing the peace of someone who is..well, dead.
I am not saying that the Rs blocked anybody from exhuming her body. In one interview, JR states, when asked, that he doesn't know why he wasn't asked to exhume her body (he was) and then in the next sentence goes on to say that he didn't want it done and gave his reasons.
I'm sure someone in authority could have gotten a court order to do it against their wishes. The question is, why didn't they? If LE asked the Ramseys if they could do it and were denied, I guess you could surmise that they didn't want to face "Team Ramseys wrath" or start some kind of legal battle. It may have been worth it if they had.
At any rate, before JB was buried, there should have been much more effort put forth in trying to determine what made those marks; among other things.
IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Think about it as a parent--it would be very hard to have your child's body exhumed.
And while its easy to play armchair quarterback, this could have been prevented if the ME had biopsied one or more of the abrasions. They could then be examined at a later date without having to exhume the body.

They didn't have to be present for the exhumation, if it bothered them that much.
I am a parent and if my child was murdered, I would do everything to find her killer and yes, I would let her body be exhumed.

[shill]

Call me cold, but I would have no problem giving the go ahead for people exhume my child, especially if I was suspected of killing her and there was evidence on her body that would help clear me and get the police on the trail of the real killer. That's not my child - that's just the physical remainder of her. She's not in that coffin, and her body doesn't care if it's being unearthed.
.
If the Ramseys felt burying her and leaving her buried wasn't important, they could have just let the Medical examiner have her for a longer time, let the LE get their way.

The only reason the scarf is in question is because somebody dug up a photo of a women strangled with a scarf, and she had a strange mark on her neck that was in ways similar to the mark on JB's neck.

And then there is the suspicion of John's motive to put a silk scarf in JB's casket. Otherwise there is no evidense a scarf was used.
(Which IMO, John put the scarf in the casket for everyone to see to drive the RDI's crazy, because he new they would discover JB was strangled by the scarf, then the necklace, and then a chord, and when that didn't work, he added a handle to get more pulling strength on the chord, and then clubbed her like a baby seal.)

[thewhitewitch1]

If the Ramseys felt burying her and leaving her buried wasn't important, they could have just let the Medical examiner have her for a longer time, let the LE get their way.

The only reason the scarf is in question is because somebody dug up a photo of a women strangled with a scarf, and she had a strange mark on her neck that was in ways similar to the mark on JB's neck.

And then there is the suspicion of John's motive to put a silk scarf in JB's casket. Otherwise there is no evidense a scarf was used.
(Which IMO, John put the scarf in the casket for everyone to see to drive the RDI's crazy, because he new they would discover JB was strangled by the scarf, then the necklace, and then a chord, and when that didn't work, he added a handle to get more pulling strength on the chord, and then clubbed her like a baby seal.)


Please explain why the Ramseys were questioned so extensively about scarves they gave away and owned, then. Please explain why you would bury a "recently purchased" scarf with virtually no sentimental meaning to anyone with your beloved daughter. I doubt many people noticed or thought about the scarf buried with her. I didn't know anything about it until the Rs mentioned it in DOI.
It's true that I saw the picture of the victim strangled with a scarf and noted the mark it left. It is pretty identical to the mark on JBs neck. Anything wrong with noting similarities and trying to figure out how that mark was made? Is it just another "coincidence" that the mark is very similar and that the LE questioned the Rs about scarves, and that JB was buried with one? I can believe in some coincidences but there are just too many pointing to the Ramseys for me to continue believing them. IMO

[bullmoose]

Hmmm, maybe Santa arrived on his sled then came down the chimney. That would explain the absense of footprints in the snow and the lack of forced entry.
;)Be careful, elvislives, that nobody turns on you, although your theory was facetious, it was an IDI theory nonetheless. :lol:

[shill]

Please explain why the Ramseys were questioned so extensively about scarves they gave away and owned, then. Please explain why you would bury a "recently purchased" scarf with virtually no sentimental meaning to anyone with your beloved daughter. I doubt many people noticed or thought about the scarf buried with her. I didn't know anything about it until the Rs mentioned it in DOI.

The scarves were black and red, the same as the fiber evidence they were finding and a number of suspects now owned the scarves.

Why pay all that money for a silk lined coffin and then put a wool scarf in there.

Are you saying that they found silk fibers on JB?

Why do you feel John chose to put the scarf in the coffin as the best and safest way to get rid of evidence without anyone knowing?

[thewhitewitch1]

The scarves were black and red, the same as the fiber evidence they were finding and a number of suspects now owned the scarves.

Why pay all that money for a silk lined coffin and then put a wool scarf in there.

Are you saying that they found silk fibers on JB?

Why do you feel John chose to put the scarf in the coffin as the best and safest way to get rid of evidence without anyone knowing?


The scarf she was buried with was silk. I don't know if they found any silk fibers. Putting the scarf in the coffin to "get rid of the evidence" was a seemingly innocent gesture. Who is going to question a grieving father tucking a "beautiful silk scarf around her in a final gesture of love"?
I don't believe the issue of the scarves came up with LE until much later, after JB had already been buried. As far as I know, no one tried to figure out what that mark on her neck was from. The autopsy seemed pretty cut and dried. It appears to me that since the ligature was already on her neck, they just assumed it was the only thing used to strangle her. I did not get the feeling that a very indepth autopsy was performed. If it was, they'd have held her body longer and tried to determine what those marks on her might have been made by, among other things.
It does make sense that they asked about the black/red scarves because of the fibers found. Hadn't the fibers already been analyzed by then, though? Wouldn't they already know that the ones from the scarves weren't consistant with the ones found at the crime scene?
Personally, I don't think that's why they were asking about the scarves. IMO

[Zoey]

The scarf she was buried with was silk. I don't know if they found any silk fibers. Putting the scarf in the coffin to "get rid of the evidence" was a seemingly innocent gesture. Who is going to question a grieving father tucking a "beautiful silk scarf around her in a final gesture of love"?
I don't believe the issue of the scarves came up with LE until much later, after JB had already been buried. As far as I know, no one tried to figure out what that mark on her neck was from. The autopsy seemed pretty cut and dried. It appears to me that since the ligature was already on her neck, they just assumed it was the only thing used to strangle her. I did not get the feeling that a very indepth autopsy was performed. If it was, they'd have held her body longer and tried to determine what those marks on her might have been made by, among other things.
It does make sense that they asked about the black/red scarves because of the fibers found. Hadn't the fibers already been analyzed by then, though? Wouldn't they already know that the ones from the scarves weren't consistant with the ones found at the crime scene?
Personally, I don't think that's why they were asking about the scarves. IMO

If no silk fibers were found on JB, then JR putting a silk scarf in the casket with her would mean nothing other than a gesture of love.

If silk fibers had been found on her, then JR putting a silk scarf in the casket one could possibly assume he was getting rid of evidence.

IMO, I have never read where any silk fibers were found on JB, therefore I would have to say his gesture was that of love for his daughter.

[Athena]

Call me cold, but I would have no problem giving the go ahead for people exhume my child, especially if I was suspected of killing her and there was evidence on her body that would help clear me and get the police on the trail of the real killer. That's not my child - that's just the physical remainder of her. She's not in that coffin, and her body doesn't care if it's being unearthed.

Very good point about Meyer taking samples of the wounds in question. I really wish he had done that. I really wish he had kept the body for more questioning when BPD asked him to. Of course, Lou Smit wasn't on the case yet, and no one else, including Meyer himself, suspected a stun gun may have been used.

Hi all :)

Haven't posted much; one because I've been working a lot of late hours and two everything on the board just seems to be rehashed and goes around in circles. You all have lots of patience. :)

Now having said that I just want to interject my 2 cents about exhumation of the body. I agree with Elvis that if it was your child (not speaking for everyone) it would be very hard to agree to have your baby dug up no matter if you were Christian or not. The simple answer IMO is that IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BPD who could have gotten a court order to have the body exhumed with or without the parents' permission. It is obvious to me that it was not done because the BPD was not interested as they had already laid claim to who the perp(s) was/were. JMHO

[Athena]

If no silk fibers were found on JB, then JR putting a silk scarf in the casket with her would mean nothing other than a gesture of love.

If silk fibers had been found on her, then JR putting a silk scarf in the casket one could possibly assume he was getting rid of evidence.

IMO, I have never read where any silk fibers were found on JB, therefore I would have to say his gesture was that of love for his daughter.

I agree Zoey; and could have been yet another reason for justification for the BPD to get a court order to have the body exhumed. JMHO

[shill]

It's bad enough we kip digging up the same old arguments do we need to debate about digging up JB.

[shill]

Why pay all that money for a silk lined coffin and then put a wool scarf in there.The scarf she was buried with was silk.
That was my point.


They were trying to track down those scarves so it seems they didn't have them to take samples from.

[bullmoose]

Hi all :)

Haven't posted much; one because I've been working a lot of late hours and two everything on the board just seems to be rehashed and goes around in circles. You all have lots of patience. :)

Now having said that I just want to interject my 2 cents about exhumation of the body. I agree with Elvis that if it was your child (not speaking for everyone) it would be very hard to agree to have your baby dug up no matter if you were Christian or not. The simple answer IMO is that IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BPD who could have gotten a court order to have the body exhumed with or without the parents' permission. It is obvious to me that it was not done because the BPD was not interested as they had already laid claim to who the perp(s) was/were. JMHOI know it is obvious, but I have to say this: Why would the BPD want to exhume Jonbenet's body; if that had been done and it had been defitively shown that the marks were taser burns, it would have blown their pet theory[ that they just couldn't get those pesky Ramseys to come to the BPD headquarters and admit to, like good, obediant little murderers] to the infernal regions and beyond. It was never up to the Ramseys to prove what happened, it was up to the BPD. And they,Synthroid Stevie and his band of superheroes, already had their THEORY. What more did they need; they had all the tabloids putting out their bulletins[leaks] whenever they needed?

[Louisadelmar]

Didn't it say in PMPT that everything was set to exhume her and BPD cancelled at the last minute. Schiller's suggestion was it would make the parents look less guilty if a stun gun was shown to have been used.

[thewhitewitch1]

I know it is obvious, but I have to say this: Why would the BPD want to exhume Jonbenet's body; if that had been done and it had been defitively shown that the marks were taser burns, it would have blown their pet theory[ that they just couldn't get those pesky Ramseys to come to the BPD headquarters and admit to, like good, obediant little murderers] to the infernal regions and beyond. It was never up to the Ramseys to prove what happened, it was up to the BPD. And they,Synthroid Stevie and his band of superheroes, already had their THEORY. What more did they need; they had all the tabloids putting out their bulletins[leaks] whenever they needed?

Yet if the Ramseys had allowed or requested her to be exhumed, they may have been exhonerated by it. More importantly, further study of her wounds may have given clues to her killer and he may have been caught by now.
I don't want to hear how not disturbing JBs "peace" was more important to them than the world percieving them as murderers. We all know how important what people thought of them was. That was the entire reason they went on CNN and wrote their book. IMO
Their priority should have been finding the killer...no matter what they'd have to do. No, maybe it wasn't their responsibility to have her exhumed but they could have requested it and when asked, agreed to it. They didn't. Why?
I think they were afraid of what would have been revealed. IMO
Not only were they doing a disservice to JB by not allowing the exhumation but if there really is "a killer on the loose", they may have stopped this killer from striking again. Apparently not disturbing JBs peace was more important than stopping this killer from murdering another child. If you ask me, that's messed up. IMO

[bullmoose]

Didn't it say in PMPT that everything was set to exhume her and BPD cancelled at the last minute. Schiller's suggestion was it would make the parents look less guilty if a stun gun was shown to have been used. Yes, it does. There were several different times that the BPD cancelled agreed- upon meetings with the Ramseys; always at the last minute, without warning. Then the papers[see Steve Thomas] would be promptly informed that those pesky Ramseys were being uncooperative yet again; and why would a tabloid reporter be skeptical of who they were drinking coffee with at the police station?:biggrin:

[Louisadelmar]

Yet if the Ramseys had allowed or requested her to be exhumed, they may have been exhonerated by it. More importantly, further study of her wounds may have given clues to her killer and he may have been caught by now.
I don't want to hear how not disturbing JBs "peace" was more important to them than the world percieving them as murderers. We all know how important what people thought of them was. That was the entire reason they went on CNN and wrote their book. IMO
Their priority should have been finding the killer...no matter what they'd have to do. No, maybe it wasn't their responsibility to have her exhumed but they could have requested it and when asked, agreed to it. They didn't. Why?
I think they were afraid of what would have been revealed. IMO
Not only were they doing a disservice to JB by not allowing the exhumation but if there really is "a killer on the loose", they may have stopped this killer from striking again. Apparently not disturbing JBs peace was more important than stopping this killer from murdering another child. If you ask me, that's messed up. IMO

Personally I would have exhumed her. Although if they had done so and the tests definitively showed a stun gun was used people would just say they'd bought and paid for those opinions.

I think it was distasteful to them and since they must have trusted in the opinions of Doberson, Smit, Meyer's concurrance etc; they may have felt that was sufficient.

If she had been exhumed and it was shown a stun gun was used (as opposed to the expert opinion that one was) how would we be further ahead?

[thewhitewitch1]

Personally I would have exhumed her. Although if they had done so and the tests definitively showed a stun gun was used people would just say they'd bought and paid for those opinions.

I think it was distasteful to them and since they must have trusted in the opinions of Doberson, Smit, Meyer's concurrance etc; they may have felt that was sufficient.

If she had been exhumed and it was shown a stun gun was used (as opposed to the expert opinion that one was) how would we be further ahead?

Well, it may have exhonerated the Ramseys, for one. Two, they would have known conclusively that it was a stun gun instead of just guesstimating it from a picture. Three...if it wasn't a stun gun, they could have tried to find evidence in the Rs home to something that could match the marks. Four...there may have been more trace evidence on her body that could have been analyzed and pinned down to something specific. It is amazing what forensics can do. Gruesome to say but dead bodies have ways of telling the story of what happened to them. You just need to take the time to really look.

[bullmoose]

Yet if the Ramseys had allowed or requested her to be exhumed, they may have been exhonerated by it. More importantly, further study of her wounds may have given clues to her killer and he may have been caught by now.
I don't want to hear how not disturbing JBs "peace" was more important to them than the world percieving them as murderers. We all know how important what people thought of them was. That was the entire reason they went on CNN and wrote their book. IMO
Their priority should have been finding the killer...no matter what they'd have to do. No, maybe it wasn't their responsibility to have her exhumed but they could have requested it and when asked, agreed to it. They didn't. Why?
I think they were afraid of what would have been revealed. IMO
Not only were they doing a disservice to JB by not allowing the exhumation but if there really is "a killer on the loose", they may have stopped this killer from striking again. Apparently not disturbing JBs peace was more important than stopping this killer from murdering another child. If you ask me, that's messed up. IMOYou will not hear from me about disturbing Jonbenet's sleep; but going on CNN was in response to the mayor of Boulder saying, in effect, that the Ramseys did it. Most people, IMO, when they hear vile lies told about them, tend to defend themselves. I'll just keep on believing that that is why they did so, in their book or on TV. If the BPD, IMO, had been truly interested in finding out the facts about Jonbenet's murder, it would have had her exhumed and re-examined. Remember, they were the investigators looking into her murder; their abject failure to do so to me reveals that they were more interested in putting their theories foward than trying to ascertain the facts. The BPD could have exhumed her; they didn't. The resposibility rests 100% on their heads; but IMO they were :chicken: to find out their theory was wrong. JMHO

[shill]

Well, it may have exhonerated the Ramseys, for one. Two, they would have known conclusively that it was a stun gun instead of just guesstimating it from a picture. Three...if it wasn't a stun gun, they could have tried to find evidence in the Rs home to something that could match the marks. Four...there may have been more trace evidence on her body that could have been analyzed and pinned down to something specific. It is amazing what forensics can do. Gruesome to say but dead bodies have ways of telling the story of what happened to them. You just need to take the time to really look.
To much CSI for you!:cool: You know most of that stuff on the show is fiction. It's shows like that that are screwing up the judicial system because jurors expect to have all the forensic answers like they see in the fictionalized shows.

Stun gun proves nothing either way. Why would it when foreign tape, chord, flashlight, beaver fur, and other unmatched fibers don't convince many people of an intruder?:shrug:
Besides, they would just say the Ramseys owned a stungun and that it is just another piece of evidence they got rid of with all the other evidence they disposed of.

[Athena]

<snip>
Stun gun proves nothing either way. Why would it when foreign tape, chord, flashlight, beaver fur, and other unmatched fibers don't convince many people of an intruder?:shrug:
Besides, they would just say the Ramseys owned a stungun and that it is just another piece of evidence they got rid of with all the other evidence they disposed of.

You took the words right out of my mouth so needless to say I concur. :beer:

[thewhitewitch1]

To much CSI for you!:cool: You know most of that stuff on the show is fiction. It's shows like that that are screwing up the judicial system because jurors expect to have all the forensic answers like they see in the fictionalized shows.

Stun gun proves nothing either way. Why would it when foreign tape, chord, flashlight, beaver fur, and other unmatched fibers don't convince many people of an intruder?:shrug:
Besides, they would just say the Ramseys owned a stungun and that it is just another piece of evidence they got rid of with all the other evidence they disposed of.


Wrong again. I don't watch CSI and never have. I watch "The Forensic Files" which is not fiction. I also read a lot of true crime novels because the forensic stuff is fascinating.
I am not convinced that the tape was "foreign", nor that there was any more of the cord to be found. The flashlight does not indicate an intruder just because the Rs "don't know or remember" if the flashlight in question belonged to them or not. The beaver fur could have come from the actual paintbrush or a coat or boots from Patsy. How does anyone really know if the BPD checked the paintbrush bristles? I would never have thought of the bristles being possibly made from beaver hair. If JB was dragged at any point, she may have had it transfered from the floor to her hands and it could have come from any number of sources, such as a guests coat or boots.
The unmatched fibers could have been the ever popular transference fibers that could have come from any number of people that had been in that house from the 23rd to the 26th. There were many kids over the Rs on Christmas day. Bet no one checked to see what they were wearing to compare fibers. None of what you have given is concrete evidence of an intruder. Just as you find explanations for evidence against the Rs, I can find explanations for evidence of an intruder.
Frusterating, ain't it?

[LindaA]

Wrong again. I don't watch CSI and never have. I watch "The Forensic Files" which is not fiction. I also read a lot of true crime novels because the forensic stuff is fascinating.
I am not convinced that the tape was "foreign", nor that there was any more of the cord to be found. The flashlight does not indicate an intruder just because the Rs "don't know or remember" if the flashlight in question belonged to them or not. The beaver fur could have come from the actual paintbrush or a coat or boots from Patsy. How does anyone really know if the BPD checked the paintbrush bristles? I would never have thought of the bristles being possibly made from beaver hair. If JB was dragged at any point, she may have had it transfered from the floor to her hands and it could have come from any number of sources, such as a guests coat or boots.
The unmatched fibers could have been the ever popular transference fibers that could have come from any number of people that had been in that house from the 23rd to the 26th. There were many kids over the Rs on Christmas day. Bet no one checked to see what they were wearing to compare fibers. None of what you have given is concrete evidence of an intruder. Just as you find explanations for evidence against the Rs, I can find explanations for evidence of an intruder.
Frusterating, ain't it?

But if we follow that line of thought, we have to eliminate all fiber evidence as possibly coming from the sources you named including those that are commonly attributed to PR's jacket. We could probably make an exception for the phantom dark/black/whatever color fibers said to have been found in JBR's pubic region -- if, in fact, that actually exist. Where does that leave us? Yes, it is frustrating!

[Tober]

The flashlight does not indicate an intruder just because the Rs "don't know or remember" if the flashlight in question belonged to them or not.

Exactly. The flashlight issue shows more "distancing" by the Ramseys. It's the exact type and model of flashlight that they owned, no other flashlight was found in the home, and yet, conveniently, they don't know or remember whether it belonged to them or not. This post is my opinion.

[elvislives]

Be careful, elvislives, that nobody turns on you

Too late for that, bullmoose. One of the sad sad realities of being a FS is that you get attacked from both sides. And no one ever comes to your defense. It's lonely here on the fense...:(
:cry:

[elvislives]

Well, it may have exhonerated the Ramseys, for one. Two, they would have known conclusively that it was a stun gun instead of just guesstimating it from a picture. Three...if it wasn't a stun gun, they could have tried to find evidence in the Rs home to something that could match the marks. Four...there may have been more trace evidence on her body that could have been analyzed and pinned down to something specific. It is amazing what forensics can do. Gruesome to say but dead bodies have ways of telling the story of what happened to them. You just need to take the time to really look.

No way would proving those were stun gun marks have exonerated the Ramseys. Those who think they did it would simply have worked that into their theory, probably using that tape they found. JMO

[LindaA]

No way would proving those were stun gun marks have exonerated the Ramseys. Those who think they did it would simply have worked that into their theory, probably using that tape they found. JMO

It's been posted here before that the Rs probably owned a stun gun and that Aunt Pam spirited it out of the house with the other evidence she removed.

[elvislives]

If the soul is not in the body after death, there can be no "disturbance" of peace by exhuming it, as the body is just an "empty shell". I think this is a basic Christian belief.
I believe that if the Rs were really interested in "justice" and in finding the killer, they would have done whatever it takes and put all else aside, including notions of disturbing the peace of someone who is..well, dead.


On another post, someone postulated that the reason the Ramseys didn't dump the body is because parents-even those who kill their kids-cant bring themselves to dispose of their child's body like a piece of trash. If their belief was that the body is just a shell, they would have dumped the body (IF they did it obviously).

Incidentally, I saw an interview of Debbie Mahaffey (mother of murder victim, Leslie Mahaffey--victim of Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo). When she was asked what the hardest part of the whole ordeal was, she said it was the fact that her daughter's body had been dismembered (after death). I remember thinking, that would be the LAST thing that would bother me---at least she was dead and didn't feel it. But for whatever reason, many parents seem to feel that the dead body is sacred.
You also see this with parents whose children are known to be dead, but the body has never been recovered. It seems to be very important for them to have the body. I don't get it, but it is a common response.

[Louisadelmar]

Wrong again. I don't watch CSI and never have. I watch "The Forensic Files" which is not fiction. I also read a lot of true crime novels because the forensic stuff is fascinating.
I am not convinced that the tape was "foreign", nor that there was any more of the cord to be found. The flashlight does not indicate an intruder just because the Rs "don't know or remember" if the flashlight in question belonged to them or not. The beaver fur could have come from the actual paintbrush or a coat or boots from Patsy. How does anyone really know if the BPD checked the paintbrush bristles? I would never have thought of the bristles being possibly made from beaver hair. If JB was dragged at any point, she may have had it transfered from the floor to her hands and it could have come from any number of sources, such as a guests coat or boots.
The unmatched fibers could have been the ever popular transference fibers that could have come from any number of people that had been in that house from the 23rd to the 26th. There were many kids over the Rs on Christmas day. Bet no one checked to see what they were wearing to compare fibers. None of what you have given is concrete evidence of an intruder. Just as you find explanations for evidence against the Rs, I can find explanations for evidence of an intruder.
Frusterating, ain't it?

Why would a beaver coat/boots only shed one hair?

Re the flashlight
1998
12 LOU SMIT: On another interview, were you
13 shown a picture of a flashlight?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: I was shown a picture of a
15 scarf and a picture in which there was a
16 flashlight in the background, and not just of a
17 flashlight.
18 LOU SMIT: Okay. I'm going to show you a
19 photograph that I've got out of labeled Book Four.
20 And I'll show it to the camera. And I'd like it,
21 if you can, to tell me what you see there?
22 JOHN RAMSEY: Well it looks like a MAG
23 like kind of flashlight there. But that looks like
24 maybe a plane or (INAUDIBLE) or something.
25 LOU SMIT: Does that look like flashlight
0242
1 that you have or does --
2 JOHN RAMSEY: I mean, it could be. It
3 looks a little bigger than the one I had. But it
4 could have been the same one.
5 LOU SMIT: Were you ever shown the
6 flashlight?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: No.
[…]
11 LOU SMIT: Okay. We will just go
12 on to the next photograph. I am going to show
13 you a photograph, this will -- you had
14 described your flashlight before. The one that
15 you had. And we had a photograph on the counter
16 of a flashlight and we discussed that before. I
17 am going to show you another photograph and have
18 you take a look at that, see if that looks
19 familiar to you, that's a photograph of a
20 flashlight, and I don't have a number associated
21 with that.
22 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it's dirty.
23 Mine was hardly used. You know, it was
24 completely black. I don't know what the scale
25 is here. Is that 3 feet do you suppose or maybe
0537
1 that's -- (handing a magnifying glass).
2 (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS.)
3 JOHN RAMSEY: It's dirty. Mine
4 was not dirty.
5 LOU SMIT: Is that a similar type
6 flashlight as to what you --
7 JOHN RAMSEY: It is similar if
8 that's a metal case, and it looks similar. The
9 end looks a lot different, the end where the
10 battery is in. It looks -- looks similar, but
11 it's very dirty. Mine was, I don't think mine
12 ever got used; it was just in the drawer.
[…]


2000
interview[…]
10 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, I know
11 that you were asked questions about a black
12 metal flashlight that was found in the house.
13 We have developed, since '98, some
14 information about that flashlight I would
15 like to ask you just a little bit about.
16 Is that the flashlight that you
17 habitually used, say for example, if your
18 power went out and you had candles lit in
19 your house? Do you know?
20 A. Not necessarily. And I don't
21 know that that was my flashlight. The
22 picture I saw, and I think I commented at
23 the time, was that that one was very dirty.
24 My flashlight, while it looked to be the
25 same size, mine was clean. And my son gave
0043
1 it to me for a present. So that was the
2 issue that I saw. It kind of looks like
3 mine, but it's certainly filthy.
4 Q. May not be?
5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. Let's talk about, I want to ask
7 this so it is clear for you. The flashlight
8 your son gave you, whether the light in the
9 picture is that or not, but that flashlight,
10 the one you received as a gift from your
11 son, was that the light that, if you had
12 power failures, routinely, that is the first
13 thing you would grab?
14 A. No, not necessarily.
15 Q. Not necessarily?
16 A. Because we kept it -- it was a
17 big flashlight. We kept it, I believe,
18 normally in the drawer down that little sink
19 area in the back hall. I don't even
20 remember if I had a flashlight by my bedside
21 or not.
[…]

[andU]

On another post, someone postulated that the reason the Ramseys didn't dump the body is because parents-even those who kill their kids-cant bring themselves to dispose of their child's body like a piece of trash. If their belief was that the body is just a shell, they would have dumped the body (IF they did it obviously).

Incidentally, I saw an interview of Debbie Mahaffey (mother of murder victim, Leslie Mahaffey--victim of Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo). When she was asked what the hardest part of the whole ordeal was, she said it was the fact that her daughter's body had been dismembered (after death). I remember thinking, that would be the LAST thing that would bother me---at least she was dead and didn't feel it. But for whatever reason, many parents seem to feel that the dead body is sacred.
You also see this with parents whose children are known to be dead, but the body has never been recovered. It seems to be very important for them to have the body. I don't get it, but it is a common response.

I think it has to do with viewing the body, having the funeral/life celebration and closure (although until recent years it didn't have terminology as such). I know Carrie Culberson's mom, Debbie has even said as much. She no longer believes that Carrie is alive, but she would like to properly say good-bye to her and lay her to rest.

[LindaA]

I think it has to do with viewing the body, having the funeral/life celebration and closure (although until recent years it didn't have terminology as such). I know Carrie Culberson's mom, Debbie has even said as much. She no longer believes that Carrie is alive, but she would like to properly say good-bye to her and lay her to rest.


Closure. I think that's it.

[andU]

...and to do horrible things to the body of a person that you love is a very personal assault. .... like kicking a dead horse (horses used to be considered a valuable possession, next to family) .... am I making sense to anyone?

[elvislives]

...and to do horrible things to the body of a person that you love is a very personal assault. .... like kicking a dead horse (horses used to be considered a valuable possession, next to family) .... am I making sense to anyone?

Yup, that's why I have such a hard time believing that the Ramseys jabbed something into JBs vagina as a part of cover up.

[LindaA]

Yup, that's why I have such a hard time believing that the Ramseys jabbed something into JBs vagina as a part of cover up.

Right. Not only is it a strange and horrible thing to do to someone you love, but it wouldn't serve to cover up anything as the damage done by the paint brush was not in the area where signs of abuse -- if that's truly what they were-- were.

[bullmoose]

Too late for that, bullmoose. One of the sad sad realities of being a FS is that you get attacked from both sides. And no one ever comes to your defense. It's lonely here on the fense...:(
:cry:Dry your tears; you may have read that I keep a crying towel close so that when my tender feelings are hurt I will be able to wipe away my tears; maybe you need to get one, too. I have to tell you that you will not be attacked by me; I read your posts with much interest because you have a medical background and think totally for yourself. As a FS you can and do post on both sides of the argument; when you post, you add a great deal to the discussion, IMO.:beer:

[andU]

Yup, that's why I have such a hard time believing that the Ramseys jabbed something into JBs vagina as a part of cover up.


Yepper, I agree with ya! I cannot think the whole scene through, much less visualize it.

[elvislives]

Dry your tears; you may have read that I keep a crying towel close so that when my tender feelings are hurt I will be able to wipe away my tears; maybe you need to get one, too. I have to tell you that you will not be attacked by me; I read your posts with much interest because you have a medical background and think totally for yourself. As a FS you can and do post on both sides of the argument; when you post, you add a great deal to the discussion, IMO.:beer:


This is excellent advice, bullmoose, thank you. After reading your post I cried tears of joy :rose: I'm going to invest in a whole stack of crying towels...;)

[bullmoose]

Right. Not only is it a strange and horrible thing to do to someone you love, but it wouldn't serve to cover up anything as the damage done by the paint brush was not in the area where signs of abuse -- if that's truly what they were-- were. IMO, the jabbing with the paintbrush was done as a final sign of hate and disdain for the Ramseys by the killer/s. In my mind, he/they felt a rush of power and control when he/they did it. IMO, this was a premeditated crime of cruelty and hate by a monster masquerading as a normal human being.

[Zoey]

IMO, the jabbing with the paintbrush was done as a final sign of hate and disdain for the Ramseys by the killer/s. In my mind, he/they felt a rush of power and control when he/they did it. IMO, this was a premeditated crime of cruelty and hate by a monster masquerading as a normal human being.


This is exactly how my thoughts have always run.


And Elvislives, I respect you, as a person of the medical field. I read your posts with great interest, and appreciate when you post something I can understand!

[andU]

IMO, the jabbing with the paintbrush was done as a final sign of hate and disdain for the Ramseys by the killer/s. In my mind, he/they felt a rush of power and control when he/they did it. IMO, this was a premeditated crime of cruelty and hate by a monster masquerading as a normal human being.


I could not agree more! I have a strong but unexplained feeling that this is what took place.

[KingCoyote]

.....

Re the flashlight
1998
12 LOU SMIT: On another interview, were you
13 shown a picture of a flashlight?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: I was shown a picture of a
15 scarf and a picture in which there was a
16 flashlight in the background, and not just of a
17 flashlight.
2000

7 this so it is clear for you. The flashlight
8 your son gave you, whether the light in the
9 picture is that or not, but that flashlight,
10 the one you received as a gift from your
11 son, was that the light that, if you had
12 power failures, routinely, that is the first
13 thing you would grab?
14 A. No, not necessarily.
15 Q. Not necessarily?
16 A. Because we kept it -- it was a
17 big flashlight. We kept it, I believe,
18 normally in the drawer down that little sink
19 area in the back hall. I don't even
20 remember if I had a flashlight by my bedside
21 or not.
[…]

Two points I noticed:

1. Lou Smit asks about a flashlight only and JR responds with mentioning a scarf as well as a flashlight. That is a reference to scarves that I did not pick up in my original post about Scarves, Scarves and More Scarves. Since the flashlight is well reputed to be the weapon that struck JBR, I just wonder why JR is thinking "scarf" in the same breath as the flashlight. Just food for thought.

2.The drawer in the little sink area in the back hall is one of three drawers (sets of drawers) that were open in Crime Scene Photos which PR described as being unusual that the drawers would be either left open or have something unusual in them such as a pen in a panty drawer.

a. Panty Drawer in JBR Bath - 1998 PR Interview P 424/PMPT727
b. Flashlight Drawer - 1998 PR Interview P 575
c. JAR Bath - 2 drawers - Chemo supplies - 1998 PR Interview P 284

Since two of the three (sets of) drawers had evidence connected to the murder, i.e., panties and a flashlight, I just wonder what that third set of drawers had in them besides the old chemotherapy supplies. I also wonder what color pen was found in that panty drawer. Isn't there just a lot of things we would love to know?

Just some food for thought

KingCoyote

[Tober]

The flashlight issue shows more "distancing" by the Ramseys. It's the exact type and model of flashlight that they owned, no other flashlight was found in the home, and yet, conveniently, they don't know or remember whether it belonged to them or not. This post is my opinion.
In addition to the above, like the pineapple, on Dec. 26, the Ramseys did not report the flashlight as being odd, unusual, or out-of-place. This post is my opinion.

[Louisadelmar]

Two points I noticed:

1. Lou Smit asks about a flashlight only and JR responds with mentioning a scarf as well as a flashlight. That is a reference to scarves that I did not pick up in my original post about Scarves, Scarves and More Scarves. Since the flashlight is well reputed to be the weapon that struck JBR, I just wonder why JR is thinking "scarf" in the same breath as the flashlight. Just food for thought.

2.The drawer in the little sink area in the back hall is one of three drawers (sets of drawers) that were open in Crime Scene Photos which PR described as being unusual that the drawers would be either left open or have something unusual in them such as a pen in a panty drawer.

a. Panty Drawer in JBR Bath - 1998 PR Interview P 424/PMPT727
b. Flashlight Drawer - 1998 PR Interview P 575
c. JAR Bath - 2 drawers - Chemo supplies - 1998 PR Interview P 284

Since two of the three (sets of) drawers had evidence connected to the murder, i.e., panties and a flashlight, I just wonder what that third set of drawers had in them besides the old chemotherapy supplies. I also wonder what color pen was found in that panty drawer. Isn't there just a lot of things we would love to know?

Just some food for thought

KingCoyote

What I thought was interesting was Smit says:
1998
12 LOU SMIT: On another interview, were you
13 shown a picture of a flashlight?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: I was shown a picture

But when I checked the 1997 interview there was no mention of a flashlight and the only scarf-talk is:
TT: Let me show you some pictures here and make sure, see if this is one of the scarves that Patsy is given out or this is the scarves that you have here? This is a picture . . .
JR: No the scarf was given to me by, uh my daughter Beth.
TT: Okay. That’s not one of the scarves then, that Patsy given out
JR: I don’t think so, it, I mean it looks (pause) not to my knowledge, I mean this looks like the scarf that Beth gave me. She got this scarf in Scotland.
TT: Okay. What’s on the tag there?
JR: I mean that’s what it says, but it says Targart Shops, I, it looks like the scarf that Beth gave me . . .
TT: Okay. I’ll describe for the tape here, because of the tape doesn’t see the picture; uh, this is a picture of your sink area, right at the bottom of the spiral staircase, sinks and drawers, there is a looks like a black colored scarf, plaid colored scarf, sitting on the top of that counter there. Thanks John. But, that wasn’t one of the scarves that was give out to your knowledge

[thewhitewitch1]

On another post, someone postulated that the reason the Ramseys didn't dump the body is because parents-even those who kill their kids-cant bring themselves to dispose of their child's body like a piece of trash. If their belief was that the body is just a shell, they would have dumped the body (IF they did it obviously).

Incidentally, I saw an interview of Debbie Mahaffey (mother of murder victim, Leslie Mahaffey--victim of Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo). When she was asked what the hardest part of the whole ordeal was, she said it was the fact that her daughter's body had been dismembered (after death). I remember thinking, that would be the LAST thing that would bother me---at least she was dead and didn't feel it. But for whatever reason, many parents seem to feel that the dead body is sacred.
You also see this with parents whose children are known to be dead, but the body has never been recovered. It seems to be very important for them to have the body. I don't get it, but it is a common response.


It's one thing to exhume a body that has already been autopsied...it's another to dump your child off somewhere like "trash". I am sure that regardless of whether the Rs believe a body is an "empty shell", a "proper burial" was important to them. I can understand that. I don't think they ever intended on dumping her anywhere. IMO

[KingCoyote]

Louisadelmar:

Now I would just love to know what that picture of the flashlight in the background, and not just of a flashlight, is that JR refers to having seen in the 97 Interview.

I had that reference in the 97 interview but did not make the connection without the flashlight involved in the discussion.

I still have to wonder why JR is immediately connecting a scarf to a flashlight. Maybe my suspicious mind is working overtime....

Did you get the impression that JR was sure it was the scarf Beth gave him at first....and then wasn't so sure a couple of sentences later? There I go again!

Just floating with my thoughts

KingCoyote

[shill]

It's one thing to exhume a body that has already been autopsied...it's another to dump your child off somewhere like "trash". I am sure that regardless of whether the Rs believe a body is an "empty shell", a "proper burial" was important to them. I can understand that. I don't think they ever intended on dumping her anywhere. IMO

Why dump her somewhere like "trash" when you can treat her like "trash" right in your home. Stick things in her, strangle her, tie her hands up and then dump her in a dark room. And don't forget to club her like a baby seal because she is just trash.

I don't think they ever intended on dumping her anywhere either because they didn't kill her.

[Jayelles]

On another post, someone postulated that the reason the Ramseys didn't dump the body is because parents-even those who kill their kids-cant bring themselves to dispose of their child's body like a piece of trash. If their belief was that the body is just a shell, they would have dumped the body (IF they did it obviously).

Incidentally, I saw an interview of Debbie Mahaffey (mother of murder victim, Leslie Mahaffey--victim of Karla Homolka/Paul Bernardo). When she was asked what the hardest part of the whole ordeal was, she said it was the fact that her daughter's body had been dismembered (after death). I remember thinking, that would be the LAST thing that would bother me---at least she was dead and didn't feel it. But for whatever reason, many parents seem to feel that the dead body is sacred.
You also see this with parents whose children are known to be dead, but the body has never been recovered. It seems to be very important for them to have the body. I don't get it, but it is a common response.

The *need* to have a murdered child's body brought home for proper burial is indeed strong. Take the case of Mrs Winnie Johnston - mother of "Moors Murders" victim Keith Johnston. 40+ years after her son was murdered and despite the fact that she is a frail elderly lady, she and her remaining son still spend weekends on the Moors searching for Keith's body. She says she won't be at peace until she has brought her son's bones home and given them a proper burial.

[Zoey]

What I thought was interesting was Smit says:
1998
12 LOU SMIT: On another interview, were you
13 shown a picture of a flashlight?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: I was shown a picture

But when I checked the 1997 interview there was no mention of a flashlight and the only scarf-talk is:
TT: Let me show you some pictures here and make sure, see if this is one of the scarves that Patsy is given out or this is the scarves that you have here? This is a picture . . .
JR: No the scarf was given to me by, uh my daughter Beth.
TT: Okay. That’s not one of the scarves then, that Patsy given out
JR: I don’t think so, it, I mean it looks (pause) not to my knowledge, I mean this looks like the scarf that Beth gave me. She got this scarf in Scotland.
TT: Okay. What’s on the tag there?
JR: I mean that’s what it says, but it says Targart Shops, I, it looks like the scarf that Beth gave me . . .
TT: Okay. I’ll describe for the tape here, because of the tape doesn’t see the picture; uh, this is a picture of your sink area, right at the bottom of the spiral staircase, sinks and drawers, there is a looks like a black colored scarf, plaid colored scarf, sitting on the top of that counter there. Thanks John. But, that wasn’t one of the scarves that was give out to your knowledge



The scarf came from the Tartan Shops in Scotland, not the Targart Shops.

Makes me think of Target Stores, which makes me ask this question. Why is John pointedly being asked about the tag on the scarf? How convenient that someone was able to get a perfect picture of the tag on the scarf. Perhaps John was right to hesitate. IMO.

[Louisadelmar]

The scarf came from the Tartan Shops in Scotland, not the Targart Shops.

Makes me think of Target Stores, which makes me ask this question. Why is John pointedly being asked about the tag on the scarf? How convenient that someone was able to get a perfect picture of the tag on the scarf. Perhaps John was right to hesitate. IMO.

I was wondering if Targart was a typo of Target too. I don't shop there often but I wasn't under the impression they had their own name brand. Tartan makes much more sense.

http://www.scotch-corner.co.uk/tartanshop/catalogue/index.cfm?items=4598

[shill]

The *need* to have a murdered child's body brought home for proper burial is indeed strong. Take the case of Mrs Winnie Johnston - mother of "Moors Murders" victim Keith Johnston. 40+ years after her son was murdered and despite the fact that she is a frail elderly lady, she and her remaining son still spend weekends on the Moors searching for Keith's body. She says she won't be at peace until she has brought her son's bones home and given them a proper burial.

That's called closure.
What your implying the Ramseys did is the same thing Anthony Perkins does with his mom in "Psycho".

[LindaA]

That's called closure.
What your implying the Ramseys did is the same thing Anthony Perkins does with his mom in "Psycho".

Which wasn't a true story, was it? Aha, yet another tie to a movie.

[Athena]

IMO, the jabbing with the paintbrush was done as a final sign of hate and disdain for the Ramseys by the killer/s. In my mind, he/they felt a rush of power and control when he/they did it. IMO, this was a premeditated crime of cruelty and hate by a monster masquerading as a normal human being.

I so agree -- after everything else was done -- it was a "gotcha JR". JMHO

[shill]

IMO, the jabbing with the paintbrush was done as a final sign of hate and disdain for the Ramseys by the killer/s. In my mind, he/they felt a rush of power and control when he/they did it. IMO, this was a premeditated crime of cruelty and hate by a monster masquerading as a normal human being.

Defiling a daughter's virginity for revenge is part of my MDI theory.

[bullmoose]

Defiling a daughter's virginity for revenge is part of my MDI theory.It does bring the stories I have read about, I think in Pakistan about organized gang-rapes of innocent females for supposed insults or crimes committed by the victim's clan or family members. And with the incomprehendible Sharia laws, if the woman reports the crime but cannot produce four witnesses willing to testify for her that they actually saw that she was raped, then she can be executed as a fornicater or adulterer. Nice place, huh?:eek:

[aussiesheila]

Hmmm, maybe Santa arrived on his sled then came down the chimney. That would explain the absense of footprints in the snow and the lack of forced entry.
;)elvis, there was no snow on the ground around the Ramsey house that morning, it had all melted.

Also there was no need for any forced entry, Patsy had distributed keys to her house to just about everyone she knew.

Anyway, I think that Patsy let the first of the perpetrators in herself and those that arrived later and who didn't have keys he let in himself.

[andU]

Defiling a daughter's virginity for revenge is part of my MDI theory.


Shill, I do agree with the MDI theory. I believe that at least one of the perps has M background.

[aussiesheila]

tww1:

I really wonder what a red turtleneck is doing balled up in the sink when PR so badly wanted JBR to wear it...Can't you just imagine PR saying...."OK...JoniB...go get that balled up red turtleneck I saw on your bathroom sink and wear it to the party tonight??!!

Shame on you KC...shame shame shameI always thought it was Patsy who balled up the red turtleneck sweater when she got into a rage because JonBenet wouldn't wear it to the party and that was why JonBenet ended up wearing those size 12 panties to the party. She needed some clean panties but didn't want to go into her bathroom where her panties were kept because her mother was still in there fuming, so she went to the drawer in her bedroom where the unopened packet of size 12s were and got out the Wednesday pair.

[shill]

I always thought it was Patsy who balled up the red turtleneck sweater when she got into a rage because JonBenet wouldn't wear it to the party and that was why JonBenet ended up wearing those size 12 panties to the party. She needed some clean panties but didn't want to go into her bathroom where her panties were kept because her mother was still in there fuming, so she went to the drawer in her bedroom where the unopened packet of size 12s were and got out the Wednesday pair.

That makes sense to me.

[thewhitewitch1]

elvis, there was no snow on the ground around the Ramsey house that morning, it had all melted.

Also there was no need for any forced entry, Patsy had distributed keys to her house to just about everyone she knew.

Anyway, I think that Patsy let the first of the perpetrators in herself and those that arrived later and who didn't have keys he let in himself.

This is not true. There was snow on the ground. It can be seen in the crime scene pictures and John Fernie even mentioned leaving his footprints in it when he arrived that morning.

[elvislives]

elvis, there was no snow on the ground around the Ramsey house that morning, it had all melted.

Also there was no need for any forced entry, Patsy had distributed keys to her house to just about everyone she knew.

Anyway, I think that Patsy let the first of the perpetrators in herself and those that arrived later and who didn't have keys he let in himself.

I know, Aussie. I was just teasing Whisky since he keeps sending me obnoxious PMs.

[Sharon]

IMO, the jabbing with the paintbrush was done as a final sign of hate and disdain for the Ramseys by the killer/s. In my mind, he/they felt a rush of power and control when he/they did it. IMO, this was a premeditated crime of cruelty and hate by a monster masquerading as a normal human being.

Yes..this is exactly how I would describe it.
The blow to the head also tells me that the perp. was done. His satisfaction with the strangling was diminishing, especially as JBR weakened & or collapsed unconscious. And the blow was a final satisfaction for the killer, it probably marked that he had finished the job and no doubt was extra punishment for JR. No doubt the killer knew the blow was unnecesary to cause JBR death.

[Sharon]

Shill, I do agree with the MDI theory. I believe that at least one of the perps has M background.

What is MDI theory??? M background????

[andU]

What is MDI theory??? M background????

Muslum, or someone with islamic background

[nuisanceposter]

Muslum, or someone with islamic background

A murderous, vengeful Muslim with a stun gun wouldn't even bother with a puny little female child. The daughters are useless.

They'd target the young SON of the man they wanted vengeance on. Come on, they've been following the Rs long enough to know their habits - these kidnapper/killers know that JR is closer to Burke than he is to JonBenet.

A nine year old boy doesn't present much challenge to a couple of foreign gentlemen who will stalk a man, enter his home, bludgeon and strangle the child, and leave a rambling three page RN that was clearly written by someone who was trained in the construction and execution of writing in ENGLISH - right down to correct punctuation, indentation, and sentence structure.

[LindaA]

A murderous, vengeful Muslim with a stun gun wouldn't even bother with a puny little female child. The daughters are useless.

They'd target the young SON of the man they wanted vengeance on. Come on, they've been following the Rs long enough to know their habits - these kidnapper/killers know that JR is closer to Burke than he is to JonBenet.

A nine year old boy doesn't present much challenge to a couple of foreign gentlemen who will stalk a man, enter his home, bludgeon and strangle the child, and leave a rambling three page RN that was clearly written by someone who was trained in the construction and execution of writing in ENGLISH - right down to correct punctuation, indentation, and sentence structure.

Who's to say? But if that female child was offensive to their strict rules regarding women, then might target her instead of the son.

[nuisanceposter]

Who's to say? But if that female child was offensive to their strict rules regarding women, then might target her instead of the son.

This killer didn't seem real concerned about being caught, so...why just one of the children, when they could kill both and really get vengeance on JR? Why not attack JR himself? Or why not kill both kids, and set fire to the house on their way out, destroying any evidence such as the bogus RN (written by someone who was taught to write letters in the standard American letter-writing format) and leaving JR childless if not homeless, or even better, dead?

[LindaA]

And if he died in the fire, he wouldn't have to live a lifetime of insinuations and doubt.

[aussiesheila]

This is not true. There was snow on the ground. It can be seen in the crime scene pictures and John Fernie even mentioned leaving his footprints in it when he arrived that morning.There was snow on the grass areas, but not much at all on the walkways/footpaths. It was quite possible to have left the house and there to have been no footprints provided one walked on the paved areas. There is a poster at Websleuths "know all, see all mother of 8" I forget her other name. She lives in Boulder, and if you get her started she will go on for you at great length about how Colorado snow melts very very quickly. Something to do with the altitude she says, not that I would know.

[shill]

"John Fernie even mentioned leaving his footprints in it when he arrived that morning".

And he complained that LE didn't detect his foot prints.

[nuisanceposter]

<snip> "know all, see all mother of 8" <snip>

That would be Camper.

[aussiesheila]

That would be Camper.yes, right, so have you read her posts about Colorado snow?

[Zoey]

yes, right, so have you read her posts about Colorado snow?


I am not sure what point she was trying to make, as I have not read her postings, but Boulder is an altitude of 5460 feet (approx.). I live where it is 6000 feet (again, approx.). The snow melts here just the same as it does in Boulder. It has to do with temperature, depth of snow, wind chill. IMO.

[shill]

I am not sure what point she was trying to make, as I have not read her postings, but Boulder is an altitude of 5460 feet (approx.). I live where it is 6000 feet (again, approx.). The snow melts here just the same as it does in Boulder. It has to do with temperature, depth of snow, wind chill. IMO.

...and lower atmospheric pressure which is due to altitude along with a thinner Troposphere so the infrared from the sun is hotter.

The American Indians used these principles to create the first freeze-dried foods before modern science figured it out.

[aussiesheila]

I am not sure what point she was trying to make, as I have not read her postings, but Boulder is an altitude of 5460 feet (approx.). I live where it is 6000 feet (again, approx.). The snow melts here just the same as it does in Boulder. It has to do with temperature, depth of snow, wind chill. IMO.She says in Boulder it melts very, very quickly

[aussiesheila]

The American Indians used these principles to create the first freeze-dried foods before modern science figured it out.Interesting, first time I've heard of that.

[Zoey]

...and lower atmospheric pressure which is due to altitude along with a thinner Troposphere so the infrared from the sun is hotter.

The American Indians used these principles to create the first freeze-dried foods before modern science figured it out.


That makes sense. Thanks for the info.

[thewhitewitch1]

She says in Boulder it melts very, very quickly


I'm sure the snow melts in Boulder too, but would it have melted as early as 6 a.m.? The sun was barely up and I believe the temps were below freezing that morning.

[aussiesheila]

I'm sure the snow melts in Boulder too, but would it have melted as early as 6 a.m.? The sun was barely up and I believe the temps were below freezing that morning.For obvious reasons whitewitch, it is a bit ridiculous for me to get into any argument as to whether any snow would have melted or not, which is why I suggested people read Camper's posts on that subject at Websleuths.