Troubling Details: garland, shoe laces, footprints, ponytails, barbie nightgown, etc

[watson]

Now that the JB case is back on everyones mind it seems a good time to ask these. I've followed the case, but I'm new to the boards, and there's always been certain details of the case I've never been clear on and have never seen made clear in anything I've read etc. I figure if these things ever were clarified or discussed someone here would know. Forgive me if some of these questions are stupid.
1.) Where did the blanket that covered JB's body while it was hidden behind the furnace come from? I'd assume from her bed on the 2nd floor, but I've never seen this confirmed anywhere.
2.) It's accepted in the case that John Ramsey reported that black duct tape covered JB's mouth.....but the crime scene photos of the blanket on the basement floor, seem clearly to show grey duct tape....so was it 'black or 'grey'.
3.) I've heard it reported I think by Lou Smit that a coil of big dirty rope was found in the vacant bedroom next to JB's, but I heard it only once, and never again. Does anyone have more info on it? Was anything else found there? Any tests done?
4.) The bowl of pineapple, spoon, and a water glass with tea bag were tested for prints, but were they tested for DNA, anyone know?
5.) The ME in his report says 'a double loop knot' regarding the cord round JB's right wrist, but isn't a double loop knot a 'slip knot', and from the photos isn't every knot in the case, at the neck, wrist, around the stick the exact same type of knots? I've never heard this discussed but if true it would seem very significant as the vast majority of people don't make knots like that, has it been focused on?
6.) The door to the room where the body was hidden was closed...but was it also locked or 'latched' from the outside?
7.) The media always says JB was 'garroted' but that doesn't say much.....I assume she was strangled by the killer being behind her and holding the 'slipped down' knot with one hand against the back of her neck while pulling back on the stick 'handle' with the other, pulling the other end of the string through the knot tighter and tighter, but again I can't find much on 'how' she was garroted....has it ever been clarified?
With Lacy building her case on details the public knows or don't know, I'd like to get straight just what is known by the public. At any rate, thanks in advance.

[LindaA]

The only one I can reply to is #6. I read in one of the early books about this case that the door was not locked or latched but that it was "sticky" and when the officer searched the basement he pulled on it and since it did not open readily he didn't try to open it. Can anyone confirm or refute this? Sorry, no link as I read this in a book.

Originally posted by LindaA
The only one I can reply to is #6. I read in one of the early books about this case that the door was not locked or latched but that it was "sticky" and when the officer searched the basement he pulled on it and since it did not open readily he didn't try to open it. Can anyone confirm or refute this? Sorry, no link as I read this in a book.

the creepy part about this is what if is stuck because the killer was still on the other side and had somehow made it so it couldn't be opened. after hearing someone trying the door the killer immediately, somehow.....slipped out without being noticed.

[nuisanceposter]

I'll try to answer to the best of my knowledge.

1. The blanket either came from one of the washer/dryer units, or it came from JonBenet's bed. Housekeeper LHP thought she had last seen the blanket on JB's bed.

2. The accounts I have read describe the duct tape as black, and have specified that.

3. Yes, rope was found in JAR's room. It was not the same kind as what was used on JonBenet. Lou Smit made note of the dust ruffle on JAR's bed being in disarray, but no one knows when that happened.

4. I heard the glass had been tested for DNA, but to myu knowledge, the results have never been made public. I don't know about the bowl or the spoon, other than Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl. Burke's prints were on the glass.

5. Meyer described the knot as a double knot, meaning the same kind you might tie in your shoelaces. It is not a complicated noose knot that would slide on the cord - it is fixed in place and the garotte would never have functioned as a garotte is meant to. Note: usually garottes have two handles.

6. Yes. The latch was a rectangular-shaped wooden block that spun on a nail. Patsy was the one who normally latched the door, and said she had done so that year because they were hiding gifts in that room. John said it was not his custom to latch that door, and the carpet out in the hall prevented the door from opening on its own, so it's not like the latch was needed to keep it shut. Fleet White said he checked that room looking for JB in the morning, and finding the door latched, relatched after he did not see her in that room.

7. The "garotte" was not functional in the tradintional form of a garotte. No turning or cranking was required to tighten it, as it was a fixed knot and would not "slide" as garotte knot would need to. JonBenet's hair was caught up in the knot along with fibers consistent with the jacket that Patsy wore that evening.

It appears as though JonBenet was strangled face down as her undies and long johns are urine-stained in the crotch and in the front, meaning the urine leaked out and flowed forward. There are no defensive wounds to her neck indicating that she clawed at the cord and tried to relieve the pressure, and her head wound was fully developed when she died, so it's my opinion that she was strangled from behind while unconscious face down on the floor after she had been struck on the head.

I'll be more than happy to elaborate on any of that.

[watson]

Thanks so far all. I was able to confirm the one about the latch too. Seems John Ramsey talks about it in his interview with Lou Smit about 6 months after the crime. Saying he unlatched it to open the door. If Fleet White says he found it latched, then relatched it that explains why John would have to unlatch it again later, of course that also means the killer besides closing the door, also latched it from the outside, even though there was no chance of the closed door coming open especially because of the carpet. I think it's real interesting that after 10 years we in the public can't say for sure where the blanket that covered JB came from, something investigators must have known on day 1. I'd agree her bed or the open linen closet near her room would be best bets. I agree to all I read or hear recently talks of the duct tape being black but when I look at crime scene photos supposedly taken 10 years ago, I see a crumpled white - off white blanket on the basement floor with a piece of grey duct tape stuck on the middle. Perhaps it's the lighting or photo?
NP I'll take you up on your offer of further elaboration/discussion...please see my post below, same thread.

[watson]

to Nusianceposter
As to the garotte and knots. Upon review I stand corrected about the knot at the other end of the string leading from the right wrist. I quoted the ME correctly (double loop knot) but he spoke imprecisely. Looking at the photos the cord leading from the right wrist ends in 2 loops, so he should of said something like....the other end of the cord is 'knotted' into a double loop. Also like you say he describes the knot at the mid line of the back of the neck as a 'double knot' without further elaboration. However, as I again look at the photos of these knots, I'm struck by their 'unusual' character. They still seem like slip knots to me. Why? Even after a lot of tightening, their not the tiny, scrunched in, hard, knot you'd expect from a static knot, but still fairly loose, if snug, where all their construction can still be seen.
They don't seem to be constructed like a shoe tie knot, which we make by repeatedly crossing the cord then tying it off (which as we all know if you don't make a bow, becomes a very small, tight knot almost impossible to undo).
Instead these knots seem to be made by crossing the cord only once, then wrapping and looping, making one of the many types of slip knots. It looks like you could call these knots 'wrap and loop knots' instead of 'crossing' knots. The difference.......by wrapping and looping the cord your making a movable knot that can easily be undone, whereas if you cross a cord twice or more you make a static tight knot hard to undo. You can really see this 'wrapping and looping effect' on the stick where there seems to be 6 of these wrapped looped knots made carefully in a row with the free end of the garotte carefully fixed in the middle.
A slip knot at the back of the neck would also explain away the problem you mention with the garotte, that a 1 handled garotte isn't really a 'garotte' (that would normally tighten a cord all around the neck equally by twisting). With a static knot even if you tie the cord tightly around the neck, pulling on the 1 handle only can tighten the knot, not the loop around the neck on the other side of the knot. This could only have the effect of pulling the cord hard against the front of the victims neck, and correspondingly pulling it less hard on the sides and AWAY from the back of the neck. In JB's case the ME is quite clear of a ligature furrow going all around the neck (in back too) with little movement, I'd say this indicates an equally tightening on all sides of the neck, which would be done by a slip knot, held against the neck, the handle pulling the loop around the neck through the knot tightening it equally on all sides with no or little movement of the cord. It would also explain why the killer had only to make that intricate tied only 1 handled garrot. What do you think? I also wonder if any investigator or expert has discussed this?

[thewhitewitch1]

This has been the most comprehensive thing I have read so far...and I have read a LOT.

http://www.childsearch.us/site8/ramsey_murder.html

Most interesting/concise info I've read yet on this case. Thanks!

It is an excellent article on why the Ramseys are viable suspects.
The whole Karr affair has deflected attention from the Ramseys. Perhaps attention should refocus on them again.
Everyone should remember Professor Tracy brought Mr. Karr to the attention of the police. He is firmly on the side of the innocence of the Ramseys. What better than to find another suspect than the Ramseys? It would vindicate both Professor Tracy and the Ramseys.

Here is an article on the role of Professor Tracy in this matter.

http://www.fortcollinsweekly.com/ind...d=94&Itemid=36

I read that she did here. A sister, Beth Ramsey, died in 1992.
http://jonbenet-ramsey.com/obituary.php.

If so, how did she die and how old was she?

Try this link. The one above isn't working for some reason.

http://www.jonbenet-ramsey.com/staff/ then go to the right and click on obituaries and you'll see it when you read it. Says she had a sister who died.

This might be the grown daughter who died in a car wreck. It'd have been JonB's half-sister.

Interesting. Thanks.

Pleace read this first. To get in the mood of the understanding of, that evrybody KNEW, ther vas just the WHO. I could speculate about why, and in so doing say stupid things, because I realy don't know, but when it came to the burden of proof, they failed. When I first heard this theory years back, I shook my head in disbelive. I mean did JonBenet pee in bed all the time, and where Patsy this short tempered, violent or unkind person, what ever. Or did the Ramsey's have a long history of coverups, and so on. What I mean is, that it is not okay from an investigative point of view, to make up a whole story, whitout being able to make it stick. If we say that there are two hurdles, one 'the death' two 'the coverup'. Let's for the argument sake say, the first hurdel, we say accsedent so now we got rid of the motive, two we say panic, and we are home free. I dont know, a jury might have belived it, why not, all the experts belive it. But the story is out, and i do understand why Patsy said to Steven Thomas, that he had done unreparable damage.

[LindaA]

Basically, I come down on the Ramseys-are-innocent side. But there is one clue I cannot explain either way: the pineapple. If they were guilty and had the calmness to write the ransome note, stage the garotte, etc., it would have been oh, so simple just to put the pineapple down the disposer, wash the bowl and put it away. If they were so upset they weren't thinking straight, then you can't explain the staging.

If, on the other hand, an intruder did this, how can we logically explain the pineapple?

Beth died in a car accident. She was from John Ramsey's first marriage...No she was not murdered..

It is uncommon though, 2 deaths in 2 daughters at young ages.

Could she of ate it herself? I know my little child eats stuff all the time when I am doing something and not looking. Of course, I guess if she would have, there would of been evidence left out in the kitchen.

True but to me that is still young. I don't think he did it though. I think it is just odd and then, the name of the son and it's meaning. Of course, there is a Burke GA. Maybe that's why they named it Burke.

[LindaA]

Eddie,
The Ramseys have always maintained that they brought her in asleep from the car and put her to bed and never saw her alive again. I suppose it is possible she got up and got herself the pineapple without waking the family, but why aren't her fingerprints on the bowl?

Originally posted by LindaA
Eddie,
The Ramseys have always maintained that they brought her in asleep from the car and put her to bed and never saw her alive again. I suppose it is possible she got up and got herself the pineapple without waking the family, but why aren't her fingerprints on the bowl?

I agree.

Originally posted by LindaA
Basically, I come down on the Ramseys-are-innocent side. But there is one clue I cannot explain either way: the pineapple. If they were guilty and had the calmness to write the ransome note, stage the garotte, etc., it would have been oh, so simple just to put the pineapple down the disposer, wash the bowl and put it away. If they were so upset they weren't thinking straight, then you can't explain the staging.

If, on the other hand, an intruder did this, how can we logically explain the pineapple?

The pineapple bothers me, too, but the location of the ransom note points to the Ramseys guilt for me more than the pineapple.

How would an intruder KNOW to place the note on the back, circular stairs rather than on JB's bed, on the kitchen counter, or on the front stairs? How would an intruder know that Patsy always used the back circular stairs.

Regarding the pineapple, if JB got up in the middle of the night, or was awake when arriving home, John or Patsy could have given her the pineapple. However, if they were guilty, to support an intruder theory, they said she slept all night and they heard nothing. Well, if she was awake enough to have pineapple, the Ramseys couldn't say so. Not after saying she was asleep when she got home and, as far as they knew, was asleep all night long.

Pure speculation on my part.

JMO

to me, the pineapple means more than the ransom note. The ransom note, no matter who wrote it, points to a cover up. The question whether JBR ate pineapple in the middle of the nite, i believe, points to someone she was familiar with. Not saying J or P.....someone familiar. I dont think she would sit down and eat pine apple with someone she was scared of without screaming. Couldnt have had her mouth taped at the time for obvious reasons. Her prints werent on the bowl, but from what i hear, the bowl cabinet was too high for her to reach the bowls.

Like i stated, this part of the evidence confuses me more than the ransom note.

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
to me, the pineapple means more than the ransom note. The ransom note, no matter who wrote it, points to a cover up. The question whether JBR ate pineapple in the middle of the nite, i believe, points to someone she was familiar with. Not saying J or P.....someone familiar. I dont think she would sit down and eat pine apple with someone she was scared of without screaming. Couldnt have had her mouth taped at the time for obvious reasons. Her prints werent on the bowl, but from what i hear, the bowl cabinet was too high for her to reach the bowls.

Like i stated, this part of the evidence confuses me more than the ransom note.

I have to admit jerzeegirl, that is very confusing. I can't see her sitting there eating pineapple (or anything) with a stranger. And why aren't someone's prints, other than those of Burke and Patsy on the bowl? Ramsey supporters say the killer wore gloves, but surely JB wouldn't have eaten pineapple with someone in gloves. That would be suspicious even to a six-year-old, IMO. And I can't see ANY intruder, one known to JB or one not known to JB, taking the time to give her some pineapple and risk someone coming down from upstairs.

JMO

I just dont get it......and so ;many people say its not important, i beg to differ.

Originally posted by jerzeegirl
I just dont get it......and so ;many people say its not important, i beg to differ.

I don't get it, either, but I think it's very important. Especially since even the Ramsey supporters agree that pineapple was not served at the White's Christmas party.

JMO

if suspicious that the killer wore the gloves, maybe not to JonBenet because it was during winter in Colorado also it looks like JonBenet did knew and trusted the killer.

wow thanks for the link. I have a question about JonBenet's brother Bruke? He could possible have had done it somehow and the parents knew, but covered it up by tampering or alternating the evidences? I found it interesting that John hired lawyers for Bruke when he turned 18 sametime the polices want him for questioning.

its interesting Ramsey's females dropping like flies in a decade, first JonBenet, Betsy, then Patsy.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by harz
wow thanks for the link. I have a question about JonBenet's brother Bruke? He could possible have had done it somehow and the parents knew, but covered it up by tampering or alternating the evidences? I found it interesting that John hired lawyers for Bruke when he turned 18 sametime the polices want him for questioning.

Wanted him for questioning about what? The murder? He'd been questioned about that years ago.

[Jadedblueeyes]

Originally posted by harz
its interesting Ramsey's females dropping like flies in a decade, first JonBenet, Betsy, then Patsy.

It is all that interesting but it sure is very tragic and sad.

Reminds me of Rose Kennedy and all the children and other family members she lost in her lifetime.

IMO

Ocean

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
This has been the most comprehensive thing I have read so far...and I have read a LOT.

http://www.childsearch.us/site8/ramsey_murder.html

I still notice the "no footprints in the snow" comment...when it's been proven there wasn't hardly any snow on the ground around the home......I just don't buy the bedwetting theory....as Patsy stated in one of her interviews....she had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer....we all know how many people survive this type of cancel...almost zilch.......in the grand scheme of things..I think she knew what was important in life and what wasn't...and bedwetting wasn't! imho

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I still notice the "no footprints in the snow" comment...when it's been proven there wasn't hardly any snow on the ground around the home......I just don't buy the bedwetting theory....as Patsy stated in one of her interviews....she had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer....we all know how many people survive this type of cancel...almost zilch.......in the grand scheme of things..I think she knew what was important in life and what wasn't...and bedwetting wasn't! imho

JonBenet also wasn't her first bedwetter. Burke and (I think) one of the other kids wet the bed as well. It's just no big deal. Except to Thomas.

JonBenet was 6 yrs old, Bruke was 9-10, they wetted their bed at these ages? Its does makes me think something wrong was going on, especially during Xmas as if something fright them by going bathroom or something. I dont blame Thomas (the detective?) My daughter is age 7 now, and she hadnt wet her bed for years or I don't recall she ever does after she stopped wearing diappers around age 2. I remember my friend's son was molested at age 5 or 6, he wetted his pants. When he was temporary sent to foster home by CFS for a week then his real mother picked him up to bring him back home, she noticed his pants got wet. He was confused and frighten of everything happened to him. So I dont buy Ramsey's kids at their ages wetted their beds is a normal thing.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by harz
JonBenet was 6 yrs old, Bruke was 9-10, they wetted their bed at these ages? Its does makes me think something wrong was going on, especially during Xmas as if something fright them by going bathroom or something. I dont blame Thomas (the detective?) My daughter is age 7 now, and she hadnt wet her bed for years or I don't recall she ever does after she stopped wearing diappers around age 2. I remember my friend's son was molested at age 5 or 6, he wetted his pants. When he was temporary sent to foster home by CFS for a week then his real mother picked him up to bring him back home, she noticed his pants got wet. He was confused and frighten of everything happened to him. So I dont buy Ramsey's kids at their ages wetted their beds is a normal thing.

Bed-wetting tends to run in families. The fact that your child didn't have a problem with it most likely means it doesn't run in your family. It apparently did in the Ramsey family.

http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/...dwetting.shtml
Most doctors consider a bedwetting child to be any girl older than age four and any boy over age five who wet the bed. Bedwetting generally declines with age. [b[About 10% of all six year olds and about 3% of all 14 year olds wet the bed. [/b]In a very small number of cases, bedwetting can continue into adulthood. Bedwetting (enuresis) is considered to be PRIMARY if the child has never been dry at night or only is occasionally dry at night. SECONDARY enuresis refers to bedwetting episodes that occur after a child has been dry at night for a considerable length of time.
[..]
Cause: Chronic bed-wetting is thought to be related to (1) a physically and/or neurologically immature bladder and/or (2) a deep sleeping pattern. Apparently these children often sleep so deeply that they are not aware of the message the bladder sends to the brain saying it is full. It is presumed that bed-wetting is an inherited condition. Usually a parent, aunt, uncle, grandparent or other family member(s) will have had the condition. Also, children with attention deficit disorder, learning disabilities or allergies seem to be more likely to be bed-wetters than children in the general population.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by victims feel
Many children who are nervous pee their bed. In CPS work it is determinant of emotional issues ONLY ruled out by a dr.ped who says it is bladder/physical/medical problem..It is a big deal..

I believe you are in the minority on that issue. I do, however, think it is possible to cause emotional issues about bedwetting if a parent makes it an issue. Patsy didn't. The majority of kids just outgrow it.

I think everything points to the Ramsey's having done it except for 2 questions:

Why?? What is the motive? I really cannot believe the bedwetting theory.

Why would the method of killing be so harsh? Usually when you hear of parents killing their child, it is not so personal.

Here is a scenario I think may have happened:

After JBR gets home, either mom or dad is going to give her a bath. Sometime terrible happens and she slips, falls, and cracks her head on the bathtub. I don't think she was killed intentionally because I don't see a motive.

The Ramseys then panic and they know she is dead so they plan the coverup. Their pride is too much to admit the accident. So, not being seasoned criminals, they carry out a movie-like cover-up complete with a ransom note and gruesome murder.

This is the only scenario that adds up to me. An intruder spending so much time in the house and writing that ransom note doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that the Ramseys would have any reason to savagely kill her. It was an accident and cover-up IMO.

I find it hard to believe that if her death was an accident in your theory and Ramseys covered it up by doing something to JonBenet's vagina making it looked like she was raped or molested?
How about this theory, maybe JonBenet's brother Bruke had sex with JonBenet that he was influenced from some television's sex show or movies, dirty magazines or maybe by someone else. Ramseys caught them then grew into rage instantly and furiously seperately them, knocking down JonBenet by pushing or hitting her. Maybe thats what killed her even if it was accident, then they spent all night to morning figuring out what to do, including brainwashing Bruke and planting the evidences.
I wonder if Bruke's DNA was taken for matching testing? If its not Bruke's DNA that was on JonBenet's underpants, then maybe Ramseys had someone's DNA they could obtain since they had plenty time to do so, probably through some favors or hired. Then this unidentified person came in to leave the handpalm prints in basement? or this print was there maybe some days before to many years ago.
Anyway, I would agree the theory about Ramseys would be shameful if the public had learned of Bruke and JonBenet having sex that Ramseys caught them and accidently killed JonBenet somehow. Maybe thats why John and Patsy were in seperate rooms, not clinching to each others worrying about where and how JonBenet is before they found the body and after. Usually normal parents clinch to each other when one of their children is missing or kidnapped that they are not resposible of.
I do thought varieties verisons of accident possibilities trying to see which one is likely possible. I really dont like trying figuring out how this tragedy happened that it has not be solved for a decade, I rather want to know what happened and that killer is caught. If it was an accident by Ramseys and they covered it up, then I would still see them as murders period.

Originally posted by rosyredrobin


JonBenet was seen regularly by her pediatrician. He didn't consider it a problem......

are you saying that JonBenet had bedwetting problems since she stopped wearing diapers? and so how often? Did her pediatrician identified what excatly type of bedwetting problem she had? Was it medical related to physical or was it psychology? I am still skeptical about your comment that her doctor didn't considerd it a problem. I felt there more need to investigate JonBenet's bedwetting issues or maybe I don't have enough informations. If her bedwetting had recorded history of medical or physical problems, then I will forget about her bedwetting issue.

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Wanted him for questioning about what? The murder? He'd been questioned about that years ago.

Yes he was questioned when he was child, but now he's adult, seems police want to question him again but in adult way that he more improved in communications than when he was 9-10 yrs old giving the polices better feedbacks from him.