What Really Happened That Night

[watson]

HI everyone, I haven't posted for awhile, but back this past summer, after the Carr fiasco, I posted that it seemed like time to go back and re-examine the original evidence (virtually all released to the public) free from any media, LE theories that emerged after the crime, because none of those had proved correct. So, that being done, here's what the actual evidence IMO indicates (or proves) happened that night. Of course I"d be happy for any input or to discuss any points and relate them to the clear proofs.
There is no indication of pedophile involvement, of a mother daughter fight over bed wetting, or of a fight at all. Instead the evidence only indicates.......someone who knew JB well had been planning on eliminating her by killing her. This individual planned on covering the deed with a fake kidnapping by 'terrorists' as he'd seen in the media and imagined in his grandiose fantasies. Why he picked that particular night, will probably remain only known to him, but his ransom script/letter already completed, he prepared the basement room because it was the most secluded and soundproof, with 2 blankets (1 from the 2nd floor linen closet, 1 from her bed). He gathered all the materials he'd need from the house (paper, pen, flashlight, shoe laces, paint stick), and exactingly and methodically made his murder weapon. Knowing JB, and not wanting her to suffer he planned to 'choke her out' quickly. He awoke her from bed, possibly granted her a 'last meal' of pineapple, then marched her down to the basement room. Once there he had her face the wall, placed the loop round her neck, then at arms length from behind, where she would not have to look at him, nor he at her, his left hand at the back of her neck, pulled the string through the slip knot he'd made, tightening it completely circumferentially, shutting off both artery and vein into and out of her head. She would've lost consciousnous in less than a minute. Then he hesitated or errored, relaxing his grip, and she sputtered back to life, clawing at the lace round her neck. He tightened it again, pulling it enough to cause clinical death, but he had no way of knowing that, so continued his plan, of once she was unconscious and could not feel, delivering 1 fatal blow to the head. The deed done, he laid the body in the room, a little unnerved, he made mistakes in staging the wrists were tied before death, then wrapped the body in the blankets not normally, but as a shroud for 'proper' burial. Leaving the Barbie nightgown to keep her 'company' he left, locking the door from outside, because to him it was a temporary tomb. He placed the fake ransom letter oddly on the spiral stairs instead of in the victims room, and waited for the light of dawn to carry out the rest of his plan, the early morning disposal of the body for 'proper' burial. Of course the rest is well known, mother Patsy waking before dawn, finding the letter on her usual morning route, immediately calling police in violation of all the letters instructions....causing the police, the body, and probably the killer to all be at the scene at the same time. Then, the Boulder police incompetence, in not searching, and not taking control, not finding the body for 8 hours causing the untidy mystery. This IMO relly is what the evidence indictes or proves.......please all think about it.

[shill]

I think the day, being Christmas, will prove important.

[docg]

Originally posted by watson
HI everyone, I haven't posted for awhile, but back this past summer, after the Carr fiasco, I posted that it seemed like time to go back and re-examine the original evidence (virtually all released to the public) free from any media, LE theories that emerged after the crime, because none of those had proved correct. So, that being done, here's what the actual evidence IMO indicates (or proves) happened that night. Of course I"d be happy for any input or to discuss any points and relate them to the clear proofs.
There is no indication of pedophile involvement, of a mother daughter fight over bed wetting, or of a fight at all. Instead the evidence only indicates.......someone who knew JB well had been planning on eliminating her by killing her. This individual planned on covering the deed with a fake kidnapping by 'terrorists' as he'd seen in the media and imagined in his grandiose fantasies. Why he picked that particular night, will probably remain only known to him, but his ransom script/letter already completed, he prepared the basement room because it was the most secluded and soundproof, with 2 blankets (1 from the 2nd floor linen closet, 1 from her bed). He gathered all the materials he'd need from the house (paper, pen, flashlight, shoe laces, paint stick), and exactingly and methodically made his murder weapon. Knowing JB, and not wanting her to suffer he planned to 'choke her out' quickly. He awoke her from bed, possibly granted her a 'last meal' of pineapple, then marched her down to the basement room. Once there he had her face the wall, placed the loop round her neck, then at arms length from behind, where she would not have to look at him, nor he at her, his left hand at the back of her neck, pulled the string through the slip knot he'd made, tightening it completely circumferentially, shutting off both artery and vein into and out of her head. She would've lost consciousnous in less than a minute. Then he hesitated or errored, relaxing his grip, and she sputtered back to life, clawing at the lace round her neck. He tightened it again, pulling it enough to cause clinical death, but he had no way of knowing that, so continued his plan, of once she was unconscious and could not feel, delivering 1 fatal blow to the head. The deed done, he laid the body in the room, a little unnerved, he made mistakes in staging the wrists were tied before death, then wrapped the body in the blankets not normally, but as a shroud for 'proper' burial. Leaving the Barbie nightgown to keep her 'company' he left, locking the door from outside, because to him it was a temporary tomb. He placed the fake ransom letter oddly on the spiral stairs instead of in the victims room, and waited for the light of dawn to carry out the rest of his plan, the early morning disposal of the body for 'proper' burial. Of course the rest is well known, mother Patsy waking before dawn, finding the letter on her usual morning route, immediately calling police in violation of all the letters instructions....causing the police, the body, and probably the killer to all be at the scene at the same time. Then, the Boulder police incompetence, in not searching, and not taking control, not finding the body for 8 hours causing the untidy mystery. This IMO relly is what the evidence indictes or proves.......please all think about it.

You're saying this is how John Ramsey could have killed his daughter? Close, very close. But it doesn't explain the head blow. Nor does it explain the fact that tufts of her hair were intertwined in the knots of the "garotte." No, he must have struck her from behind with the Maglite, to knock her out, so she wouldn't suffer. Then he'd have strangled her. He was certainly planning to dump the body later that day or the following night, you've got that part right. But Patsy called early, spoiling his plan, as you say. Good thinking!

[rashomon]

Originally posted by docg


You're saying this is how John Ramsey could have killed his daughter? Close, very close. But it doesn't explain the head blow. Nor does it explain the fact that tufts of her hair were intertwined in the knots of the "garotte." No, he must have struck her from behind with the Maglite, to knock her out, so she wouldn't suffer. Then he'd have strangled her. He was certainly planning to dump the body later that day or the following night, you've got that part right. But Patsy called early, spoiling his plan, as you say. Good thinking!

But would John strangle JB in addition to the head bash? Why not give her another whack on the head if his goal was to finish her off?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by docg

But Patsy called early, spoiling his plan, as you say. Good thinking!

Patsy obviously did not spoil John's plan because it was he who told her to call the police.
And don't forget it was Patsy's clothes fibers, not John's, which were found in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tote. This links Patsy to the staging of the scene.
And John's fibers in the crotch area of JB's size 12 underwear panties link him to the staging of the scene too.
Both Ramseys were in it together, there is no doubt about it imo.

[watson]

[quote]Originally posted by docg
[b]

You're saying this is how John Ramsey could have killed his daughter? Close, very close. But it doesn't explain the head blow. Nor does it explain the fact that tufts of her hair were intertwined in the knots of the "garotte." No, he must have struck her from behind with the Maglite, to knock her out, so she wouldn't suffer. Then he'd have strangled her. He was certainly planning to dump the body later that day or the following night, you've got that part right. But Patsy called early, spoiling his plan, as you say. Good thinking!

Thanks for the reply...Actually Im not saying who may have killed JB right now, just how it happened, which the scene evidence should be able to tell us. It seems to me we should get the method down first of WHAT happened before we look at the type of person and WHO may have done it.
As to the strangling coming first....this is because the medical evidence found little if any bleeding in the skull or under the scalp from the head blow (ME report other medical commentary) which would not be the case had the heart been pumping normally....and....the petechial hemorrhaging seen (ME report) indicates a victim very much alive during the strangling. MOre important, the fact the victims own fingernails made gouge marks in her neck round the string (close up photographs, the victims own skin under her nails (DNA report)) indicate she was very conscious during the strangling. All this I think proves the strangling came first. I'd predict the head blow was either part of the killers original plan (as I wrote) or almost equally an improvization when she sputtered back to life after the first strangling and an inexperienced killer had to make sure.

The hair in the wrappings of the garrote does bother me, as that garrote ended up nearly 3 feet from the victim by the time the crime was complete( (ME measurement). However, every detail of a crime can never be explained, and there are other ways pieces of her hair could have become intertwined, as....the victims hair was 1-2 feet long, perhaps she struggled and some hair came out, perhaps the killer accidentally pulled some strands out etc.

[watson]

[quote]Originally posted by rashomon
[b]
Patsy obviously did not spoil John's plan because it was he who told her to call the police.
And don't forget it was Patsy's clothes fibers, not John's, which were found in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tote.

Hi Rashomon,

It's a good point about John 'telling Patsy to call the police'. The big problem with it though is we get this only through John's self reporting of what he did, backed up by Patsy. There is no independent evidence John told her to call the police, just his word, backed up later by her. The evidence shows only Patsy calling, only her voice on the tape. It also shows that she called in minutes of finding the note, not much time to confer with John ecspecially with her on the 1st floor he on the 3rd, and that the call was made from the 1st floor. Maybe he did tell her to call the police like he says, I'm just saying there's no independent evidence of this, so I left it out, because it's not a fact, just someones word.
As to them both being in on it, then why would they both have cooperated in calling the police before they got rid of the body? If they both wrote the note, then why did they put all the instructions in the note to themselves making sure they had an excuse for having no police there at all that morning, and then call the police to be caught with the body, in violation of their own note? If they were both in on it, they could've easily gotten rid of body that morning, told the police later, they were just following the instructions in the note not to call the police right away, and everything would've been fine.
This would seem to prove that either only 1 of them did it, or neither did.
P.S. as to fibers........since John and Patsy both lived at the scene and all the materials were common household ones, wouldn't we expect either her fbers or his or both to be on everything in the house anyway???

[nuisanceposter]

JonBenet didn't struggle while she was being strangled at all. Meyer did not note her skin under her nails, and it would have been had she been able to reach her throat and claw at the cord. Those marks on her neck are from trauma.

Petechiae proves she was alive when strangled, but not that she fought her killer.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Int...the%20Evidence

"Petechiae (puh-TEE-key-eye) are tiny little broken capillary blood vessels. Everyone has had them. A hard bout of coughing or vomiting can cause facial petechiae, especially around the eyes. These mean nothing. Newborns often have facial petechiae from the tight squeeze through the cervix. Thus petechiae are fairly common and in general of no concern."





It looks, imo, like she was completely unconscious while being strangled due to the lack of signs of struggle. There are no defense wounds, and no bruises or abrasions indicating she struggled against restraints. The interior of her neck shows little damage, not what would you see with a person who struggled against her strangler. Her hyoid bone and larynx were intact. Her thyroid and cricoid cartileges are undamaged, as was her trachea. The strap muscles of the neck were not hemorrhaged. The insides of her cheeks and tongue were smooth and unblemished, and her frenulum was still attached. (Cyril Wecht's book and autopsy report)

The head wound was developed, with swelling of the brain indicated as sulci narrowed and gyri flattened in the autopsy report. There were three pooled areas of blood, one of them measuring 7 X 4 inches and covering almost the entire hemisphere of her brain.

The fact that the garotte was tied on her body as opposed to being constructed elsewhere and put on her (as indicated by her hair being caught in it) and the fact that the knot was at the back of her neck leads me to believe she was strangled while unconscious, and the urine stains in the front and in the crotch of her long johns and undies indicates she was lying face down when her bladder released in death.

How is anyone going to tie a cord around the neck of a conscious child and then strangle her face down without her offering any resistance or struggle whatsoever, incurring no defensive wounds at all? They're not. She was unconscious when strangled, imo.

[shill]

Originally posted by docg


No, he must have struck her from behind with the Maglite, to knock her out, so she wouldn't suffer.

Is the hole in the skull at the front or back?

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Is the hole in the skull at the front or back?

Shill actually looking at the picture of the skull. shiver.... it looks to be all on one side

[rashomon]

[quote]Originally posted by watson
[b]

Originally posted by rashomon

Patsy obviously did not spoil John's plan because it was he who told her to call the police.
And don't forget it was Patsy's clothes fibers, not John's, which were found in the garrote wrappings, on the duct tape and in the paint tote.

Hi Rashomon,

It's a good point about John 'telling Patsy to call the police'. The big problem with it though is we get this only through John's self reporting of what he did, backed up by Patsy. There is no independent evidence John told her to call the police, just his word, backed up later by her. The evidence shows only Patsy calling, only her voice on the tape. It also shows that she called in minutes of finding the note, not much time to confer with John ecspecially with her on the 1st floor he on the 3rd, and that the call was made from the 1st floor.

The evidence does NOT show that she called within minutes of finding the note. That's the impression the Ramseys want to give. The evidence shows that there was a phone call by Patsy in the morning, that's all. We don't 'know' where John was either.

And if according to Docg's theory, it was Patsy who called the police (without John telling her to do so), then WHY would both Ramseys LIE about it later and say that it was John who told her to call the police? There would have been no reason for them to lie about this.

P.S. as to fibers........since John and Patsy both lived at the scene and all the materials were common household ones, wouldn't we expect either her fbers or his or both to be on everything in the house anyway???

It depends on where those fibers are found. And Patsy's fibers were found in VERY incriminating locations: on the duct tape which covered JB's mouth, in the wrappings of the garrote handle and in the paint tote where the paintbrush was taken from.

[watson]

To Nuisance......
It seems to me we should stick with the 'most likely' interpretation of the evidence, not the least likely, until and if the least likely is 'proven'.
All the research I've done on petechial hemorrhage in forensic science (and that is what were talking about a forensic case, not new born babies or coughing fits) indicates the hemorrhages are caused by a concsious victim straining to breath during asphyxia. //science.enotes.com/forensic-science/petechial-hemorrhage.....is common of this info. Nowhere can I find a forensic description of a unconscious victim being strangled and developing petechia.....Nowhere can I find an absolute forensic rule that the same is impossible......but why reach for such a unlikely interpretation?
The fingernail marks on the neck around the strangling string are first mentioned by the ME page 3.....The remainder of the abrasions........of the skin above and below the anterior (front) projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the front (anterior) of the neck...........The corrosponding photo of the ront of he neck shows these 'nonpatterned abrasions' to be numerous tiny cresent shaped marks the size and shape of a childs fingernails. Lou Smit in 'The Elite-JBR A New Look' first broadcast Court TV 11-02 narrates them as such. I've never heard them described as anything else. The ME as we know clipped JB's fingernails and sent them to the lab in case she scratched her killer and there was skin beneath them. While the public never got the lab report, we did get parts of the later DNA report on the skin underneath the nails that states....The DNA profiles developed from ex. 7, 14L, 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey....etc........so her shin cells were under her nails.
What's indicated is that she was conscious while strangled and did claw at the strangling string. While we can't absolutely prove this (of course) why should we discard what's most likely in favor of what's possible?

Originally posted by watson
P.S. as to fibers........since John and Patsy both lived at the scene and all the materials were common household ones, wouldn't we expect either her fbers or his or both to be on everything in the house anyway??? [/b]

Precisely, Watson. This is the theory of transfer in a nutshell. For example, my neighbor has a dog that I pet from time to time. I have also spent some time in the neighbors house, but the dog has never been in my house. The other day, I was cleaning up a spill on the floor of my own house and found my neighbor's dogs hair, which is very distinctive. Imagine how much dog hair I would find everywhere in my house if the dog lived with me. Same with Patsy and John's hair and fibers--they'd be all over their own house for benign reasons. I'm not saying they DIDN'T do it, but I do agree that the fiber evidence does not implicate them.

[watson]

[quote]Originally posted by rashomon
[b]

The evidence does NOT show that she called within minutes of finding the note. That's the impression the Ramseys want to give. The evidence shows that there was a phone call by Patsy in the morning, that's all. We don't 'know' where John was either.

************************************************** **
Well, the evidence of what happened before the phone call to the police does come mostly from John and Patsy, but not entirely, and just because it comes from them, and their suspects, should we ignore it?
We know as fact that the Ramsey's had planned an early morning trip that required getting up early. The alarm clocks were set for 5:30am, as the Ramsey's said, and it is a fact that is the time they'd have to get up to keep their plans. Patsy and John said the alarm went off at 5:30, she got up and went down to the kitchen by her usual route, while John went into his bathroom on the 3rd floor. We know as a fact the call to the police was in the 5:40's. If the alarm did go off as it was set, and Patsy got up shortly after 5:30 went from floor 3 down the spiral stair (as she says), found and read the note, made a quick check for JB, then called police.......the call would have been 'in minutes' and the evidence of the alarm, vaction plans, and time element, all fits.
Of course they could be totally lying, been up all night, made the call to the police right at the correct time to luckily match the early morning wake up evidence......but where is 'any' evidence to back up this scenario? And if they were both lying and did it, then why call the police at all before they got rid of the body that morning? Why should we consider this if there is 'no' evidence of it?
The evidence we do have does back up their statements of getting up around 5:30am and the call in the 5:40's, don't we have to accept this until we have solid evidence of something else?

[watson]

In a posted reply above to docg, I mis-typed and typed that the handle end of the garotte ended up 3 feet away from the victims head by the end of the crime. Of course this was an error I meant to say 1 1/2 feet (or as ME says 17inches)....Oops....

[rashomon]

Originally posted by elvislives


Precisely, Watson. This is the theory of transfer in a nutshell. For example, my neighbor has a dog that I pet from time to time. I have also spent some time in the neighbors house, but the dog has never been in my house. The other day, I was cleaning up a spill on the floor of my own house and found my neighbor's dogs hair, which is very distinctive. Imagine how much dog hair I would find everywhere in my house if the dog lived with me. Same with Patsy and John's hair and fibers--they'd be all over their own house for benign reasons. I'm not saying they DIDN'T do it, but I do agree that the fiber evidence does not implicate them.

It is not about transfer in general (I'm a dog owner and believe me, I know what you're talking about! For example, a few days ago, I had to remove some of my dog's hairs from the PC keys, for they had been transferred to there by my hand ...).

But transfer in general is not the point here. For in every criminal case, one has too look where exactly those transfer items are found. And fibers from Patsy's jacket which she had been wearing to the Whites' party ON THAT FATAL NIGHT were found in the paint tray in the basement, on the duct tape and in the wrappings of the garrote handle.
So we have three VERY incriminating locations which link Patsy to the staging of the scene.

[rashomon]

[quote]Originally posted by watson
[b]

Originally posted by rashomon

Of course they could be totally lying, been up all night, made the call to the police right at the correct time to luckily match the early morning wake up evidence......but where is 'any' evidence to back up this scenario? And if they were both lying and did it, then why call the police at all before they got rid of the body that morning? Why should we consider this if there is 'no' evidence of it?

And that's what I think they did, Watson: they made the call to the police at exactly the time to match their time line - for they had scheduled a flight and therefore had to be up early in the morning.

And do you really think that it is easy to get rid of a body? It was Christmas, where many people stay up very late at night.
Suppose a neighbor had seen the Ramsey car pulling out of their garage in those early morning hours: end of the ball game for the Ramseys.
Which is why I think they decided against dumping JB's body somewhere outside. It was far too risky.

Originally posted by rashomon

It is not about transfer in general (I'm a dog owner and believe me, I know what you're talking about! For example, a few days ago, I had to remove some of my dog's hairs from the PC keys, for they had been transferred to there by my hand ...).

But transfer in general is not the point here. For in every criminal case, one has too look where exactly those transfer items are found. And fibers from Patsy's jacket which she had been wearing to the Whites' party ON THAT FATAL NIGHT were found in the paint tray in the basement, on the duct tape and in the wrappings of the garrote handle.
So we have three VERY incriminating locations which link Patsy to the staging of the scene.

How do you know that fibers from Patsy's jacket didn't attached themselves to JB over the course of the evening? Perhaps fibers from Patsy's jacket became entangled in JB's hair when she was holding her, helping her get dressed, hugging her, etc on Christmas. Then comes the killer and carries her downstairs to assault her. During the assault, some of the fibers in JB;s hair, on her clothing etc contaminate the crime scene.
I saw a case on tv where a little girl was abducted from a christmas party by some local perv, then raped and murdered. I don't think they ever found her body, but they were able to link him to the crime because rabbit hair from her mother's jacket was found in his home and car. Not the victim's jacket but her mothers and her mother was never in this man's house or car. The fibers had been transferred to the child from the mother's clothing, then transferred to the killer's car and house .

[LindaA]

Originally posted by elvislives


<snip>
I saw a case on tv where a little girl was abducted from a christmas party by some local perv, then raped and murdered. I don't think they ever found her body, but they were able to link him to the crime because rabbit hair from her mother's jacket was found in his home and car. Not the victim's jacket but her mothers and her mother was never in this man's house or car. The fibers had been transferred to the child from the mother's clothing, then transferred to the killer's car and house .

I believe that was a case that happened in Prince William, VA. If not, then it was the same scenario. The perp's name was Caleb Hughes. I was thinking they found fibers that matched what she had been wearing. Her mother had ordered the outfit fromt he JCPenney catalog and they were able to get an indentical outfit and matched fibers to some found in his vehicle. But maybe that;s not the same case.

[shill]

Originally posted by rashomon

And that's what I think they did, Watson: they made the call to the police at exactly the time to match their time line - for they had scheduled a flight and therefore had to be up early in the morning.

And do you really think that it is easy to get rid of a body? It was Christmas, where many people stay up very late at night.
Suppose a neighbor had seen the Ramsey car pulling out of their garage in those early morning hours: end of the ball game for the Ramseys.
Which is why I think they decided against dumping JB's body somewhere outside. It was far too risky.

That's why docg's theory works. The ransom note gives them an excuse to take a suitcase to the car and leave the house for the bank and dump the body on the way.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
That's why docg's theory works. The ransom note gives them an excuse to take a suitcase to the car and leave the house for the bank and dump the body on the way.

Was he going to ditch the suitcase too because I'm sure JB would have left physical evidence of having been in it. It would have been broad daylight when JR set out to dump her body and go to the bank. Pretty risky.
The ransom note also explains why JB was killed - because the Ramseys contacted the authorities and others when they were warned repeatedly not to. I still think Cherokees theory makes more sense. Every line of the ransom note has a meaning that makes sense of how things played out if you believe his/her theory. IMO

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Was he going to ditch the suitcase too because I'm sure JB would have left physical evidence of having been in it. It would have been broad daylight when JR set out to dump her body and go to the bank. Pretty risky.
The ransom note also explains why JB was killed - because the Ramseys contacted the authorities and others when they were warned repeatedly not to. I still think Cherokees theory makes more sense. Every line of the ransom note has a meaning that makes sense of how things played out if you believe his/her theory. IMO

She's wrapped in a blanket in the suitcase. And the police would have no reason to check the suitcase for evidence because they would be clueless about it. As far as they know she was kidnapped by someone other then the Ramseys. The suitcase is used for the money on the return. Bodys get dumped in broad daylight with out being seen. I'm sure there is some remote terrain in Boulder where they would not be seen.
They tell the police they stopped to talk to a dog(kidding of course) call some friends over and it's no surprise they find JB dumped somewhere by the kidnappers, not alive.

[LindaA]

They find her body with the Ramsey's fibers all over the blanket and on the body and the blanket fibers all over the Ramseys. Would JBR fit in the suitcase with a blanket wrapped around her?

I do agree that the comment about the size of the case in the RN makes it tempting to believe that's what the writer thought when writing the note -- the writer being JR or PR, but it could have been written just for efecct IF the RDI I just cannot imagine their being able to go through all this staging afterwards and I certainly don't think that IF they did it it was premeditated. That;s what's so strange -- some elements of this case seem premeditated and others seem accidental.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by watson

<snp>

The fingernail marks on the neck around the strangling string are first mentioned by the ME page 3.....The remainder of the abrasions........of the skin above and below the anterior (front) projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the front (anterior) of the neck...........The corrosponding photo of the ront of he neck shows these 'nonpatterned abrasions' to be numerous tiny cresent shaped marks the size and shape of a childs fingernails. Lou Smit in 'The Elite-JBR A New Look' first broadcast Court TV 11-02 narrates them as such. I've never heard them described as anything else. The ME as we know clipped JB's fingernails and sent them to the lab in case she scratched her killer and there was skin beneath them. While the public never got the lab report, we did get parts of the later DNA report on the skin underneath the nails that states....The DNA profiles developed from ex. 7, 14L, 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey....etc........so her shin cells were under her nails.
What's indicated is that she was conscious while strangled and did claw at the strangling string. While we can't absolutely prove this (of course) why should we discard what's most likely in favor of what's possible? [/b]

Will someone who knows much more than I do state what you think about watson's comments? (Sound reasonable to me.)

[Athena]

Sweet.... first of all I want to preface my comments with I don't know any more than anyone else does.

I have read all of the above posts by watson and I have to say that based on the facts that are KNOWN -- not conjecture, speculation or theory -- this is IMO a pretty good layout of what actually happened and is defiinitely plausible.

I also wanted to post a link to a forensic video in which this pathologist states that Petechial hemorrhage does occur in a victim that is CONSCIOUS while being strangled. This site also has NOTHING to do with JBR so IMO is not skewed. It also supports the fact that JBR was strangled BEFORE the head blow and therefore also supports Watson's analysis.

This is the transcript from the video as well:

Petechial hemorrhage

[Dr. Fierro]: Petechial hemorrhages are small pinpoint hemorrhages generally seen and looked for in the lining of the eyes in the conjunctiva, either that of the lids which is called palpebral conjunctiva or the bulbar, that covering the bulb of the eye and they generally are sign of terminal asphyxia. Now what's interesting of course is what causes people to have petechae in the first place and it's generally because there's increased intravascular pressure that causes the small end vessels of the capillaries to rupture. When do you have that? You have that when you breathe against resistance or try and breathe against resistance. So what would cause that? Well, many varieties of asphyxia such as smothering, strangulation, anything that compresses on the neck, while the person is conscious and trying to breathe against it. So generally petechae are something that you need to account for—you have to explain those.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/visibleproofs...cal/index.html

[Athena]

Meant to add the credentials from the website I posted above:

Medical Views is based on the "Autopsy Revealed" multimedia interactive station at the Visible Proofs: Forensic Views of the Body exhibition on display at the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland from February 16, 2006–February 16, 2008. Visitor and guided-tour information is available online at VISIT. If you have questions about visiting Visible Proofs, contact us at NLMExhibition@mail.nih.gov or 301.594.1947.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Athena


Sweet.... first of all I want to preface my comments with I don't know any more than anyone else does.

I have read all of the above posts by watson and I have to say that based on the facts that are KNOWN -- not conjecture, speculation or theory -- this is IMO a pretty good layout of what actually happened and is defiinitely plausible.

[b]

You may not know any more than anyone else, BUT you certainly know where to look for more info. Thanks for the link and your comments.

Watson, I think your comments are well thought out and probably on the mark. JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Athena
Sweet.... first of all I want to preface my comments with I don't know any more than anyone else does.

I have read all of the above posts by watson and I have to say that based on the facts that are KNOWN -- not conjecture, speculation or theory -- this is IMO a pretty good layout of what actually happened and is defiinitely plausible.

Athena, you may not know any more than anyone else - except where to go to get more info. Thanks for the link.

I agree about watson's post. Well thought out and on the mark - IMO.

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
[b]

You may not know any more than anyone else, BUT you certainly know where to look for more info. Thanks for the link and your comments.

Watson, I think your comments are well thought out and probably on the mark. JMO

OK I'll accept this! LOL

[sweetcharlotte]

Notice my double post.....My computer is acting up this morning!

[Athena]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
Notice my double post.....My computer is acting up this morning!

I thought I was just seeing "double"

[rashomon]

Originally posted by shill
That's why docg's theory works. The ransom note gives them an excuse to take a suitcase to the car and leave the house for the bank and dump the body on the way.

Sorry, but I'm afraid DocG's theory doesn't work at all.

He makes it seem as if it was child's play for the Ramseys, who were in no way professional criminals, to dispose of a body in broad daylight.
And the lab techs would have had a field day with the forensic examination of their car later. Just think of e. g. the tyre traces their car would have left near JB's body. Or a very close examination of the trunk.

All this would have been extremely risky for the Ramseys. They may have considered it briefly, but obviously decided against it.

Re the suitcase: if it had been John's plan to use the suitcase to carry JB to the car, the child would already have been in the suitcase by the time Patsy found the note. But the forensic evidence shows that JonBenet's body never was in that suitcase.


Other flaws in DocG's theory: he plays down the fiber evidence pointing to Patsy, while at the same time stressing the fiber evidence which implicates John. But Docg can't have his forensic cake and eat it too, so to speak. Either all the fiber evidence is implicating or none is. He can't pick and choose, and simply disregard out (Lou Smit-like) evidence which doesn't fit into his theory.

In addition, DocG hinges his theory on something which is is only in his imagination: he simply alleges that Patsy 'spoiled' John's plan by calling the police. But John Ramsey himself told Lou Smit that it was HE who told Patsy to call the police. And Patsy never contradicted this either.
So according to DocG, John must have told Patsy: "I'm going to tell them that it was ME who told you to call the police."
By telling Patsy this he would have thrown suspicion on himself - a thing which he surely wanted to avoid if his goal was to frame Patsy. It makes no sense whatsoever.

And come on, DocG: if John really wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, all he had to do was make sure that it was HE who 'found' the ransom note first. Why take such a risk and let it lie around?

[rashomon]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Will someone who knows much more than I do state what you think about watson's comments? (Sound reasonable to me.)

The poster on this board with the most exhaustive knowledge about the DNA and other forensic evidence in the JBR case is Nuisanceposter. I'm sure (s)he'll coment on it if (s)he reads it.

Watson: no 'fingernail' marks are mentioned at all on page 3 in the autopsy report.
And whatever Lou Smit says about those 'crescent' shapes being "the size of a child's fingernail", does this mean we have to believe him?
Could you please show me where Dr. Meyer speaks of 'crescent' shapes?

Nor have I ever red anywhere that JB's own DNA under her fingernail was from her skin debris.

I hope Nuisanceposter reads this and will set the record straight:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by watson

<snp>

The fingernail marks on the neck around the strangling string are first mentioned by the ME page 3.....The remainder of the abrasions........of the skin above and below the anterior (front) projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the front (anterior) of the neck...........The corrosponding photo of the ront of he neck shows these 'nonpatterned abrasions' to be numerous tiny cresent shaped marks the size and shape of a childs fingernails. Lou Smit in 'The Elite-JBR A New Look' first broadcast Court TV 11-02 narrates them as such. I've never heard them described as anything else. The ME as we know clipped JB's fingernails and sent them to the lab in case she scratched her killer and there was skin beneath them. While the public never got the lab report, we did get parts of the later DNA report on the skin underneath the nails that states....The DNA profiles developed from ex. 7, 14L, 14M revealed a mixture of which the major component matched JonBenet Ramsey....etc........so her shin cells were under her nails.
What's indicated is that she was conscious while strangled and did claw at the strangling string. While we can't absolutely prove this (of course) why should we discard what's most likely in favor of what's possible? [/b]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[docg]

Originally posted by rashomon

>Sorry, but I'm afraid DocG's theory doesn't work at all.

Does so! :-)

>And the lab techs would have had a field day with the forensic examination of their car later. Just think of e. g. the tyre traces their car would have left near JB's body. Or a very close examination of the trunk.

That's one reason behind the note, rashomon. "The tire tracks got there when I was delivering the ransom, your honor." As far as the trunk is concerned, she was wrapped in a blanket, remember, any fibers from her clothing wouldn't have been found there.

>All this would have been extremely risky for the Ramseys. They may have considered it briefly, but obviously decided against it.

Far more risky was allowing the police to find the body in the house. AND providing them with a ransom note printed in ones own hand! There'd have been very little risk involved in dumping the body, since that little trip could have been explained as ransom delivery.

>Re the suitcase: if it had been John's plan to use the suitcase to carry JB to the car, the child would already have been in the suitcase by the time Patsy found the note. But the forensic evidence shows that JonBenet's body never was in that suitcase.

No need to put her in a suitcase. She woudn't have fit anyhow. She was already wrapped in blankets, "like a papoose." Ready to go.

>Other flaws in DocG's theory: he plays down the fiber evidence pointing to Patsy, while at the same time stressing the fiber evidence which implicates John.

There is a huge difference between fibers that can easily be explained as innocent transfer via the victim and fibers found in the victim's crotch.

>In addition, DocG hinges his theory on something which is is only in his imagination: he simply alleges that Patsy 'spoiled' John's plan by calling the police. But John Ramsey himself told Lou Smit that it was HE who told Patsy to call the police. And Patsy never contradicted this either.

Why take the word of the two chief (and only) suspects in this case? John would have lied because otherwise he'd have looked too suspicious. Patsy probably lied to avoid calling John a liar.

>So according to DocG, John must have told Patsy: "I'm going to tell them that it was ME who told you to call the police."
By telling Patsy this he would have thrown suspicion on himself - a thing which he surely wanted to avoid if his goal was to frame Patsy. It makes no sense whatsoever.

First of all, John simply announced to the world, via CNN, that the call was his idea. Patsy was hardly in a position to contradict him publicly, that would have made both of them look suspicious. As for the rest, he (and possibly their lawyers as well) could have explained to her that it would be better for both of them if his being opposed to calling were NOT revealed. Their whole legal strategy has been a team effort, with each supporting the other to the max. If it got out that they'd disagreed about ANYTHING their credibility would be weakened. Besides, once she got word from the "experts" that John was ruled out, she would no longer have had any reason to suspect him.

>And come on, DocG: if John really wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, all he had to do was make sure that it was HE who 'found' the ransom note first. Why take such a risk and let it lie around?

Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning on this point. As I see it, the note was written for Patsy's eyes. It stands to reason he'd have wanted HER to be the one to find it. He was hoping the threats would convince her it would be a mistake to call the police. There's no way he could physically have prevented her from making the call, short of ripping out the phone lines.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by docg
Originally posted by rashomon

>Sorry, but I'm afraid DocG's theory doesn't work at all.

Does so! :-)

>And the lab techs would have had a field day with the forensic examination of their car later. Just think of e. g. the tyre traces their car would have left near JB's body. Or a very close examination of the trunk.

That's one reason behind the note, rashomon. "The tire tracks got there when I was delivering the ransom, your honor." As far as the trunk is concerned, she was wrapped in a blanket, remember, any fibers from her clothing wouldn't have been found there.

>All this would have been extremely risky for the Ramseys. They may have considered it briefly, but obviously decided against it.

Far more risky was allowing the police to find the body in the house. AND providing them with a ransom note printed in ones own hand! There'd have been very little risk involved in dumping the body, since that little trip could have been explained as ransom delivery.

>Re the suitcase: if it had been John's plan to use the suitcase to carry JB to the car, the child would already have been in the suitcase by the time Patsy found the note. But the forensic evidence shows that JonBenet's body never was in that suitcase.

No need to put her in a suitcase. She woudn't have fit anyhow. She was already wrapped in blankets, "like a papoose." Ready to go.

>Other flaws in DocG's theory: he plays down the fiber evidence pointing to Patsy, while at the same time stressing the fiber evidence which implicates John.

There is a huge difference between fibers that can easily be explained as innocent transfer via the victim and fibers found in the victim's crotch.

>In addition, DocG hinges his theory on something which is is only in his imagination: he simply alleges that Patsy 'spoiled' John's plan by calling the police. But John Ramsey himself told Lou Smit that it was HE who told Patsy to call the police. And Patsy never contradicted this either.

Why take the word of the two chief (and only) suspects in this case? John would have lied because otherwise he'd have looked too suspicious. Patsy probably lied to avoid calling John a liar.

>So according to DocG, John must have told Patsy: "I'm going to tell them that it was ME who told you to call the police."
By telling Patsy this he would have thrown suspicion on himself - a thing which he surely wanted to avoid if his goal was to frame Patsy. It makes no sense whatsoever.

First of all, John simply announced to the world, via CNN, that the call was his idea. Patsy was hardly in a position to contradict him publicly, that would have made both of them look suspicious. As for the rest, he (and possibly their lawyers as well) could have explained to her that it would be better for both of them if his being opposed to calling were NOT revealed. Their whole legal strategy has been a team effort, with each supporting the other to the max. If it got out that they'd disagreed about ANYTHING their credibility would be weakened. Besides, once she got word from the "experts" that John was ruled out, she would no longer have had any reason to suspect him.

>And come on, DocG: if John really wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, all he had to do was make sure that it was HE who 'found' the ransom note first. Why take such a risk and let it lie around?

Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning on this point. As I see it, the note was written for Patsy's eyes. It stands to reason he'd have wanted HER to be the one to find it. He was hoping the threats would convince her it would be a mistake to call the police. There's no way he could physically have prevented her from making the call, short of ripping out the phone lines.

I can't understand why you don't see my point.
For if the note was written for Patsy's eyes, all John needed to do was after he 'found' the note, show it to her and then tell her "OMG, look at this, Patsy!" Then he lets her read it and points out to her: "Look what it says here: they will behead JB if we call the police. You know how dangerous these terrorists are, Patsy. These guy are serious, believe me."
Child's play for someone like John who was a CEO used to take charge. Which is why Patsy would have taken his advice.
Believe me, a level-headed type like John would NOT have let that RN laying around if he wanted to make sure that NO one should call the police before JB's body was disposed of.

Re the fibers: so you think that Patsy's fibers in the murder ligature, in the paint tote and on the sticky side of the duct tape don't mean anything, but got transferred there innocently by secondhand transfer? Patsy had touched JB on the Whites' party, her fibers got on JB and John then picked them up and transferred them into these incriminating locations, right?
Well, but the same could be said of John's fibers, ever thought of that, docG?
Here goes: Patsy touched John's shirt at the Whites' party, his fibers stuck to her and were later transferred to the oversized underwear in which she was going to redress JB.
Imo both fiber trasfers were first-hand transfers. This is the most logical explanation. Never forget that little Occam's razor in your pocket when presenting a theory.

[shill]

rashomon putaspinon,
The only theory that will ever make sense to you, is your own.
And your arguements are always based on the belief that you're right, therefore everyone else is wrong.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by shill
rashomon putaspinon,
The only theory that will ever make sense to you, is your own.
And your arguements are always based on the belief that you're right, therefore everyone else is wrong.

Getting childish again, Shill? Are your buttons always pushed so easily just because you don't happen to agree with someone else's opinion?

[docg]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Will someone who knows much more than I do state what you think about watson's comments? (Sound reasonable to me.)

Her hands were bound. If she scratched at her neck while being strangled, then the binding is clearly staging. And it's very difficult to see this as anything other than an inside job.

I don't believe anyone in the Ramsey family had anything to do with JonBenet's murder.

Currently, I'm wondering if there is a connection between Michael Helgoth and John Mark Karr.

IMO

[watson]

[quote]Originally posted by rashomon
[b]

The poster on this board with the most exhaustive knowledge about the DNA and other forensic evidence in the JBR case is Nuisanceposter. I'm sure (s)he'll coment on it if (s)he reads it.

Watson: no 'fingernail' marks are mentioned at all on page 3 in the autopsy report.
And whatever Lou Smit says about those 'crescent' shapes being "the size of a child's fingernail", does this mean we have to believe him?
Could you please show me where Dr. Meyer speaks of 'crescent' shapes?

Nor have I ever red anywhere that JB's own DNA under her fingernail was from her skin debris.

I hope Nuisanceposter reads this and will set the record straight:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Rashomon

Nuisance does seem to have a good eye for detail and for what may somehow be possible but anyway............
The ME in this case NEVER uses the words fingernail marks, or cresent shaped. What the ME said about the marks is as I quoted in this thread.....purple to rust colored non patterned abrasions....above and below the ligature furrow on the front of the neck.....that's all he says about them (he'd described the other larger more prominent abrasions first)......Then there is a photo showing these many small marks or 'abrasions' on the front of her neck, above and below the string.
The ME like all ME's is a medical doctor who only describes things in medical-clinical terms. If a body had a huge knife slash across it, the ME would NOT call it a knife slash, he'd call it a 'laceration' and measure it like a good scientist. It's up to the detectives and people reading the report to say the obvious....that the 'laceration' was caused by and in fact is a knife slash.
Same in this case....there are all these little marks (or in ME speak, numerous non patterned abrasions) above and below the string only on the front of her neck. They are consistent with the size of the victims fingernails and are in the front of the neck around the string where you'd expect her to claw at during a strangling. If you look at the photo many of them are cresent shaped.
It's only logical to conclude that these 'numerous non patterened abrasions' were caused by the victims fingernails. Can we 'prove' this for sure? Of course not. I'm just saying it's the most likely inference to drawn from this evidence (as others including Lou Smit have). Are other inferences possible....you bet....but their going to be way less likely. Besides if her fingernails didn't make these marks (as seems logical) what did......how else can they be explained? Are we to believe that besides strangling her the killer took some sharp small instrument and carefully poked her many times only in the front of the neck, and only above and below the string during or after strangling her to make those little marks and mess with us?
I'm sure someone will post to say just such a thing is possible, but then 'anything' is possible..........but will it also be the most likely and fit in with the strangling that occured in this case?