Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 178
  1. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    When I read this sentence, it suddenly hit me why there are marks on JonBenet's back and face from the ends of the train track.

    Burke had heard the crack of JonBenet's skull and saw her fall to the floor after he hit her. Realizing JonBenet's injury was serious, Burke may have yelled at her to get up and tried to rouse her, but she just laid there as if dead. Burke thought if he poked JonBenet with something sharp, she'd react or wake up. He got a train track from the basement floor, and poked, then pushed it into her back and then the lower right side of her face. No reaction. Nothing.

    Panicked, Burke decides JonBenet is dead, and runs upstairs.
    This is what I think happened with the marks too. But something else to think about, Kolar said in his book there were also parts of train tracks scattered on Burkes bedroom floor. So that brings me back to where did this originally happen? I still tend to think it originated in the basement and JB caught Burke getting into his birthday presents. Something else about the green garland or needles in her hair, I think that came from the basement wine cellar floor. That is where she was layed and that is where all the Christmas trees were kept. There had to be tons of shed greenery on that floor. I don't believe the blood on JBs pillowcase is a factor in the crime, EXCEPT, that one curtain tieback that is draped over her headboard still bothers me. The other day I read an online article about a child who was killed by the perp bashing her head against the bedpost.
    As usual , I still have no idea what happened.

  2. #26

    Default Direction of JonBenet's head fracture

    I am pretty sure, after staring at the skull fracture for all these years, and prompted by Kolar's book, that JB was hit from behind. The skull bone is resistant to compression, like all our bones, so it only fractures clearly from blunt force-type impact. It's weak in tension and shear, which is why we break legs or arms when we twist or over-bend them.

    JonBenet's autopsy skull shows that horrible indentation we've all looked at for 15 years - it exhibits an inpact of some wide, but not too wide, elongated weapon. The crack that extends forward to her brow reflects the direction of the applied force, in that the crack spreads to dissipate the origninal force away from the point of impact. The autopsy photo shows her skull seprated slightly - which I don't believe is true to actuality - it was a hairline-size fracture that opened when the skull was posed.

    (sorry for being drily technical, professional engineer here)

    The idea that she was hit from behind fits into the idea that someone hit her in the basement, she fell on her face, and everything happened from there. I wonder about the re-dressed bloomies in that scenario - we presume they were put on her after the assault, and they had two blood stains, and the urine that Kolar states was released at her death. Was the bloomies package already conveniently in the basement?


  3. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    The last question is really the most important one, isn't it?

    WHERE did it happen? That would go a long way in piecing together the events of the night.
    I think it may have happened in her room or BR's room. I think that is where the molestation took place, and to me, that caused the scream that provoked the head bash. The blood on the pillowcase seems to indicate SOMETHING happened in there. We KNOW she bled, but it was only visible from her vagina. The head bash didn't bleed externally, but some tan-tinged mucus was noted, which could have been blood.

    What happened in the 90 minutes? Well assuming it WAS that long- it really isn't hard to imagine and for what it must have been like in the house at that time wasn't really a long time anyway. Frantic tears and rushing about, certainly PHONE CALLS. Coming up with a plan (fake kidnapping, ransom note) writing the lengthy note, staging her body, placing her in the wineceller, all this in a adrenaline blur. The human body in a high stress situation like that produced huge quantities of adrenaline and cortisol. Adrenaline can enable us to do things we'd never imagine, and it carries us along until whatever we are doing is finished. The effects can't be underestimated.

    How did she get by the paint tray? I believe she was carried down those stairs, as evidenced by the green fake garland in her hair, which I envision happening as she was carried down the spiral stairs which were wound with fake garland. I believe it was JR who carried her. I believe she was put down on the carpet near the paint tote, and left for a little while while they figured out what to do next. She likely appeared dead by then, though she was not. But I do not believe whoever wound that cord knew she was alive and I do not believe it was something BR could have done -alone, anyway. (Patsy had to provide the paintbrush- that is how her fibers got in the tote- and tied the cord. JR was with her. They both had input in the RN, but Patsy physically wrote it.
    After that, she was cleaned up, redressed and put in the WC, with Patsy either getting the panties from the gift box or telling JR where they were. JR puts the panties on her.
    Bottom line- I cannot see BR "helping" his parents stage that body or doing it alone. Parental fibers link them to the body. I think if BR was the one who bashed her, then he was the one who molested her. But his involvement did not include the staging. However- IF the blacked-out name IS BR, and there WERE fibers or other evidence linking him to the body, crime scene or WC, then I'd say JAR (or another male NOT JR) was involved with him in what happened and did most of the staging. But this is not my primary theory for the staging. I really do not think he was there for that.
    I certainly agree with you that BR was not involved in any staging. I think the staging and ransom note had a double purpose...to mislead police and BR.
    Which makes me think that BR did not tie the ligature because I believe, if he struck first blow, he could have gone to bed thinking he didn't kill her; if he tied the ligature, there would have been no reason to mislead him with the kidnapping, etc. In fact, now that I think about it, if I'm right about the ransom note's double purpose (and from the git go, I figured this was the case), then, BR most likely struck the blow on the first or second floor.

    Why? Because if BR struck first blow, and if the parents wanted to cover for him, then, they had to fool him too because it would have been too risky just to tell a nine year old: "You can't tell anyone you did this to your sister!"
    When he awakes the next morning, he hears that his sister is missing and he knows he didn't do that. When he finds she was found in the wine cellar, he knows he didn't do that. Now, I'm sure he wonders if there is a connection but what 9 year old would not take the bait and get himself off the hook?


    I still find it hard to believe that PR or JR could tighten that ligature around their still alive daughter. I've always believed they thought she was dead at the time it was tightened.

    But maybe, kk, they waited for an hour or so to see if she would regain consciousness and, at some point, the vital signs became so weak that they thought she was dead and then they tightened the ligature.

  4. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wombat View Post
    I am pretty sure, after staring at the skull fracture for all these years, and prompted by Kolar's book, that JB was hit from behind. The skull bone is resistant to compression, like all our bones, so it only fractures clearly from blunt force-type impact. It's weak in tension and shear, which is why we break legs or arms when we twist or over-bend them.

    JonBenet's autopsy skull shows that horrible indentation we've all looked at for 15 years - it exhibits an inpact of some wide, but not too wide, elongated weapon. The crack that extends forward to her brow reflects the direction of the applied force, in that the crack spreads to dissipate the origninal force away from the point of impact. The autopsy photo shows her skull seprated slightly - which I don't believe is true to actuality - it was a hairline-size fracture that opened when the skull was posed.

    (sorry for being drily technical, professional engineer here)

    The idea that she was hit from behind fits into the idea that someone hit her in the basement, she fell on her face, and everything happened from there. I wonder about the re-dressed bloomies in that scenario - we presume they were put on her after the assault, and they had two blood stains, and the urine that Kolar states was released at her death. Was the bloomies package already conveniently in the basement?

    Well, there's a laundry room in the basement so maybe that's where she picked up the lint and dust which was on her feet. Didn't I read somewhere that police quizzed Patsy about photos that were found in that basement laundry room?

  5. #29

    Default

    I just want to say thanks to all of you so much. You've given me so much to think about.

    Also, it's been a while since you joined us, wombat, and we've missed your engineer thinking and knowledge. Seriously. Many times I've clumsily tried to explain the force of that head injury or needed something clarified as you do so brilliantly and wished you were here. Welcome back!

    I'm trying to think about the things Kolar told us about evidence we haven't know about before, things that might give us some answers.

    Some of you have raised the questions already, like the train tracks in Burke's room and the Maglite on the kitchen counter.

    I still want to ask some questions of Kolar to clarify: the "too large" pj's in JB's room which Kolar says are thought to have belonged to Burke; the feces on the candy in JB's room; what was in those Schwarz packages opened in the cellar room?

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  6. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The "Beehive State" It's true. Look it up
    Posts
    5,176

    Default

    omg this is a great thread
    tgrif@xmission.com
    FFJ C/O Tricia Griffith
    6300 N Sage Wood Drive
    Suite H #214
    Park City UT
    84098




    I am unaware of anyone who's profited from exploiting the Ramsey murder over a longer period of time, with a greater disregard for the principles of accuracy and fairness, than the production team of Mills and Tracey.They truly do inhabit a different moral universe from real journalists. It's the difference between journalism and propaganda.
    Alan Prendergast,reporter for Westword

  7. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Learnin View Post
    Since reading Kolar's book, and since getting a different perspective on that head wound, I've been wondering if BR could have struck the blow and tied the ligature right there in front of that wine cellar door. His DNA, evidently, wasn't on the ligature so that's a negative against this scenario. In this scenario, the blow could have been struck and he thought she would eventually awaken. He might have returned upstairs and when she never came up, he went back down and found her gurling or twitching and couldn't stand it so he tied the ligature...just thinking out loud.

    The real negative for me, in this scenario, is that I don't see BR implicating himself further. A head blow, with no bleeding, could almost be explained but, once the ligature is tightened, the plot thickens. But, he could have tied the ligature and went up to bed hoping the parents would blame it on an intruder.
    Learnin, when you mentioned the DNA on the cord not belonging to Burke that jumped right out at me.

    We do have "touch" DNA in the wine cellar which did belong to Burke and Patsy, on the Barbie nightgown. I don't remember that the biological material of their DNA on the gown was named by Kolar, though.

    Patsy would have handled the laundry when doing laundry. But Burke wouldn't do laundry.

    But here's the important question I have which you triggered with your thoughts, learnin: if Burke were the one who put the cord on JB and broke the paintbrush, if he pulled that "handle" and tied those knots, wouldn't he have done that without gloves?

    I can't see Burke thinking, OH, I better use gloves or they'll find my DNA and fingerprints.

    So if Burke's DNA is NOT on the cord, paintbrush, or "handle," then I'm thinking he didn't tie that ligature or pull it.

    On the other hand, if his DNA was on those, anyone want to bet that we'll never hear about it?

    My goodness, this is maddening. I feel like Dr. Lecter had me for dinner--fried brains.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  8. #32

    Default

    Something else I've been wondering and I'll see if I can articulate it.
    The cord around Jonbenets neck was extremely tight. But the cord tied around her wrists was extremely loose. If it was all staging then why pull the cord around her neck that tight and then leave the wrist cords so loose? If for example, JR or PR put that cord around her neck thinking she was already dead then why so tight??... when the wrist bindings were so loose? Something is off about this and it doesn't make sense to me.

  9. #33

    Default

    A long time ago EasyWriter and I got into a kerfuffle with some others about the "garrotte" - the loop around her throat was static, the knot couldn't slide. If the perpetrator pulled on the cord, it would not tighten but rather come away from her nneck on one side, like when you walk your dog. I think the sloppiness of the garrotte and bindings just point to a clumsy amateur.

  10. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wombat View Post
    A long time ago EasyWriter and I got into a kerfuffle with some others about the "garrotte" - the loop around her throat was static, the knot couldn't slide. If the perpetrator pulled on the cord, it would not tighten but rather come away from her nneck on one side, like when you walk your dog. I think the sloppiness of the garrotte and bindings just point to a clumsy amateur.
    Kolar reiterates that it was a slip knot, and that it did tighten when pulled.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  11. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom View Post
    Kolar reiterates that it was a slip knot, and that it did tighten when pulled.
    Yes, Kolar has cleared up so many things regarding the evidence.

    There's one thing that I don't remember reading before, which he buries on page 369 in the bombshell chapter on sexual behavior problems:

    It had been stated repeatedly that there had been no prior recorded history / incidents of abuse that would have suggested parental involvement in JonBenet's death. As I pointed out in the case analysis report and Power Point outline completed in the fall of 2006, Burke Ramsey had already exhibited one prior incident of violence against JonBenet.

    The incident that involved a blow to the head with a golf club that took place in Michigan was claimed to be an "accident" by the Ramsey family, but it is interesting to note that this incident took place within a day or two of JonBenet's birthday in August 1994.
    What??!!!?? Did we know that before? Why do we have to wait until page 369 to hear about it? (I know, don't complain.)

    Kolar wrote this book very carefully to make sure he never said "Burke did it." Here he's also careful to not say - if he hit her once, he could have hit her again. Well, I'll say it.

    The next two paragraphs are about books the Paughs bought about problem child-rearing, including one called Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong. I've got a few opinions about that - I think there was so much ongoing trauma going on in the household, due to Patsy's cancer and its aftermath and the lack of any real therapy (apparently) to help the family deal with it. This was a woman walking around with a probable death sentence and everyone acted as if everything was JUST GREAT. Their whole lives were staging.

  12. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Learnin, when you mentioned the DNA on the cord not belonging to Burke that jumped right out at me.

    We do have "touch" DNA in the wine cellar which did belong to Burke and Patsy, on the Barbie nightgown. I don't remember that the biological material of their DNA on the gown was named by Kolar, though.

    Patsy would have handled the laundry when doing laundry. But Burke wouldn't do laundry.

    But here's the important question I have which you triggered with your thoughts, learnin: if Burke were the one who put the cord on JB and broke the paintbrush, if he pulled that "handle" and tied those knots, wouldn't he have done that without gloves?

    I can't see Burke thinking, OH, I better use gloves or they'll find my DNA and fingerprints.

    So if Burke's DNA is NOT on the cord, paintbrush, or "handle," then I'm thinking he didn't tie that ligature or pull it.

    On the other hand, if his DNA was on those, anyone want to bet that we'll never hear about it?

    My goodness, this is maddening. I feel like Dr. Lecter had me for dinner--fried brains.
    I agree. If BR tied the ligature, he did so without gloves. We now know the ligature was tested for DNA thanks to Kolar's book (we all figured as much, no?).
    So, I have to believe if BR tied the ligature, his DNA should have been on that cord because who ever tied it, and pulled it, had to leave some DNA on there unless they were wearing gloves. I'm thinking it's better, since Patsy's fibers were all over the place, to stick with her being there when the ligature was tightened.

    I wonder if Kolar's theory includes Burke tightening the ligature? If so, how does he explain his DNA not being on the cord? Is it possible he's not letting us know it was? I doubt it but, if his theory does include BR as the perp, then, he might not want to let that info out..just thinking....



Similar Threads

  1. Critical thinking TIME
    By BobC in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: August 17, 2006, 5:22 pm, Thu Aug 17 17:22:43 UTC 2006
  2. I'm new and got a few questions
    By SSIEGMUND in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 5, 2004, 6:06 pm, Fri Nov 5 18:06:33 UTC 2004
  3. Two Questions
    By Moab in forum Miriam Zambie Illes Case Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 21, 2004, 11:52 pm, Sat Feb 21 23:52:36 UTC 2004

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •