Breaking it down

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    OK, here's where I am, which I've written about before and started again focusing on last weekend.

    I guess what I'm trying to get to is a reasonable answer, supported by the actual evidence, not wishful thinking, to these questions: Was the head blow first or last? Where did the each element of the crime occur?

    I think the evidence is clear that JonBenet was unconscious when she was molested. The paintbrush assault would be painful and she would be highly unlikely NOT to fight during that if she felt it. Yet there is no defensive bruising of any kind, like bruises or abrasions on her limbs, face, back or torso that indicates she was fighting or even squirming while being held down for something that would have been painful and frightening. It's reasonable to consider that the head blow might have already rendered her unconscious before the paintbrush was used to violate her by the simple, evidence supported fact that she did not fight her attacker at all.

    Next we have the garrote: I know the theory is debated whether it was tied on her after she was dead, but for the moment, let's just explore WHERE it was tied on her, as in, what location in the home.

    I think the evidence involving the garrote and the paintbrush found in the basement by the paint tray strongly suggests that JonBenet was brought to the paint tray, laid on her back, molested with the paintbrush taken from the paint tray, wiped down, pants pulled back up, paint brush then broken either before or after she was turned over onto her stomach, when the middle portion of the broken brush was tied onto the long end of the cord, as if it were a handle. (Some people believe the garrote cord and handle were simply staging and were not used to strangle JonBenet. Again, putting that aside as we've made those arguments and as I said, the only way I know to settle it for sure is to determine if the garrote bruising was post mortem.)

    Since jams says there was a urine spot found outside the cellar room door matched to JonBenet, and now it's also written into Judge Carnes' decision, as well, and since both these women use Smit as their evidence source, I think we can look at the evidence as likely supporting that as true: the paintbrush was broken by the paint supplies tray in the basement, near the urine location, and likely came from that same paint supplies tray; JonBenet had a green paint chip on her chin matching paint found in the tray in the same location, so she was laid down in that basement location, where she got that paint chip on her chin. Carnes wrote that there also was a carpet fiber on JonBenet's face, along with the paint chip; therefore, we can reasonably conclude that JonBenet was laid on her stomach in the basement by the tray at some point, picking up the carpet fiber and paint chip on her chin.

    Now think about this: if that is where a spot of urine from JonBenet was found outside the cellar room, then it's highly likely she voided THERE when she died, relaxing the muscle that controls urine flow. And that is likely the moment and place at which she died. Does anyone think this is reasonably supported by the evidence besides me?

    OK, I just had a thought while reading the above: why would the killer have to turn JonBenet over onto her stomach by the tray after she had been molested if the cord had already been tied at the back of her neck in her bedroom or somewhere else, before she was brought and laid down by the tray on her back, her pants pulled down, the paintbrush used to molest her, then wiped down, then her pants pulled back up? What would be the need to then lay her on her stomach if all that was left was to tie on the garrote paintbrush "handle"? If it wasn't pulled to strangle her from behind?

    Think about it: the cord end where the paintbrush handle was tied on was long enough so that the paintbrush handle could have been tied on without even turning JonBenet over, couldn't it? If she was already strangled, already dead before she was molested, why turn her over on her face/stomach to tie a handle onto the cord? If it wasn't going to be pulled with the "handle," if the cord wasn't tied onto her neck to pull to strangle her, why put her on her stomach?

    And she was on her stomach, I believe, there's no doubt about that: the urine stain on her pajama bottoms was on the front thigh/crotch area, if I'm remembering correctly, wasn't it? That would take her being on her stomach. Then there are the paint chip and carpet fiber, so that's three indicators that she was laid on her stomach IN THE BASEMENT BY THE TRAY. The neck knot of the garrote was also tied at the neck in the back, hair tightly entwined, so there is no question that it was tied on her SOMEWHERE while she was on her stomach. We'll get to where that was done in a minute. But for now, I'm wondering, why turn her over on her stomach in the basement by the tray if not to tie the garrote/noose with a knot at the back of her neck? Even if you argue it wasn't then PULLED to actually strangle her, still, the paintbrush "handle" could have been tied onto the end of the cord without turning JonBenet on her stomach. The cord was long enough to do that with her still on her back.

    So if you're following me and don't see a flaw in this logic, then it seems to me that she was turned over onto her stomach by the tray for AT LEAST one reason: to tie on the garrote at the neck knot. If that is true, then it's down to the argument about whether she was then strangled with the garrote or not. Which I'm sidestepping for now.

    So, what is the evidence the garrote/noose knot was tied on JonBenet in her own bed/upstairs/somewhere else? There is the Carnes decision/Ramsey DOI claim that the garrote cord fibers were found in JonBenet's bed. I"m going to STEAL the quote from Carnes [GUTTAH GOSSIP THEIVING LYING SCUMBALL THAT I AM] and then start from there. I hope others will jump in so I can guage if I'm way out in lalaland here. It's hard to see the forest when you're deep into the trees sometimes.

    OH! Wait! I think I have an idea: what if the garrote knot was tied onto JonBenet's neck, the noose knot, while she way lying IN HER OWN BED, but it wasn't used to strangle her there yet, because the killer wanted to take her to the basement and tie on the/a [paintbrush/whatever] handle after molesting her?

    Oh, this opens a whole can of worms, doesn't it? Let me get this other stuff to post and think about this.... Please feel free to jump in, the water is very cold.

    Also, I'm copying some of the posts from another thread in this one next so anyone who didn't read this stuff on the other thread won't have to go hunting if they want to see how I came to some of the conclusions I stated in this post. Those who already read the following posts, just skip.
     
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    If you read these on the other thread (about John finding the body at 11 am), then you might want to skip these reposts.

    Mostly, in my long posts I tried to lay out how I came to some conclusions about what happened in the basement, what evidence we know there is, to determine what is the most likely sequence of events in this murder.

    Then wombat made fun of me: :yes:

    Then tea brought up her theory, and I'd like to hear it if I've missed it, involving the cord fibers in the bed. I'm just getting to that part, as well.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JustChillun
    I do know this, KK, anyone who postulates as to when the head injury occurred based on the "amount of blood" needs to remember a few things.

    The body was cleaned up (remember how it smelled of a chemical cleaning agent?) externally, so no accurate measure of blood loss would be available from the outside of the baby.

    Internal bleeds come in a number of types and locations, all restricted to the space within the skull unless there is an open head wound which allows the blood to communicate to the outside world.

    Within the skull, there are areas both above and below the dura that could bleed. There are arteries and veins. There is slow, and there is fast. There are slow leaks, and there are mega size blowouts. There are coup and contracoup injuries. There is an awful lot for the RST to consider. If there is no communicating pathway for, say, a subdural bleed, then it will go on until the thing compresses the brain, raises the intracranial pressure, and maybe partially tamponades off as the brain case becomes so full that brain death occurs. Lots of variables for forum members to play with, although it's not rocket science, just brain surgery. That's why the Double "B" crowd is so overqualified to make the call on this one.


    Thank you so much, JustChillun. (I just realized I have spelled your hat wrong a number of times. So sorry.)

    I was trying to remember the different arguments made about the amount of blood in the skull, but off the top of my head, not being that educated in the medical aspects of this case, I realized I didn't have the time to look it up again.

    You said it very clearly: there are a number of variables that can be applied to different circumstances, and in this case, without knowing the full conclusions reached by the medical examiner, we have only various arguments and much speculation.

    But what we do not have is any definitive conclusion as to which came first or how much time lapsed between the head blow and the strangulation, or if they were simultaneous.

    So it is the other evidence that we must use to show us the truth: no defensive bruising on the entire of the rest of JonBenet's body means that she was not fighting her killer. I can only imagine only one way that is possible: she was unconscious at the time she was strangled.

    I come to that conclusion because the facts found at autopsy can only be explained this way.

    If she bled at all in her brain from her skull fracture/head injury, she was living when the fracture occurred, however much time passed before she died from strangulation. She might have been dying, but she was not yet dead. Her heart was pumping. Is this not correct?

    If she had vaginal injuries which bled when they were inflicted, she was alive when that occurred, no matter how much time elapsed before she died from strangulation. Her heart was pumping. Is this not correct?

    If the brusiing under the garrote occurred before death, then that means she was still alive when the garrote was applied. Does it not?

    Can anyone imagine a circumstance in which JonBenet could have been molested with a paintbrush, conscious, while being strangled, unable to breathe, when she would not have fought against her attacker?

    Is there any circumstance in which JonBenet could have been held down without any bruising occurring to her body, front or back, top or bottom, as she was having a paintbrush shoved up her, if she was conscious? Any way in which she would not have screamed, fought, kicked, bitten, hit, in some way defended herself from the pain of that? Would it have taken more than one person to hold her down on a soft surface, like her bed, to do this to her without her fighting back and thereby having bruises on her hands or legs, feet, arms, etc.? I'm talking about THE PAINTBRUSH being used on her, here. Could one person have forced her legs apart and done this damage while holding her down so hard she could not fight? If not on a soft surface, like her bed, but on a hard surface, like the carpet by the paint tray, wouldn't even two people holding her down have caused bruising as she still squirmed and fought to get away, IF she had been conscious?

    Since the paintbrush was broken at the paint tray in the basement, it's not a big leap to this sequence of events:

    1. The killer shoved the paintbrush up JonBenet before the killer broke it in two places and tied it onto the garrote as a handle; JonBenet was on her back when she was assaulted with the paintbrush, as her own blood smeared on the front of her thigh proves, because her pants had to be down for that to happen, and for her vaginal area to be wiped down afterwards, or at least this seems logical to me;

    2. The killer then broke the paintbrush and tied it onto the end of the garrote, which was either tied around her neck before or after the paintbrush attack; in any case, the cord had JonBenet's hair tied into the cord knot at the neck, and it had her hair tied into the cord knot attaching the broken paintbrush: so the paintbrush was broken after the molestation and tied on the cord end of the garrote AFTER the molestation, that seems clear;

    3. The shards from the breaking of the paintbrush were found by the paint tray in the cellar, so either the killer molested JonBenet with the paintbrush somewhere else in the home and then brought her to the cellar, laid her by the paint tray and broke the paintbrush, tying it to the cord end there, tangling her hair in the knot; or the killer molested her with the paintbrush somewhere else in the home, took the brush back to the tray in the cellar, broke it there, then returned to JonBenet somewhere else in the home and tied the broken paintbrush on the cord, already tied with a knot around her neck; or the killer brought JonBenet to the paint tray, laid her beside it, used the paintbrush on her after pulling her pants and panties down, then wiped her genital area down, pulled up her clothes, turned her onto her stomach, tied the garrote onto her neck, at some point broke the paintbrush and tied that onto the garrote end, getting her hair in both knots; also, either a paint chip from the breaking of the paintbrush fell onto JonBenet's chin, sticking there, if the brush was broken while she was still on her back, or the paint chip was on the floor and she was rolled over or laid on her stomach and her face pressed against the chip lying on the floor, causing it to stick to her chin;

    3. The garrote was tied onto JonBenet from behind, as the hair at the back of her neck was still entangled into the neck knot when the coroner cut it off of her; she was on her stomach when this was done to her.

    Since looking at these facts reduces the possibilities of steps the killer took while using the paintbrush to a few possible sequences, this tells us a lot about what happened the night JonBenet was murdered:

    A. The paint tray was in the basement when LE arrived and began taking pictures at 6 am. Those pictures reveal the broken brush end of a paintbrush in the tray, the center section of which was later found tied into the garrote, ostensibly as a handle. Later evidence collection reveals that shards from the broken paintbrush are lying on the carpet next to the paint tray in the basement.

    B. JonBenet is found with the garrote tied onto her neck from a knot at the back, with her hair tied into the knot, and with a handle comprised of the paintbrush tied onto one end of the garrote cord, also with her hair tied into the knot, which we can see in the very pictures we have of that device, and which the medical examiner notes in the autopsy.

    C. JonBenet was molested with something that night; since a piece of ahheckwhatsithatword? was found in her vagina, and it was not inconsistent with being from the paintbrush, all we have ever heard speculated by LE is that it was from the paintbrush or from "powder" on a gloved finger; oh, bifringement? I doubt very seriously that LE does not know exactly what that was, but we will probably never know.

    Follow me here if I'm not clear yet: the paintbrush was in the tray in the basement, it was broken by the tray in the basement; JonBenet had a paint chip on her chin that matched the paint in the tray in the basement, so could have been on the floor by the tray or from the used paintbrush when it was broken that night; the paintbrush was probably used to molest JonBenet, and therefore it was done before it was broken into three pieces; the killer most likely would not have gone back and forth and back and forth to get the paintbrush, take it to JonBenet to molest her, then come back to the paint tray to break it, then back to JonBenet to tie into the garrote as a handle, so most likely she was brought to the paint tray for these steps.

    So logically, JonBenet was unconscious and/or not fighting for some reason, was brought down to the paint tray, laid on her back, pants pulled down, molested with the paintbrush, vaginal area wiped down, pants pulled back up, rolled over either before or after the paintbrush was then broken into three pieces, the cord tied onto JonBenet's neck either at this time or before, but the middle section of the paintbrush then was tied onto the garrote cord.

    This all seems to me to be fairly inarguable, within the possibilities I've listed here.

    What I see as arguable is when the head blow occurred, but as I see it the evidence is supportive of JonBenet being alive when she was molested and when the head blow occurred, due to bleeding.

    So the head blow could have been struck before she was brought to the basement. But it's not likely she was molested before she was brought to the basement, if the paintbrush was the instrument of her vaginal injuries that night, because the paintbrush most likely was in the basement paint tray, and was broken by the paint tray, and was used to molest JonBenet before it was broken.

    Since there were no defensive wounds, which would seem highly likely if she'd been concious when she was molested with the paintbrush, it's likely she was unconscious when she was molested. If she was molested by the paint tray, then she was either bludgeoned in the basement or before she was taken to the basement, so she was unconscious and did not fight.

    As to whether the garrote found on her was in fact the cause of her death, as opposed to staging that caused bruising post mortem when the body began to swell: the only way I know to settle that question is to know whether the bruising from that garrote was post mortem or also occurrred while she was alive. There is a difference, and a good or decent medical examainer should know. Do we know?
    __________________
    JOHN RAMSEY (LKL, March 2000): "Well, look, I don't remember totally what is true and isn't true, but this is pettiness."

    Ban me now. I was coerced. I'm not responsible. My lawyer says I am not competent to stand trial.

    koldkase
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to koldkase
    Find all posts by koldkase
    Add koldkase to Your Buddy List

    #39 February 27, 2006, 11:22 am, Mon Feb 27 11:22:08 CST 2006
    Elle_1
    Member Join Date: Jul 2003
    Location: Canada
    Posts: 2,447



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JustChillun
    I do know this, KK, anyone who postulates as to when the head injury occurred based on the "amount of blood" needs to remember a few things.
    The body was cleaned up (remember how it smelled of a chemical cleaning agent?) externally, so no accurate measure of blood loss would be available from the outside of the baby.
    Internal bleeds come in a number of types and locations, all restricted to the space within the skull unless there is an open head wound which allows the blood to communicate to the outside world.
    Within the skull, there are areas both above and below the dura that could bleed. There are arteries and veins. There is slow, and there is fast. There are slow leaks, and there are mega size blowouts. There are coup and contracoup injuries. There is an awful lot for the RST to consider. If there is no communicating pathway for, say, a subdural bleed, then it will go on until the thing compresses the brain, raises the intracranial pressure, and maybe partially tamponades off as the brain case becomes so full that brain death occurs. Lots of variables for forum members to play with, although it's not rocket science, just brain surgery. That's why the Double "B" crowd is so overqualified to make the call on this one.

    Thank you for this well explained post relating to the head injury, JustChillun. I know Texan once said she assisted in surgery, and her posts were very interesting. Is this your field too? Hope you don't mind me asking.
    __________________
    jmo elle &copy

    Elle_1
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to Elle_1
    Visit Elle_1's homepage!
    Find all posts by Elle_1
    Add Elle_1 to Your Buddy List

    #40 February 27, 2006, 1:37 pm, Mon Feb 27 13:37:01 CST 2006
    The Punisher
    Member Join Date: Apr 2005
    Posts: 211



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Is there any circumstance in which JonBenet could have been held down without any bruising occurring to her body, front or back, top or bottom, as she was having a paintbrush shoved up her, if she was conscious? Any way in which she would not have screamed, fought, kicked, bitten, hit, in some way defended herself from the pain of that? Would it have taken more than one person to hold her down on a soft surface, like her bed, to do this to her without her fighting back and thereby having bruises on her hands or legs, feet, arms, etc.? I'm talking about THE PAINTBRUSH being used on her, here. Could one person have forced her legs apart and done this damage while holding her down so hard she could not fight? If not on a soft surface, like her bed, but on a hard surface, like the carpet by the paint tray, wouldn't even two people holding her down have caused bruising as she still squirmed and fought to get away, IF she had been conscious?"

    You'd need more arms than the Hindu goddess Durga!

    The Punisher
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to The Punisher
    Find all posts by The Punisher
    Add The Punisher to Your Buddy List

    #41 Yesterday, Wed Mar 1 13:20:34 CST 2006
    koldkase
    FFJ Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
    Posts: 614



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by The Punisher
    "Is there any circumstance in which JonBenet could have been held down without any bruising occurring to her body, front or back, top or bottom, as she was having a paintbrush shoved up her, if she was conscious? Any way in which she would not have screamed, fought, kicked, bitten, hit, in some way defended herself from the pain of that? Would it have taken more than one person to hold her down on a soft surface, like her bed, to do this to her without her fighting back and thereby having bruises on her hands or legs, feet, arms, etc.? I'm talking about THE PAINTBRUSH being used on her, here. Could one person have forced her legs apart and done this damage while holding her down so hard she could not fight? If not on a soft surface, like her bed, but on a hard surface, like the carpet by the paint tray, wouldn't even two people holding her down have caused bruising as she still squirmed and fought to get away, IF she had been conscious?"

    You'd need more arms than the Hindu goddess Durga!


    Yeah, that's what I think, as well, JC.

    I was really busy the last two days, so I'm just getting back to this unfinished business. I'll clean up my post and then I want to start a new thread, to break this all down, because I saw at the swamp where someone quoted Judge Carnes' written decision and included the part where, once again, the RST claims that fibers from the cord were found in JonBenet's bed. The Rams put this in the first edition of the paperback of DOI, but then I couldn't find it when I looked last year in new printings of the book, since I didn't buy the original paperback with that added information. But I did read it, standing in the grocery store, and we discussed in on the forums.

    So it struck me as odd that they had it removed from later printings.

    I began to wonder if they'd either made it all up, or found out it wasn't true after all, or realized it wasn't to their advantage, so removed it later.

    At any rate, there it is, in Judge Carnes's decision. So I'd like to take that and what I think happened in the basement and lay out the sequence of events we can follow from that evidence.
    __________________
    JOHN RAMSEY (LKL, March 2000): "Well, look, I don't remember totally what is true and isn't true, but this is pettiness."

    Ban me now. I was coerced. I'm not responsible. My lawyer says I am not competent to stand trial.

    koldkase
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to koldkase
    Find all posts by koldkase
    Add koldkase to Your Buddy List

    #42 Yesterday, Wed Mar 1 15:06:39 CST 2006
    wombat
    Member Join Date: Jan 2005
    Posts: 143



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by koldkase


    So I'd like to take that and what I think happened in the basement and lay out the sequence of events we can follow from that evidence.


    We are waiting breathlessly, KoldKase. More anticipation than American Idol!

    wombat
    View Public Profile
    Send a private message to wombat
    Find all posts by wombat
    Add wombat to Your Buddy List

    #43 Yesterday, Wed Mar 1 23:58:47 CST 2006
    icedtea4me
    Member Join Date: Feb 2005
    Posts: 232



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by koldkase
    I began to wonder if they'd either made it all up, or found out it wasn't true after all, or realized it wasn't to their advantage, so removed it later.

    If there were cord fibers found in her bed, then I'm still sticking to my scenario of them getting there by way of secondary transfer from the paring knife.

    -Tea
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2006
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    OK, I got this quote from ACR's site (God bless that woman, she's the GUTTAH GOSSIP LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNER, as well as the GUTTAH HALL OF FAME MEMBER #1).

    http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes01-10.htm


    OK, first, "SMF" means Statement of Material Fact, meaning that it is supported by evidence, I assume, that is either stipulated as fact by both sides, or that the judge has determined is a fact from evidence. Or something. "PSMF" means Plaintiff's Statement of Material Fact, meaning Darnay/Wolf stipulated this as fact. Or something.

    Anyhow, since the original sources for these "fibers on the bed" are not given clearly as evidence from here or there or wherever, but simply stipulated, I have no idea except to say that it's Smit again spilling his guts all over the case. (And they criticize Thomas....)

    But for our purposes, and since LE in neither Colorado nor Boulder is going to do one thing for this case ever again, I'm glad we have some sources. How much weight we can give to the Carnes' statements in her decision, knowing Smit was her ONLY source, I don't know. But it's all we have, so we can only speculate based on the possibility that it is true...and the possibility that it isn't.

    For now, I'm going to use the assumption that it is true, so we can follow it from that bed to the basement around JonBenet's neck. Maybe something will come to us that will make the truth of this fibers-in-the-bed more or less likely to be true. Like the kitchen paring knife Tea mentioned. It was found on the washer/dryer unit outside JonBenet's bedroom, I believe. Then there is Wecht's book which states that gum/materials from the duct tape was found on the Swiss Knife found on a counter near the cellar room the next day.

    Thinking...thinking....

    But first, I'm going to take a shower. Maybe I'll have a vision. If I don't, I'm going to get some sleep. Sometimes sleeping on it helps. Gives my brain some time to think without the noise of life interrupting.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    PS At the swamp, they have done a little "garroting" of their own, experimenting with the knots and noose of the garrote. How droll that they're declaring how EASY it is to make this!

    Oops. I think in their excitement they forgot the intruder had to be a pro with those difficult knots and the complex garrote. Look out, jams isn't going to like this.... :pcguru:
     
  4. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    the fibers in the bed

    The thing about the rope fibers in the bed is a little weird. IF there were an intruder, I don't think they would have taken the time to tie her up in her bedroom where someone could walk in on them. I would think the RST would prefer to think all of that was done out of sight downstairs. And then the pineapple issue comes in - did they tie the rope around her neck upstairs and then take her down to the kitchen for the pineapple? Also, if the sheets were washed I don't know if any rope fibers would be found in the bed and I think LE still think it possible the sheets were washed.

    I believe that if urine was found outside the "wine cellar" then that is where she died but why wouldn't an intruder go ahead and take any items needed into the wine cellar where there would be an illusion of greater safety for them? An intruder would have no need of hiding the body in the wine cellar if they did all the other stuff outside of the wine cellar.

    Maybe the perp turned her over to tie the rope in the back because they didn't want to see her face while they were working. And/or that is the way they thought it would be done by some "foreign faction".
     
  5. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    I have been reading some of this. An appropriate quote comes to
    mind:

    “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open
    one's mouth and remove all doubt.†(Samuel Johnson)

    BTW, I’m preparing a post entitled, PHYSICS NEVER LIE. I could
    say that it will be something for them to chew on, but what I
    really expect is complete evasion.
     
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, I didn't have a vision in the shower, boohoo. But I was thinking along the same lines you are, Texan. I don't think the fibers in the bed bode well for Team Ramsey. I jotted down some questions that came to me:

    1. Why would kidnappers/an intruder go to JonBenet's bedroom, bash her head in/stun gun her/whatever, then pause to tie the cord on her neck in her bed? Especially since we all know that any stun gunning done on humans tends to produce screams and lots of flailing around. Not that I think there WAS any stun gun used, but just to cover the arguments....

    2. Why then take JonBenet to the basement to find/get the paintbrush to tie into the garrote? A grown man could easily have strangled JonBenet with his hands, or with the cord without the "handle," or even have quietly smothered her with her pillow. Doesn't sound like "kidnapping" was even on this perp's agenda, does it? Even if he didn't strangle her then...and since she urinated outside the cellar door, I think it's a good bet she wasn't strangled to death in her bed...why not take her out one of the "unlocked" and unsecured doors on his way out, instead of to the basement? Why was this "intruder" focused on getting her to the basement? None of this adds up, does it, if you try to plug an intruder into the equation. The only way the RST can get around it is to make it a nonsensical set of thoughts that only the INTRUDER knows the "why" of.


    You're right, Texan, did JonBenet eat pineapple with a cord around her neck? Hey, fun little game with Santa/the child sex ring/vendictive psycho, and let's have some pineapple and play for an hour, too! Nevermind that in a normal family, there are any number of reasons a member might get up in the night and get water, go to the bathroom, check on the kids, have insomnia, watch tv, hear something and check out the house.... No worries for this intruder. Take your time.


    Again, the questions are many, aren't they, if you consider that for some reason, this child killer bashed the child in the head in her bedroom/upstairs, then tied the cord on her, laying her down in her bed on her stomach or turning her over to do so. Then, instead of using his own hand or something from the room, if that's what he "needed" to do to molest her, or strangling her quickly and getting the heck out of dodge in case her family happens to wake and walk up on him while he's so preoccupied with murdering a child in her own bed, he says to himself, oh, I think I need something MORE for this killing. Instead of using a toothbrush for a handle, or hair brush, or pencil, as you said, or one of many other items he surely could find in the area where JonBenet's room was, he decides to then take her unconscious, dying body downstairs to the basement to finish the deed with a paintbrush.

    I do think tying the cord at the back of the neck could have been because looking in a child's face whom you are about to kill (or that you just killed, if that's your theory) was too much. But you've made me think of something else. If the killer intended to use the "handle" to tighten the cord around her neck, obviously some pressure had to be applied to her body to hold it down during this. I am wondering if the bruising on the upper back, right side, I think, is where a foot was used to hold her down during this. Just a thought, since we've never seen the pics of that bruising, but it is described in the autopsy. I am thinking the killer might have realized in addition to strangling and molesting her in the basement, standing over her, pushing down with a foot while strangling her from the front while looking at her face might have been too much.

    You know, I just had a very creepy thought. It really doesn't fit in with any "accident" scenario, but it came to me, so I'm going to put it out here. You remember the pillow at the foot of JonBenet's bed? That has always bothered me. Why would that pillow be at the foot of the bed? I've never focused on it much because I often move the pillow from the bed for my grandson because he always scoots down and lies flat on his own. But it just occurred to me that pillow might have been used to cushion the blow to the head. That would explain why the head blow, violent as it was, didn't break the scalp. Well, working the Dr. Werner head-blow testing has been moving up my list, so maybe I'll get to that now. I'm wondering what kind of position JB would have been in during the head blow, based on the location of the displaced skull bone, etc. I'll have to look up Dr. Werner's picture online again of him showing the position of the blow.
     
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Unfortunately, I'm usually the fool with her mouth open, so I know the quote well. :blush:


    I look forward to your psychics post. This ought to be a hoot.

    My own lack of shower visions notwithstanding....
     
  8. wombat

    wombat Member

    Wow, this should be WAY better than American Idol!! I'll get my calculator ready.

    F=ma!

    KoldKase, I wasn't making fun of you. Well, maybe a little. I just enjoy how worked up you get about how the case was handled, and how you think that no LE agency will ever work on it again. Righteous indignation.

    Thanks for bringing my attention to the ruling in the Wolf case. It's the first time I've read that fibers from a paper bag were found on her body and in her bed. To me that seems like someone knew that cord or tape was in that bag and shook it out over the bed. Also it's the first time that I've read that JonBenet's blood was on the Barbie nightgown. I have to think about this. I imagine it was transferred blood rather than a direct bleed, although it doesn't say.
     
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Uh, yeah, go ahead, make fun of me. And while you're at it, point out that I read backwards! Because EW said he was going to write a thread on PHYSICS! Uh...guess I had psychics on the brain...disappointed in my lack of a shower vision and all....

    But not to worry. I can sing, too! :flash:

    Yeah, you have to take some things in the Carnes' decision with a grain of salt, since she only had what Smit brought in under Wood's defense. Darnay just stipulated everything, not wanting to waste his time actually putting on a full case, thinking he was going to nail the Rams with the ransom note analysis, never considering that his main expert might desert him in mid deposition and the judge wouldn't accept the other not-so-expert experts he brought in. Ah well...I think we did get a few more case details/evidence we didn't have before, so I guess it's all good.

    Yeah, I'm down in the dumps about this case every being tried. Color me blue.

    You know, now that you've brought it up, I wonder if that blood on the gown was the second source of DNA "found" a couple of years ago that the DA had processed? I've seen that mentioned before, but nobody ever just tells it like it is who actually knows. They just like to hint and dodge, because it works better for the Rams that way. The DA ain't talking, nor LE, because it just makes them look bad all over again, and it's their unsolved case, so they can't go giving away evidence...unless Smit asks for it, anyway....
     
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    OK, here is an excellent quote I found on an excellent thread right here at FFJ, from last March/April, 2005. (I was remodeling and missed all this! Argh!)

    Sylvia posted this quote from Dr. Lee's book, and I think it nails the issue of the head blow coming first:

    Now I just have to find the picture of Dr. Spitz wielding the Maglite, and want to find it on the website where it was originally displayed.

    Well, the original article is gone, but FFJ has preserved the picture, so here it is...I hope:

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1407&stc=1
     
  11. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member

    bruises

    I think the (I believe I read there were 4) bruises near her deltoid pectoral area are from fingers. I think someone was holding her by her shoulder.
     
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    You may be right. I tend to think that myself. I have considered even a knee might have been used. I guess I'd like to see the picture of these bruises and then might have a better idea. I'm not that good at visualizing things from descriptions, I'm afraid.

    I know it's arguable whether the maglite was the instrument of the skull damage, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it was:

    Looking at the picture of Spitz using the flashlight on the "head," I notice the head blow seems to have come from above, either with her lying in bed, or sitting up, or standing. If she was lying in the bed asleep, then there was a wall behind the head of the bed. She would have to have been lying on her left side, her right side up, and whoever swung that maglite would have to have been standing near the wall to swing it down and hit her right side from the angle Spitz is using.

    I'm not getting anywhere imagining how that happened, though. For some reason it seems to me that Burke might be more likely to strike out at his irritating sister while holding the maglite, causing the initial "accident."

    Because other than that, I don't know if I can imagine an adult hitting a child in the head with a maglite being an accident. Not with that much force.

    Now I'm trying to find the autopsy picture of the skull. It's all on my old computer, but not my whiggie diggie new one yet!

    Ok, here is one site I found with the skull picture. It's a gruesome site, but it also has two other autopsy pictures of "strangulations" to compare to JonBenet's autopsy pictures. DO NOT GO HERE IF YOU ARE QUEASY. Makes my skin crawl.

    http://zyberzoom.com/ComparisonPhotos.html

    I'm now trying to find some kind of speculative connection from the bed with the cord fibers and how this all started: the head blow.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2006
  13. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    Mighty fine stuff you have here mate! Proud of you!
     
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    OH, I don't know matey, it might not be a good thing to encourage me. That other FFJ thread I found has some sharp posts on this case. Made me think maybe I"m just making myself look foolish. Maybe EW was trying to tell me something. :help:

    Anyhow...if nobody is going to discourage me further.... (That's the thing about stupid people. We don't KNOW we're stupid....) :apuddle:

    OK, I'm still trying to figure how JB was standing/sitting/lying when she was hit in the head.

    See, if we could figure out if she was standing, for example, the angle of the strike on the skull might tell us how tall the person was who struck her.

    If she was seated, that would change things.

    If she was lying in her bed, we might consider how she was struck at such an angle when it looks to me like it must have come from her right side, yet at an angle that was coming from "above" her head, as opposed to a sideways swing. How did that happen with a wall a couple of feet above her head?

    From the Spitz picture, it appears more likely to me that JonBenet was sitting or standing, so therefore was awake when she was struck.

    Does that make any sense? Anyone else got this figured out? Any other threads y'all can point me to where that has been hashed out?

    I don't think she saw it coming. From above her head, towards her right rear, I don't know if she'd have even seen it in her peripheral vision, even if she was awake and upright. But let's leave that aside for the moment because I haven't seen any solid evidence to indicate to me exactly when the head blow came: in her bedroom, bathroom, downstairs, in the basement? I think the cord fibers in the bed might be the clue to that answer.

    So I'm trying to work from cord fibers in the bed. Did the head blow come before or after the cord was cut over the bed? Was the garrote knot tied at the neck while she was still in the bed?

    I guess what I'm trying to think through is what happened between two known points indicated by the evidence, if what we have been told is true:

    1. The cord fibers in JonBenet's bed resulted from the cord being cut over/in the bed, and the cord was later found on her neck, so it's reasonable to follow the cord from the bed to the basement. Therefore, the cord had to be in the bedroom the night of the murder; it didn't get pulled out by some intruder in the basement where he could take his time with some perverted fantasy. So the use of the cord started in the bedroom. It's reasonable to assume JonBenet was also in the bed when this cord was cut there, because it makes no sense to cut a cord over an empty bed if the child it was later found tied on wasn't also in the bed. If she was in the floor, why not cut the cord in the floor? If she was in the bathroom, why not cut the cord in the bathroom? In the laundry area? Same thing. So the evidence leads us to the killer cutting the cord in/over her bed, where she in all probability was herself, before she was taken to the basement.

    2. The molestation with the paintbrush, taken from the paint tray in the basement, was done when JonBenet was already unconscious, because she did not fight her killer/molester. She was laid by the paint tray for this to be done, as the broken shards from the same paintbrush found beside the paint tray prove; additionally, the paint chip on her chin matching paint in the paint tray, along with a carpet fiber, indicate she was turned onto her stomach in this same spot, probably when the paintbrush was broken and tied onto the long end of the garrote, either to tie on the garrote cord if it hadn't been tied on in the bed, and/or to tie the now broken brush "handle" onto the garrote cord, and/or to pull it from behind to end her life. She died in approximately that position in the basement, outside the cellar door, where she voided on the carpet.

    So what happened between the cord being cut in the bed and the molestation by the tray in the cellar?

    Just a few general things that have to be accounted for somewhere in the sequence of events that night: the head blow; the pineapple; the duct tape and wrist ties; the wipe down; the blanket and gown and the cellar room; of course, the ransom note. Lots of things can be woven in or out of these major elements of the crime, but these have to be accounted for, I think, in laying out what happened. The details, like the fibers, the bloody saliva, the two knives, etc., are what I'm hoping will direct us.

    I can see why Thomas believes the series of events centered around JonBenet's bed, even if he's thinking bedwetting.

    I'm out of ideas. All I can think to do is take one scenario and work it through, even if it's wrong, and see if that reveals why or where it's wrong.

    OK, somehow, she's hit from above, rear right, and the head bash cracks her skull. She's unconscious, either in her bed, or then laid in her bed. That would be logical because the cord fibers place the killer cutting the cord in/over her bed. If she'd been in another part of the house, why not lay her on a couch? Or the floor? I mean, if you're going to strangle the child to death, and she's unconscious and dying, what would be the point of carrying her back to her bed? Habit? It's her room? For privacy? Any of those would work for family, but not for an intruder, I don't think.

    So again, if it's an intruder and he bashed her head in, that must have happened in her room, unless you think he took her downstairs and then came back up with her, which makes no sense when the family is in the quiet house asleep. So she's unconscious in the bed and he takes the time to now begin a garrote fantasy in her room? Then changes his mind and takes her to the basement to look for stuff to use for this fantasy? But he could have found the same stuff in her room or that area. He had the cord and duct tape, with the intruder theory. Lots of things could be used for a handle. But he stops and takes her to the basement. Doesn't kidnap her. Doesn't get the heck out of Dodge. Takes her to the basement where he then lays her by the paint tray.

    He didn't duct tape her mouth until after the head blow and probably not until she was dead, laid out in the cellar room, because the saliva that drooled down her face from her injuries and onto her upper shirt sleeve was blood tinged, not to mention her arms were raised in the cellar room, which accounts for the bloody saliva dripping onto the upper sleeve.

    She had no bruises from the wrist ties, which wouldn't have worked in any real capacity as restraints or bindings. But those could have been tied on in the bed. Maybe that's what the cord was cut for in the bed. She could have been conscious, told it was a game. But she'd have to know her killer, then, wouldn't she, not to be frightened of a stranger in her home in the middle of the night, tying her up, even for a game? And this intruder wasn't afraid she'd scream at some point and wake the family? So he stunned her? Guaranteeing she'd scream? hahaha I cannot follow any intruder theory here. If you push metal teeth into a child so hard that the crackling sound of a stun gun isn't loud and she's not screaming, again, BRUISING! Not neat little spots, either, because it would bruise the skin as she jumped and squirmed around to get away from that intense shocking. It will NOT fly. And no way could any intruder KNOW she wouldn't scream bloody murder. Of course he'd duct tape her mouth FIRST, but that didn't happen, did it? So he would have to have bashed her in the head first. But then, WHY STUN GUN HER? Oh, for fun? Make all that racket. No reaction from a dying child. No need to control her with it. No stun gun.

    Ok, I'm tired. I'm not able to make sense of an intruder. Next, I'll try to follow a family member from the fibers in the bed to the paint tray in the basement. Please feel free to jump in. If you have gotten this far, please let me know where the holes are in this, what I'm forgetting or mixing up.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2006
  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    OK, the swampsters seem to have completely forgotten the cord fibers in JonBenet's bed. Not to mention that she was molested with a paintbrush that night. Does this mean neither happened?

    Or does it mean, after all is said and done, those cord fibers in the bed are another problem for the Rams?

    I found myself wondering last night, if the killer was cutting the cord over JonBenet in her bed, why did he/she stop and then take her to the basement?

    The obvious answer is in case someone woke up and came to JonBenet's room. But wouldn't the killer have thought of that before he/she started cutting the cord in the first place? Did he/she hear something and get spooked?

    Another reason might be the killer decided he/she needed a handle for the garrote. But that could have been made from any number of things found in the immediate area of JonBenet's room. Remember the open drawers in JAR's bathroom? Maybe looking for items to make the garrote is why the bag of rope was lying out in the floor of that room as well. The diapers hanging out of the cabinet, yielding one swiss knife hidden from Burke by LHP. A paring knife on the washing machine lid.

    But this implies an element of the crime: it wasn't carefully planned by the killer. If some intruder came in thinking about making a sexual torture device to use on JonBenet, he sure wasn't too prepared, was he? He had to use things from the home, and he started in her bedroom, and he then moved to the basement in mid-garrote. This is not careful planning.

    Another question that came to me, an old one, really, but in new light: if the killer was a Ramsey, which idea came first? Going to the basement to stage a garroting and sexual attack? Or going to the basement to hide the body in the cellar room?

    Finally, I found myself asking this: why conceal the body, if you're an intruder? I mean, she's in the basement. She's by the paint tray. She's assaulted with the paintbrush, strangled and head bashed in. What more does this killer need from this horribly murdered child?

    To lay her out in the cellar room, with wrist ties and her mouth duct-taped AFTER she was ever capable of crying out again? On a blanket wrapped around her, papoose-style? Just what does this do for the killer?

    What does this gain for an intruder? He's had all night. He's not taking her body. He's so confident he will never be related to the murder, he even leaves a nice long handwritten ransom note. So he takes the extra time to lay her out in the cellar room, all tucked in?

    You know, how John Douglas doesn't identify the exact elements he wrote about himself many times of "caring" for the body here, I will never know. It's shocking how John Douglas can be so easily led into total denial of what he himself has taught and written about for decades. Shocking. I will never understand his entire history with this case. It's baffling. So baffling that I'm thinking he must have had some favors called in. Either that, or he simply sold out and has no qualms about it. They all work for the highest bidder, it seems. There is no way he doesn't know he changed his own story with a 180.
     
  16. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Can anyone remember if Thomas said JonBenet's black pants she wore to the Whites' that night were found?

    I can't remember, and I can't find any reference to whether those pants were taken by the evidence collectors. It seems important. I haven't checked the warrant list of items taken. I'll try that if no one remembers. Or responds.

    Hello?

    You know, I don't mind talking to myself as long as I'm not just irritating the rest of the members. I just keep going, thinking someone may be reading, like it matters anyhow...I guess. Well, it helps me think. But if I'm indulging myself to the detriment of the forum, I can take a gentle hint.... :pirate:
     
  17. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    Hello. :)
     
  18. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    G'day Mate...Of course we are reading. I don't remember anything that might have been said about finding the pants JBR wore to the Whites. I guess I am assuming they were in the bedroom...didn't John say he took them and her shoes off (and we thought that was strange at the time?) Or did John take her coat and shoes off and Patsy did the rest? If I stumble across DOLie today, I will see if I can look it up!
     
  19. Cranberry

    Cranberry Member

    Hi Koldcase - please continue - your posts are awesome and really gets me thinking about all the different theories. I have alot to learn and you answer alot of questions for many of us out here. In the interviews John said he took off JonBenet's coat and shoes but her coat was in the Jag and she had on boots. And I think it was in the Patsy interview that she said she took off her black pants and LE asked if JBR had on underwear and Patsy said she thought she did because she would have noticed if she didn't have underwear on. I didn't know about the cord and sack fibers? on the bed but IMO might it be from the McGuckins bag with stuff bought that made it's way into her room? What else was bought I wonder? Thank you everyone for your posts.
     
  20. JustChillun

    JustChillun Member

    The elliptical shape of the depressed portion of the skull fracture would be consistent with something tubular and heavy (such as a maglite handle) having been used. The severe crack along the skull leads me to believe that she was not on something soft (such as a pillow) that would absorb some of the blunt force of the trauma.

    As for the bleeding, I would expect it to be before death, as postmortem blood pressure tends to be around zero.

    The urine could have been voided during a bout of seizure activity (due to brain injury) or some level of loss of control of the lower portion of the body from the same.

    The whole scenario is sickening. Such a circus has been played out in the lives of those who should be the primary suspects. After seeing the level of injury, how could it still be so "all about them"?
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice