Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 133 to 137 of 137
  1. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    But Patsy is always at the heart of the evidence, no matter how you interpret what happened: her refusal to speak with LE for four months, lawyering up and making deals for evidence results instead, yet agreeing to be interviewed by the media the day after the funeral; her clothing fibers tied into the garrote knots; her paintbrush; her handwriting on her pad with her pen; her linguistics; her plethora of lies to LE; her plethora of lies to the public; her history of personal style and character; her words to her friend about JonBenet being too friendly and flirting; her calls to Dr. Beuf; her astonishingly choosey memory about the habits and activities of her own murdered child; her repeated inability to pass a lie detector test without multiple tries with multiple self-sponsored polygraphers, even years after the murder; etc.
    KK, do you have a theory regarding the sequence of events?
    If JonBenet was sexually abused, who do you believe was her abuser?
    The item of evidence I find difficult to interpret is the Bloomies underwear.
    For if the paintbrush was jabbed into JonBenet' body to stage a sexual assault (the purpose being to cover up signs of chronic sexual abuse), then why did the stager of the scene wipe off the blood and (re)dress the body in underwear and longjohns?

  2. #134
    RiverRat's Avatar
    RiverRat is offline FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Left is Patsy Ramsey)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NoneYa Beessness
    Posts
    7,824

    Cool

    I think that you answered your own question there, Rashomon. The person that did the staging knew that the prior molestation would be revealed in the course of JonBenet's autopsy, they attempted to cover-up older evidence by creating fresh evidence. IMO - The wipe down was more intended for washing away any of the many types of evidence that would also be found if it wasn't cleaned up. The washing away JonBenet's blood that was present after the assault with the paintbrush - Hooray for Splinters though - what she bled after she was redressed came from a sterilzed wound. The choice of the longjohns and underwear that was not hers or her size is something that I wish we could have an answer for too...

    John and Patsy both stated that JonBenet was "zonked out" when they arrived home and never awoke when John carried her from the car to her bedroom, when she was undressed and then dressed again for bed. Which parent was it again that claimed to be able to pull off this amazing feat?

    Burke is the only one from the only 4 people in the home that stated that he saw his sister awake and walking into the home. What a Drream Come True that would be if JonBenet's Brother also becomes her Hero...
    "Don't play dumb with me, RR! You're no good at it." The Punisher

    "Although no one is anticipating a prompt resolution to this long and much-detoured case, perhaps - just perhaps - might we see one of those moments “when a chance arrow of history scores a perfect bullseye on a deserving target”? Steve Thomas 2009

    "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with." Fleet White - Time Magazine

    "What happens is that evil comes in," Fleet says. "If you don't have truth, all you have are lies, then what comes in is evil. And evil just does its thing. In the Ramsey case, it just did its thing, and it's eaten up so many people."

  3. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    KK, do you have a theory regarding the sequence of events?
    If JonBenet was sexually abused, who do you believe was her abuser?
    The item of evidence I find difficult to interpret is the Bloomies underwear.
    For if the paintbrush was jabbed into JonBenet' body to stage a sexual assault (the purpose being to cover up signs of chronic sexual abuse), then why did the stager of the scene wipe off the blood and (re)dress the body in underwear and longjohns?
    Oh, I don't know, rashomon. Rat came up with some good points. I've had so many theories and sequences of events, I can't remember them.

    For now, I'll say there's no way to know how long or how often JB was sexually molested, without a confession or witness, because it may have begun as a slow process, as often is the case with children that young. If it was an adult doing it, then the experts say that the child is "groomed" for a period of time, as slowly the boundaries are crossed one at a time. Perhaps it never got to full penetration by a male, if it was a male.

    If it was another child, then it's hard to say how long that went on, either. Without JonBenet to speak to the facts of what happened, we will probably never know. I think that's exactly what the murder and cover up were about, essentially, even if it started with an angry head blow and wasn't truly premeditated. And I'm not sure of that, as well.

    What I do think is that she was penetrated enough times to destroy most of her hymen and erode the cervical rim somewhat. With what this was done--again, no way to know, but to speculate the usual ways.

    But Pam Archuleta said that Patsy was upset with JonBenet's behavior before her murder, accusing her of "flirting."

    You know, I need to look a few things up, dates, etc., and I have to run right now, but I'll come back and go through your questions, Rashomon, because you've asked some great questions, and they're worth a considered response.

    "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.

  4. #136

    Default

    Attachment 5239
    Quote Originally Posted by fr brown View Post
    I found a photo of the kind of Hi-Tec boots I think that Burke had: Columbus Hi-Tec boots. Note the compass on the laces. These boots are a size 4, about the size a sixth-grader might wear.
    Bumping because of a discussion on another forum.

    In an earlier post I mentioned that they started manufacturing the boot in 1991 for the 500th anniversary of the discovery of America.
    Attached Images Attached Images    

  5. #137

    Default

    Paula Woodward's book has a photo of what are purported to be Michael Helgoth's HI-TEC boots. In a side-by-side comparison Helgoth's HI-TEC logo looks quite similar to that of the Columbus boot I own. The imprint the Columbus boot produces is shown in the post above. It's reasonable to conclude that the Helgoth boot would produce something very like it.

    How similar would that be to the crime scene imprint? Not very, I think. The crime scene imprint is shown in the first post on this thread.

    I was interested to read what John Ramsey said about the crime scene imprint. When looking at the crime scene photo in '98 he said: I see high [HI], looks like high [HI] something you see in a square block with, I can't tell if it's raised or lettering."

    That square block (really a parallelogram) is well-defined and straight, particularly around the "H." It must reflect a structure like that on the boot and neither the Columbus nor the Helgoth boot have it. Neither one of them would produce that imprint, in my opinion.

    I agree with John Ramsey that logo characters in the crime scene photo look raised, which brings me to a related subject....Woodward's book republishes the photo of the crime scene imprint, but it's been flipped horizontally. Presumably this was done so her readers would see "HI-TEC" rather than its mirror image.

    But something else was done to the photo and because the cross bar on the "T" at the crime scene just looks like a blob of floor debris, it took me a few seconds to realize what that was: the photo is also flipped vertically so that "HI-TEC" is actually upside down on the page. (Draw a mental line through the middle of "HI-TEC" and you'll see that all the characters except the "T" have a horizontal axis of symmetry.)

    Why would you flip the photo vertically? It doesn't make it more readable. But what it does do is make the characters at the crime scene look depressed rather than raised, thus more like something that Helgoth's boot could produce.

    Personally, from looking at the debris surrounding the imprint, I think the logo characters in the imprint are raised, which would make them the product of incised letters on the boot sole. Could be wrong about that. The framing parallelogram is really the key.



Similar Threads

  1. What do you see in JBR crime scene photos?
    By INSIGHT in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: November 12, 2006, 3:50 pm, Sun Nov 12 15:50:34 UTC 2006
  2. Crime scene pics--again
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: August 5, 2006, 5:10 pm, Sat Aug 5 17:10:00 UTC 2006
  3. Crime scene photos - Steven Jones - GRAPHIC CONTENT
    By Moab in forum FIRE-In-The-HOLE
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 13, 2006, 9:06 am, Tue Jun 13 9:06:42 UTC 2006

Posting Permissions

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