John Ramsey found JonBenet at 11 in the morning?

I'll bet John Ramsey was hypnotized by Fleet White while they were in the basement and that is why John told Stewart he found JonBenet at 11 in the morning. Yes indeedy.

-Tea

 

And all this happened while the easter bunny and the tooth fairy looked on, amazed that no one would believe the half of what was told them by the parents who were present.

 

Lurker

Lurker, you asked:
â€Did anyone see the Chris Cuomo interview with Joran Vander Sloot last night?

Yes, I saw it, and his stoic demeanor and carefully controlled arrogance was mesmerizing. How did this privileged young man evolve into such a monster? He seemed oblivious to the heartache he has caused so many people. Does he really think that his appearance on national TV in the USA would exonerate him in the public eye? What a fool!
I wonder if the Rams saw it. I bet Woody took notes, and Lou probably bonded with him.

:leaf:
GL

 

I saw the little puke too. He didn't poke her because he didn't have a condom. :lier:

 

I don't think John Ramsey wanted to be the one who found JonBenét's body, Lurker, but as time was passing, not a single person in that house unlatched that wooden bar at the top of the windowless room, other than Fleet White, earlier that morning, and he reported he had seen nothing at that time (?). John Ramsey knew he had to do something to move from A to B, and he jumped at the chance when Linda Arndt asked him to go through the house. He sure made a beeline for the bottom of the house, not the top.

 

Has Stewart Long disputed the account Thomas has in his book?

-Tea

 

I'm sure Stewart Long would go along with any excuse the Ramseys had for that little discrepancy: he "misheard/misunderstood" John; John misspoke; LE made it up; whatever.

I think it bears repeating that Linda Arndt said JonBenet's body was already starting to smell.

If John checked her out in the basement that morning sometime around 11 am, he knew time was running out for getting the body out of the home before it turned into a real mess.

Even if he didn't check her out that morning at 11, if he knew she was down there, he HAD to be thinking, LE has entirely MISSED the body, they're NOT LOOKING, awaiting a phone call from kidnappers! The big kids are going to be here soon. How long before "somebody" finds that body?!

Panic. What if the big kids find her? Trauma, at least. What if nobody finds her until she smells so bad she attracts attention FROM THE BASEMENT? Oh, that would be ugly. And what if he and Patsy had to sit in that house until one of the above? I imagine the stress was unbearable. What if Patsy lost it under the pressure?

Maybe THIS is why John "disappeared" into the basesment to "think" that morning. Maybe he was checking on her. Looking to see how much longer they had before "somebody" had to find her, before her little body started real decomposition.

And maybe this was why he didn't "find" her yet. Rigor had started, but no significant smell yet. Still had a little time for "someone else" to find her. For all that staging to be found by someone else.

By 1 pm, after hours of only Arndt there, nobody looking for JonBenet, it must have seemed like the ransom note worked TOO well. Whatever prompted Arndt to tell John to look for "evidence," I'll never know, but it was the stupidest thing I've ever heard of a cop doing. After that, with the Rams lawyered up, with half a dozen random people running all over the house like tourists, it was over.

Make no mistake about it: whoever put JonBenet in that basement room EXPECTED LE to find her immediately. Who wouldn't? A missing child in a big house, of course they would search every room. The killer's big mistake was latching the cellar room door at the top. The cop saw that and made little effort to open the "stuck" door, because a kidnapper could NOT go into the room and then latch the door from the outside. Obviously, the cop thought that this was a kidnapping.

And since Fleet actually opened the door and didn't see the body because he couldn't find the oddly placed light switch in the pitch black room, there was no reason for anyone to look there again. He thought. He was looking for a living child, after all. Only a moment's pause, listening with all his senses, told him everything in this room was inanimate. He was right.

This is why John Douglas' argument that John wouldn't "find" the body if he staged it is so stupid. It's easy to see why John realized he HAD to find the body. By 1 pm, how many opportunities was he going "to get" before it got worse? Big kids coming who might "roam" around looking for evidence on their own...Arndt all alone couldn't keep track of all those people...body decomposing...nobody even looking for a body in the house....

He had to go for it when Arndt gave him his chance, IMO.

 

If Juron expected to have sex with Natalie, as he said several times, why didn't he get a condom at some point? If he changed his mind about going to his home because his family was asleep, and he didn't have his condoms with him, then why not ask the Kalpoe brothers for one? Surely among these three studs ONE had a condom on him.

No? Why not stop by his house and get one and then leave? He had an apartment separate from the rest of the house, didn't he? He said himself wanted sex. He said himself he expected sex. But no effort to get the condom he had to have?

That's so much BS. Juron was known to be a party boy, hanging out at the bars and gambling routinely, nightly, even though HE WAS UNDERAGE. Who was paying his gambling bills? His drinking tabs? His father, that's who. Don't tell me his dad didn't know what his son was doing every night.

 

Let's don't forget a very important piece of this evidence puzzle the Rams have spent a decade hiding: the missing cell phone record for December, 2006.

The RST can spin this every way they want, but it always comes back to this: the Ramsey phone records were NOT subpoenaed...EVER, thanks to Alex Hunter, and that means Hunter was in on the deal from the beginning, IMO; when the Rams FINALLY gave up their phone bills, one cell phone had NO CALLS on the ONE MONTH the Rams ALLOWED LE to see--December, 1996--and the months previous to that had lots of calls on that cell phone, which we know because Thomas wrote that he asked the phone company rep he got the blank record from and the man said, yes, the phone had other calls from the previous months: the days or months after Dec. 26, LE will never know, because again, Hunter NEVER got a subpoena for the records. Therefoe, the RST can claim the cell phone was MAYBE lost: how convenient. Hunter AND HIS ENTIRE LAW STAFF, INCLUDING KEENAN, was either stupid or corrupt, because he gave the Rams every advantage a child killer could ever need to avoid prosecution, didn't he? Even when ALL the evidence was pointing at the Rams, ALL THROUGH 1997, Hunter STILL did not subpoena the phone records!

And anyone who expects us to believe that Haddon's law firm could not get phone records "tampered with," then I suggest they read the record of the Kobe Bryant case and how many times Kobe's accuser had her name, medical records, and sealed court testimony released to the PRESS by THE CASE JUDGE'S OFFICE. Then ask yourself who lost a job over that? If Haddon's pit bull lawyer who said the accuser's name 6 times in a public hearing with the press there ever saw ONE SANCTION for her actions, though the judge kept "admonishing" the lawyer repeatedly. We're talking about the judge's office and the lawyer BREAKING THE LAW: Colorado HAD a rape shield law in effect. But guess what? If you watched that case, you saw the pundits on TV going from "Oh, the rape shield law will protect the accuser's rights" to "This law may be overturned" in a matter of a few months. Why do you think that was? It was because HADDON has more power in Colorado law than we mere mortals have a clue about. He had Hunter coming and going. I believe that and nothing anyone ever says is going to convince me otherwise because Hunter gave away this case up front and his behavior and completely irresponsible conduct as the DA in this case proves it to me beyond any doubt.

But for those of us who aren't so gullible or corrupt, we can deduce one thing from this missing cell phone record: the Rams didn't want anyone to know what calls they made that night and that month on that phone. It's not far to go to see that, if this entire cell phone coverup was indeed to keep the record of those Dec. 25/26 calls out of the hands of LE, then John Ramsey knew everything long before that 911 call that morning.

And that's what I believe. I've thought at times in the past that JR wasn't in on the crime, or only was part of the cover up, but the missing cell phone record is good evidence to me that says JR was part of the coverup, at least. Did he fashion the garrote? I think so. JMO Did he molest JB? I have no idea. But if he was part of the strangulation/coverup, part of a plan to use a paintbrush "to stage" vaginal injuries to cover for old vaginal injuries, then he at least knew about them, IMO.

And another thing: that whole "reading the note on the floor in his underwear" story--I found that quite suspect, as well. I can't imagine any human being in America, with chairs and tables, and even stairs right where the note was found, who would preceed to take a three page not and put it on the cold floor in the dark morning of winter, while in his underwear, and then get down on his knees and read it, without glasses, lighting had to be bad on the floor, compared to sitting at a table with a lamp or closer, at least, to an overhead or wall light.

Not to mention JR was 53 years old at the time. Puhleeze. IMO, that cell phone call might have covered a lot of ground: fingerprints on the note that belonged ONLY to the Rams would be evidence up front in a trial. Of course, it would be natural for them to be there after reading the note. But in the panic of trying to think of how to cover up a little family molestation and murder one desperate Christmas night, those things might be decided quickly: don't leave our fingerprints on the note!

But how to explain that? Did John say well, we didn't want to DISTURB any fingerprints on the note, so we laid it out on the floor? Nope. Why not? It would have made sense? But then, he'd have to have admitted they were thinking ABOUT FINGERPRINTS. Wouldn't do. How could they know what the note said BEFORE THEY HELD IT AND READ IT?

Oh, leave it to the Rams: Patsy "jumped" over the note on a winding spiral stair and read it bending over it in a dim hallway, as it lay across the stair tread. Then she did/didn't/can't remember if she "handed" it to John. Neither can he. But he takes it and lays it on the cold floor and reads it in the dim light. In his underwear.

And when a cop arrives, what does John do? Does he hand the note to the cop? Nope. He takes the cop back to the hall where the note is laying, and he "shows" it to the cop. Note lying on the floor.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the more ridiculous aspects of the Ramsey stories. It's so absurd, one has to ask, what were they trying to gain by making up these jumping all over the place and crawling around in his underwear to read the note stories?

Well, we can't really know, can we? But I can speculate: I think during that night-from-hell, cell phone calls were made, and discussions were had in which advice was given. From there, came the amalgam of stories, the ransom note, and lawyering up day one...all of it.

Among those calls I speculate that Dr. Beuf might have been contacted about a head injury. Possible questions were asked about what would happen at the ER if it were discovered that JonBenet had been molested. From there, a lawyer was called. Possibly he made calls. Back and forth.

Maybe the Ramseys were told what would happen if they took JonBenet to an ER: she would be examined and her vaginal injuries would be found. Perhaps she had convulsions and they were told her brain injury was severe. Maybe that's why the flashlight was taken out: maybe Dr. Beuf told them to check her pupils for dilation to determine the extent of the injury.

I know some argue that the amount of blood associated with the brain injury proves that the injury came at the time of strangulation, but I think that may or may not be true. Other arguments have been made by medical experts that the brain injury evidence is consistent with it having occurred as much as an hour before the strangulation. We will never know, will we? But it must be considered by anyone who wants to look to the evidence for the truth: the brain injury COULD have come an hour or more before the strangulation.

So I'm speculating that calls were made on that cell phone that morning to "someone." Dr. Beuf, maybe; a lawyer, certainly, if anyone was called.

Of course, there are various scenarios as to when this or that happened, in what sequence, but it all comes back to that missing cell phone record for me. How much "coincidence" can we swallow in this murder? Coincidence the record for that month was "empty" a year later when "turned over" by the Rams? Coincidence that the DA didn't subpoena the Rams' cell phone records--EVER? A standard and absolutely ELEMENTARY investigative step any LE or DA would take IMMEDIATELY in any murder case, not to mention A CHILD MURDER CASE WITH THE CHILD FOUND IN THE BASEMENT WITH A SUSPICIOUS RANSOM NOTE SUSPECTED TO BE FROM THE FAMILY EARLY ON. Coincidence that neither of the DA's detectives asked the Rams "too much" about the cell phone or the record in 3 DAYS of questioning in 1998, a year and a half after the murder and six months after the LIMITED records were turned over to LE?

Oh, come on! How stupid are they in Boulder? Not stupid at all, IMO. It was a well coerced plan to keep the truth of who murdered a child on Christmas Night, who molested her, from ever seeing the light of day.

 

Is there any Ramsey comment on their MISSING phone records? I know there's maybe a lost phone, and a new gift/not a gift phone, but...

Like in numerous other areas, here the Ramseys leave you hanging, there's no other shoe to drop regarding

-did they make any cell calls in December (not to their recollection?)

-the "and hence" in the liturgy thank you note (their two individual verisions melded together, then editted by Walker(?) & Stine, but no memory (or record) of where in the process 'and hence' was added.

-discovery their security system breached in Atlanta with no police notification, and no mention of any attempt to establish why (likewise police not responding to Burke's Boulder school alarm)


In each of these instances, they simply fail to provide information that they undoubtedly possess and...if their hands were clean, they would

 

If anyone is so naive as to believe powerful and connected lawyers do not do what I'm postulating that Hunter and Haddon did, then maybe this website will help:

http://sinhablar.com/

This site documents the legal troubles of Anthony Pelicano, a PI in LA who has broken the law many times for his lawyer/personal clients, according to the indictments recently brought against him. What he did is so pervasive, if true, that the only thing MORE shocking is WHO he did it for: lawyers and their clients.

We're not talking small time attornies and clients. We're talking about big law firms and monied clients.

Then think about Lockheed Martin: one of the world's biggest defense contractors; sells weaponry and planes to governments all over the world; could have any one of us disappear without a trace in hours, if they wanted; yeah, our worst nightmare--see the film Lord of War to get the gist of what I mean.

So let me draw you another little picture, nothing but speculation, mind you, but something to think about:

Lee Hill was Nancy Krebs' lawyer. She said she saw Hill on TV and that's why she chose him.

Alex Hunter pointed the reporter/author Stephen Singular to California to "investigate" Fleet White, and why was a DA doing that to a private citizen? Singular didn't work for the DA's Office or LE or a lawyer, he was a REPORTER. But Hunter did that more than once to more than one person he had a personal vendetta against, didn't he? Singular was one of a few people present at the Daily Camera meeting with Nancy Krebs, along with the Daily Camera editor and Alex Hunter, and I belive Nancy's lawyer, Lee Hill, that spawned the hideously libelous news article of Nancy accusing the White family of being child sex ring members for decades. Of course, now we know that Krebs equally fingered John Ramsey, don't we, but that didn't seem too important to Hunter or the editor, so that didn't end up in the article for some reason, a murdered child in John Ramsey's basement notwithstanding....

So, from Hunter to Singular to Hill, who represented Nancy when she came to Boulder for her LE interviews.

Now, what does this all have to do with Anthony Pelicano? Probably nothing. But if you want to play six degrees of separation, keep reading.

Lee Hill has had a few articles written about him--before he became a fugitive from the law for domestic violence and weapons possession. In one or two, Hill bragged about his good buddy Steven Seagal, a martial arts motion picture actor you have all no doubt seen at some point, if only channel surfing. Seagal has been accused of abusing one or more of his wives, BTW. And Hill was one of his big groupies, name-dropping every chance he got about his good friend Seagal. (Reminded me of Mame, who also figures into this scandalous chapter of the JB murder.)

So follow Hill to Seagal...to none other than ANTHONY PELICANO: Pelicano worked for Seagal, who was suing an "alleged" mobster who was Seagal's partner in a number of movies they made. Seagal was suing this mobster for various reasons, and Pelicano worked for Seagal, which came out in several articles I read about the suit.

So we have gone from Hunter to Singular to Hill to Seagal to Pelicano.

What's missing? Haddon, of course. But then, you can put Haddon in right there before Hunter, can't you? And while we have no actual link from Haddon to Pelicano, not even close, what we do have is a picture of how things can get done: Nancy always maintained that she was in "danger"! She always said the child sex ring was out to get her. But then, there she is, represented by a man who is now charged with domestic violence involving a gun and weapons possession involving knives, who also is on record bragging about his association with a martial arts star whose partner is an alleged gangster, whose PI in a suit has served time for possessing dynamite and is indicted for illegal wiretapping and about a hundred other charges.

Still with me? Then chew on this:

Also indicted with Pelicano is a lawyer who used Pelicano's services, as well as a COP who illegally used a LE database to get information for Pelicano, which Pelicano then provided to his clients to be used to intimidate people with whom his clients were in legal conflict. Also indicted are a telephone company employee who helped Pelicano by giving him unavailable information on private citizens. Also on the indictment list are illegal wiretaps resulting in literally millions upon millions of pages of recorded phone conversations which were possible because Pelicano paid at least one phone company employee to tap all these phones. This went on for so long, for so many years, attornies in big suits with powerful people had figured it out and put phone scramblers on their clients' phones. Pelicano did not work for just one attorney. He worked for decades for these firms and their clients.

More indictments may be coming in the Pelicano case. But maybe not, because a lot of very powerful people might not want their secrets out there, no matter how illegal it was to get them. Michael Ovitz, one of the most powerful men in Hollywood, had to testify before the grand jury hearing this case. Ovitz at one time represented some of the most powerful actors and studios in Hollywood. He worked for Eisner at Disney at one point. Michael Jackson was also a Pelicano client. Pelicano was deeply involved in the first Jackson child molestation criminal investigation, the one with the $20 mil payoff.

And why do these cops and phone company employees do this? Money, of course. And we don't know what else they had held over their heads by Pelicano, do we?

But there's my point: the Rams had a year before they turned over those phone records VOLUNTARILY. They only turned over LIMITED phone records, even then. And one of their cell phones was blank for the month of December. Not the months before. LE does not know about the months after.

Can someone explain this to me so I can understand it?

If you had in intruder enter your home, murder your child, leave a ransom note, and walk away forever without so much as a glance in their direction by LE, don't you think maybe LE might find a CLUE in your past associations, maybe from a phone record, even a "wrong number" call?

And if you are too "inexperienced" in criminal matters, don't you think LE/THE DA might do a better job and GET THOSE PHONE RECORDS to help them find a child killer?

Can anyone think of one decent, legit reason that LE/the DA would not do this to help them find a child killer?

Or is anyone buying that Hunter just wanted to "create trust" between the prime suspects and LE? :lier:

I am not that big into conspiracy theories, but in the murder of JonBenet, it's hard not to follow the evidence and consider a conspiracy: so much was done by so many to thwart this investigation in so many ways; so many truly innocent people were hurt so deeply and deliberately by the very government agencies that should have been gunning for a child killer, not private citizens who became victims of Hunter's corrupt office, as well.

How can we consider all of this as just some giant coincidence?

 

Skigwy, John Ramsey said in his deposition under oath in the Wolf suit that the morning the cops got to their home, the cops had to use "their" cell phones because the cops' cell phones had dead batteries.

There's another source that the cops used the Ramsey cell phones but I can't remember off the top of my head, might be Thomas' book.

The RST excuses? "Their cell phones" might mean the Whites' cell phone; cops may have used another cell phone of the Rams, but not the "missing" phone.

That whole story jams tries to push is BS: Patsy never says in her interview in '98 "when" John lost his cell phone or that this "lost" cell phone was missing at the time of the murder and a concern. And no, we've never seen any actual evidence that John or Patsy ever reported a lost cell phone, something you'd think anyone who cared about catching a child killer would immediately pick up on: what if the KILLER found the phone and used it? That might be the CONNECTION! Forget about a phone bill that could be worth tens of thousands if it was stolen or being used for calls around the world by some cell phone scammer.

Ooops. No reason to go there, is there? The Ramseys sure didn't think of it. Nor big old Legend In His Own Mind Smit. Nope.

Which just goes to prove that they weren't that interested in actually finding an intruder, were they?

No, the Rams nor their spin team will ever give up straightforward answers about much of anything in this case. Bad memory, time, nerves and stress...all good excuses not to remember anything that really matters when it comes to finding who murdered their child.

It's the old "please feel sorry for me because I'm an orphan" plea: forget that I murdered my parents.

If the Rams hadn't stalled for months and years in helping LE, then their memories wouldn't have been such a problem. I almost gagged when I read in the NE transcript book the Patsy quote about how she just couldn't remember, and IF ONLY they had been able to talk before 18 MONTHS LATER!

Ha! That woman has bigger balls than the men who fell for her BS.

 

I hear you loud and clear, KK, and I wish we had answers to all you have stated above. You are so right about those missing cell phone records. I do believe Haddon and Hunter are the root of all evil when it comes to this case, and just how does one go about getting even with them, short of hiring vigilantes? I don't know (?).

 

Oh, Elle, I'm afraid Haddon's and Hunter's karma is left for another reckoning.

I only try to speak about their deeds as often as I can because I want to make sure the documentation is there to anyone interested in the truth of what happened to justice in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. While I can't know for sure what was said and done behind closed doors, I think the blue print is crystal clear from their actions that this case was bought and sold early on, maybe even before it happened, in the corruption of Alex Hunter by the corrupter Haddon.

 

It's very difficult trying to think of a way of dealing with these creeps, KK. I've probably seen too many movies, but I'm afraid putting pen to paper would just be a tad too mild for this type of organization. One would almost need a "Mission Impossible Team," to deal with them, in the way they deal with others, rather than bullets firing etc., More like a psychological war. However, Sometimes Karma does catch up with people quite fast in their own lifetime.

 

I'm just wondering, besides what money won't buy, about little boy playing possum on the day he's supposed to be leaving for the big boat. It's like ~~ he must already know something is wrong.

 

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.

 

[Please forgive this excruciatingly long, rambling post. You can skip it, as I'm once again thinking out loud, repeating my thoughts as I try to get them organized, trying to remember things, to make sense of things I don't want to forget, etc., Also, don't have time to edit this right now, must go to bed, early day tomorrow, so it'll be a while before I get the typos and grammatical errors fixed. Again, apologies.]

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?

 

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.

 

"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!