Questions

It is a pity that Wecht was never asked this question. Just like Lou Smit, he swallowed a staged crime scene hook, line and sinker. Only that Wecht thought John Ramsey was the perp, and not an intruder.
Wecht's theory also completely contradicts the forensic fiber evidence found at the crime scene, for it was fibers from Patsy's clothing which were found in the wrappings of the garrote handle, in the paint tray which contained the broken paintbrush and on the duct tape which covered the dead child's mouth. Wecht should have been asked if John Ramsey was wearing Patsy's jacket when 'garrotin'g JB ...

The furrow on JB's neck was perfectly circumferential, another indicator that the ligature was tied on an inert and unresisting body. Does Wecht think JB would have kept still and not tried to claw at a cord which was pulled tightly around her neck? For the ligatures around her wrists did not restrain.There was a fifteen-inch space of cord between the two ligatures, which would have have enabled JB to move her hands.

Aside from that, I just can't see John Ramsey strangling JB and sadistically jabbing a paintbrush into her vagina. I believe the vaginal injury was inflicted for staging purposes.

 

The FBI agrees with that, rash:

 

Then please explain to me the chronic erosion of the baby girl's hymen!

 

good point RR

The recent damage was staging alright - it was staging to hide the previous damage to the little one's hymen. The crime was actually over-staged. Perps who kidnap for money don't usually also commit the crime because they are pedophiles. So the reasoning for poking her with a paint brush handle as staging only really makes sense if it was to hide some previous activity. Since she had probably been previously violated with a finger they had to use something that would leave new damage, maybe something more pointed, like a paint brush handle.
Oh well-preaching to the choir again. :balloon:

 

I wouldn't put it past John Ramsey to have been JB's chronic abuser, only that I can't see him sadistically jabbing a paintbrush into her vagina while the child was alive and conscious. But maybe it was he who suggested to Patsy that they stage it as a sex crime because he knew the autopsy would reveal the sign of chronic abuse on JB?

But one thing does not really mesh with the sex crime staging imo: why did the Ramseys, if they wanted to stage it as a sexual predator scene, then put on underwear and longjohns on JB which actaully hid the acute vaginal injury again?

 

redressed

I think they redressed her because they couldn't take leaving her undressed. It is another indicator of staging by someone who loved her-not a strange intruder.

 

Another indication that the stagers of the crime scene loved JonBenet could be that they didn't remove her body from the house and hide/bury/dump it somewhere. The note ("At this time we have your daughter in our posession"...etc.) appears to me to have been written with removing the body in mind.

But why would they have left the body and the note?

No note = No "evidence" of an intruder.

 

This is what I think happened too, Texan. I also think they couldn't drive her far away from the house and leave her out in the cold, which also indicates to me it was someone who loved her.

Many of us have thought the broken paint brush shaft was inserted after death, not when she was alive, but part of the staging.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">

The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

This would indeed explain it, Texan. It would also explain that the acute vaginal injury was only small, not at all like what a real sexual predator would have done to his victim. Just think of the horrific injuries perps like e. g. Ted Bundy inflicted in comparison.
I believe that the parent, when starting to stage the sexual assault scene, just could not bring herself (I believe it was Patsy - see the fiber evidence) to proceed to further violaton with the paintbrush, and stopped.

The 'proper burial' mentioned in the ransom note points the Ramseys' direction here too ...
It is possible that in their first panic, they briefly considered putting JB's body somewhere outside, but then decided aganst it both for fear of being seen and because they couldn't bear to dump their child out there. Who knows when JB would be found ...

The only issue here is that the wound bled, and therefore wouldn't the parent who inflicted the acute injury have realized that JB was still alive?
But then, how 'forensically aware' were the Ramseys in their confused panic when frantically staging the scene? They may have seen the blood but not realized its implication.
It is also possible that they simply did not know that dead persons normally don't bleed anymore.

 

I believe they would have removed her body from the house if they thought they could have done it without being seen. I do wonder if the blanket she was wrapped in was for that purpose, but then they were afraid to be seen taking something from the house in the middle of the night.

John was reading MindHunter, right? So he was up to his eyeballs in crime staging.

 

This convinces me even more that John (for whatever reason) let Patsy run this staging show from start to finish. For if he actually knew quite a bit about crime staging, he would have done a better job, and not for example have written a three-page rambling ransom note.

 

rashomon,

It's also possible the Ramseys (Patsy/John ?) were in a frantic hurry to complete the staging, and my guess is the large size 12 panties were grabbed quickly and put on under the longjohns without even seeing the blood. I feel it's also possible with the wound being internal, from the ragged shaft end of the brush, the blood may have been slow in moving, since JonBenétwas probably lying flat.

 

well

The panties were put on her before she died or there would not be any urine on them.
The panties couldn't be part of staging, after the fact, unless they thought she was already dead. Which has always made me think she was hit on the head, they thought she was dead and started the staging and then during the garroting part of the staging would have to know she wasn't dead yet.

 

My feeling is that whoever left her there in the basement did know she wasn't dead yet, but was dying or would eventually die from her injuries. He or she or both may have gone back to check and make sure, but I don't think the death was assumed before leaving JonBenet in the basement, thus the blanket in case she would feel cold before dying.

 

Now there's a sickening thought hm. Did they stay there until she was dead, for sure(?). Isn't it also possible JonBenét could have died upstairs and then taken to the basement to make it look like a crime by an intruder?

The fact the Ramseys couldn't handle her body being left out in the cold, tells me they couldn't have walked away from her in that crummy basement to die all alone(?).

 

The fact that someone in that house stuck a broken-off paintbrush up her vagina makes me think that they could have left her just about anywhere. I never saw an honest tear from the Ramseys from that day to this. How does any human being cope with what they did and not cry? Because neither of them is fully human.

 

Oh, and if she was dead upstairs and carried downstairs to hide and re-dress, then her underwear and long-johns wouldn't have been wet, she would have already released her bladder contents. I think she did die in the basement, either in the room her body was found in or just outside that room, where the paint caddy was found.

 

The feds were referring to the acute injury from that night, RR, not the chronic stuff.

 

Legal question

The issue about lawyers being bound by strict rules (other than the police) when it comes to lying has been discussed here before, but a poster on another forum, quoting the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct argued that since these rules are only about lawyer representing a client, it says nothing about a lawyer representing the United States, like Levin who confronted John Ramsey with the fiber evidence.

Levin doesn't represent a client, therefore he might not be bound by this obligation - so this poster's argumentation.

But I can't imagine lawyers, acting after all "on behalf of the United States" not being bound by strict rules too when it comes to lying to a suspect.

Do you think the rules of professional conduct applied to Levin too although he did not represent a client?That's how I understand it too. So Levin would be bound by the same rules as a lawyer representing a client.
For it would be a gross injustice if a defense lawyer would be bound by rules of professional conduct, but the lawyer acting '"on behalf of the United States" (=the people) would not be bound by such rules too.

 

Of course the rules apply to Levin while inside a courtroom.