Hi-Tec crime scene photos

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Sep 27, 2009.

  1. Elle

    Elle Member

    I agree with all of you here. It could have been Burke, with the Ramseys going through, hell, fire and water to save his hide. I have always thought "accidental death and staging by the Ramseys."
  2. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    JC, and Elle,

    Oh my! I agree with all of too. I have said many times that if for some reason Burke's name came up for doing it I wouldn't be surprised at all. And that all of the cover up was done to take the blame off of him.
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I agree that Burke is on the suspect list for me.

    For some time now, though, I've thought that whoever did this, they meant it. As a child, Burke might not have known the consequences in adult understanding of death, but if he did it, he meant to hurt her.

    But I have also come to appreciate Brother Moon's theory as time has passed. Don't faint. It's just the proximity in time between the head blow and the strangulation. If it was Patsy, then she had to have been in some kind of really seriously disturbed mental state.

    It always goes back to the sexual molestation IMO. That was key. Either it was the catalyst that caused the tension that led to the murder, or it was the reason in full.

    I no longer believe the head blow was "accidental," though. I could be wrong, of course, but I've studied a lot of expert opinions on this, including many medical experts and examiners, and I think she was being strangled either when the head blow was struck or shortly thereafter, with the head blow being the means of disabling her so she couldn't put up a fight. I can't see it any other way because of the time factor involved with the swelling of the brain and the lack of defensive wounds.

    She ate pineapple around half an hour before her murder. She knew her killer. She died because someone deliberately tied the cord around her neck and strangled her. She would have died from the head blow not long after it was struck, as well. She did not fight back, so she was already unconscious when she was strangled. She was molested at least within 78 hours before, and probably over a longer period of time, as well. Someone attempted to cover that up with the paintbrush insertion.

    It was all deliberate. What I don't know is if it was all the work of one person or a family affair.

    But I truly believe Patsy wrote the note beyond any doubt. So if she didn't do the rest, she helped in the cover up.

    Well, that's my opinion anyhow. All the red herrings Team Ramsey has come up with for 13+ years now can't hide that JonBenet was killed by someone very close to her.
  4. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    ITA. I have felt myself getting there (BDI) and because I also am certain Patsy wrote the note, I can't see her covering for anyone BUT her son. And I can't see her doing all of it herself (the killing and staging).
    The only thing I also feel is that BR wasn't alone. He was either with his older half-brother or with a friend who was there that night (perhaps someone invited to go along to Charlevoix with him). If we had phone records, we could see if Rs friends the Ss were called. They were ominously NOT called to come that morning after the 911 call. They had a son who was slightly older than BR and played with him.
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Yes...the infamously destroyed evidence, the missing/blank phone records, compliments of Alex Hunter.

    Since the Ramseys admitted they visited the Stines before they went home, it's obviously possible they took a travel guest for Burke. Did the boys share in the attack somehow? Is that why the Stines immediately became the Ramseys BFFs, living together for months, even following the Ramseys to Atlanta, quitting lucrative, steady jobs in the wonderful Republic of Boulder?

    Again, not impossible as far as any evidence I've seen. But we'll never know until someone who does tells the truth. And not just to the BPD or BDA, because they aren't going to EVER talk to the press or public about this case again, not as far as "solving" it, IMO.

    Sadly, there will be no justice for JonBenet. :cand:
  6. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I don't see anyone who would have the courage to come forward in this case. Obviously, the S's will never do it if their son was involved. JR will never do it if his son was involved. And BR will never do it if he was involved; he may not know anything anyway (but I bet he knows more than we think, whether he was involved or not).
    I can't imagine him reaching his 20's and at some point NOT wanting to ask his father about anything he may have seen or heard that night. But I can't imagine his father telling him the truth either.
    That leaves the F's or the W's. I don't know how much the F's know- they were the people the Rs stayed with immediately after the murder. They didn't stay with the S until a bit later.
    Aunt P will never talk either; she could be charged with tampering with evidence if it came out that she removed key evidence from the house.
    Nedra & Patsy are dead. Grandpa P is still alive, I think, but he'll never say what he knows either. But both JB's grandparents and one of her aunts (Patsy's other sister) were strangely silent- right after the murder and right up to this day.
    No, there will be no heros in this case.
    But you know something...JB doesn't need justice. WE need justice. JB, like all children who die (regardless of how), went immediately to heaven, surrounded by angels and loved ones who were waiting on the Other Side. She does not care if her killer is found. She does not care that she was killed. She harbors no ill will, nor does she need justice or vengeance. There is no negativity where she is. Peace and love only. Trust me on this one.
    The justice is for OUR benefit here on Earth. Heaven needs no justice because only those worthy of heaven are there.
  7. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Time line head blow - strangulation: which came first?

    I believe this is exactly the mental state which led Patsy to stage the strangulation scene the way she did, and also believe that, as soon as she realized what 'point of no return' had been reached after the head injury, immediately went into the mode: "I must conceal at all costs my implication in this!" and within a very short time, thought of concocting a "tortured and strangled" sexual predator scene. Imo the ransom note was written later.
    From the study of other criminal cases, I know how quickly offenders of a certain psychological mindset can decide to stage scenes if they think it will help them to escape justice. Their mind races on overdrive, and the twenty to sixty minutes (Dr. Wright's assessment) which elapsed between the head blow and death would provide ample time to stage this scene. Patsy had no empathy for JonBenet in life, treating her like a living doll, and both Ramseys, as they left the scene, let the dead body lie there under the Christmas tree, like a broken doll. Imo a person as narcissistic and umempathetic as Patsy was capable of staging that scene, and the fiber evidince indicates that it was she who broke the paintbrush and tied the cord around JonBenet's neck.
    As for Brother Moon's theory, while he points out just how mentally disturbed Patsy was, his theory that JonBenet's death was a pre-planned 'sacrifice act' by Patsy is taking it too far imo. The chaotic staging does not suggest pre-planning, but a mind re-acting to a sequence of events which had culminated in a tragedy.
    The most difficult issue is the possible sexual abuse. So if there was sexual abuse, what role did it play in the crime?
    If JonBenet was abused, who was her abuser? Was the abuser also the killer (not necessarily)?
    Neither John nor Burke nor Patsy can be ruled out as sexual abuser. Nor can Steve Thomas's theory be completely ruled out that Patsy was responsible for JonBenet's chronic vaginal inflammation due to "aggressive cleaning", as ST called it. ST also speculated about the cleaning having been used as an act of punishment, and if I recall correctly, he relied on the opinion of one of the experts LE had called in.
  8. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Couldn't have said it better. Some excellent points.
  9. Elle

    Elle Member

    I agree with you DeeDee, rashomon has said it all for me here! Excellent post!
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I hope you're right, DeeDee. I really do.

    In the meantime, yes, it would be nice to have justice here on Earth. It would give us some faith in our justice system, in ourselves. But that's not to be in this case. We will always have to live with the bitter truth that children get murdered and nobody has to answer for it.

    But we know the truth.
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I don't believe there is any question that someone was molesting JonBenet before that night, whatever sick reason. The forensic evidence found at autopsy proves that. It's on the record.

    It's no coincidence that she also had the paintbrush shoved up her the night she was murdered. That argument would be that there were two people who molested her and one just happened to murder her, independent of the other's abuse. The killer happened to use a paintbrush, bizarrely enough? I don't believe that for one minute.

    That paintbrush tells me that the person who used it wanted to cover up the previous abuse. Why? She was abused and that's going to be obvious when a medical examiner sees her. So if she's been abused before that night, she's got the evidence right there inside her. What is the purpose of "abusing" her again to cover abuse already present?

    This is a fundamental question that might actually reveal the truth of what was done to JB that night, and here's why: how would someone NOT in LE or law practice or forensic science, etc., know that the vaginal abuse would show up in forensic evidence as having happened that night, versus within 78 hours?

    I would never have known such a thing before this case. It took me years after this murder to learn this info, and I read and researched it almost every day for a long time.

    The thing is, I believe LE knows the answers to these questions very well. They just won't ever tell the public because they don't want to get sued, fired, and end up a significant figure in the nightmare that is the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
  12. Elle

    Elle Member


    I think Patsy Ramsey had to take drastic action to completely damage the previous sexual abuse to JonBenét, which she must have known was there, and using a broken paintbrush shaft just may do the job, she thought! Note: She did choose one of her largest brushes and she knew where her box was. She had to move fast. I'm positive she thought the wooden splinters plus the metal part of the shaft being viciously thrust into JonBenét's vagina would completely eliminate the previous sexual abuse. YES! I feel Patsy Ramsey was capable of this horrific staging procedure!

    I also believe Patsy Ramsey was a bad tempered mother and cleaned her daughter aggressively as Steve Thomas suggested.
  13. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    You may be right. She certainly was a lying, conniving, two-faced, demanding witch, from all I ever saw of her. She had a lot of people fooled, but mostly the fools.
  14. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    I think it's a very good possibility that Patsy was "cleaning" JBR aggressively and did so that very night. After the "accident" happened, she could've noticed blood on the panties and knew this had to be covered.
  15. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Not just the panties. There was enough blood on JB's thighs and pubic area that it necessitated being wiped by a cloth, which the coroner mentioned to LE present at the autopsy.
    Barring sexual abuse, one of my main theories has Patsy douching JB (it has been reported that Patsy used to do this to JB, because of her repeated soiling herself). Patsy was cranky and tired, with lots left to do for the trip early the next morning. Tempers are short. She was too vigorous, and she hurt JB badly enough for her to scream (which a neighbor heard) and bleed. This could have happened all in JB's bathroom, which was right outside her bedroom. JR reported that the rooms were hot in winter, and JB slept with a window open, so the scream could have been heard outside from there as easily as it could have been heard from the basement vent.
    I can't place THIS event in the basement. This had to have happened upstairs, probably in the bathroom. Blood could have been washed down the drain with bleach or peroxide. LE claimed to detect a strong bleach-like smell in the bathroom. Patsy used her OWN bathroom to dye her hair, and that had a different smell anyway. Patsy didn't bleach JB's hair with chlorine bleach or peroxide that night. The coroner reported JB's hair as "freshly (evenly) colored, and if you look at her hair in the crime photos, you can see plainly that her hair is HIGHLIGHTED, not bleached (colored overall). This isn't something that Patsy would do herself. JB's hair (especially as she was competing that month in pageants) would have been professionally colored. Pity no one interviewed JB's hairdresser to obtain records of when it had been last colored, cause we could nip right in the bud any claim that odor was from Patsy dyeing JB's hair that night.
    IF the scream took place in the basement, then the bleeding and scream were the result of some sort of sexual abuse, because that is the only reason it would have happened in the basement. After a head bash like she suffered, there would be NO scream. She'd have collapsed immediately into unconsciousness, even coma.
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    DeeDee wrote:

    Good observation, DeeDee. It is an oversight JB's hairdresser not being interviewed.
  17. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member


    Somehow I just can't imagine Patsy using her own paintbrush in covering up the sexual abuse. Almost all the time when a crime is staged it is done to point the finger of guilt away from the stager and using her own paintbrush doesn't do that. However; if someone else was staging while PR wrote the note... well he certainly might use PR's paintbrush and point toward's her guilt and maybe thought that if her handwriting were identified the combination would be good evidence against her. Of course there is the sticky problem of those sweater fibers entwined in the garrote. My poor head continues to be confused...
  18. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I know- gives me a headache, too. But sometimes Occam's Razor kicks in and the simplest explanation is usually what happened. Patsy wrote the note, tied the garrote, was there when the tape was placed on JB's mouth. Her fibers were found in the tote from which the paintbrush was removed (a tote she claimed not to have used while wearing that jacket).
    Patsy was involved in all of it, tough she may not have been the one to insert the paintbrush (if that actually happened- we still have not seen a report saying it). But Patsy wasn't alone. I don't believe she could have done it all alone. JR's shirt fibers place him there, too. He helped. They BOTH were involved in this coverup.
  19. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Proof of sexual abuse?

    But is is definite proof of sexual abuse? The problem is that chronic vaginal inflammation can have other causes as well. The size of hymenal openings vary too, and the rim needn't be complete either.
    From the autopsy report:
    "All of the sections contain vascular congestion and interstitial chronic inflammation. The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent material."
    The epithelial erosion was found on the location where the acute genital wound had been inflicted.
    If my memory is correct, the term "erosion" does not automatically imply the result of a chronic process but means that, as opposed to abrasion, new skin tissue can't form anymore.
    So could a single action like jabbing in the broken paintbrush handle have resulted in eroded tissue as well?
    That would explain why blood had been wiped off JonBenet and the removal of the original panties containing incriminating evidence.
  20. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Good to see you here, rashomon. It's good to have a discussion with so many who know this case so well.

    As to jabbing the paintbrush causing the eroded tissue, I don't think so. Not unless it was used on her before that night. Can "erosion" of tissue form within minutes of death? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term, as medical lingo gets tricky, I know. All I can do is take this in the context of other evidence.

    For example, what are the odds that JonBenet had such vaginal injury that was clearly, biologically determined to be at least days old, but simply a coincidence in relation to the vaginal injuries inflicted at the time she was attacked and murdered?

    The autopsy evidence of chronic vaginal injury inflicted over a prolonged timeline is so inarguable that even Team Ramsey quit denying that autopsy evidence and began making excuses--like "it was the bubble bath" or "she did it to herself." That should tell you something right there: it was chronic, it was inflicted before the night of her death, over time, and it's no bubble bath attack, either.

    How many "coincidences" can people swallow in this case before they start to realize the mountain of evidence against the Ramseys is not some figment of Ramsey-haters' imaginations?

    People don't want to believe it for some reason. I guess the same reason they don't believe victims of child abuse and rape when they speak up. Any old excuse to make it not so, because it is ugly and who wants to go there? Not that nice man! Not that lovely family! It has to be a lie! Or bubble bath! Or explained some other way...any other way.

    So be it. It's a moot point now, anyway.

    But you know what I think, rashomon, and unless someone can come up with some substantial evidence supporting a truly twisted tale of a killer who managed to sneak into the Ramsey's lives to molest JonBenet over a period of time without anyone noticing or her telling anyone what was happening to her, then back in again on Christmas night 1996, then "Poof!" forever, I can't believe that this autopsy evidence is some fluke of coincidence.

    Let me say this: the final piece of the puzzle will never be put into place, in all likelihood, but a big piece was inserted when Mrs. Archuleta spoke to a reporter not that long ago about Patsy being upset that JonBenet was "too friendly" and "flirting." With the autopsy evidence, the implication of those statements tells me very clearly that Patsy was concerned that JonBenet was behaving sexually, inappropriately, and Patsy was distressed about it. JonBenet was six years old.

    What parent would utter such a thing without having some real basis for concern? Children do discover their bodies at some early point, and they do have questions and explore, but what do we do? We instruct them about appropriate behavior. It's not always easy, but it's part of parenting a child. Do we act like they are somehow bad? That they are at fault for something that is such a natural part of human growth and development that it would be more concerning if a child never demonstrated any curiosity?

    So why would Patsy say that to someone outside the family? Why be so concerned? Was JonBenet demonstrating sexual behavior beyond the normal development stages of her age group? Did Patsy discover something? Or was Patsy such a prude that a precocious six year old who had spent a third of her life being trained to strut on a stage like an adult pageant queen while dressed like a seductress surprised her by continuing that offstage? Why not just instruct the child, train her about "time and place," like we do with so many other issues? Which is it?

    Fast forward to the autopsy results: now put it together. I think Patsy had discovered JonBenet was being molested. Age-inappropriate sexual behavior is textbook in a child who is being molested. That's FACT. What exactly was involved in JonBenet's "flirting with strangers"? Too bad LE never got to ask those questions, isn't it? If the Ramseys' friends hadn't been told by Team Ramsey to clam up, maybe that old intruder was someone JonBenet "flirted" with. Oh, but the Ramseys just never had a clue when LE asked about anything they could think of...anyone....

    I have a clue: they knew. All.

    Unfortunately Mrs. Archuleta gave no specific time for these statements to the reporter, but in the context of what she was saying, I'd say it was within months or less of JonBenet's death. JonBenet was only in pageants for about a year and a half, and I don't think she was "flirting" with strangers enough to cause concern when she was four.

    So you can see why I am firm in my belief that JonBenet was being molested and this was the catalyst which led to her murder, directly or indirectly. The evidence of it is clearly no coincidence, IMO.
  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