JB's blood on the pillowcase...

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Nov 22, 2008.

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member


    So why was social services called in to check on Burke after the murder?
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well now, you are full of interesting ideas!

    I'm thinking the idea of her being in the gown is one to ponder. That might explain the oversized Bloomies during the redressing....

    But she garrote was constructed in the basement, I think, or at least the paintbrush handle, as there were slivers from the paintbrush on the floor next to the paint tray. She had a green paint chip/strip (I can never remember which and get called on this every time I mention it) on her chin at autopsy, as well. That was matched to green paint from the tray, but I'm not convinced it wasn't just dried on the paintbrush and flaked off when it broke. While I'm not sure we know which came first, it could be important. I'll explain my thinking on that after another thought.

    Though I can't remember if I've seen any source other than jams say that there was urine found outside the cellar door and it was JonBenet's. Anything jams says I question without a solid source to back it up, and I don't mean just "trust me because I'm jams." (Jams changes her stories, a la Team Ramsey, when it suits the latest spin.) If it IS the case, though, that JonBenet died outside the cellar room in the basement, that would fit with the paintbrush being broken there and tied on the garrote as a handle, used to strangle the child.

    Now as to why the sequence is important in the breaking of the paintbrush: IF the paintbrush handle was pulled from behind, it was broken and tied on as a handle to make it easier to pull during strangulation. (I say "if" because we do take a lot for granted and one simple mistake in those assumptions could potentially change a lot in putting together what happened that night.) That pulling was done from behind, either way, as the knot at the side/back of the neck proves.

    Now consider that the paintbrush is speculated as being used to inflict vaginal abuse on the child, as well. So was that done before or after it was broken to tie onto the garrote as a handle for leverage? Common sense says that it would have been used before breaking, because after breaking the brush into three pieces none would have been very long and harder to insert with jagged edges, leaving more than the tiny bit found at autopsy. Common sense also implies that the child would have been on her back during the use of the paintbrush for the vaginal injuries. So did the green paint chip/strip fall from the brush onto the face, broken while she was face up, and then when she was rolled over to pull the garrote the pressure of her face against the floor as she was being held down for counterforce caused it to embed into her chin? Or was the green paint chip on the floor from the breaking of the paint brush and at some point, her face was pushed into it, etc.?

    Okay, I'm losing my train of thought here because it's so brutal to even try to put together what was done to this child. But I think my point is that whatever might have started in the bedroom ended by the paint tray in the cellar.

    OKay, here are my problems in putting this together: the head blow came from above and a bit to the right of center. That couldn't have happened when she was on the floor on her stomach and being garroted. So the idea that she was being strangled and then was hit from above just won't fit! #%@^%^!!%#&$*!!

    I'm cursing because this is Dr. Wecht's theory with his estimation of the timeline between the headblow and strangulation ending her life, during some sick erotic asphyxiation. That just won't fly with the position of the cord/knot on the neck and the position of the head blow. Blimey! One has to consider how hard that cord was pulled to embed it into the neck, as well. She would not have sat still while being strangled if she were conscious. And if she fought, there would be defensive wounds. And if she simply passed out and wasn't able to be revived because the vegas nerve was compressed and stopped her heart, then why crack her head in half?

    And if the garrote "handle" created by the paintbrush was applied last, after using it in one piece to insert to molest, injure, or hide prior injuiries, after the fatal head blow was struck, when she was already in a coma and dying, who had the presense of mind to do that so quickly that the best forensic pathologists can't agree on what the sequence was or the timeline?

    Okay, the head blow had to come while she was standing or sitting, or upright in general. That's a given because of the location of the skull injuries. She probably never saw it coming and went down immediately. Bam. She's out for good; there is little room for argument on this.

    So anyone who argues that the garroting was a sex game or torture has to account for her sitting or standing upright when the head blow was struck. She wasn't flopping around unconscious at the end of the garrote as a tether by that point and then for some reason had her head bludgeoned from above and behind. That's not workable, is it?

    So the green paint chip/strip puts her on the floor on her face by the paint tray, probably when she was being strangled from behind. That's the point at which, if she died there, her bladder evacuated and left a urine stain--if that part is true. (It's maddening, isn't it?)

    So as far as I can put it together logically (putting the "if's" aside for the sake of argument), she was struck in the head and then laid out on a surface on her stomach, to pull the garrote from behind with one hand (the right) while holding her down with the other--unless there was someone else holding her down as the garrote was being pulled, and I do consider that because of the bruise on the right shoulder.

    Now if she had on the nightgown when the head blow was struck, if she was being molested first, and not with the paintbrush but the paintbrush was used to cover that up later, and that molestation or some kind of minimal bloodly emission from the head injuries left blood on the gown, she was redressed by the time she was laid on her stomach and strangled from behind, because there was urine on the front of the long johns, which would be consistent with her bladder muscles relaxing, causing it to be evacuated while she was on her stomach upon death. (By the way, I recently heard a medical examiner say that the bladder is not necessarily evacuated immediately upon death; it can occur later, or not at all.)

    I've been thinking about all of this lately because of the poster at topix, learnin, making an excellent case for the pineapple having been eaten within 10 to 30 minutes of death. I don't have any more time today for this, but I am thinking...thinking....

    JonBenet ate pineapple and 10 to 30 minutes later, something happened in JonBenet's bedroom, I think, because of the bloodstain on the pillowcase. The various drawers left open, the diapers hanging out of the cabinet.... It had to be the molestation or the head blow, or both, because then it moved to the basement, the paint tray, and the paintbrush handle, the garroting, death outside the cellar door, staging in the cellar room. The writing of the ransom note.... Phone calls....


    [PS I don't have time to edit this for typos/grammar right now, so please forgive. I'll do it later.]
  3. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    Found it


    A "Barbie" nightgown belonging to JonBenet was also found in the wine cellar near her body. (SMF 149: PSMF 149.) JonBenet's blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown. (SMF 150; PSMF 150.)
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks. So we aren't completely brain dead yet, huh? :thumbsup:
  5. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I am sure it would be because his sister was murdered and the parents were under that "umbrella of suspicion". Even if they weren't, he was still a child who had gone through a traumatic event, with his murdered sister found in the basement of the family home.
    I would think they'd be checking to see if there was any evidence that he had been abused.
    Despite what the DA and RST thought, a child found dead in her own home with no evidence of an intruder puts the other kids in the family on the radar for Social Service and other such organizations.
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I agree. But the statement was that Children's Services--which I am equating with Social Services, so maybe that's my problem--do not deal with children before age 10. Burke was 9. Maybe I'm just getting the agencies confused.

    Social services where I live deals with children identified as at risk for whatever reason from birth. Minors who are involved in behavior that would be criminal, were they not minors, end up in Juvenile Court. But I don't know the cut off age, so that may be what I'm not understanding.

    Social Services here can be called in because children who are not being properly supervised by a parent or guardian are neglected. If Burke had some involvement in the acts of violence and/or molestation on JonBenet, he might have been a minor, but they were acts which would be addressed by some government agency, would they not?

    I guess what I'm thinking might be clearer if I put it another way: If JonBenet had survived, for example, and Burke was the one molesting his sister, what would happen then, legally? Wouldn't social services step in to protect JonBenet, but to protect Burke, as well, as he also would be considered at risk for not having proper supervision to stop his soon-to-be-illegal behavior?

    I don't know. I'm confused about all this, obviously.
  7. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    I don't think that Burke did it but if it ever turns out to be true then I still will find his parents responsible for EVERYTHING.From cover-up to the children's problems.If JB was molested I don't think it was her and B playing doctor like it's been speculated.
    And I don't think these parents were SO sick in order to use a garrote and a paintbrush on their daughter only to cover up an accident involving Burke.It's sick.They are were/are covering their OWN selfish @sses IMO.That's what makes it so frustrating.You know,I could understand if they covered for little Burke but I don't think that's the truth.JR said at some point it would be an indignity for me if I were charged.Indignity???This is ALL about his damn ego.I don't even see him covering for his wife.But I can definitely see her covering for him.Dunno why,just my feeling.They way he always controls everything,the way he always looked at her when she was talking.I am sick of this guy.
  8. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I think each State may have different laws on this matter, but if BR was abusing his younger sister when he was under age himself, nothing really happens. It's not a prosecutable crime. Kids do this kind of thing. Especially siblings. The parents may be looked at, though, to see what they are doing to prevent their daughter from being victimized.
    If it continued as they got older, I am sure there is a cut-off age after which he COULD be prosecuted for sexual abuse.
  9. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    I believe social services can intervene regardless of the child's age. The age inference in this case, Burke at age 9, was a reference only as to whether or not he could legally be charged with a crime, and he could not. Colorado, as a state, does not prosecute under the age of 10, so Burke was in the clear from their standpoint whether innocent or actual guilt on his part. Social services would have a case if they could prove neglect or harm against any age child...at least I think that is the way it goes, at least for removal of the child from the household.
  10. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks, Moab.

    But didn't Colorado change the age limit for criminal behavior for which children can be held responsible since then, lowering it? I'm thinking they did, but do not ask me for my source! I'm pulling a Patsy: I can't remember.
  11. Moab

    Moab Admin Staff Member

    I don't think so KK, I think it is still 10.
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    And now that I'm revisiting this topic, doesn't this seem that Haney is saying LE FOUND URINE SPOTS ON THE SHEETS?

    And boy, how did Patsy remember she CHECKED THE SHEETS that morning, when she couldn't remember so many other IMPORTANT details around the time of the murder?

    Not to mention, if JB wore those PINK PJ'S we see her wearing in the Christmas photo that morning, which Patsy herself brings up, where were those bottoms the next day when LE was photographing the crime scene? We can see the PJ top at the head of the bed on the mattress...but where are the BOTTOMS?

    Patsy brings UP the Christmas picture. She was lying again, wasn't she? She didn't remember checking those sheets that morning, did she? Patsy was tap dancing for Haney as fast as she could.
  13. cynic

    cynic Member

  14. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you, madeleine! A great find. What would we do without ACandyRose?
  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