First the broken pane, revealed to the public for the first time in association with the publication of Kolar's book. Here's a still from the video released via The Daily Beast:
Note the wisp of cobweb in the lower portion of the photo. Another, even wispier fragment can be seen in another portion of the same video. Don't let these fragments fool you. Spiders don't weave bits and pieces, they weave complete webs. What we are seeing is the remainder of a web that was destroyed. And given the shattered glass, it should be clear that the web was destroyed when the glass was broken, suggesting the break might well have been fresh.
Second, a photo we've seen many times, ever since Lou Smit released it as part of his dog and pony show:
Note the heavy layer of dirt and dust on the sill (upper portion of the photo) which would have been seriously smudged if anyone had actually crawled through. Smit preferred not to call our attention to that little detail, highlighting instead the relative absence of debris on the ledge adjoining the sill (just below it in the photo). He was right, that portion of the ledge seems surprisingly clear. That's not consistent with a break-in, however, because someone stepping onto the ledge would not have swept it clean, but crushed whatever debris was on it. What this looks like to me is the result of someone on the inside opening the window, reaching out, and gathering the debris on the ledge, so he could then dump it on the basement floor. And sure enough, debris from the well, mostly packing peanuts, was found on the floor beneath the window. And, as Smit pointed out, some of these peanuts were found in the windowless room, next to the body.
Third, let's take yet another look at the famous Samsonite suitcase, found, according to John, flush against the wall (Fleet White moved it a bit before this photo was taken):
According to Smit, the intruder must have used the suitcase to boost himself up out of the window. And according to John, eager to bolster Smit's story, the suitcase didn't belong there, it had been stored elsewhere. Smit made much of a shard of glass found lying on the upper rim of the suitcase, arguing that it must have gotten caught in the intruder's shoe and then deposited on the suitcase when he stepped on it to boost himself out. Only no one passed through that window, remember? So how did the glass get there? Equally important, how did the suitcase get there?
Fourth, here's another still from the Daily Beast video, showing a fairly good sized shard of glass on the window sill:
Kolar assumed it was there from the start. It wasn't. According to Fleet White, he picked a piece of glass off the floor and placed it on the sill. This must be it. [Added 9-8-12: Reading Kolar more carefully I now realize he was right. White reported finding the window closed, so he would have placed the glass he found on the very narrow inside sill. This glass was discovered sitting on the outside sill, so as Kolar alleges, it must have been sitting there all along.]
Finally, I'll call your attention to one more piece of evidence, but I can't show it to you because it wasn't there. Not most of it, anyhow. I'm referring to all the broken glass from the broken window pane. Only a few pieces were found on the floor. What about the rest?
So what is the point of all these bits and pieces of evidence? What do they tell us? First of all, they point strongly away from John's story about breaking in earlier (assuming we need any additional convincing on that score). The fragments of web on the broken window are consistent with a fresh break but could conceivably have been caused by an old one. Not so the thick layer of dust and dirt on the sill. Clearly no one entered the window the previous night, because we'd see clear signs of smudging and displacement. But if John had climbed in the previous summer, as he claimed, we'd see signs of that as well. We see no such thing. The layer of dust is clearly defined and totally undisturbed. Even if that particular layer had formed over the last six months, you can be sure there'd have been another layer beneath it and that layer would be smudged. No such layer is visible. No one went through that window the night of the crime and no one went through that window ever.
That's not all. Far from it. Let's return to the window ledge swept clean of debris and the debris reportedly found both on the floor and near the body. If no one went through that window, then why is that patch of debris missing from the ledge and how did those packing peanuts get on the floor? If no intruder passed through that window, we can only conclude that the debris was gathered from the ledge and dropped on the floor to make it look like an intruder had been there, i.e., to stage an intruder break-in.
Are there other signs of staging? Well, if no intruder was present, then how did the suitcase get where it was found? And if the glass had been broken six months ago, then how did that shard wind up on top of it? If Patsy had cleaned up the floor as thoroughly as she'd claimed then how could she have missed the large chunk of glass placed on the window sill by Fleet White? Even more to the point, if John hadn't broken in previously, then how, and when, did that window pane get shattered?
Looks to me like someone used the suitcase to boost himself up, pulled the window toward him, grabbed a bat or flashlight or golf club, whatever, and took a swing at the outer surface, so the broken glass would fall inward, onto the basement floor. The shard of glass could have fallen on the suitcase at that time.
What all this tells me is that the window scene was staged. Had to be. There is no other explanation for the evidence presented above. And once we see this, then we cannot help but realize that the staging was incomplete. There was a broken window, which would have enabled an intruder to reach the latch (just barely) and let himself in. There was packing debris on the floor, consistent with an intruder blustering through the window well. But too much was missing. To complete the job it would have been necessary to open the window wide, squeeze through it and into the well, mess things up as much as possible and then, finally, lift the grate open, probably using the same bat or golf club used to break the window, and displace it, just as an intruder entering from above would have done.
Clearly John ran out of time. No matter. If all had gone as planned, he'd have had an entire day and night with the house to himself, and could easily have completed the job. But Patsy destroyed his plan by the simple act of dialing 911, calling in the police with the body still in the house and the staging incomplete. With his efforts at the basement window hopelessly compromised, John had no other recourse than run down to the basement for some quick reconstruction work, mainly cleaning up most (but not all) of the broken glass, which enabled him later to claim he himself had broken in earlier. That explained the broken window, which would otherwise have been seen as staging for sure. But it didn't explain all the other evidence of staging, apparently missed by the investigators, thrown into a state of confusion by John's "confession." Now why would he go and claim he himself had broken that window if he'd been busy staging? Why indeed?
There was a chair not far from the suitcase, though it isn't visible in the shot. I think ti would be more likely JR would use that, if he needed to stand on anything. I don't know that I agree there would be signs of JR breaking in during the summer -had it actually happened, which of course it didn't. But w/o doubt there would be signs of someone breaking in the previous night - much greater disturbance of the debris.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's not easy to understand why John would have chosen the suitcase over a chair, either to boost himself up or to stage an "intruder" boost. Or why an intruder would have preferred the suitcase to a chair. But there it was, under the window with a piece of glass sitting on it. So it has to mean something.
DeleteCertainly there was no intruder. Which tells us John was the one who both planted and called attention to the suitcase.
Where was Patsy when John was murdering and staging,etc.? I can't find anywhere where you explain this?
DeletePatsy claimed she was fast asleep all night, and was awakened by the sound of John taking his shower. I see no reason to doubt that, since clearly she was not involved in either the murder or the kidnap staging. Of course many people awaken during the night and then fall back asleep without remembering, so she might not have been asleep every minute. If she had awakened, noticed that John wasn't there, and gone downstairs to investigate, she too would probably have been murdered.
DeleteQuestion (me again, from 2 other comments today) from the -- would he really have had to stand on something to reach the top of the window to break it? It didn't look all that tall that an adult couldn't reach up and smash.
ReplyDeleteTotally hypothetical, but maybe the suitcase was taken out because it was going to go with him to the bank... perhaps even be the way to remove the body from the house. Maybe he intended to hide the body in it but the note took so long & the staging was taking long so he just moved the body to the other room and planned to do it later, leaving the suitcase behind. He had to get up there before Patsy woke up.
Considering he thought the note would take care of Patsy calling cops (underestimating that mamma bear instinct), he figured he'd have all day and that no one would be looking in a windowless room for a body. The 911 call blew all that out of the water, forcing him to try to un-stage the window, realize he'd never get the body out of the house now, and finally find/drag up the body on his own (probably to further screw up the crime scene-- why else would anyone find their daughter's dead body in a basement closet with cops upstairs and not scream for them first to examine the scene?).
It just baffles me how so many crime experts have examined this case for 16 years and have so many varied theories on this, most of which make so little sense; you make more sense than all of them, they should hire you.
~ Mac
That should have been "from the basement--"
Delete"would he really have had to stand on something to reach the top of the window to break it? It didn't look all that tall that an adult couldn't reach up and smash."
DeleteGood question. It's hard to say whether he actually stood on the suitcase or just used it for staging. Regardless, it certainly seems as though the tiny shard of glass Smit found could only have gotten there if the suitcase were under the window when it was smashed.
I've seen suitcases of this type and rest assured there is no way you could fit a six year old into one. It's possible he was planning on taking it to the bank, but then why place it under the window? No, it looks very much like he either actually used it, or placed it there as part of his staging.
"It just baffles me how so many crime experts have examined this case for 16 years and have so many varied theories on this, most of which make so little sense"
As I see it, there are two mysteries at work here, the murder/coverup itself and the investigation of same. To solve the case you almost need to explain both. The key to the botched investigation, as I see it, is the very strange willingness of all concerned to accept the verdict of those handwriting "experts," both the ones that ruled John out and the ones who were so sure Patsy must have written the note. Once that fatal decision was made, there was literally no theory of the case that had any hope of success.
I myself think point blank that the youngest son Burk was involved and maybe dad stumbled on the incident and attempted to coverup and protect his son I didn't notice why the little girl was checked on and missing I as a mom would have went to my other child and woke him up asking if he knows where his sister might be but he wasn't awoke until the police arrived this doesn't feel right either and in the days to come the mother and father protect Burk from media and knowledge of the claims about him I think he was kept secret until he was old enough to know what would happen if anyone would find out it was him so it was not spoken about and even went as far as avoiding him from seeing tabloids pointing at him this was all a pattern but I'm not a professional I am a mother and being so this sound like a coverup and future protection for another childs doing why would he do this because she was getting most of the attention and was spotlighted so bright where was Burk he would be in the shadow because her success was so dominant in the world not just the family.
DeleteI invite you to take a look at the following blog post, where I discuss some of my thoughts regarding Burke: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/burke.html
DeleteCould you fit a six year old in it if she was without her head? One must admit the adequate size attache in the well-crafted note makes little sense otherwise.
DeleteDisturbing image! I really don't think you could squeeze a six year old's body into the hard shell of that Samsonite suitcase, but who knows? Contortionists have been able to fit into the smallest spaces.
DeleteRegardless, a an attache case is a completely different thing from a samsonite suitcase, so I don't see the connection. Not sure why the "attache" is mentioned, but maybe that's the sort of thing the writer thought a real kidnapper might say.
Well Doc, you have put together so much about this case that I would defer to you. However, it is you who show the meaning behind so much of that note, and it is usually the PDI theories which are left with only "idk, maybe she thought it was the sort of thing a kidnapper would say." The attache part sticks out like a sore thumb, and surely Patsy adding feminine flourishes to her death warrant are not the reason.
DeleteIf the whole point of the note was for John to stage a kidnapping and get rid of the body on the pretense of delivering a ransom as you surmise (and with such have gained many converts including myself), then it makes too much sense for the "adequate size attache" needing to be of adequate size for a body, and not the ransom. And of all things, he used a suitcase during the staging? That's quite suspicious in my opinion.
I'm not in John's income bracket to speak about the differences between an attache and a suitcase, but surely a suitcase is like an "adequate size attache". Perhaps he used the fancy French to allow himself some liberty in interpretation so that he could bring a suitcase.
Then again, as you say, I saw the suitcase and thought John would have needed all day just to get her in the damn thing. Then I remember the part about beheading in the note. There's an easy way to interpret that as more than just trying to spook Patsy. Aside from possibly fitting in the suitcase, that vicious garrote attack made it look like you probably could've beheaded her with an axe or similar. Further, I assume in your scenario John is dumping the body in the woods and not on a park bench. That is, he does not want only to get rid of the body, but to hide it from authorities. Well, one does not hide a body only to hide the mere fact of death or the time of death, but to hide the cause of death. In this case, her head fracture.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteQuestions, questions, questions. If JR broke window that night why even bring LHP into the equation by saying she helped vacuum up the glass in the summer?
ReplyDeleteI do think you are on to something though. Like I said before if you have locked yourself out of the house and have to strip down to your underwear to get in, that is a story that usually gets told at get-togethers with family and friends. Yet no one, not even Fleet White, can corroborate this story. The BPD should have asked John to reconstruct how he got into the house through the basement window. That would have been a funny video to watch. Heck even the Lou Smit entrance through the video is edited/cut I assume to take out the struggles he had making the maneuver from having knees bent in the window sill to swinging them through the window.
JR doesn't even know what he used to break the window. How can you not know? Once again, a situation that because of it's uniqueness would likely remain in your memory banks for a lifetime yet he struggles with every aspect of it? You are definitely right that he is lying Doc.
And the BPD, are you kidding me? They search the house looking for possible points of entry, find nothing suspicious about a broken window and exclude the room where JB was eventually found because it was latched from the outside.
As a side note can you imagine if it actually was a kidnapping and the kidnappers were watching and seeing a steady stream of people coming and going to the Ramsey house? You have police officers arriving at different intervals. Friends, advocates, a pastor, a lawyer...did I miss anybody. JR really did a poor job scaring Patsy from calling 911 and getting others involved in the ransom note ;-). If your theory is correct he must have been just shaking his head in disbelief...
RW7
"If JR broke window that night why even bring LHP into the equation by saying she helped vacuum up the glass in the summer?"
DeleteWell, remember, we have two different liars at work, each lying for a different reason. John is the master deceiver, lying up a storm to save his butt from the chair. Don't be deceived by all his hemming and hawing, it's there for a reason. The more detail he provides, the more likely someone will check and find a hole in his story.
Patsy on the other hand is the confused but compliant dupe. She is obviously embarrassed, not really knowing what is expected of her, thus all her prattle about that huge amount of glass all over the floor, and how the children played there, etc. While John provides as little detail as possible, Patsy provides more than is necessary. My guess is that Patsy was just winging it at that point, and in her confusion just blurted out whatever came into her head.
Why would a previous layer of dirt on the sill have to be there and have to be "smudged"? Does it not rain in Boulder? If the force of pouring drizzling cats and dog rain can clean a car, why not a window sill?
ReplyDeleteGood point. From the photo, it looks to me as though we do see the effects of raindrops on the windowsill dirt, which forms an irregular pattern. Don't forget, though, that the sill is inside a deep well, covered by a grate, so it's unlikely the dirt would be completely washed away, and that's consistent with what we see in the photo. The thick layer of dirt tells me that it's been there for some time, despite the relatively clear areas, probably due to spatters of rain.
DeleteIf such a thick layer of dirt can form despite the rain, then it seems to me we ought to be able to see smudges left over from John's summer breakin, if in fact it ever happened. On the other hand, if there had been a really heavy rainfall that autumn, those signs could have been washed out, so you have a point. As I see it, the sill evidence is consistent with the absence of an earlier breakin, but doesn't prove it couldn't have happened.
Unfortunately for John, the condition of the window sill is only one relatively minor reason to doubt his story. The story in itself is beyond belief, and for a great many reasons, as outlined in my earlier posts.
Didn't the police find the other shards of glass? Where would JR have disposed of them when he started to "unstage" the broken window?
ReplyDeleteNo, the police didn't find the rest of the glass, which is probably why they got confused and ultimately accepted John's story about breaking in earlier. But John would have had an opportunity to run down to the basement just after the 911 call, when Patsy was calling friends, and could easily have cleaned up the glass at that time. He could have collected it in a garbage bag, I suppose, and then disposed of it during the period when Arndt lost track of him later that morning.
DeleteCould the glass not have been placed in the golf bag?
DeleteI'm not sure why he'd have wanted to do that, since there was no way to get the golf bag out of the house inconspicuously and it would eventually be taken as evidence. He'd most likely have used a heavy duty garbage bag or just a paper bag if one was handy. Or possibly broken the glass into small pieces and put it in his pocket. Or flushed it down a toilet.
DeleteThe golf bag makes sense to me as a place to put the glass. It isn't going to be checked for any reason before the body is found. Glass probably wouldn't flush easily, nor can he just put it in the trash can where it might be spotted. It might also account for why he wanted the golf bag when PR's sister was allowed to remove evidence from the crime scene.
ReplyDeleteI believe the golf bag was taken as evidence. John may have asked for it but I don't think his request would have been honored. The police were meticulous about collecting and inspecting the evidence and if pieces of broken glass had been found in the golf bag that would have looked awfully suspicious.
ReplyDeleteAll it takes to flush broken glass is a paper bag to collect it in and a foot to smash it with. Keep smashing and all that would be left would be tiny fragments that could easily be poured into the toilet bowl and flushed.
I thought PRs sister took the golf bag during her evidence raid?
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, anything she'd have been allowed to take would have been carefully checked beforehand, so I don't think it matters.
DeleteBrian Scott has always interested me. He made comments about JonBenet's well defined calves, he knew the house well, and he had no alibi from midnight on, on Christmas night. He seems to fit the profile. He mentions that he watched JonBenet play with the exercise device you hook to your ankle and swing parallel to the ground while jumping over the piece swinging around, this is in Perfect Murder, Perfect Town. Something I found by accident was a photo of the back of the Ramsey home and that exercise thing(for lack of a better word) was laying there on the ground. Doesn't mean anything I just thought it was eerie to see it there, probably discarded from the last time she ever used it.
ReplyDeleteA fascinating aspect of this case is the large number of "likely suspects" who've been identified over the years. It's a long list, and each and every one sounds really suspicious until we realize that there's no evidence linking any of them to the crime. Bottom line: no prosecutor would ever be able to go after any of these people or in fact ANY intruder suspect, since 1. there was no sign of forced entry; 2. all doors were locked; 3. no evidence of an intruder's presence in the house; 4. no intruder theory makes sense.
DeleteI, like you, have long believed that John stood on top of the suitcase and broke the window with a bat. Lou Smit contended that the intruder used it to climb out of the window but, if that was done, then one would think that the suitcase would've been parallel to the window opening, not perpendicular. One more thing...I'm 100% positive that the golf club bag was not taken into evidence because I distinctly remember reading that John had requested that it be brought to him.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see you agree about John staging the window scene. As far as the suitcase is concerned, White reported that he'd found the suitcase flush against the wall and then moved it. So what we see in the photo is not what he saw when he entered that space.
DeleteEverything removed from the house was thoroughly checked beforehand. That's just basic police work. It may not have been taken in evidence but I'm sure it was checked.
The window was found broken. If we believe JR's story that he broke the window the previous summer, why then would PR go along with his story of breaking it and be so adamant about cleaning it up and having the maid help? Wouldn't JR want the police to think the window hadn't ever been fixed, thus explaining why it was broken the night of the murder? Help me understand this.
ReplyDeleteThe reasons for PR supporting John's version of what happened are discussed in the final section of this post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-basement-window-part-4.html
ReplyDeleteWe know they both lied, in any case, as the housekeeper who was supposed to have assisted Patsy denied any knowledge of any broken window. Also, John's story is obviously a fabrication, which should be clear to anyone reading his testimony with any degree of healthy skepticism.
They also lied about not being able to recall whether that window had ever been repaired. That's simply not credible. How could they not recall whether a basement window remained broken throughout a cold and windy winter, and in any case how could they have failed to look into that or have their "investigation team" look into it?
"Wouldn't JR want the police to think the window hadn't ever been fixed, thus explaining why it was broken the night of the murder? Help me understand this."
Excellent question. He had no way of knowing what the investigators had found and how they interpreted what they'd found. So he had to be careful. If he insisted the window had never been repaired, and they'd concluded it was a fresh break, then they'd have known right away that he'd been lying. And if he told them that the window HAD been repaired, then his story about breaking in earlier would have been pointless -- and it would have been obvious that he broke the window himself the night of the murder. By claiming not to recall, he was covering all bases. My guess is that the investigators who examined the glass must have been unable to determine whether the break was fresh or not, so he got benefit of the doubt, luckily for him.
I have two questions:
ReplyDelete1. What is that white string/cord/rope outside the window near the screen, and why is it never mentioned anywhere (as far as I have read into this anyway)?
2. In the video, the last door they open before the window scene, there are several golf clubs strewn inside this room, and no mention of these anywhere (that I have read about)?
You're very observant. The string in the window well does look a lot like the cord used to bind JonBenet, doesn't it? Yet, as you say, that possibility never seems to have been raised. I feel sure they must have checked it. Interesting.
DeleteAre those golf clubs? I don't play so I can't be sure, but they didn't look like golf clubs to me. But you may be right. If so, I'm sure they must have been examined pretty closely -- but who knows?
The "cord"used on jb looks like lace to me, the kind used for trimming dresses. Also the fact that at least 10 people had keys to his house, including the neighbor, proves that its even more unlikely jr would need or want to break into his own house. He probably said this in case his fingerprints were found anywhere. jb was almost certainly being molested regularly, with her chronic vaginitis and so many trips to the dr. I believe Patsy knew about this or suspected it and turned a blind eye. If she sent john to jail, there goes the money and jbs miss america title. Don't know why she didn't divorce him
ReplyDeleteJohn wouldn't have been worried about fingerprints. It was his house, his basement, his window, so why wouldn't his prints be there? No, John lied because otherwise it would have been obvious that the window had been broken from the inside, on the night of the crime. As part of a staged break-in.
DeleteAnother thing I find fascinating is that John was eager to bolster Smit's theory that the suitcase didn't belong there and someone had moved it there to get out. Obviously John bolsted this story because it made the IDI theory believable.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I've seen many interviews of John and he's asked how he believes the intruders got in and out. He replies "I don't know" most times. If that suitcase was definitely never there and someone had moved it there...then OF COURSE that was how they got out. If I was a parent I'd be saying they got out via the suitcase through the basement window. But John always changes his mind...
It's so obvious that he planted the suitcase there. Which in itself, is enough to prove he is guilty.
ZJ
Ok, obviously the window scene is extremely important to pointing the finger at John. I do agree with DocG but for my own purpose and for me to completely rule out IDI, I just wanted to post this and get your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, if it was IDI, it HAD to be a friend or someone who had been in the house before. They knew the Ramseys weren't home, they knew where the basement was, they felt comfortable walking through the house to find paper, torch, nylon etc. They knew where JB's bedroom was etc.
Let's say, for arguments sake, it was a friend or someone they knew who either had a key to get in, or, had stolen a key from them or a friend.
Whilst the Ramsey's were out, this person had ample time to write the RN and fashion a garrotte.
When the Ramsey's came home and went to bed, he simply went into JB's room to pick her up and she kept sleeping (I have a six year old daughter and when she's asleep I can pick her up and waltz around the room and she doesn't wake up). Or maybe JB did wake and it was a familiar face.
Either way, this intruder took JB downstairs to the basement with the torch (which he had found earlier). He took her to the basement because he knew he wouldn't be heard down there. He then sexually abuses her and at some stage hit her over the head (either before or during the abuse). When he's done he uses the pre-made garrotte to ensure she is dead and he doesn't leave handprints around her neck. This would also explain why there was a urine stain on the floor if this was where she was abused.
CONTINUED BELOW
ZJ
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
ReplyDeleteWhat is the motive behind this? It's mainly sex driven as this perpetrator has a thing for JB (perhaps it was the Santa Clause at the family party who said he would pay her a “secret” visit on Xmas...I can't remember his name). Whilst mainly sex driven, this person also had a vendetta against John. Most like because John was successful and had money. Maybe the $118,000 bonus John received (which I think may have been published in the paper, or would have been known to friends) enraged this person who probably didn’t earn anywhere near John’s bonus in a year, let alone John’s entire salary. So this person not only gets his rocks off with JB, but also decides to stage a kidnapping and extort money from John.
However, this person doesn't want to risk leaving with JB's body...which to me makes sense, so he hides her body in the best place he can think of. Given he is already in the basement he places her body in the corner of the "windowless" room (which would have been pre-planned). He then closes the latch on this door and also blocks it with a chair hoping it won't be discovered in the next 24 hours so he can receive his money from John. He also doesn't anticipate them ringing 911 due to the "she will die" comments in the RN.
Whilst down in the basement, he probably notices the broken window that John actually DID break "last summer". Maybe the intruder pushes the suitcase against the window for two possible reasons:
1) Since he was already down there, maybe he could sneak out the window and not risk having to go back upstairs, or more likely
2) Maybe the intruder staged his own STAGED kidnapping because he knew John and Patsy would search the house and wonder how he got in (if in fact he had a key or stole a key). He didn't want them suspecting someone used a key so he placed the suitcase against the wall so it seemed like he got in and out this way. Remember, the body couldn't be seen in this room as the body is in the windowless room.
Then the intruder simply walks upstairs and leaves from the door he entered, locking it again before leaving.
I just want to state I DO NOT believe it was an intruder and DO think it was John. However, I've read the above a few times and it does sound plausible. I'm sure DocG will shoot down a few things in the above haha, but even though I think John is guilty, I just don't know how we can rule out the above...with the intruder being someone who knew the family, lusted over JB and had some anger towards John.
Thoughts???
ZJ
ZJ, I think the IDI scenario that you described above seems very possible and has been something very similar to my conclusion for several years. A couple things that the IDI scenario does not explain is the previous sexual abuse allegations and the pineapple snack. Although DocG does make a very good case for the JDI theory, but I find it so much harder to believe. The JDI theory can explain both issues.
DeleteWhere is all the blood at? Head wounds bleed...a lot. For her type of skull fracture, there would be blood.
ReplyDeleteThis head wound did not bleed. The scalp was not lacerated. There were no signs of a head injury until they were revealed at the autopsy. Which is why the Maglite, with its hard rubber tip seems likely to be the weapon she was clubbed with. This could have been a deliberate choice on the part of her attacker, to make sure no blood would be spilled.
DeleteBurk says he got back up that night and went downstairs to play w a new toy. Did Jon Benet? How did John know Burk was up? Did he hear him 2 levels below? Did Burk make the pineapple and tea? In the bowl of pineapple, were all the pieces uniform or vary in size and shape? Why is the bowl and glass sitting on a glass table,not on the placemat or in front of a seat? Looks like someone sat it down on table, not ate it at the table. Any fingerprints on the glass tabletop? I don't see any smudges.
ReplyDeleteReports say Patsy was awoken by the shower. Not an alarm. They were leaving that morning on a trip but the bags weren't packed and ready yet. Nobody showered the night before a big trip? Patsy states she put the clothes on from the night before that she had on side of tub. Then goes down steps to find ransom note and screams. Johns bathrobe was found on floor outside study. When did he get out of shower..before or after her scream..when did he get dressed? Where are his dirty clothes? So many questions
Was there blood on the 🔦? Or anything that showed evidence that she was hit with something that resulted with her having her skull cracked?
ReplyDelete