DNA and Krane

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#225 Nov 10, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
OK, I will buy that. The autopsy report is very vague as far as the sexual abuse and prior sexual abuse, so, that is the reason for my stand also, about the sexual abuse at the time of the murder.
So, it is your belief that IF there was prior sexual abuse, it had nothing to do with the murder? IF that is the case, there must have been some very strange things going on in that house prior to the murder.
CC
My belief would be that there is no evidence to connect prior abuse to the murder. There could still be a connection, but there’s no evidence for it.

The autopsy report is essentially a collection of facts and a cause of death. As a collection of facts, the autopsy report is pretty clear; the problem is with how those facts are interpreted. However, I think everyone agreed that the victim penetrated with a finger, or missing end of the paintbrush at or near point of death. I’m not aware of any dispute regarding this. The interpretation of prior abuse is controversial and has not yet been settled one way or the other.
...

AK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#226 Nov 10, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
My belief would be that there is no evidence to connect prior abuse to the murder. There could still be a connection, but there’s no evidence for it.
The autopsy report is essentially a collection of facts and a cause of death. As a collection of facts, the autopsy report is pretty clear; the problem is with how those facts are interpreted. However, I think everyone agreed that the victim penetrated with a finger, or missing end of the paintbrush at or near point of death. I’m not aware of any dispute regarding this. The interpretation of prior abuse is controversial and has not yet been settled one way or the other.
...
AK
Hi AK,
OK again. I agree, that I was pulling straws when it comes to the "sexual abuse" and "prior sexual abuse", That is, IF you consider violating the child who is very near death being penetrated as "sexual abuse". I see it only as "staging".

Because there is no evidence of any intruder, to say an intruder did it, would be absurd to me, as I cannot accept the possibility that someone entered the home in winter clothing, spent hours in the house, committing the murder, writing the ransom note, then leaving without a trace, without leaving anything more than a few microscopic specs of DNA, without forgetting ANYTHING that he brought, such as the possible left over tape and cords, or anything else.

Although there is no real winter where I live, I have lived where there were winters with snow and ice on the ground. I cannot see a person wearing winter clothing in a house for hours without taking some of it off.

While Lou Smit is now gone, I would have loved to see him, and Lacy especially, to take a polygraph test on this case, but also EVERYONE involved in the JBR investigation.
CC

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#227 Nov 10, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not been convinced either way about prior abuse.
But, I find it easy to pretend that it did happen, because, maybe it did. So, why not explore that? If it makes discussion, here on topix, easier or more fruitful, then why not simply accept this, here on topix, as fact?
If prior abuse is true, then it raises the question, is prior abuse connected to the crime? I want to see the evidence.
As an IDI, I do not see the killer as being involved in any prior abuse. I do not see the killer as being involved in any prior abuse because I have not seen any evidence to connect the abuse to the murder, and because evidence suggests that the killer is outside of the Ramsey circle (family, friends, associates, etc).
...
AK
Hi AK,
OK, I understand. I differ from you totally. With me, I want proven facts. So, when the experts say the "injuries are consistent with sexual abuse", it does NOT mean sexual abuse to me. It could be that it wasn't, OR it could be that it was, but the expert was not brave enough to say it outright. As I see it, when they make a statement that vague, I will say what I see, that it isn't proven, so it isn't until proven, and I will NOT interpret what they are saying either way. So, as I see it, JBR was NOT sexually abused at the time of her murder. The evidence is NOT definite,

I CAN see your point.
CC

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#228 Nov 10, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
OK again. I agree, that I was pulling straws when it comes to the "sexual abuse" and "prior sexual abuse", That is, IF you consider violating the child who is very near death being penetrated as "sexual abuse". I see it only as "staging".
Because there is no evidence of any intruder, to say an intruder did it, would be absurd to me, as I cannot accept the possibility that someone entered the home in winter clothing, spent hours in the house, committing the murder, writing the ransom note, then leaving without a trace, without leaving anything more than a few microscopic specs of DNA, without forgetting ANYTHING that he brought, such as the possible left over tape and cords, or anything else.
Although there is no real winter where I live, I have lived where there were winters with snow and ice on the ground. I cannot see a person wearing winter clothing in a house for hours without taking some of it off.
While Lou Smit is now gone, I would have loved to see him, and Lacy especially, to take a polygraph test on this case, but also EVERYONE involved in the JBR investigation.
CC
You can argue that the sexual assault at or near point of death was for the purpose of staging, but it still happened. The intent doesn’t take away from the act. The victim was still penetrated with a finger or the paint brush handle at or near point of death. This penetration constitutes a sexual assault.

Obviously we see the evidence differently. However, I too am doubtful regarding an intruder who spent hours in the house, waiting.

It is minus 12 here. Not much snow, yet. Soon....
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#229 Nov 10, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
OK, I understand. I differ from you totally. With me, I want proven facts. So, when the experts say the "injuries are consistent with sexual abuse", it does NOT mean sexual abuse to me. It could be that it wasn't, OR it could be that it was, but the expert was not brave enough to say it outright. As I see it, when they make a statement that vague, I will say what I see, that it isn't proven, so it isn't until proven, and I will NOT interpret what they are saying either way. So, as I see it, JBR was NOT sexually abused at the time of her murder. The evidence is NOT definite,
I CAN see your point.
CC
I agree, when the experts say something is “consistent with” it is not the same as saying “is.” I don’t think this has anything to do with “bravery,” I think this is sort of thing is said because it is the honest thing to say, it is the truth.

However, the experts – Meyer, Spitz, etc - don’t say that the injuries seen at autopsy are consistent with sexual assault at or near point of death. They say the injuries seen at autopsy DID occur at or near point of death.

The experts describe the other “injuries” seen in the same area as being consistent with prior abuse. Eth proper interpretation of this is,“could be.” This isn’t vague, but it isn’t definite either. Still, it tells us something. It tells us that some of the injuries seen “could be” from prior abuse. This at least eliminates “can’t be.”

Bakatari, I think an important thing to note when considering these things, autopsy reports and DNA and such, is that none of them exist in a vacuum. We can take these things and use context and other evidence gathered and information gleaned to turn a “could be” into a “probably” or “probably not.”
...

AK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#230 Nov 10, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
You can argue that the sexual assault at or near point of death was for the purpose of staging, but it still happened. The intent doesn’t take away from the act. The victim was still penetrated with a finger or the paint brush handle at or near point of death. This penetration constitutes a sexual assault.
Obviously we see the evidence differently. However, I too am doubtful regarding an intruder who spent hours in the house, waiting.
It is minus 12 here. Not much snow, yet. Soon....
...
AK
Hi AK,
It is 71 degrees Fahrenheit here in Hawaii at 8:30PM
We had some rains, and now strong gusts up to about 40 MPH, but I can still walk out with casual and light clothing. I spent a full winter in Korea, where we had an average of -20 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 straight days, so I know what cold weather is like.

I also spent winters in Chicago and New Jersey where it got quite cold.

When water freezes on the ground, the ground must be below 32 degrees F, and wearing light clothes would be absurd.

As far as an intruder, forget the waiting. Just writing the Ransom Note, and committing the murder had to take at least 2 hours. You must remember, that in the time frame, the RN was written, the garrote was constructed, the victim was taken to the basement, and the victim was murdered. In that time, keeping ALL of his clothes on would explain no DNA anywhere, but being dressed in winter clothing in the house for the duration? I really don't think so.
CC

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#234 Nov 11, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
It is 71 degrees Fahrenheit here in Hawaii at 8:30PM
We had some rains, and now strong gusts up to about 40 MPH, but I can still walk out with casual and light clothing. I spent a full winter in Korea, where we had an average of -20 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 straight days, so I know what cold weather is like.
I also spent winters in Chicago and New Jersey where it got quite cold.
When water freezes on the ground, the ground must be below 32 degrees F, and wearing light clothes would be absurd.
As far as an intruder, forget the waiting. Just writing the Ransom Note, and committing the murder had to take at least 2 hours. You must remember, that in the time frame, the RN was written, the garrote was constructed, the victim was taken to the basement, and the victim was murdered. In that time, keeping ALL of his clothes on would explain no DNA anywhere, but being dressed in winter clothing in the house for the duration? I really don't think so.
CC
How much time passed between head blow and asphyxiation? Opinions vary, but take the minimum time and add five minutes or so to that and we get the minimum amount of time an intruder would have had to be in the house.
...

AK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#235 Nov 11, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
How much time passed between head blow and asphyxiation? Opinions vary, but take the minimum time and add five minutes or so to that and we get the minimum amount of time an intruder would have had to be in the house.
...
AK
Hi AK,
That is a very good question. I don't think anyone but the killer and those around JBR at the time of her death knows.

The lack of internal bleeding could mean that the strangulation came first, with all of the victim's body functions shutting down before the head blow, or the vice versa.

Personally, I think the head blow came first, with the strangulation being a part of the staging, when the coverup took place. One thing for sure to me, is the strangulation was a part of the coverup. The head blow could have been to quicken the death, but I doubt that it was any part of the coverup.

My thought on this, is Patsy, if a fit of rage, threw JB into the bathroom, with JB hitting her head on a toilet bowl or a bathtub causing the skull fracture. Thinking that JB was already dead, she proceeded with the coverup and strangulation.

Of course, that is MY theory, but I could be wrong, Any one of the three could have committed the murder.
CC

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#236 Nov 12, 2013
So are you saying if X minutes passed, add 5 more minutes to that and the intruder did everything in that amount of time?

OK, x=5 minutes, so now add your 5 and he did all that in 10 minutes? Getting her from bed, taking her downstairs, writing a ransom note, feeding her pineapple(???), killing her, sexually abusing her, cleaning her up, changing her clothes, and wrapping her in a blanket and placing her in the windowless room, AND escaping the house? That cannot be a minimum time, can it?

OK, x=20 minutes, so now add your 5 and he did all that in 25 minutes? Getting her from bed, taking her downstairs, writing a ransom note, feeding her pineapple(???), killing her, sexually abusing her, cleaning her up, changing her clothes, and wrapping her in a blanket and placing her in the windowless room, AND escaping the house?

Is that enough time to go through the house and obtain everything he needed (cord, tape, pad, sharpie, and learn the layout of the house so he would know where to place her (in what room) AND do everything in the paragraph above?

I am still not convinced that is anywhere near enough time needed to do all that. I still believe if it were an intruder, they would have come in, taken JBR out of the house, and disposed of her.

I don’t believe the statistics will bear out your point of view.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
How much time passed between head blow and asphyxiation? Opinions vary, but take the minimum time and add five minutes or so to that and we get the minimum amount of time an intruder would have had to be in the house.
...
AK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#237 Nov 12, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
So are you saying if X minutes passed, add 5 more minutes to that and the intruder did everything in that amount of time?
OK, x=5 minutes, so now add your 5 and he did all that in 10 minutes? Getting her from bed, taking her downstairs, writing a ransom note, feeding her pineapple(???), killing her, sexually abusing her, cleaning her up, changing her clothes, and wrapping her in a blanket and placing her in the windowless room, AND escaping the house? That cannot be a minimum time, can it?
OK, x=20 minutes, so now add your 5 and he did all that in 25 minutes? Getting her from bed, taking her downstairs, writing a ransom note, feeding her pineapple(???), killing her, sexually abusing her, cleaning her up, changing her clothes, and wrapping her in a blanket and placing her in the windowless room, AND escaping the house?
Is that enough time to go through the house and obtain everything he needed (cord, tape, pad, sharpie, and learn the layout of the house so he would know where to place her (in what room) AND do everything in the paragraph above?
I am still not convinced that is anywhere near enough time needed to do all that. I still believe if it were an intruder, they would have come in, taken JBR out of the house, and disposed of her.
I don’t believe the statistics will bear out your point of view.
<quoted text>
The pineapple evidence is crucial, because it means that JBR ate some pineapple about 30 minutes before she expired. It could be longer than that, if she was near death for a while, with her body functions shutting down from being deprived of a normal heartbeat,

I think the RN took about 30 minutes, and if Patsy did it as I theorize, the whole thing took about 2 hours or a little more. I really don't think JBR was "sexually assaulted" in conjunction with her murder though. I think it was just part of the staging, and done while she was near death.
CC

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#238 Nov 12, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
So are you saying if X minutes passed, add 5 more minutes to that and the intruder did everything in that amount of time?
OK, x=5 minutes, so now add your 5 and he did all that in 10 minutes? Getting her from bed, taking her downstairs, writing a ransom note, feeding her pineapple(???), killing her, sexually abusing her, cleaning her up, changing her clothes, and wrapping her in a blanket and placing her in the windowless room, AND escaping the house? That cannot be a minimum time, can it?
OK, x=20 minutes, so now add your 5 and he did all that in 25 minutes? Getting her from bed, taking her downstairs, writing a ransom note, feeding her pineapple(???), killing her, sexually abusing her, cleaning her up, changing her clothes, and wrapping her in a blanket and placing her in the windowless room, AND escaping the house?
Is that enough time to go through the house and obtain everything he needed (cord, tape, pad, sharpie, and learn the layout of the house so he would know where to place her (in what room) AND do everything in the paragraph above?
I am still not convinced that is anywhere near enough time needed to do all that. I still believe if it were an intruder, they would have come in, taken JBR out of the house, and disposed of her.
I don’t believe the statistics will bear out your point of view.
<quoted text>
I was describing a means of determining a MINIMUM amount of time needed.

Not a theory; okay? Just an exercise, for the fun of it.

Enter home a week or so before the night of the crime to determine availability and location of items, layout of house, insider info, etc.

Write note in advance on notepad removed from house, OR write note in advance to be copied into notepad in house on night of crime.
Enter home night of crime, go immediately to basement and prepare for return trip with victim – leave light on, door ajar, etc. Time: 2 or 3 minutes

Go to first floor, leave notepad with pre-written inside note on counter or tabletop or somewhere, or copy note to notepad and leave. Place pen in pen cup. Time: 1 to five minutes.

Continue on upstairs and nab victim. Time: 2 to 3 minutes.

Retrace steps and return to basement with victim. 1 or 2 minutes.

Construct garrote while sitting atop victim. Time: 1 or 2 minutes.

Asphyxiate. Time: 2 or 3 seconds.

Asphyxiate twice, if you think that happened. Time: up to 5 minutes.

Head blow and stun, if you think that happened. Time: 2 seconds each.

So, that’s about 22 minutes so far.

Pull down victim’s leggings, panties and pull back up and straighten out. Time: a few seconds.

Penetration. Time: a few seconds.

Wipe away blood. Time: a few seconds.

Construct and attach wrist ligatures. Time: 1 minute.

Move body to windowless room. Time: one minute.

Arrange body (blanket wrap, arms above head, tape on mouth). Time: one minute.

Now, we’re at 17 - 26 minutes.

Go back upstairs and remove note from notebook, place notebook on table and note on stairs: two minutes. That brings us to 19 – 28 minutes; Let’s just say 30 minutes. Minimum amount of time needed to be in the house in an intruder’s perfect world.

Anyway, like I said this was just for fun, and out of curiosity. I did do a bit of experimentation, timing myself tying and taping, and dressing/undressing and walking up and down stairs and silly things like that – copying the ransom note, so these times have some substance to them. The bottom line of it, is that with a little bit of planning, some prep work and a touch of luck, an intruder could have easily pulled everything off in under an hour.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#239 Nov 12, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
The pineapple evidence is crucial, because it means that JBR ate some pineapple about 30 minutes before she expired. It could be longer than that, if she was near death for a while, with her body functions shutting down from being deprived of a normal heartbeat,
I think the RN took about 30 minutes, and if Patsy did it as I theorize, the whole thing took about 2 hours or a little more. I really don't think JBR was "sexually assaulted" in conjunction with her murder though. I think it was just part of the staging, and done while she was near death.
CC
As much as RDI like to harp on it, there is no evidence connecting Jonbenet’s ingestion of pineapple and her murder.
...

AK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#240 Nov 12, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
My belief would be that there is no evidence to connect prior abuse to the murder. There could still be a connection, but there’s no evidence for it.
The autopsy report is essentially a collection of facts and a cause of death. As a collection of facts, the autopsy report is pretty clear; the problem is with how those facts are interpreted. However, I think everyone agreed that the victim penetrated with a finger, or missing end of the paintbrush at or near point of death. I’m not aware of any dispute regarding this. The interpretation of prior abuse is controversial and has not yet been settled one way or the other.
...
AK
Hi AK,
This is the problem. The Ransom Note was obviously a phony. There was no kidnapping, nor was there any indication that the murder was to gain money.

So, what do we have left? The sexual molestation, the possible rage from someone in the family because of bedwetting or something else of which both points to a family member.

The police were inexperienced as far as homicides. because Boulder CO didn't even average ONE homicide per year. It was a small community, about the size of population of the island I used to live on, of about 50,000. I can see someone getting away with murder where I lived, especially if that person had a lot of money, which the Ramsey family did have at the time of the murder.

There is no evidence that indicates an intruder. SO, that leaves you three suspects. ALL are family members.
CC

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#241 Nov 12, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
As much as RDI like to harp on it, there is no evidence connecting Jonbenet’s ingestion of pineapple and her murder.
...
AK
Hi AK,
The Pineapple evidence is VERY crucial. What it proves, is that JBR ate pineapple about 30 minutes before her death. Of course, we should not expect JBR to have eaten anything while sleeping, so she either ate pineapple then went to sleep, or she ate pineapple and was murdered without going to sleep at all.

The Whites did not serve pineapple at their home, so the pineapple had to be eaten in the Ramsey home.

The claim by the Ramsey parents was that JBR was sleeping when they got home. John Ramsey carried her to her bedroom, SO, the IF they are telling the truth, the killer woke JBR and fed her pineapple before killing her?

The pineapple in the small intestines IS indeed a very crucial piece of evidence, and although it does not directly connect with the murder, it MUST fit in the sequence.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#242 Nov 13, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
The Pineapple evidence is VERY crucial. What it proves, is that JBR ate pineapple about 30 minutes before her death. Of course, we should not expect JBR to have eaten anything while sleeping, so she either ate pineapple then went to sleep, or she ate pineapple and was murdered without going to sleep at all.
The Whites did not serve pineapple at their home, so the pineapple had to be eaten in the Ramsey home.
The claim by the Ramsey parents was that JBR was sleeping when they got home. John Ramsey carried her to her bedroom, SO, the IF they are telling the truth, the killer woke JBR and fed her pineapple before killing her?
The pineapple in the small intestines IS indeed a very crucial piece of evidence, and although it does not directly connect with the murder, it MUST fit in the sequence.
CC
Excellent points CC plus we also now know that the pineapple came from the Ramseys' refrigerator so it was eaten at HER home and not long before she died. That adds legitimacy to Burke's statement that she was awake and walking

AGAIN...just another instance where there are not only conflicting stories but deception on someone's part. The Ramseys, nor their handlers have ever commented to my knowledge on THAT discrepancy. I suppose they felt that it would just be brushed off because the discrepancy came from a child. I'm wondering if that discrepancy had any impact on the GJ, assuming that was reviewed.

So many discrepancies and bad behavior coming from the Ramseys and their reps that on that alone, people should realize it was a part of every aspect of this crime and should ask themselves WHY and they would have the answer :)

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#243 Nov 13, 2013
I think the ingestion is used mainly to try and narrow a TOD timeframe, and or to determine whether or not JBR might have been awake as BR stated when she arrived home. I don’t see where anyone except Brother Moon is trying to make it part of the "plot", so “RDI like to harp” is a bit of overkill, don’t you think?
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
As much as RDI like to harp on it, there is no evidence connecting Jonbenet’s ingestion of pineapple and her murder.
...
AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#244 Nov 13, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
I think the ingestion is used mainly to try and narrow a TOD timeframe, and or to determine whether or not JBR might have been awake as BR stated when she arrived home. I don’t see where anyone except Brother Moon is trying to make it part of the "plot", so “RDI like to harp” is a bit of overkill, don’t you think?
<quoted text>
The pineapple is in fact, EVIDENCE that cannot be disputed. It is there. The only dispute EVER was WHEN she ate it and it has been determined that she had to have eaten it upon arrival home.

The IDI can argue until the cows come home that she "may" have eaten it before she left, ate it at the Whites, the Whites came by and stole some of the Ramsey pineapple (my favorite) but the facts have shown that the pineapple had to have been ingested when the Ramsey parents claim that she was asleep

To say that it is being "harped" on is silly as it is a VERY big part of the crime and speaks to the myriad of lies the Ramseys put out there. Unless she was sleepwalking and had pineapple in her sleep, she was not asleep when they came home which makes the rest of the story less than honest

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#245 Nov 13, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
I think the ingestion is used mainly to try and narrow a TOD timeframe, and or to determine whether or not JBR might have been awake as BR stated when she arrived home. I don’t see where anyone except Brother Moon is trying to make it part of the "plot", so “RDI like to harp” is a bit of overkill, don’t you think?
<quoted text>
Hi Dr S,
This is the problem. Of course, if the strangulation came first, death would have come only minutes after the loss of consciousness, so in that case, JB would have had to have eaten the pineapple only 30 minutes to an hour before her death. IF the head blow came first, it could be that JBR's body functions shut down an organ at a time, which would mean that the strangulation which actually killed her could have come much longer after the head blow.

Because we don't know for sure which came first, determining when death occurred is impossible. We only know that the head blow came before the body functions totally stopped, because of the minimal bleeding.

It is my personal opinion that the head blow came first, but I don't think it can be proven either way.
CC

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#246 Nov 13, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent points CC plus we also now know that the pineapple came from the Ramseys' refrigerator so it was eaten at HER home and not long before she died. That adds legitimacy to Burke's statement that she was awake and walking
AGAIN...just another instance where there are not only conflicting stories but deception on someone's part. The Ramseys, nor their handlers have ever commented to my knowledge on THAT discrepancy. I suppose they felt that it would just be brushed off because the discrepancy came from a child. I'm wondering if that discrepancy had any impact on the GJ, assuming that was reviewed.
So many discrepancies and bad behavior coming from the Ramseys and their reps that on that alone, people should realize it was a part of every aspect of this crime and should ask themselves WHY and they would have the answer :)
Hi Cap,
I don't see how anyone can say that the pineapple evidence is not crucial to this case. One thing that it does, is it dictates some sort of compulsory timeline, with variances as to how long our digestive system takes on pineapple. We know for fact, that under normal conditions the digestive development in JBR was between 30 minutes to 45 minutes. It could have been longer if the body functions slowed down after the head blow or strangulation, but it was NOT shorter.
CC

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#247 Nov 13, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I was describing a means of determining a MINIMUM amount of time needed.
Not a theory; okay? Just an exercise, for the fun of it.
Enter home a week or so before the night of the crime to determine availability and location of items, layout of house, insider info, etc.
Write note in advance on notepad removed from house, OR write note in advance to be copied into notepad in house on night of crime.
Enter home night of crime, go immediately to basement and prepare for return trip with victim – leave light on, door ajar, etc. Time: 2 or 3 minutes
Go to first floor, leave notepad with pre-written inside note on counter or tabletop or somewhere, or copy note to notepad and leave. Place pen in pen cup. Time: 1 to five minutes.
Continue on upstairs and nab victim. Time: 2 to 3 minutes.
Retrace steps and return to basement with victim. 1 or 2 minutes.
Construct garrote while sitting atop victim. Time: 1 or 2 minutes.
Asphyxiate. Time: 2 or 3 seconds.
Asphyxiate twice, if you think that happened. Time: up to 5 minutes.
Head blow and stun, if you think that happened. Time: 2 seconds each.
So, that’s about 22 minutes so far.
Pull down victim’s leggings, panties and pull back up and straighten out. Time: a few seconds.
Penetration. Time: a few seconds.
Wipe away blood. Time: a few seconds.
Construct and attach wrist ligatures. Time: 1 minute.
Move body to windowless room. Time: one minute.
Arrange body (blanket wrap, arms above head, tape on mouth). Time: one minute.
Now, we’re at 17 - 26 minutes.
Go back upstairs and remove note from notebook, place notebook on table and note on stairs: two minutes. That brings us to 19 – 28 minutes; Let’s just say 30 minutes. Minimum amount of time needed to be in the house in an intruder’s perfect world.
Anyway, like I said this was just for fun, and out of curiosity. I did do a bit of experimentation, timing myself tying and taping, and dressing/undressing and walking up and down stairs and silly things like that – copying the ransom note, so these times have some substance to them. The bottom line of it, is that with a little bit of planning, some prep work and a touch of luck, an intruder could have easily pulled everything off in under an hour.
...
AK
First, you didn't say the 'intruder' entered the house the week before so everyone could put that in their version. Now we would have to find evidence of an intruder twice, and we can't even find evidence of one once.
I understand this was just an exercise, but if you can do all this in a strange home in this short amount of time, you should hire out as a nanny cause you could name your price.:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Evil Super Family 1 min DedRed 26
Why would the Ramsey's do so many stupid things... 4 min DedRed 123
News JonBenet Ramsey Investigator -- My Theory Burke... 10 min KCinNYC 1
S.B.T.C: Weird coincidence? (Mar '10) 11 min Poodle 335
Blood or urine? 5 hr Alana Ronald 3
rope and duct tape 5 hr Anti-K 49
The Ramseys LONG suspect list 5 hr tootlems 87
Kolar Writes About Feces and Burke 10 hr Just Wondering 71
More from around the web