"Ligatures"
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#1 Jun 10, 2014
The wrist ligatures were tied over the shirt. Right then and there they ceased to be functional as a tool of restraint for two reasons: She didn't resist the ligatures which would have slid more toward the meat of her palms had she resisted and if she was found in the position John said she was found in her hands would have had to be restrained from the front, which defeats the purpose of the restraints.

I know most of us realize the hand bindings were staged but binding her hands in front of her above her wrists and over her shirt is the most glaring example of staging that I've seen in this case. Not only that there was slack with those bindings so they really served no purpose at all. Her arms being in the position they were in was a bit telling because that would be the perfect position to stage a ligature on a dead kid laying on her back. It actually may have even been the last thing done by her killer(s) to make this look more like a kidnapping than it did.

The one thing I'm trying to figure out now is the shoulder abrasion. I theorize and I'm probably right that she died on her stomach due to the urine stains on the anterior area of her clothing and I also think she was assaulted on her stomach due to the blood being on the anterior side of her perineum as well as the bruising being located at the 7-o'clock position in the vaginal cavity, Had she been on her back the blood and urine would have seeped posteriorly and due to the fact that sexual assault with instruments usually bruise "Up" I'm convinced she was on her stomach during the paint brush assault. That type of carpet in the Ramsey basement is rather abrasive as most basement carpets are and the abrasions on both her chin and her shoulder would be good examples of "Carpet burn" but being that the abrasion is on the top of her shoulder such a scenario would be impossible.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#2 Jun 10, 2014
Thank you so much for that detailed analysis Jimmy! Very interesting info!
candy

East Lansing, MI

#3 Jun 10, 2014
How and why do you believe her arms became fixed in position over hear head? Was she dragged and rigor set in?
Lol

Lexington, KY

#4 Jun 10, 2014
Has anyone noticed that the guy in perfect murder perfect town was in the movie twister his partner in the movie really looks like the psychic sketch of the murderer http://adamdaroff.com/images/actors/aruck.jpg

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#6 Jun 10, 2014
I stated in a previous post that she may have been dragged but I'm not so sure. If the hands were tied last, as far as the body was concerned, I think this may have been done in the cellar rather than outside the door for a few reasons. First, I think the blanket served not only as a buffer between her and the floor it could also eliminate the possibility of prints, fibers, or DNA from reaching her body when being moved. Said contaminants could easily be explained if they were on the blanket rather than her body because the blanket was from the home. I think the arms were in the position they were in because the wrist ligatures were tied up away from her body to avoid contamination. I also wouldn't put it past the Ramsey's to have used those hi-tech boots to make prints in the mold surrounding her body then disposed of the boots to confuse investigators. I know most people don't have old shoes laying around the house but they possibly could have been old boots previously used by JAR that were stored in the suitcase explaining the cross contamination of the fibers on her blanket and in the suitcase. Keep in mind there was some activity in his room, whatever it may be, so its not out of the realm of possibility that some of the staging materials and/or killing tools came from his room. This would be a way of distancing the parents from the investigation without implicating JAR because he was out of town. The suitcase was his as well so that is an indication that one or possibly all of the materials used in the commission of this crime came from that room. It's too much of a coincidence that all those cabinets were open as well as the rope on the floor and his suitcase being in the basement to ignore. What we can be sure of is whoever killed that girl or covered it up spent some time in JAR's room. And what's interesting about that is no intruder would A) Leave a room in disarray for a family they knew was coming home, or B) Shuffle around a seemingly unimportant room in a house when a family was sleeping when the intended target was in another room. The Ramsey's were pretty slick in their cover-up but they made a few mistakes. If the kitchen and JAR's room were properly cleaned up we'd have a lot less to work with. Remove the pineapple in the kitchen from this story and we'd have a lot more IDI's. Quite frankly I don't think the parents knew about the pineapple or that the kids were even in the kitchen until LE informed them. So in actuality the parents only mistake was leaving JAR's room in disarray.
candy wrote:
How and why do you believe her arms became fixed in position over hear head? Was she dragged and rigor set in?
real Topaz

AOL

#7 Jun 10, 2014
JimmyWells wrote:
I stated in a previous post that she may have been dragged but I'm not so sure. If the hands were tied last, as far as the body was concerned, I think this may have been done in the cellar rather than outside the door for a few reasons. First, I think the blanket served not only as a buffer between her and the floor it could also eliminate the possibility of prints, fibers, or DNA from reaching her body when being moved. Said contaminants could easily be explained if they were on the blanket rather than her body because the blanket was from the home. I think the arms were in the position they were in because the wrist ligatures were tied up away from her body to avoid contamination. I also wouldn't put it past the Ramsey's to have used those hi-tech boots to make prints in the mold surrounding her body then disposed of the boots to confuse investigators. I know most people don't have old shoes laying around the house but they possibly could have been old boots previously used by JAR that were stored in the suitcase explaining the cross contamination of the fibers on her blanket and in the suitcase. Keep in mind there was some activity in his room, whatever it may be, so its not out of the realm of possibility that some of the staging materials and/or killing tools came from his room. This would be a way of distancing the parents from the investigation without implicating JAR because he was out of town. The suitcase was his as well so that is an indication that one or possibly all of the materials used in the commission of this crime came from that room. It's too much of a coincidence that all those cabinets were open as well as the rope on the floor and his suitcase being in the basement to ignore. What we can be sure of is whoever killed that girl or covered it up spent some time in JAR's room. And what's interesting about that is no intruder would A) Leave a room in disarray for a family they knew was coming home, or B) Shuffle around a seemingly unimportant room in a house when a family was sleeping when the intended target was in another room. The Ramsey's were pretty slick in their cover-up but they made a few mistakes. If the kitchen and JAR's room were properly cleaned up we'd have a lot less to work with. Remove the pineapple in the kitchen from this story and we'd have a lot more IDI's. Quite frankly I don't think the parents knew about the pineapple or that the kids were even in the kitchen until LE informed them. So in actuality the parents only mistake was leaving JAR's room in disarray. <quoted text>
shocked about the pineapple but not so much about the over sized underpants..those bloomers were kept in her bathroom so the parents should have been shocked that an intruder would find them and redress their child in them before tossing her in the cellar, but they had no questions or concerns and IMO that's as telling as JAR's room in disarray.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#8 Jun 11, 2014
I really think the motive there was to get something over the area in question that was completely free of trace evidence. That's why I began to suspect Burke. Putting old but clean underwear on her wouldn't be such an issue but old but clean underwear worn during a previous transgression could still spell doom for Burke as far as DNA goes. Good thinking on the parents' part but I still question why she had underwear on anyway. With or without underwear doesn't change the scenario one bit. She really didn't even have to be clothed when she was found and if everything else was so staged why leave her clothed? The rape angle would have been far much more believable had she been nude or posed. The posing of bodies is somewhat common and would have created a little more doubt as to their guilt considering John was the target in the letter.
real Topaz wrote:
<quoted text>
shocked about the pineapple but not so much about the over sized underpants..those bloomers were kept in her bathroom so the parents should have been shocked that an intruder would find them and redress their child in them before tossing her in the cellar, but they had no questions or concerns and IMO that's as telling as JAR's room in disarray.
cord

Swartz Creek, MI

#9 Jun 11, 2014
candy wrote:
Thank you so much for that detailed analysis Jimmy! Very interesting info!
That how it was last found. The cord was used on and off many time before she was killer, than left as found over. Not stage.
real Topaz

AOL

#10 Jun 11, 2014
JimmyWells wrote:
I really think the motive there was to get something over the area in question that was completely free of trace evidence. That's why I began to suspect Burke. Putting old but clean underwear on her wouldn't be such an issue but old but clean underwear worn during a previous transgression could still spell doom for Burke as far as DNA goes. Good thinking on the parents' part but I still question why she had underwear on anyway. With or without underwear doesn't change the scenario one bit. She really didn't even have to be clothed when she was found and if everything else was so staged why leave her clothed? The rape angle would have been far much more believable had she been nude or posed. The posing of bodies is somewhat common and would have created a little more doubt as to their guilt considering John was the target in the letter. <quoted text>
she was redressed out of shame and guilt, IMO. IF the killer is a family member and gets caught, it would look far worse to find the victim with her pants down or off. I also think the Ramseys didn't want any focus on the molestation and dressing her put off that discovery til autopsy. Besides, they invited company to trample the scene, how could they possibly let their guests gaze upon their naked child?(I'm only surprised she wasn't dressed in a pageant gown!)
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#11 Jun 11, 2014
Who can offer some info about knots on this forum? I have heard two different opinions. One, the knots were sophisticated; and the opposite--that they were not.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#12 Jun 11, 2014
Btw, I tried to get on the Jonbenet forums and, apparently, they consider me a spammer. I never realized that giving one's opposing opinion automatically classified one as a spammer. :(
candy

East Lansing, MI

#13 Jun 11, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
Who can offer some info about knots on this forum? I have heard two different opinions. One, the knots were sophisticated; and the opposite--that they were not.
Read the Mike Kane thread about the knots. He used a world class expert, from the Royal Canadian Mounties, van Tassel, who said the knots were simple knots, and many crafters said they were like macrame knots. It was, of course, LOU, who said they were complicated "bondage knots." Yeah right......

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#14 Jun 12, 2014
Yea but what's the difference whether they find that she was assaulted before or after her examination? Best believe if Arndt saw her posed or nude she might have had another theory or two regarding John's guilt. The Whites and Fernies were just a buffer between LE and the Ramseys and I think they were coached to get them there. John is smart but he couldn't have been thinking rationally that morning and I think he was helped. He wrote that note though, and I finally found a handwriting exemplar from him that is absolutely identical to the ransom note. Now if someone could just tell me why a damn Barbie doll was in the cellar on top of a white cloth I would appreciate it. The .00001 of me that is an IDI is simply because of that picture.
real Topaz wrote:
<quoted text>
she was redressed out of shame and guilt, IMO. IF the killer is a family member and gets caught, it would look far worse to find the victim with her pants down or off. I also think the Ramseys didn't want any focus on the molestation and dressing her put off that discovery til autopsy. Besides, they invited company to trample the scene, how could they possibly let their guests gaze upon their naked child?(I'm only surprised she wasn't dressed in a pageant gown!)
real Topaz

AOL

#15 Jun 12, 2014
JimmyWells wrote:
Yea but what's the difference whether they find that she was assaulted before or after her examination? Best believe if Arndt saw her posed or nude she might have had another theory or two regarding John's guilt. The Whites and Fernies were just a buffer between LE and the Ramseys and I think they were coached to get them there. John is smart but he couldn't have been thinking rationally that morning and I think he was helped. He wrote that note though, and I finally found a handwriting exemplar from him that is absolutely identical to the ransom note. Now if someone could just tell me why a damn Barbie doll was in the cellar on top of a white cloth I would appreciate it. The .00001 of me that is an IDI is simply because of that picture. <quoted text>
They went on tv before the autopsy results were released and denied that she's been molested, Jimmy. After the autopsy results were released, JR still denied her molestation and then told Larry King he hadn't read the autopsy. Why defend the killer by denying what he did?
The Ramseys didn't want any inkling of molestation to come up, so they denied it flat out. That's why JB's pants were on and her privates wiped. If they were not the molester/s, they'd jump at that opportunity to possibly produce DNA that would exonerate them..instead they cried about the indignity of having their pubic hair taken.
Linda Arndt was present during autopsy and said a laymen could see she'd been molested..repeatedly. The coroner revised his opinion to please the politicos, saying he "couldn't be sure". Bullchit. Like the army saying they didn't know Bergdahl was a deserter. lol the soldiers are all liars and psychos, right?
I know what explars you're speaking of and wholeheartedly agree JR wrote that note. It looks like you and I are the only ones that see that remarkable comparison so high five buddy, tho it doesn't seem to matter.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#16 Jun 12, 2014
whodunnit

Mobile, AL

#17 Jun 12, 2014
candy wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the Mike Kane thread about the knots. He used a world class expert, from the Royal Canadian Mounties, van Tassel, who said the knots were simple knots, and many crafters said they were like macrame knots. It was, of course, LOU, who said they were complicated "bondage knots." Yeah right......
I agree with you and the experts that the garotte could not have been used to strangle JBR. Yet, it is clear she was, in fact, strangled. The decided lack of blood emanating from the head wound proves the child was dead or near death when the injury occurred. In the autopsy photos you can see the bruising around her neck just below the furrows caused by the twine used in the garotte. Ergo, the garotte was ineptly staged to [incompetently] explain or cover up the actual strangling that was the cause of death. One is compelled to ask: Why stage the scene with a fake, inoperable garotte? Why not just allow the strangling to speak for itself?

In my opinion it wasn't the FACT of the strangling, which was so evident in any routine medico-legal examination, that they wished to obscure. It is clear to me that it was the REASON for the strangling that the stagers were attempting to obscure.
whodunnit

Mobile, AL

#18 Jun 12, 2014
RE: Pineapple.

It is patently obvious that JBR never put her hands on the bowl of pineapple. Put a bowl of pineapple in front of any six year old, hand them a spoon, and then tell them to eat it without leaving fingerprints anywhere on the bowl or spoon. It's impossible.

Yet, the fact remains that JBR ate pineapple sometime shortly before her death.

Now how do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory facts? ie she ate pineapple before her death just not THESE pineapples, the ones present in her home, sitting out on the breakfast table for all the world to see.

There is only one answer possible: the pineapple tableau was staged and rather ineptly at that. Desperate, frightened, frenzied..the stagers tried to account for every element of the crime whilst pointing finger at a fictitious intruder....

WHY?

WHY go to the trouble to stage this scenario when the parents could have simply said they gave her pineapple before bed and then washed up the dishes she used. Why go to such lengths? THE ONLY PURPOSE SUCH STAGING ACCOMPLISHES IS TO 'PROVE' OR RATHER 'SUGGEST' THAT JBR ATE THE FRUIT INSIDE THE HOUSE shortly before her death WHEN CLEARLY SHE HAD NOT!! IF SHE HAD EATEN THE FRUIT INSIDE THE HOUSE SHORTLY BEFORE HER DEATH THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO STAGE THE SCENE.

The implications of this aspect of the staging are unavoidable: 1. The child was UNABLE to eat the fruit once back inside the Ramsey house.. 2. She ate the fruit elsewhere shortly before her death and the R;s were desperate to hide this fact.
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#19 Jun 12, 2014
I really don't think the Ramseys even suspected that the pineapple would play a part in the investigation. They had no idea that it would show up in her intestines at autopsy. After saying the child went right to bed, they couldn't account for the pineapple so they had no alternative but to say they knew nothing about it.
whodunnit

Mobile, AL

#20 Jun 12, 2014
Just Wondering wrote:
I really don't think the Ramseys even suspected that the pineapple would play a part in the investigation. They had no idea that it would show up in her intestines at autopsy. After saying the child went right to bed, they couldn't account for the pineapple so they had no alternative but to say they knew nothing about it.
Oh they [the stagers] absolutely believed the pineapple would play a part in the investigation or else they wouldn't have bothered staging the scene.

Staging is PROVEN by the fact that there were no fingerprints on the bowl or spoon. It's truly elementary.

By the LACK of fingerprints the fruit PROVED the very things things the staging was designed to hide, namely that since JBR couldn't have eaten the fruit inside the house neither did she meet her death inside the house.
Biz

Port Richey, FL

#21 Jun 13, 2014
No one has been able to establish that the White's did or did not have pineapple at their party that night. She could have easily eaten pineapple there. It would not have been out of the norm. They provided platters of food for everyone and they were never asked if they served pineapple.
All this talk about the pineapple is probably over rated and over processed. The pineapple bowl could have just been left out from the morning. Perhaps someone forgot to put it away before they left to got to the White's or maybe Burke grabbed it from the fridge for a quick snack before he went to bed and he didn't put it away.
Many times when I am rushed during the holiday and I know the food will be brought out again later in the day or thrown away I might leave he food in the fridge with the serving utensil and it's bowl instead of converting everything to tupperware. What would be the point in trying to save it anyway, they ware leaving for Charlevoix in the morning. The housekeeper would have just emptied out the fridge and thrown everything away.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 39 min icu2 433
Sig 1 hr stoned luck aka ... 19
Today Show: JonBenet Ramsey case lies 2 hr Undrtheradar 236
The JonBenet house, does anything still remain? 2 hr stoned luck aka ... 4
Radaronline FOIA - JonBenet Ramsey case 3 hr jameson245 17
Identity Problems 7 hr stoned luck aka ... 101
Think family...helter skelter type of family 7 hr stoned luck aka ... 18
More from around the web