JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

I gave the scenario whereby Patsy had pushed JB and JB had fallen against a hard surface.

It was a hard blow (I think, 100lbs force IIRC). The damage was local, if she fell from such a height to cause that skull damage then she would have fractured or broken bones and bruises elsewhere.

They KNOW the blow was NOT the result of a fall.

Patsy, thinking she was dead, panicked and instead of calling 911 decided to stage the scene.

Rubbish!
I mean, that's just plain silly.

JonBenet was UNCONSCIOUS and would never wake up from that blow. The staging, including the garrotting, happened afterwards.

JB clawed at her own neck causing her to have skin under her own fingernails.
She was certainly conscious, and resisting while being strangled.

Or my other theory - Burke accidentally, or maybe on purpose, hit JB over the head and then did the other things. Nine year old boys are sexually curious. Then the parents staged the murder and kidnap scene.

I can perfectly well see Burke hitting JB - accidentally, by that I mean with no criminal intent. Burke was only 9, the police do not assume criminal intent until 10. The part of the brain that deals with recognition of criminal intent has not fully developed at age 9.
The parents had no need to cover anything up.

It's the whole fabricating a murder, or was it a kidnapping, or was it both? That's what I cannot accept.
The whole cover-up/staging theory is too confused and contradictory to be taken seriously.

Don't ask me why they (or anyone else) would want a murder to look like a kidnapping, or a kidnapping to look like a murder, but that is what happened.

It is you who have put both scenario's together, so it is you who must justify your theory.

[Wickerman]

Who's flashing was it?

This line from the following website has been taken at face value.

A flashlight not belonging to the Ramseys was found on the kitchen counter on the day JBR's body was found.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682478/Head%20Injuries

(It would appear this web page was last revised 9 yrs ago)

James Kolar, in his book, Foreign Faction, 2012, writes about the flashlight.

Paraphrase:
The flashlight was sitting on the kitchen counter, it was first assumed a policeman had left it there. When it was determined that no officer had lost a flashlight it was taken into evidence and processed.
No retrievable fingerprints were obtained from the outer casing or from the batteries.
Various accounts have stated that as no prints were found, it must have been wiped clean.

Kolar writes, quote:
"The Ramsey's would later indicate that they may have owned a similar style of flashlight, and stated that it had been kept in a kitchen drawer. It had been given to them by John Andrew, but the fingerprint powder depicted in the photograph of the flashlight altered its appearance in such a way that it apparently threw off their identification of the gift.

John Fernie and housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh would subsequently identify the flashlight as belonging to the Ramsey family, both having seen it in the home before the kidnapping."
Foreign Faction, Kolar, 2012, pg.50.

Serious questions understandably arose about the flashlight, especially as it was later determined to fit the head wound on JonBenet.
- Why would the Ramsey's wipe clean their own flashlight, and even the batteries? If it was their own flashlight then naturally it would have their own prints on it.
- Alternately, why would any intruder wipe his own flashlight & batteries clean?, perhaps just in case he mislaid it at the crime scene?

More likely, unless an actual police report surfaces to clarify the matter, after the flashlight was processed the conclusion was that no usable prints were obtained from the flashlight, not that there were no prints of any kind on the flashlight.

[louisa]

The reason we hear so much about the DNA from the panties, and the DNA from the leggings, on BOTH sides of the waist band I might add.
Is because they match, they are the same (as you know).

So, if one sample came from a factory worker (which was merely a guess), then both samples came from the same factory worker - and the police would have a name (Louisa forgot about that obvious point).
The articles did not come from the same manufacturer.

Which means contamination is ruled out.
A significant problem for "The Patsy did it" crowd.

There is no problem regarding my theory.

Foreign DNA is present on most garments that we buy because they are checked and sorted by hand. I would be rather surprised if DNA was NOT present.

That is why it can be discounted.

If detectives had gone to all the Chinese or Indian sweatshops and DNA tested all the workers who may have handled the goods then they may have come up with a match.

What similar crime have John & Patsy ever been involved with, before or after?

Family, friends and neighbors have all testified to how caring and protective Patsy was over JB, and John has always been the perfect father & provider.

Yet, a similar sexual assault was committed in the same neighborhood in the months after JB's murder.

Yes, what warm and wonderful people they were!

John was all set to fly out to Atlanta an hour after he discovered his child's body. When asked by detectives why he wished to do this he stated "I have some business to attend to". Great!

You are making some sweeping statements without much justification.

This crime was a ONE-OFF in every respect.

Please give me a link to where you have read that "a similar sexual assault was committed in the same neighbourhood in the months after JB's murder"

Because it wasn't. And you know it!

Unless you can show that somebody broke into a house, hung around for hours, then sexually molested a child, wrote a long kidnap note and murdered her?

[louisa]

Original comment by Louisa:-

I gave the scenario whereby Patsy had pushed JB and JB had fallen against a hard surface

It was a hard blow (I think, 100lbs force IIRC). The damage was local, if she fell from such a height to cause that skull damage then she would have fractured or broken bones and bruises elsewhere.

They KNOW the blow was NOT the result of a fall.

No they did not know that it was not the result of a fall. Where on earth did you get that bit of information?

The head trauma certainly could have been caused by JB's head hitting any hard surface. The forensics said it looked as though the trauma was made from an object with a rectangular suface.

Get your facts right. If a child was to fall in a bathroom after hitting her head she would not necessarily have bruises elsewhere on her body. The bathroom was carpeted.

However, having said that, JonBenet did have some bruises, mentioned at the autopsy.

JB clawed at her own neck causing her to have skin under her own fingernails.
She was certainly conscious, and resisting while being strangled.
Quote:

That, my friend, is YOUR theory. JB had her own skin cells under her fingernails but what child doesn't? She had been at a party all day.

She had NO scratches on her neck, apart from marks from the ligature, which is why detectives concluded that she had been unconscious when she was garrotted.


-----------------------------

LOUISA SAID: Don't ask me why they (or anyone else) would want a murder to look like a kidnapping, or a kidnapping to look like a murder, but that is what happened.

It is you who have put both scenario's together, so it is you who must justify your theory.

No, Wickerman - it was the perpetrator of this crime who put the scenarios together - sexual molestation/kidnapping and murder.

They WERE together, and there is no getting away from the fact.

It's the whole fabricating a murder, or was it a kidnapping, or was it both? That's what I cannot accept.
The whole cover-up/staging theory is too confused and contradictory to be taken seriously.

But they need to be taken seriously. The detectives took it seriously and so should we.

I agree that the whole thing makes no sense, but it makes even less sense when you tell me an intruder did it.

To make sense of it we would need to get into the mind of Patsy Ramsey, as she was back then.

Panic makes people do some strange things.

.

[Abby Normal]

This line from the following website has been taken at face value.

A flashlight not belonging to the Ramseys was found on the kitchen counter on the day JBR's body was found.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682478/Head%20Injuries

(It would appear this web page was last revised 9 yrs ago)

James Kolar, in his book, Foreign Faction, 2012, writes about the flashlight.

Paraphrase:
The flashlight was sitting on the kitchen counter, it was first assumed a policeman had left it there. When it was determined that no officer had lost a flashlight it was taken into evidence and processed.
No retrievable fingerprints were obtained from the outer casing or from the batteries.
Various accounts have stated that as no prints were found, it must have been wiped clean.

Kolar writes, quote:
"The Ramsey's would later indicate that they may have owned a similar style of flashlight, and stated that it had been kept in a kitchen drawer. It had been given to them by John Andrew, but the fingerprint powder depicted in the photograph of the flashlight altered its appearance in such a way that it apparently threw off their identification of the gift.

John Fernie and housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh would subsequently identify the flashlight as belonging to the Ramsey family, both having seen it in the home before the kidnapping."
Foreign Faction, Kolar, 2012, pg.50.

Serious questions understandably arose about the flashlight, especially as it was later determined to fit the head wound on JonBenet.
- Why would the Ramsey's wipe clean their own flashlight, and even the batteries? If it was their own flashlight then naturally it would have their own prints on it.
- Alternately, why would any intruder wipe his own flashlight & batteries clean?, perhaps just in case he mislaid it at the crime scene?

More likely, unless an actual police report surfaces to clarify the matter, after the flashlight was processed the conclusion was that no usable prints were obtained from the flashlight, not that there were no prints of any kind on the flashlight.

Thanks wicker
Considering what had transpired in their house, apparently the Ramsey's didn't at first didn't notice a strange flashlight sitting right there on there kitchen table?? Yeah right?

And then when it's later brought to there attention, the reaction was it Might be ours? OK....

And then the maid corroborates that it was there's and kept in a kitchen drawer?!?

You don't see what's wrong with this picture?

[Harry D]

Air hunger? Are you trying to tell me that this 'intruder' (who left no trace of himself and has never done anything remotely like this again) got a thrill from garrotting a girl who was already comatose?

Yes, because she still could've suffered, as even people with deep brain injuries can experience air hunger when the ventilator has been removed.

Let's look at the scenario you and RDI camp have posited: Patsy accidentally injures JonBenet. Instead of calling for medical attention for her injured daughter, she assumes that JonBenet has been killed. She panics, grabs some sheets of paper and drafts a three-page ransom note, comes back, constructs a garrote which she uses to finish her off, breaks off a paintbrush and penetrates her daughter with it, leaves her corpse in the basement and calls the cops. Seriously? That scenario sounds the most plausible to you? Or what about the alternative, that it was a cover-up for Burke. He strikes JonBenet on the head (possible), and the parents cover it up by strangling & violating her corpse, and staging an elaborate kidnapping hoax, even though they could've claimed she fell in the bath or tumbled down the stairs, and despite Burke being too young at the time to be indicted. And why would the Ramseys need to construct a special garrote instead of using a normal ligature? That also bothers me.

Harry - my sister was not given morphine when the intensive care nurse turned off her ventilator. My sister was comatose so needed no further medication.

Different patients require different levels of intervention. If the patient was found to have no brain activity (i.e. brain dead), they might not require sedation for withdrawal of life support.

[louisa]

Yes, because she still could've suffered, as even people with deep brain injuries can experience air hunger when the ventilator has been removed.

Let's look at the scenario you and RDI camp have posited: Patsy accidentally injures JonBenet. Instead of calling for medical attention for her injured daughter, she assumes that JonBenet has been killed. She panics, grabs some sheets of paper and drafts a three-page ransom note, comes back, constructs a garrote which she uses to finish her off, breaks off a paintbrush and penetrates her daughter with it, leaves her corpse in the basement and calls the cops. Seriously? That scenario sounds the most plausible to you? Or what about the alternative, that it was a cover-up for Burke. He strikes JonBenet on the head (possible), and the parents cover it up by strangling & violating her corpse, and staging an elaborate kidnapping hoax, even though they could've claimed she fell in the bath or tumbled down the stairs, and despite Burke being too young at the time to be indicted. And why would the Ramseys need to construct a special garrote instead of using a normal ligature? That also bothers me.

Different patients require different levels of intervention. If the patient was found to have no brain activity (i.e. brain dead), they might not require sedation for withdrawal of life support.

I am not entertaining any of this stuff about people suffering once a ventilator has been turned off. We don't know this and there is no point in speculating.

Even if it true then why in the world would a kidnapper/murderer wish to do this? For some kind of thrill? Don't be absurd, man. You must have some strange (and frankly unhealthy) ideas if you think somebody could get a thrill from strangling a child who is already unconscious.

You haven't been reading my posts or you wouldn't be asking the questions that you have asked in the above post.

I fully believe the garrotting was carried out by either Patsy or Burke. A garrotting is the way to strangle somebody if you cannot bear to look at the person while you are strangling them.

I am now trying to get into the mindset of Patsy, and it is very difficult because I truly believe she wasn't in her right mind at that time. She saw her daughter lying (maybe dead?) on the floor and her mind was racing. How would she be able to talk herself out of this one? She knew that only the family had been present in the house that night. She would be blamed. How would that look in the community?

Why she didn't simply push the prone body of her daughter down the stairs and make it look like she had fallen, is beyond me.

Instead, for reasons of her own, she decided to do some staging and covering up. We know the rest of the story.

I am not saying it makes sense but it makes a lot more sense than believing an intruder broke into a locked house on Christmas night, hung around for hours and hours in the hope of molesting/kidnapping, maybe murdering (?) JonBenet. And then he actually got his chance! Then he took all the time in the world, undressing her just to perform that silly paintbrush business, then garrotting her, tying her hands loosely in front of her, putting duct tape on her mouth.

Remember - she was already unconscious at this point! She could not scream or move. So the duct tape and the binding were not necessary for any purpose.

He sat down and wrote a leisurely 3 page rambling nonsensical 'ransom note' - and his writing almost matched (in 34 characteristics) the woman sleeping upstairs.

And then disappeared without leaving a trace of himself behind.

It would have been far more likely that he would have taken JB - alive or even dead, with him as 'collateral' for the kidnapping. The parents would not have known she was dead and would have paid the ransom money. He could also have taken his time with her in his own home or garage, or whatever.

I have already stated that I think Burke was probably the more likely perpetrator and I have given the reasons. He could have been the one who knocked JB on the head (maybe in an argument over pineapple) and then did the garrotting and sexual stuff - - just because he could have been inclined to do it.

I think Patsy and John covered up for him. In their panic they did strange things. They probably couldn't decide whether to make it look like a sexual molestation, a kidnap or a murder - and in their panic tried to leave evidence of all three.

[louisa]

Thanks wicker
Considering what had transpired in their house, apparently the Ramsey's didn't at first didn't notice a strange flashlight sitting right there on there kitchen table?? Yeah right?

And then when it's later brought to there attention, the reaction was it Might be ours? OK....

And then the maid corroborates that it was there's and kept in a kitchen drawer?!?

You don't see what's wrong with this picture?

Another thing that's wrong with the picture is why the Ramseys (especially John who has been described as being 'highly intelligent') did not realise that the house was a crime scene. Are we meant to believe he was really that stupid?

Their daughter had been kidnapped and they had found a note specifically telling them not to call the police, or even talk to a stay dog, or their daughter would be beheaded.

So what did they do? They not only called the police but they also called two sets of friends and their pastor who came in and tramped all over the house, wiping down kitchen counters etc.

John and Patsy allowed this. Then when John found his daughter's body he didn't leave it in situ for forensics but carried her upstairs where Patsy threw herself upon the corpse, waving her arms in the air, calling to God and making that dodgy 'Lazarus' speech.

I truly think that parents would be aware that, in order to catch a perpetrator of a crime such as this one, the house should be preserved "as is".

However, these two wouldn't have cared because the way they saw things, the more people walked over the scene of the crime the better.

[Wickerman]

Thanks wicker
Considering what had transpired in their house, apparently the Ramsey's didn't at first didn't notice a strange flashlight sitting right there on there kitchen table?? Yeah right?

And then when it's later brought to there attention, the reaction was it Might be ours? OK....

And then the maid corroborates that it was there's and kept in a kitchen drawer?!?

You don't see what's wrong with this picture?

Yes I do, it's what we call 'back peddling', and it doesn't look good.

I have not read any statements from that morning (26th), which might justify a reason for the use of a flashlight. Examples might be some lights in the house (basement?) were not working, or someone had to go outside before sunrise for some reason.
I don't recall any statements to that effect.

So, why is it out on the counter?
No-one seems to remember, or chose not to admit, putting it there.

[Wickerman]

There is no problem regarding my theory.

Foreign DNA is present on most garments that we buy because they are checked and sorted by hand. I would be rather surprised if DNA was NOT present.

That is why it can be discounted.

If detectives had gone to all the Chinese or Indian sweatshops and DNA tested all the workers who may have handled the goods then they may have come up with a match.

What you write above is only applicable to single isolated samples of DNA, there were IIRC five isolated samples of male DNA on JonBenet or the items in evidence. On that basis what you write above is quite possible.

What you are choosing to avoid is the one case where we find TWO samples of the SAME DNA on TWO very different items of clothing which directly rules out the same manufacturer/worker, as those items came from different suppliers.

The question you need to address is how the SAME male factory worker could leave his DNA on TWO different items of clothing from TWO different manufacturers?

Care to try?

John was all set to fly out to Atlanta an hour after he discovered his child's body.

What sources are you reading???

The family were packing that morning to fly to Michigan for the rest of their xmas holiday. Even his private pilot & wife testified to this.
John was on the phone to that pilot saying the flight has to be cancelled.

The false claim that you have "bought" above was suggested by the police, like so many of their false claims against the Ramsey's. This was one of those LIES that the Boulder Police c/w FBI spread about them in the first two weeks.
I went over the list with you previously.

Please give me a link to where you have read that "a similar sexual assault was committed in the same neighbourhood in the months after JB's murder"

I gave it out already, it was a break-in, and a sexual assault (Amy/Lucy), and in the girls bedroom, while the family (mother) was asleep in the house.

[Wickerman]

Get your facts right. If a child was to fall in a bathroom after hitting her head she would not necessarily have bruises elsewhere on her body. The bathroom was carpeted.

Fall in a bathroom??? From how high - 30 ft? (good grief!!)

Her head was caved in, it wasn't a simple bruise.
That is how they knew the head fracture was not the result of a fall. She would have to have fallen from a considerable height to cause such an extensive 8 1/2 inch long skull fracture.

Her head was split in two!

That, my friend, is YOUR theory. JB had her own skin cells under her fingernails but what child doesn't? She had been at a party all day.

She had NO scratches on her neck, apart from marks from the ligature, which is why detectives concluded that she had been unconscious when she was garrotted.

These marks are mentioned in the autopsy and were photographed. They are half-moon shaped scratches in the skin just above the garrote.

No, Wickerman - it was the perpetrator of this crime who put the scenarios together - sexual molestation/kidnapping and murder.

They WERE together, and there is no getting away from the fact.

An intruder can change the plan from kidnapping to murder, or from burglary with sexual intent, to kidnapping, to murder.
What you have trouble with is explaining how someone staging a murder, would then stage a kidnapping, or after staging a kidnapping would create a staged murder scene.
The two do not go together in the staged scenario. They only make sense in a legitimate criminal attempt where plans can change.

Panic makes people do some strange things.

But, you are not prepared to admit an intruder can panic and do strange things???

[louisa]

What you write above is only applicable to single isolated samples of DNA, there were IIRC five isolated samples of male DNA on JonBenet or the items in evidence. On that basis what you write above is quite possible.

What you are choosing to avoid is the one case where we find TWO samples of the SAME DNA on TWO very different items of clothing which directly rules out the same manufacturer/worker, as those items came from different suppliers.

The question you need to address is how the SAME male factory worker could leave his DNA on TWO different items of clothing from TWO different manufacturers?

Care to try?

How many times have I got to say this? The DNA was from people who handled the clothing in the factory where they were made.

If there were other fibres on clothing then it's because they were probably put in the tumble drier (ast the Ramseys) at the same time.

Other people used to stay at the Ramseys. Linda Hoffman-Pugh's relatives, for instance.

What sources are you reading???

The family were packing that morning to fly to Michigan for the rest of their xmas holiday. Even his private pilot & wife testified to this.
John was on the phone to that pilot saying the flight has to be cancelled.

The false claim that you have "bought" above was suggested by the police, like so many of their false claims against the Ramsey's. This was one of those LIES that the Boulder Police c/w FBI spread about them in the first two weeks.
I went over the list with you previously.

Unlike yourself, I am reading official sources.

You obviously do not know the true facts of the case.

The family was due to fly to Michigan that morning but John rang Archeluta (his pilot) to tell him the flight was off.

At around 2pm (one hour after he had discovered the body of his daughter) John Ramsey was on the phone again to his pilot telling him to ready the plane because the family was flying to Atlanta. When he was later asked why he did this, he said he had business to attend to there.

Investigators advised him to cancel the flight, which he did. I think Fleet White actually cancelled it.

I can find the link - it's on a lot of websites.

I gave it out already, it was a break-in, and a sexual assault (Amy/Lucy), and in the girls bedroom, while the family (mother) was asleep in the house.

No you gave a link to a case that had NO similarity to the JonBenet case.

I keep asking you to show me a link to a case where a child has been sexually molested/kidnapped and murdered.

There is no other case that is the same as the JonBenet one, although you keep trying to convince us that there is.

You'll have to do better than that, Wicksy.

[louisa]

Fall in a bathroom??? From how high - 30 ft? (good grief!!)

Her head was caved in, it wasn't a simple bruise.
That is how they knew the head fracture was not the result of a fall. She would have to have fallen from a considerable height to cause such an extensive 8 1/2 inch long skull fracture.

Her head was split in two!

Have you any idea how idiotic your above post is?

YES falls in bathrooms do happen - my mother had one recently.

If you had been reading my prior posts you would see that I stated Patsy could have pushed JB so hard that she fell against the washbasin or bathtub, thus causing the head trauma.

Whether JB's head was hit with a hard object or she hit her head on a hard object, the resultant head trauma would have been the same. It depends how hard she was pushed.

By the way, her head was NOT split in two; she had a rectangular hole in her skull.

These marks are mentioned in the autopsy and were photographed. They are half-moon shaped scratches in the skin just above the garrote.

Wrong again! I have re-read the autopsy report and there is nothing stating this.

An intruder can change the plan from kidnapping to murder, or from burglary with sexual intent, to kidnapping, to murder.

But, you are not prepared to admit an intruder can panic and do strange things???

Your 'intruder' was not in a panic though, was he? He was completely relaxed and at home, sitting down to write a 3 page rambling ransom note.

Then taking time to undress and dress his victim, doing a bit of sexual stuff, garrotting her, putting duct tape on her mouth and tape on her wrists, (when she was already unconscious)

An intruder can change his mind from what he intended, can he? Decides to forget all about the kidnapping business, but leaves a note anyway; one that could incriminate himself, hit JB over the head, garrotte her for jollys and then do a bit of sexual interference. And get away without leaving a trace.

What a mastercrook he must have been - anyone would think he was the Invisible Man.

[Wickerman]

You must have some strange (and frankly unhealthy) ideas if you think somebody could get a thrill from strangling a child who is already unconscious.

Well, maybe that is the best indication you have that she was NOT unconscious.
She scratched her neck...

I fully believe the garrotting was carried out by either Patsy or Burke. A garrotting is the way to strangle somebody if you cannot bear to look at the person while you are strangling them.

Wrapping a long piece of string around her throat is all that would be required.

NOT tying a slip-knot noose.
NOT making a sturdy handle out of wood.
NOT applying, and reapplying, the garrote more than once.
These are all very strong indicators of a sadistic sexual predator at work.

I have to wonder if you do not appreciate how specialized that particular garrote was.

I am now trying to get into the mindset of Patsy, and it is very difficult because I truly believe she wasn't in her right mind at that time.

Even if she was, you have no supporting evidence from family, friends or neighbors, that Patsy was ever "out of her mind" at any other time in her life.
So your suggestion can never be anything other than a suggestion. Your creation, in other words.

Why she didn't simply push the prone body of her daughter down the stairs and make it look like she had fallen, is beyond me.

Because, maybe, Patsy had nothing to do with it.
When you have problems explaining your theory, you need to rethink your theory.

I am not saying it makes sense but it makes a lot more sense than believing an intruder broke into a locked house on Christmas night, hung around for hours and hours in the hope of molesting/kidnapping, maybe murdering (?) JonBenet. And then he actually got his chance! Then he took all the time in the world, undressing her just to perform that silly paintbrush business, then garrotting her, tying her hands loosely in front of her, putting duct tape on her mouth.

Very similar cases are widely known.
As for the "paintbrush business", I'll assume you mean the suggested intrusion of the paintbrush? (as opposed to it being used as a handle for the garrote).

What evidence do we have that an actual paintbrush was inserted into her?
I thought it was just a suggestion?

From what I recall a small part of her anatomy showed abrasion and evidence of possible intrusion, BUT, a very microscopic sliver of wood was identified inside her.
Why couldn't that very small microscopic sliver have been stuck to his finger after he broke the paintbrush?

Surely he would have had microscopic wood particles on his skin, and then he proceeded to sexually assault her with his fingers, "digitally" is how they call it.
And we do have cases of sexual molesters using their fingers as opposed to conventional intercourse.

Maybe this idea of the paintbrush being inserted is just a misreading of the evidence.
There was no mention in the autopsy of tissue punctures inside her private parts, which is hard to imagine if he did insert a long thin paintbrush inside her - he's bound to puncture something.
So, I'm inclined to think the sliver of wood was simply stuck to his fingers when her molested her.

So the duct tape and the binding were not necessary for any purpose.

There was something like 15 inches of cord between the two loops that bound her wrists.
Doesn't that suggest she was bound around (with her arms outstretched), something that was large and circular?

If you can imagine a water softener, or hot water boiler. If the intruder bound her to a large cylindrical fixture there would be need to be a length of cord between her wrists due to the size of the cylinder.

I don't know what large object was in the basement, but I suspect JB was tied with her arms stretched out around something, which accounts for the extra length of cord between her hands.

And then disappeared without leaving a trace of himself behind.

It's the traces of him that we have been talking about. And incidentally, there were THREE separate partial footprints. Two on the basement floor and one on the suitcase.

I think Patsy and John covered up for him. In their panic they did strange things. They probably couldn't decide whether to make it look like a sexual molestation, a kidnap or a murder - and in their panic tried to leave evidence of all three.

They were not pushed for time.
Confusion at a staged crime scene is usually the result of time constraints, in this case no-one knew about anything until they decided to call 911.
So, it was their decision WHEN to bring outsiders to the house, up until that time they had all the time they needed to decide which 'story' to present to police.

That is another example of why I think your reasoning does not work.

[louisa]

Well, maybe that is the best indication you have that she was NOT unconscious.
She scratched her neck...

She did not.

Wrapping a long piece of string around her throat is all that would be required.

NOT tying a slip-knot noose.
NOT making a sturdy handle out of wood.
NOT applying, and reapplying, the garrote more than once.
These are all very strong indicators of a sadistic sexual predator at work.

I have to wonder if you do not appreciate how specialized that particular garrote was.

Well you're the first person to have said it was anything other than tape wound round and round a piece of broken stick.

SHE WAS UNCONSCIOUS! I think even your hero Lou Smit said it.

Even if she was, you have no supporting evidence from family, friends or neighbors, that Patsy was ever "out of her mind" at any other time in her life.
So your suggestion can never be anything other than a suggestion. Your creation, in other words.

Because, maybe, Patsy had nothing to do with it.
When you have problems explaining your theory, you need to rethink your theory.

Do I look like I'm having problems explaining my theory?

Very similar cases are widely known.
As for the "paintbrush business", I'll assume you mean the suggested intrusion of the paintbrush? (as opposed to it being used as a handle for the garrote).

What evidence do we have that an actual paintbrush was inserted into her?
I thought it was just a suggestion?

No, it was a broken part of the same paintbrush that was used to make the garrotte.

It's all there in the official notes.

There was something like 15 inches of cord between the two loops that bound her wrists.
Doesn't that suggest she was bound around (with her arms outstretched), something that was large and circular?

If you can imagine a water softener, or heating system boiler. If the intruder bound her to a large cylindrical fixture there would be need to be a length of cord between her wrists due to the size of the cylinder.

I don't know what large object was in the basement, but I suspect JB was tied with her arms stretched out around something, which accounts for the extra length of cord between her hands.

Where the heck did you get THAT theory from?

You've invented a cylinder now and that JB's arms were around it!

Do you not think that the investigators would have known if that had happened?

Your theories are getting more hilarious by the minute.

It's the traces of him that we have been talking about. And incidentally, there were THREE separate partial footprints. Two on the basement floor and one on the suitcase.

Oh there are THREE now are there? First you said there was one, then you said two and now you're saying three.

Do you not remember reading that almost 2,000 people tramped through the Ramsey house just a week prior to the murder?

I heard a print was found outside but it was determined that it could have belonged to any one who had walked in the grounds.

Even if a footprint was found, it could have been one put there by the Ramseys in another effort to deceive.

They were not pushed for time.
Confusion at a staged crime scene is usually the result of time constraints, in this case no-one knew about anything until they decided to call 911.
So, it was their decision to bring outsiders to the house, up until that time they had all the time they needed to decide which 'story' to present to police.

That is another example of why I think your reasoning does not work.

Well I honestly don't think your reasoning works, Wicksy.

In a situation like this one I can imagine that time would fly. JB's skull was fractured at around midnight and the garrotting happened 45 minutes to one hour later. They could tell this from the bleeding pattern.

They would have had a lot of talking to do and there were a lot of things to do.

Assuming they were innocent (which is a big leap of imagination!) then they would have read the ransom note, knew what it said - and regardless of instructions they went ahead and called all these people "Please come over, JB has been kidnapped"