A best-fit analysis of the facts and circumstances related to the death of JonBenet Patricia Ramsey



Download 5.45 Mb.
Page12/49
Date23.11.2017
Size5.45 Mb.
#34628
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   49

 

Bed-wetting as a material issue in the death of JBR is a prominent feature of the PDI and RDI theories. Perhaps the best known variant of the PDI theory is that espoused by former Boulder City Police Department detective Steve Thomas who places the location of head trauma to JBR’s private bathroom. The idea is that in order to produce a head injury without laceration a smooth, contoured surface is required, such as is characteristic of bathroom fixtures. Thomas avers that PR, upon discovering that JBR had wet herself, lost control and threw the child against a bathroom fixture thus resulting in a severe, accidental head injury. Thinking the child dead, PR removed JBR to the basement, he asserts, where a theatrical staging was performed to make the death appear as an attack by asphyxiation. JBR’s penchant for oversized underwear left her wearing size 12 panties in death, a size much too large for the child but all the same purportedly favored by the child. Apparently, the underwear were held in position by exterior clothing such as long johns, pants, etc. This adds an additional element to the Thomas theory since no size 12 panties were found in the home immediately after the murder (the Ramseys later sent a package of them to the Boulder police stating that they were found in moving packages shipped to their new home in Georgia). Of course, such a specimen cannot be applied for best-fit because it violates chain of custody (people tend NOT to incriminate themselves). As it turned out, the only size 12 panties in the house at that time were likely those wrapped as a Christmas present for PR’s niece. JBR liked them and asked her mother to keep them for her, which she did. One pair of the size 12 panties was missing from the package eventually surrendered to the Boulder City Police Department. The tie-in to the death of JBR seems to be that the panties already wrapped for PR’s niece were located in the “wine cellar” – the same place from which JBR’s remains were recovered and where a fresh footprint consistent with JBR’s was found. But this obviously implicates PR since only PR would have known that such a gift wrap existed. This then suggests that PR put one of these pairs on JBR after she wet herself on the night of 25 December all at a time after all were supposedly asleep. The connection to the death then is all too clear. PR, in a fit of rage, seriously injured JBR in her private bathroom after JBR wet herself yet again. Thinking JBR dead, she removed her to the basement, staged a vicious killing of a child who was in fact still alive, cleaned her up and put on a size 12 pair of panties taken from the “wine cellar”.  At some point, the theory goes, PR sexually assaulted JBR causing bleeding that she at some point wiped off JBR’s thighs. Once the child voided she did not clean the child and placed the body in the “wine cellar”.



A nightstand view between two beds in JBR’s bedroom



Such an event, of course, requires the washing of sheets from JBR’s bed. This would be done where the washing machines are located, either outside JBR’s bedroom or in the basement. So, that fits. And the reason why the child ultimately died in the “boiler room” was because that’s where the door to the “wine cellar” containing the size 12 panties was. In other words, PR cleaned JBR up and put on a fresh pair of panties just outside the “wine cellar”. While doing that she was multi-tasking by cleaning the sheets in the washer and dryer, some think. This, in a summary that likely doesn’t do the theory justice, is the Thomas theory. We demure.

JBR’s private bathroom. Note the curvature in the fixtures ideal for a non-lacerating head injury



The Thomas theory has a certain elegance and appeal to it. It is simple but expository. It requires the smallest leaps in assumption and provides that all-important, unambiguous legal necessity called “motive”. We’re almost ready to start pouring the Kool-Aid. But we see two general problems with this theory that, though it may in fact reflect exactly what happened, doesn’t seem to give it the status of a best, probabilistic fit.  We will expound on all these issues later in the text, but for now we’ll simply point out that the coroner’s report indicated that death upon head trauma had to occur within 10 to 30 minutes.  As we’ve noted, making such a colossal decision about covering up an accident, and then moving JBR to the basement and setting up this staging seems too involved to complete in that time frame. With no “organization” of the head wound at all, we suspect the 30 minute maximum is exaggerated in any case (this forensic point will be examined in detail later). We suspect, but cannot know, that Thomas already knows some of what we will reveal herein but that his motive differs. Thomas wants a successful prosecution. We respect that agenda given his role. We also must note that the lack of voluminous, hard evidence for an intruder should not be taken as an attempt here to disfurnish the IDI theories, but we rather take it as a realization of reality. As noted in the 25 standing criteria, absence of proof is not proof of absence and we’d be well advised to note that. Even with no evidence of an intruder (if that were the case), we will not discard the notion without specific evidence speaking directly in opposition to that possibility.

The spare bed in JBR’s bedrooom



The closet in JBR’s bedroom




Download 5.45 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   49




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page