Members' Theories

MurriFlower · May 28, 2010

WHITEFANG said:
"What's more, the garrote used to strangle JonBenet, made of rope and the broken end of one of Patsy Ramsey's paintbrushes,

Can we please revisit this paintbrush theory. I did wonder when I first saw the picture but there seemed to be overwhelming evidence that it was one of PR's. If you look again and the picture http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote3-x.jpg the stick used looks rather old and battered as if it's been lying around in the weather for a while. PR had only recently taken up painting and she bought all the equipment new and it had been stored indoors. I'd be surprised if it was actually one of hers. Did anyone comment that it was part of the 'set' she had in the tote (did anyone care?). It had paint on it, was this tested to see if it was 'consistent' with a colour and type PR had in the tote. Could it have belonged to the house painter as there were some remains of house paints stored in the wine cellar. I think someone said it had been destroyed in the testing?

WHITEFANG · May 28, 2010

DeeDee249 said:
Didn't Douglas later recant these statements and come to the conclusion that the parents were involved in the crime?

And now, looking back nine and half years later, Douglas cant shake the conclusions he first made about the case:

Don't know if he may have changed his mind. This statement found in NEWSWEEK came nine and a half years afterwords.

DeeDee249 · May 28, 2010

MurriFlower said:
Can we please revisit this paintbrush theory. I did wonder when I first saw the picture but there seemed to be overwhelming evidence that it was one of PR's. If you look again and the picture http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote3-x.jpg the stick used looks rather old and battered as if it's been lying around in the weather for a while. PR had only recently taken up painting and she bought all the equipment new and it had been stored indoors. I'd be surprised if it was actually one of hers. Did anyone comment that it was part of the 'set' she had in the tote (did anyone care?). It had paint on it, was this tested to see if it was 'consistent' with a colour and type PR had in the tote. Could it have belonged to the house painter as there were some remains of house paints stored in the wine cellar. I think someone said it had been destroyed in the testing?

I doubt a house painter would have had a small artist's brush like this. I don't think Patsy denied the paintbrush was hers. Having been an art teacher, when I was in art school I bought brushes individually, rarely as a set. They were all different, some camel hair, some other fur, some synthetic. As Patsy WAS a painter, why be surprised the brush is hers? It would be just one more thing (in a LONG list) an intruder would have had to bring with him. Too coincidental, too. A garrote made with a paintbrush when just feet away is an tote with other similar brushes. Remaining pieces still in the tote...
It could just as easily be something an intruder grabbed to make the garrote as a R grabbed to make the garrote, so to me, if the brush belonged to Patsy it doesn't mean someone else couldn't have used it.
I would also have liked to see the brush tested to see if the dried paint was consistent with the paint tubes in the tote. I'd have liked to see it tested for touch DNA, too. It was never mentioned whether prints were found on the brush, either.
As far as all her equipment being bought new, do you know that for a fact?

MurriFlower · May 28, 2010

DeeDee249 said:
I doubt a house painter would have had a small artist's brush like this. I don't think Patsy denied the paintbrush was hers. Having been an art teacher, when I was in art school I bought brushes individually, rarely as a set. They were all different, some camel hair, some other fur, some synthetic. As Patsy WAS a painter, why be surprised the brush is hers? It would be just one more thing (in a LONG list) an intruder would have had to bring with him. Too coincidental, too. A garrote made with a paintbrush when just feet away is an tote with other similar brushes. Remaining pieces still in the tote...
It could just as easily be something an intruder grabbed to make the garrote as a R grabbed to make the garrote, so to me, if the brush belonged to Patsy it doesn't mean someone else couldn't have used it.
I would also have liked to see the brush tested to see if the dried paint was consistent with the paint tubes in the tote. I'd have liked to see it tested for touch DNA, too. It was never mentioned whether prints were found on the brush, either.
As far as all her equipment being bought new, do you know that for a fact?

It's probably of no real consequence to the killing whether it was PR's, the housepainters or the IDI brought it. It's just something that's been niggling at me since I saw it. I'm not confronted by the idea of the intruder bringing his 'equipment' as you seem to be. Afterall, if you came to kidnap and/or execute, you wouldn't get there and start looking through the house for things you could use in your crime, you would bring what you needed. It is only in the RDI theory that it was a spur of the moment thing and you would need to source the tape/cord/stick in the house. BTW neither cord nor tape were sourced in the house, so this just leaves the stick. I suppose if it could be determined that it wasn't PRs (or the housepainters) then it would make RDI a little hard, if not impossible, to defend.

DeeDee249 · May 28, 2010

MurriFlower said:
It's probably of no real consequence to the killing whether it was PR's, the housepainters or the IDI brought it. It's just something that's been niggling at me since I saw it. I'm not confronted by the idea of the intruder bringing his 'equipment' as you seem to be. Afterall, if you came to kidnap and/or execute, you wouldn't get there and start looking through the house for things you could use in your crime, you would bring what you needed. It is only in the RDI theory that it was a spur of the moment thing and you would need to source the tape/cord/stick in the house. BTW neither cord nor tape were sourced in the house, so this just leaves the stick. I suppose if it could be determined that it wasn't PRs (or the housepainters) then it would make RDI a little hard, if not impossible, to defend.

I also feel it is of no consequence to the killing whether it belonged to Patsy or not. But IF an intruder brought with him the tape, cord and paintbrush it is too coincidental that a receipt from a local hardware store belonging to one of the parents was found to have items matching in price and department to the tape and cord AND there happened to be a tote with similar artist brushes right there in the basement just feet away in which there were other pieces of the same brush used in the garrote as well as shards that came from breaking that same brush were found on he floor of the basement.
And you know the old saying...there ARE no coincidences.

MurriFlower · May 28, 2010

DeeDee249 said:
I also feel it is of no consequence to the killing whether it belonged to Patsy or not. But IF an intruder brought with him the tape, cord and paintbrush it is too coincidental that a receipt from a local hardware store belonging to one of the parents was found to have items matching in price and department to the tape and cord AND there happened to be a tote with similar artist brushes right there in the basement just feet away in which there were other pieces of the same brush used in the garrote as well as shards that came from breaking that same brush were found on he floor of the basement.
And you know the old saying...there ARE no coincidences.

It would need to be substantiated before I'd give much credence to it. It sounds like something a tabloid would come up with. As I suggested before, even if it was true, then it's possible LHP could have purchased the items, and as she is one of my prime suspects, that's wouldn't surprise me much.

No, you are right about coincidences I think.

DeeDee249 · May 29, 2010

MurriFlower said:
It would need to be substantiated before I'd give much credence to it. It sounds like something a tabloid would come up with. As I suggested before, even if it was true, then it's possible LHP could have purchased the items, and as she is one of my prime suspects, that's wouldn't surprise me much.

No, you are right about coincidences I think.

But how would she have gotten the R credit card? Then there is the matter of matching the signature. It wasn't made up by a tabloid (the receipt). That was reported by LE.

MurriFlower · May 29, 2010

DeeDee249 said:
But how would she have gotten the R credit card? Then there is the matter of matching the signature. It wasn't made up by a tabloid (the receipt). That was reported by LE.

Well, I expect if it was signed by someone then the LE would know which of the R's bought it wouldn't they? Unless LHP was good at signing PR's name. They could get their 'handwriting experts' to take a look at it and see if it was forged. Otherwise did they use pins back then?

Then they would need to establish exactly who sold it and if that person could recall who it was and what was purchased. Having a receipt for an amount without details doesn't tell very much does it?

BTW, LHP reckoned the cord was the same as was tied around a box in the wine cellar and suggested that it was taken off the box and used on JBR. Funny then that they didn't find the rest of the roll of cord in the house. Coincidences, coincidences........

MurriFlower · May 29, 2010

DeeDee249 said:
As far as all her equipment being bought new, do you know that for a fact?

22 TOM HANEY: Well, there is a -- I think maybe
23 a quick little look at the tray with some brushes in it
24 in a minute. In that tray of brushes what would you
25 have had in there?
0345
1 PATSY RAMSEY: Paint and brushes and
2 probably -- I don't know. I don't know exactly what
3 was in there. Supplies, you know, paint supplies.
4 TOM HANEY: What kind of painting were you
5 doing? What kind of paint would you have had in there?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, oil or acrylic. I
7 signed up for a class where you could use both, and I
8 started out using oil and it got over my car, so I
9 switched to acrylic, but there was a mishmash in there.
10 TOM HANEY: Okay. Out of the brushes you
11 would have had in there, would you have had any that
12 were broken or damaged or would you --
13 PATSY RAMSEY: No, they were all pretty new.
14 TOM HANEY: Okay. So any broken or damaged
15 ones?
16 PATSY RAMSEY: Throw it away.
17 TOM HANEY: So --
18 TRIP DEMUTH: Take a minute, Patsy, and think
19 about the paint tree. Were there any broken paint
20 brushes that you recall?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: No, not that I recall. They
22 were all pretty new when -- they had a list of things
23 to buy for the class.
24 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay.
25 TOM HANEY: Did you follow their advice?
0346
1 Sometimes, you know, you get the list from school and
2 you think do you need all of this.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, pretty close, yeah.
4 TOM HANEY: What is available. Do you recall
5 where you would have made the purchase before this?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Art Hardware in Boulder.
7 TOM HANEY: Is that on Broadway?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: On Broadway.

DeeDee249 · May 29, 2010

MurriFlower said:
Well, I expect if it was signed by someone then the LE would know which of the R's bought it wouldn't they? Unless LHP was good at signing PR's name. They could get their 'handwriting experts' to take a look at it and see if it was forged. Otherwise did they use pins back then?

Then they would need to establish exactly who sold it and if that person could recall who it was and what was purchased. Having a receipt for an amount without details doesn't tell very much does it?

BTW, LHP reckoned the cord was the same as was tied around a box in the wine cellar and suggested that it was taken off the box and used on JBR. Funny then that they didn't find the rest of the roll of cord in the house. Coincidences, coincidences........

I am sure they DO know whose signature is on it. As for the cord, if it was taken off a box in the wineceller as LHP suggests (possibly she saw the box and cord there at some point- she said she took Christmas decorations out of that room) then the cord belongs to the house after all. I doubt an intruder would sneak in and tie a cord around a box for future use in strangling JB.

MurriFlower · May 29, 2010

DeeDee249 said:
I am sure they DO know whose signature is on it. As for the cord, if it was taken off a box in the wineceller as LHP suggests (possibly she saw the box and cord there at some point- she said she took Christmas decorations out of that room) then the cord belongs to the house after all. I doubt an intruder would sneak in and tie a cord around a box for future use in strangling JB.

No, you missed my point. If what LHP said was true, then the remainder of the cord would have been in the house. Even if RDI, there would be no reason to hide/dispose of the rest of the cord. Get it?

DeeDee249 · May 29, 2010

MurriFlower said:
No, you missed my point. If what LHP said was true, then the remainder of the cord would have been in the house. Even if RDI, there would be no reason to hide/dispose of the rest of the cord. Get it?

Well the way I see it, if RDI they'd have good reason to get rid of the rest of the cord, if for no other reason than to eliminate the possibility of the garrote being sourced to something that came from the home. Cord and tape are common household items. Their absence in the home is a red flag to me, in the same way was the wiped down flashlight batteries (NOT just the flashlight, because if it was the murder weapon, IDI would never remove the batteries and wipe them down because IDI would not have handled the batteries. But RDI had to wipe the batteries as well as the flashlight so they could say it didn't belong to them- which they did, eventually admitting they had one "just like it").

MurriFlower · May 29, 2010

DeeDee249 said:
Well the way I see it, if RDI they'd have good reason to get rid of the rest of the cord, if for no other reason than to eliminate the possibility of the garrote being sourced to something that came from the home. Cord and tape are common household items. Their absence in the home is a red flag to me, in the same way was the wiped down flashlight batteries (NOT just the flashlight, because if it was the murder weapon, IDI would never remove the batteries and wipe them down because IDI would not have handled the batteries. But RDI had to wipe the batteries as well as the flashlight so they could say it didn't belong to them- which they did, eventually admitting they had one "just like it").

No they had no reason to get rid of the remainder of the cord. Any IDI could have found it tied around a box in the wine cellar and used it. Makes no sense.

Not having items in the home is no indication of the R's guilt. Similarly they did not have any of that kind of tape (PR said she only bought clear tape). Again, (if RDI) it could have just been left in the basement and that would have made more sense to LE.

The fact that neither were sourced in the house means that the IDI brought them and took them away again.

The idea of the R's sending BR off with them that morning is an RDI 'imaginative' way to explain their absence in the house and totally unnecessary in 'covering their tracks'. As you said, they are common items and it would not be unusual to find them there. However, the stick used in the garrotte has been accepted by RDI as PR's. I'm still doubtful about this, I think IDI might have brought that too, as it looks too old and damaged to have been bought by PR only 'last fall'. What is that - just months before at the most? Take another look at the pictures on ACR.

Now to the flashlight, I've not found a reliable source for the batteries having been 'wiped of prints', nor was there any evidence that we know of it having been used for the bash (fingerprints, fiber, hair, DNA). PR did not have to 'admit' as you put it, to owning it, as it was not her item but a gift to JR from JAR and appeared only in a not too clear photograph shown to her, so she said he had one 'like it'. Again probably a common household item and similar/same as Police issue and could have even been left there by a BPD following a search.

WHITEFANG · May 29, 2010

Some flashlights come with batteries installed at the factory, assembled by line workers who wear gloves, I believe.

DeeDee249 · May 29, 2010

MurriFlower said:
No they had no reason to get rid of the remainder of the cord. Any IDI could have found it tied around a box in the wine cellar and used it. Makes no sense.

Not having items in the home is no indication of the R's guilt. Similarly they did not have any of that kind of tape (PR said she only bought clear tape). Again, (if RDI) it could have just been left in the basement and that would have made more sense to LE.

The fact that neither were sourced in the house means that the IDI brought them and took them away again.

The idea of the R's sending BR off with them that morning is an RDI 'imaginative' way to explain their absence in the house and totally unnecessary in 'covering their tracks'. As you said, they are common items and it would not be unusual to find them there. However, the stick used in the garrotte has been accepted by RDI as PR's. I'm still doubtful about this, I think IDI might have brought that too, as it looks too old and damaged to have been bought by PR only 'last fall'. What is that - just months before at the most? Take another look at the pictures on ACR.

Now to the flashlight, I've not found a reliable source for the batteries having been 'wiped of prints', nor was there any evidence that we know of it having been used for the bash (fingerprints, fiber, hair, DNA). PR did not have to 'admit' as you put it, to owning it, as it was not her item but a gift to JR from JAR and appeared only in a not too clear photograph shown to her, so she said he had one 'like it'. Again probably a common household item and similar/same as Police issue and could have even been left there by a BPD following a search.

As the flashlight had been wiped down, there would of course be no prints, hair, fiber, etc. on it. I wonder if today's analysis methods would be able to get something useful off that flashlight, even if it was wiped down.

MurriFlower · May 29, 2010

DeeDee249 said:
As the flashlight had been wiped down, there would of course be no prints, hair, fiber, etc. on it. I wonder if today's analysis methods would be able to get something useful off that flashlight, even if it was wiped down.

Aside from being a "blunt instrument", is there any evidence at all that it had been used in the head bash? ?

MurriFlower · May 29, 2010

WHITEFANG said:
Some flashlights come with batteries installed at the factory, assembled by line workers who wear gloves, I believe.

Not the same factory workers who make underwear, as they apparently drop their DNA everywhere LOL

BBB167893 · May 30, 2010

MurriFlower said:
No they had no reason to get rid of the remainder of the cord. Any IDI could have found it tied around a box in the wine cellar and used it. Makes no sense.

Not having items in the home is no indication of the R's guilt. Similarly they did not have any of that kind of tape (PR said she only bought clear tape). Again, (if RDI) it could have just been left in the basement and that would have made more sense to LE.

How so? We're supposed to believe that this intruder came into the house TOTALLY unprepared?

MurriFlower · May 30, 2010

Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
No they had no reason to get rid of the remainder of the cord. Any IDI could have found it tied around a box in the wine cellar and used it. Makes no sense.

Not having items in the home is no indication of the R's guilt. Similarly they did not have any of that kind of tape (PR said she only bought clear tape). Again, (if RDI) it could have just been left in the basement and that would have made more sense to LE.

SuperDave said:
How so? We're supposed to believe that this intruder came into the house TOTALLY unprepared?

Noooooo!

There's that old 'language barrier' again.

I'll rephrase it: Finding the tape and cord in the house would have supported RDI.

I believe the IDI brought everything needed (perhaps even including the stick).

BBB167893 · May 30, 2010

MurriFlower said:
Noooooo!

There's that old 'language barrier' again.

Looks that way!

I'll rephrase it: Finding the tape and cord in the house would have supported RDI.

That's what I'm saying! That's why it makes sense to ditch them, provided there was any left over to ditch.

I believe the IDI brought everything needed (perhaps even including the stick).

Then why did you say, and I quote, No they had no reason to get rid of the remainder of the cord. Any IDI could have found it tied around a box in the wine cellar and used it. Makes no sense.

Members' Theories

Inactive

New Member

Well-Known Member

Inactive

Well-Known Member

Inactive

Well-Known Member

Inactive

Inactive

Well-Known Member

Inactive

Well-Known Member

Inactive

New Member

Well-Known Member

Inactive

Inactive

Former Member

Inactive

Former Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics