Questions you'd like answers to...

[UKGuy]

I know that the paintbrush was broken on either end and that the bottom piece is missing.

I don't get how you jump all of a sudden to BR at the end of your last post. That's a huge jump to take out of nowhere, but I digress.

Yes, that is the question (why was the bottom half missing, but the top brush portion left behind). Part of the question is, was this purposeful (to leave the brush behind) or was it not? You seem to think this (as everything) was purposeful; I disagree. I can't think of a logical reason why either of the R's would want the brush head to be connected to the garrotte, purposefully. All that does, is point directly to PR.

We can ask why the brush head was left. We can also ask why the splinters were left. We can also ask why the whole bowl of pineapple was left. These were not skilled killers/stagers. They covered a lot of bases (where is the towel that was used to wipe down the victim? etc.), but their amateurishness prevented them from covering all bases, particularly because they were officially out of time (i.e the scheduled morning flight) and had to call the police when PR did; they couldn't wait and/or stage and/or dispose any longer.

So reason leads me to believe that the brush was left due out of ignorance (that it would be connected back to the garrotte and wasn't important enough to dispose), necessity (it was lost initially, then found, then tossed in the tote), or chance (that it landed it the tote after it was broken). The only way the brush was left purposefully, is if it was left out of the former two reasons (ignorance or necessity).

Also important to note: that we most likely have two people involved here (P and J). We have one downstairs fashioning the garrotte and applying it; and we have another (upstairs) collecting and disposing other evidence concurrently. This is why certain things were disposed of and certain things were left behind: because there are two people involved, who are panicking and aren't effectively communicating which evidence needs to be disposed and which is insignificant. In other words, they are not effectively working in unison together; one is in one spot of the home doing one thing, while another is in a completely different spot of the home doing another thing, etc.

Userid,
I'm thinking that Burke's Swiss army knife links to the opening of the FAO Schwartz gifts?

You miss the point completely its not what was left that we need a reason for, there can be many, its the missing piece of paintbrush, i.e. if as you suggest the stager(s) are amateurs then where did the missing piece of paintbrush go?

.

 

[Veronica Lodge]

I'm thinking the missing part of the paintbrush went into a pocket to be discreetly disposed of at a later time, due to what it had been used for.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
I'm thinking that Burke's Swiss army knife links to the opening of the FAO Schwartz gifts?

You miss the point completely its not what was left that we need a reason for, there can be many, its the missing piece of paintbrush, i.e. if as you suggest the stager(s) are amateurs then where did the missing piece of paintbrush go?

.

It was disposed of, along the with the towel, etc. Amateurs would have been capable of disposing some (i.e main) elements of the crime, but they would have overlooked others. Also, again, you have two people involved here; in different areas of the house -- certain things got lost in the shuffle. If these were professionals, they wouldn't have left an entire bowl of pineapple in plain sight with fingerprints all over it. The pineapple bowl, the brush head, the diapers hanging half-way out of the cupboard, the fibers left behind, etc. -- these are all things that indicate the amateurishness of the main suspects.

You wouldn't need a swiss army knife to tear through gift wrap. All you'd need is your fingers.

 

[Userid]

I'm thinking the missing part of the paintbrush went into a pocket to be discreetly disposed of at a later time, due to what it had been used for.

Good topic. I've been thinking how certain items would have been disposed or removed; and when. I feel like all the items they wanted to dispose of could have been stored in some sort of plastic bag, with the bag hidden somewhere -- assuming the items weren't disposed of before the police call was made. Perhaps it was hidden in the garage or in some place where the police couldn't find it.

I don't think that each piece was disposed of separately. I do feel like there was an attempt by both to dispose of certain items in one bag, but things were still left in the shuffle, whether due to ignorance, naivety ("this could never be traced back to the crime"), necessity, or simply being overlooked/lost before disposal.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm thinking the missing part of the paintbrush went into a pocket to be discreetly disposed of at a later time, due to what it had been used for.

Veronica Lodge,
Maybe, but why does its use mandate its removal, and not the piece put back in the paint-tote, why privilege one piece over the others?


I'll speculate it just got lost when the paintbrush was broken, but it could just as easily have been left inside JonBenet in an attempt to mask the Digital Penetration claimed verbatim by Coroner Meyer who requested Dr. Andrew Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team, for a second opinion on the injuries observed to the vaginal area. Dr. Andrew Sirontak agreed with Coroner Meyer's prior diagnosis.

So could be the case is PDI and Patsy fashioned the garrote and ligature and assaulted JonBenet using the paintbrush, thereby causing the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00 o’clock position by both Dr. Andrew Sirontak and Coroner Meyer?

Yet Coroner Meyer cites Sexual Contact and along with Dr. Andrew Sirontak, further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of sexual contact prior to the date of her death.

Looks to me as if Coroner Meyer recognized there had been staging, so called on Dr. Andrew Sirontak for a second opinion, just to be sure?

We would need to hear the words Sexual Assault directly from Coroner Meyers lips for it to be fact, but it looks likely?

.

 

[UKGuy]

It was disposed of, along the with the towel, etc. Amateurs would have been capable of disposing some (i.e main) elements of the crime, but they would have overlooked others. Also, again, you have two people involved here; in different areas of the house -- certain things got lost in the shuffle. If these were professionals, they wouldn't have left an entire bowl of pineapple in plain sight with fingerprints all over it. The pineapple bowl, the brush head, the diapers hanging half-way out of the cupboard, the fibers left behind, etc. -- these are all things that indicate the amateurishness of the main suspects.

You wouldn't need a swiss army knife to tear through gift wrap. All you'd need is your fingers.

Userid,

If these were professionals, they wouldn't have left an entire bowl of pineapple in plain sight with fingerprints all over it.

Maybe they never knew about it period, could be, as others have theorised, that Burke served JonBenet pineapple in the breakfast bar then they went Gift Hunting down in the basement where JonBenet was killed?

Kolar's BDI All suggests this, with the parents helping to tweak whatever Burke's imagination had staged after her death, e.g. suitcase, broken window, chair, etc?

You wouldn't need a swiss army knife to tear through gift wrap. All you'd need is your fingers.

Probably, but maybe he carried it in his pocket and just used it in preference to using his fingers?

Patsy claims not to have known until interviewed that JonBenet was wearing the size-12's, how credible is that?

Patsy is basically saying JonBenet must have dressed herself in the size-12's, since Patsy just put the unopened size-12 Bloomingdales into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

So Patsy is claiming responsibility for both the size-12's and the longjohns, whereas JonBenet wearing her own clothing available from her extensive wardrobe would have matched an appropriately dressed JonBenet put on her after being wiped down.

This is not a mistake either John or Patsy would elect to make it really is out of place, not once, but twice?


.

 

[Userid]

Veronica Lodge,
Maybe, but why does its use mandate its removal, and not the piece put back in the paint-tote, why privilege one piece over the others?

.

Simple: because the brush head wasn't directly used in the crime at all, as opposed to that particular (missing) piece.

 

[Userid]

Userid,

Maybe they never knew about it period, could be, as others have theorised, that Burke served JonBenet pineapple in the breakfast bar then they went Gift Hunting down in the basement where JonBenet was killed?

.

PR's prints were all over the bowl.

 

[Userid]

Userid,

Patsy claims not to have known until interviewed that JonBenet was wearing the size-12's, how credible is that?

Patsy is basically saying JonBenet must have dressed herself in the size-12's, since Patsy just put the unopened size-12 Bloomingdales into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

So Patsy is claiming responsibility for both the size-12's and the longjohns, whereas JonBenet wearing her own clothing available from her extensive wardrobe would have matched an appropriately dressed JonBenet put on her after being wiped down.

This is not a mistake either John or Patsy would elect to make it really is out of place, not once, but twice?


.

The parents would have simply re-dressed her, if BR dressed her first. That would have been the easiest thing they could have done, if they were actually covering up everything else BR did that night (in your theory). I don't know how or why you fail to see that. They went to extraordinarily grotesque lengths to cover up everything BR did that night -- but they're going to skip this step that would have taken 2 minutes? No. They would have simply redressed her themselves and disposed of the clothes the same way they disposed of the towel, her original clothing, etc.

 

[Dragognosis]

"Patsy claims not to have known until interviewed that JonBenet was wearing the size-12's, how credible is that?"

Very credible if she had DID.

 

[UKGuy]

"Patsy claims not to have known until interviewed that JonBenet was wearing the size-12's, how credible is that?"

Very credible if she had DID.

Dragognosis,
Sure, that's IF, and there no evidence out there to backup a DID diagnosis.

 

[Dragognosis]

And what kind of "evidence" does DID produce?

 

[Veronica Lodge]

It's really late, been working heaps this week and have to work again tomorrow (Saturday here), so very tired but wanted to see my friends here
Hmmm, the brush piece did get left in her by Burke perhaps? and removed by JR when he wiped her clean. This then is shoved in a bag with the cloth/shirt and undies. This bag is then also used to put the tissues in that wiped the flashlight (inc the batteries) into plus teary ones that Patsy used whilst writing the note. Easy enough to put this in the car in the garage the next morning (JR admits to going into the garage) or even in Burke's bundle of stuff to take to the White's (less likely).

The army knife may have been something Burke carried around - handy to slice open packets the tape seal of new toys etc. It may not have had anything to do what occurred that night. Although it would have made opening a brand new packet of underwear easy.

 

[dogperson]

I'm pretty sure I mentioned this before in one of the JonBenet threads, but I think Patsy's prints being on the bowl of pineapple may simply mean she was the person who put the clean bowl in the cupboard after the last time it was washed. Her prints on the bowl aren't evidence that she served the pineapple or even knew it had been served that night. I'm the person who usually puts clean dishes away at my house, so my prints are going to be on them. If Patsy is the person who last touched the clean bowl before it was used again, her prints are naturally going to be on it.

 

[Userid]

I'm pretty sure I mentioned this before in one of the JonBenet threads, but I think Patsy's prints being on the bowl of pineapple may simply mean she was the person who put the clean bowl in the cupboard after the last time it was washed. Her prints on the bowl aren't evidence that she served the pineapple or even knew it had been served that night. I'm the person who usually puts clean dishes away at my house, so my prints are going to be on them. If Patsy is the person who last touched the clean bowl before it was used again, her prints are naturally going to be on it.

You realize they had maids, right? PR didn't do house work. The main reason why their house was such a mess was because they gave the maids time off because of the holidays and they weren't there to do all the cleaning.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm pretty sure I mentioned this before in one of the JonBenet threads, but I think Patsy's prints being on the bowl of pineapple may simply mean she was the person who put the clean bowl in the cupboard after the last time it was washed. Her prints on the bowl aren't evidence that she served the pineapple or even knew it had been served that night. I'm the person who usually puts clean dishes away at my house, so my prints are going to be on them. If Patsy is the person who last touched the clean bowl before it was used again, her prints are naturally going to be on it.

dogperson,
Sure, absolutely 100% correct. Maids and servants are simply a sideshow. So you have figured out why Patsy's prints are on the bowl, how about Burke's?

.

 

[UKGuy]

It's really late, been working heaps this week and have to work again tomorrow (Saturday here), so very tired but wanted to see my friends here
Hmmm, the brush piece did get left in her by Burke perhaps? and removed by JR when he wiped her clean. This then is shoved in a bag with the cloth/shirt and undies. This bag is then also used to put the tissues in that wiped the flashlight (inc the batteries) into plus teary ones that Patsy used whilst writing the note. Easy enough to put this in the car in the garage the next morning (JR admits to going into the garage) or even in Burke's bundle of stuff to take to the White's (less likely).

The army knife may have been something Burke carried around - handy to slice open packets the tape seal of new toys etc. It may not have had anything to do what occurred that night. Although it would have made opening a brand new packet of underwear easy.

Veronica Lodge,
I think you get it. The missing piece had to go somewhere and if BPD claim they hoovered the carpet for forensic evidence, how come they missed it?

Although it would have made opening a brand new packet of underwear easy.

Well observed, Burke had two knives, one was a branded gift from his mother. LHP the housemaid said she put Burke's knife in a cupboard, so which one was found in the wine-cellar?

Meaning maybe Patsy knew all along as she was the person who used the knife, or was she covering for someone else?

.

 

[Userid]

dogperson,
Sure, absolutely 100% correct. Maids and servants are simply a sideshow. So you have figured out why Patsy's prints are on the bowl, how about Burke's?

.

Fingerprints do not remain for a long period of time. They dissolve over time, especially over days. So, that theory doesn't really work; especially considering that you know PR didn't do house work -- she's the last person who would have.

But if you're going to go by that logic (which I wouldn't, but I digress), you can apply it to the BR prints as well. Maybe he was the last to handle it. Maybe that glass was left out on that table from days ago.

 

[Userid]

Veronica Lodge,
I think you get it. The missing piece had to go somewhere and if BPD claim they hoovered the carpet for forensic evidence, how come they missed it?

.

Because it was disposed of, along with the other items that were disposed of, from the house.

 

[UKGuy]

Fingerprints do not remain for a long period of time. They dissolve over time, especially over days. So, that theory doesn't really work; especially considering that you know PR didn't do house work -- she's the last person who would have.

But if you're going to go by that logic (which I wouldn't, but I digress), you can apply it to the BR prints as well. Maybe he was the last to handle it. Maybe that glass was left out on that table from days ago.

Userid,

Fingerprints do not remain for a long period of time. They dissolve over time, especially over days. So, that theory doesn't really work; especially considering that you know PR didn't do house work -- she's the last person who would have.

What theory, what work, please demonstrate with an example? If I possess knowledge that Patsy did no housework, I cannot infer from it that she never served JonBenet a bowl of pineapple after arriving back from the White's party.

Maybe he was the last to handle it. Maybe that glass was left out on that table from days ago.

Your maybes and hypotheticals are just that, a diversion from the common sense assumption that either/or both Patsy and Burke handled the bowl after arriving back from the White's party. Why, because as you suggest fingerprints dissolve over time and should not LHP's fingerprints be on the bowl also as she was the one carrying out the housework?

Maybe everything on the table, no in the breakfast bar, had been left out for days, who can tell?

The analysis of the pineapple would tell BPD how old it was, i.e. days, hours, etc. If only Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints are on the bowl then its safe to conclude one of them were the last to handle the bowl?

Burke Ramsey's fingerprints were on the Glass with the teabag, and the Bowl of pineapple. I've never seen any fingerprint test results from the serving spoon in the bowl being released.

So those fingerprints and Burke Ramsey's touch-dna being deposited on JonBenet's favorite Barbie Nightgown place him directly in JonBenet's vicinity on the night of her death.

.