What's eating you alive re this case?

[comingforyou]

Lawrence Schiller wrote Perfect Murder Perfect Town.

 

[UKGuy]

The broken-off part of the handle she was assaulted with was never recovered, if memory serves. You had the garrotte, and the tip (brush) recovered, but there was a piece that was missing entirely and never photographed. She wasn't assaulted with either pieces that were photographed.

Userid,
Has anyone estimated the length of the missing piece of paintbrush given we have the remaining pieces?

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Has anyone estimated the length of the missing piece of paintbrush given we have the remaining pieces?

.

I believe there actually was a post a while back that tried to determine that, but I can't remember which thread/page/etc. Apologies -- wish I could direct you to it, but it's hard to keep track of posts.

From what I can recall, the head of the paint brush (that was found in the paint tray) was cracked off very near to the metal casing found just beneath the bristles. I suspect that the brush-part of the paintbrush was cracked off from the left side of the garrotte (see photo below); the garrotte itself is the middle part of the paintbrush; and the bottom of the paintbrush is missing.

https://goo.gl/images/jEFfvV

It's tough to say exactly how long, because paintbrush vary greatly in length, but in this photo, you'll notice there is one paintbrush that his longer than all the other shorter paintbrushes (it's beneath the smaller ones, with black bristles at the top). I imagine that the paintbrush was similar in length to this one (which would probably be close to a foot, i.e. 30 cm):

https://goo.gl/images/92zDNn

 

[Tadpole12]

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...-paintbrush-handle-broken&p=189351#post189351

cynic measured brushes
for comparison

 

[UKGuy]

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...-paintbrush-handle-broken&p=189351#post189351

cynic measured brushes
for comparison

Tadpole12,
Thanks for the information, I've always been left thinking the missing piece was small?

Yet not that small to avoid injuring JonBenet internally?


This is an aspect of the case where the details have been deliberately redacted, since in Schiller's book he does not expand on JonBenet's second internal examination, other than to say it agreed with Meyer's first verbatem remarks.

This does not tell us if the internal injury was caused by a finger, piece of paintbrush, other instrument or both?

The missing piece of paintbrush might have been lying somewhere on the basement floor lost to investigators, now assuming a more intentional purpose, i.e. gratification or staging?

The origin and manufacture of the ligature and paintbrush is obvious to everyone involved, so why bother hiding one piece, why did it matter?

.

 

[PositiveLight]

Tadpole12,
Thanks for the information, I've always been left thinking the missing piece was small?

Yet not that small to avoid injuring JonBenet internally?


This is an aspect of the case where the details have been deliberately redacted, since in Schiller's book he does not expand on JonBenet's second internal examination, other than to say it agreed with Meyer's first verbatem remarks.

This does not tell us if the internal injury was caused by a finger, piece of paintbrush, other instrument or both?

The missing piece of paintbrush might have been lying somewhere on the basement floor lost to investigators, now assuming a more intentional purpose, i.e. gratification or staging?

The origin and manufacture of the ligature and paintbrush is obvious to everyone involved, so why bother hiding one piece, why did it matter?

.

Good question. Hmm. Since the edges would be sharp, maybe they injured themselves somehow. Maybe they left some blood on it and knew it could be traced? Hmm. good question. Might be the key to the investigation. WHY that was removed from the scene and everything else was left behind.

 

[Userid]

Good question. Hmm. Since the edges would be sharp, maybe they injured themselves somehow. Maybe they left some blood on it and knew it could be traced? Hmm. good question. Might be the key to the investigation. WHY that was removed from the scene and everything else was left behind.

Perhaps because that would have been easy to dispose of, either keeping it on their person (would fit in a pocket or a purse) or burning it in the fireplace? Or more logically, flushed down a toilet.

Another reason would be this: if it was used before JBR was killed, as punishment. Then, it would be imperative to dispose/remove it from the house. That would mean, that it was not used to stage a sexual assault, obviously -- but rather, as a form as punishment.

Aren't their other items that were never really recovered? Or is this (the bottom third of the paint brush) the only thing missing?

 

[UKGuy]

Perhaps because that would have been easy to dispose of, either keeping it on their person (would fit in a pocket or a purse) or burning it in the fireplace? Or more logically, flushed down a toilet.

Another reason would be this: if it was used before JBR was killed, as punishment. Then, it would be imperative to dispose/remove it from the house. That would mean, that it was not used to stage a sexual assault, obviously -- but rather, as a form as punishment.

Aren't their other items that were never really recovered? Or is this (the bottom third of the paint brush) the only thing missing?

Userid,
Why would it be imperative? Could it not simply be washed in the sink and left in the paint-tote, whats the percentage in hiding it?

Why do you think one piece was used as a ligature attachment and another piece was left in the paint-tote, with another piece allegedly missing?

Why privilege the missing piece over that in the paint-tote?

I'm thinking the paintbrush (complete) was initially used in a staging event which was then revised to include its use in the wine-cellar crime-scene?

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Why would it be imperative? Could it not simply be washed in the sink and left in the paint-tote, whats the percentage in hiding it?

Why do you think one piece was used as a ligature attachment and another piece was left in the paint-tote, with another piece allegedly missing?

Why privilege the missing piece over that in the paint-tote?

I'm thinking the paintbrush (complete) was initially used in a staging event which was then revised to include its use in the wine-cellar crime-scene?

.

It would be imperative because of two reasons: it wouldn't have been useful for staging (i.e. it was used for another purpose; a purpose closer to the truth) and anything that was used in the "real" (i.e. not staged) crime would be essential to cover-up and/or dispose.

I think the brush wasn't left in the paint tote on purpose. I feel that it was simply overlooked and/or forgotten; or perhaps it couldn't be found after the stager had cracked it off. I don't think that brush was deliberately left in that tray.

I privilege that piece because the brush wasn't used at all; and the missing piece could be the cause of the assault and the "birefringent materal."

I'm unsure why the entire paintbrush would be used initially in the staging event; and why they would leave one piece in the tray after the fact, but dispose of another. We know for a fact that there were three pieces. What I think, is that the paintbrush was used, in tact, during the punishment; and it was broken immediately before the garrotte was applied, just outside the cellar, where the strangulation occurred; and it was broken because, the stager figured it would be harder to trace back to PR, had the brush been kept in tact (as the garrotte). The stager may have lost track of the brush head in all the chaos, hence why it was left behind.

 

[UKGuy]

It would be imperative because of two reasons: it wouldn't have been useful for staging (i.e. it was used for another purpose; a purpose closer to the truth) and anything that was used in the "real" (i.e. not staged) crime would be essential to cover-up and/or dispose.

I think the brush wasn't left in the paint tote on purpose. I feel that it was simply overlooked and/or forgotten; or perhaps it couldn't be found after the stager had cracked it off. I don't think that brush was deliberately left in that tray.

I privilege that piece because the brush wasn't used at all; and the missing piece could be the cause of the assault and the "birefringent materal."

I'm unsure why the entire paintbrush would be used initially in the staging event; and why they would leave one piece in the tray after the fact, but dispose of another. We know for a fact that there were three pieces. What I think, is that the paintbrush was used, in tact, during the punishment; and it was broken immediately before the garrotte was applied, just outside the cellar, where the strangulation occurred; and it was broken because, the stager figured it would be harder to trace back to PR, had the brush been kept in tact (as the garrotte). The stager may have lost track of the brush head in all the chaos, hence why it was left behind.

Userid,

It would be imperative because of two reasons: it wouldn't have been useful for staging (i.e. it was used for another purpose; a purpose closer to the truth) and anything that was used in the "real" (i.e. not staged) crime would be essential to cover-up and/or dispose.

If it has no use as staging, just as the piece returned to the paint-tote obviously was, then why remove it?

I think the brush wasn't left in the paint tote on purpose. I feel that it was simply overlooked and/or forgotten; or perhaps it couldn't be found after the stager had cracked it off. I don't think that brush was deliberately left in that tray.

The forensic evidence, i.e shards of the paintbrush lying on the carpet next to the wine-cellar door, suggest it was broken there, so moving the piece of paintbrush from next to the wine-cellar to the paint-tote is a pretty explicit move, hardly an oversight.

I privilege that piece because the brush wasn't used at all; and the missing piece could be the cause of the assault and the "birefringent materal."

I agree, the missing piece might be the cause of the assault and the birefringent materal., yet is it a prior staged assault?

If not, why bother cleaning JonBenet up, redressing her in size-12's and Burke's longjohns and hiding it all?

Regardless of the original motive, it appears staging is the purpose of the wine-cellar and its contents, this includes the use of the paintbrush which might have been repurposed to mask the initial genital assault?

Who thinks one of the Ramsey's fingers caused JonBenet to bleed internally, or is it more likely to have been caused by the end of the missing piece of paintbrush?

IMO the use of the paintbrush in its entirety looks like staging, as I reckon the paintbrush is employed after JonBenet is moved down to the basement?

One assumption that might be invalid is that the paintbrush caused JonBenet to bleed, that might have happened upstairs in her bedroom, hence JonBenet is cleaned up?

so the paintbrush including the missing piece might simply represent a staging artifact, and nothing more?

.

 

[Tadpole12]

so the paintbrush including the missing piece might simply represent a staging artifact, and nothing more? - UK

IDK Was the ligature with paintbrush premade, in it's entirety ?

 

[UKGuy]

so the paintbrush including the missing piece might simply represent a staging artifact, and nothing more? - UK

IDK Was the ligature with paintbrush premade, in it's entirety ?

Tadpole12,
Most likely yes. However you slice and dice the case, it appears JonBenet was moved from her bedroom down to the basement. The paintbrush certainly originated in the basement, so unless folks are running up and down the stairs to fetch staging material, the paintbrush was broken in the basement and presumably adorned with the ligature?

The ligature might have already been used to strangle JonBenet to which Patsy adds the piece of paintbrush to effect a staged crime-scene?

Alternatively both the ligature and piece of paintbrush are simply staging either to hide a prior manual asphyxiation, or Patsy has decided to present JonBenet deceased as the result of a staged ligature/paintbrush combo?

JonBenet as found in the wine-cellar is all staged, right down to her size-12's and Burke's longjohns !

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,


If it has no use as staging, just as the piece returned to the paint-tote obviously was, then why remove it?


The forensic evidence, i.e shards of the paintbrush lying on the carpet next to the wine-cellar door, suggest it was broken there, so moving the piece of paintbrush from next to the wine-cellar to the paint-tote is a pretty explicit move, hardly an oversight.


I agree, the missing piece might be the cause of the assault and the birefringent materal., yet is it a prior staged assault?

If not, why bother cleaning JonBenet up, redressing her in size-12's and Burke's longjohns and hiding it all?

Regardless of the original motive, it appears staging is the purpose of the wine-cellar and its contents, this includes the use of the paintbrush which might have been repurposed to mask the initial genital assault?

Who thinks one of the Ramsey's fingers caused JonBenet to bleed internally, or is it more likely to have been caused by the end of the missing piece of paintbrush?

IMO the use of the paintbrush in its entirety looks like staging, as I reckon the paintbrush is employed after JonBenet is moved down to the basement?

One assumption that might be invalid is that the paintbrush caused JonBenet to bleed, that might have happened upstairs in her bedroom, hence JonBenet is cleaned up?

so the paintbrush including the missing piece might simply represent a staging artifact, and nothing more?

.

Why leave the brush in the tray? What at all would be the point of that? All it would do, would tie PR to the garrotte.

I don't believe every single thing is staged. This is one of them. The bottom piece was removed because there was evidence on it. Why would they wash it and return it to the paint tote (as you suggested earlier)? That would still be risky and also tie PR to the crime.

My point is, it's understandable why they would dispose of that particular bottom piece; and understandable why they would leave the brush part behind. They left it behind because they either didn't realize it would be suspicious (assuming it was left behind purposefully), or they didn't realize it had been in that tray after whoever had broken the brush into 3 pieces. Just because it was "found" in the tray, doesn't necessarily mean that it was "returned" there, either purposefully or consciously.

 

[Userid]

Tadpole12,
Most likely yes. However you slice and dice the case, it appears JonBenet was moved from her bedroom down to the basement. The paintbrush certainly originated in the basement, so unless folks are running up and down the stairs to fetch staging material, the paintbrush was broken in the basement and presumably adorned with the ligature?

The ligature might have already been used to strangle JonBenet to which Patsy adds the piece of paintbrush to effect a staged crime-scene?

Alternatively both the ligature and piece of paintbrush are simply staging either to hide a prior manual asphyxiation, or Patsy has decided to present JonBenet deceased as the result of a staged ligature/paintbrush combo?

JonBenet as found in the wine-cellar is all staged, right down to her size-12's and Burke's longjohns !

.

Agree -- and it was broken very near to the paint tray. Everything happened in that small area of carpet right outside the wine cellar, as the urine stain would indicate.

But again, I believe the brush had nothing to do with staging. That like believing the shards that were found on the carpet were a part of the staging too. Remember, these weren't professional killers here; not every single piece of evidence was used for staging purposes.

 

[UKGuy]

Agree -- and it was broken very near to the paint tray. Everything happened in that small area of carpet right outside the wine cellar, as the urine stain would indicate.

But again, I believe the brush had nothing to do with staging. That like believing the shards that were found on the carpet were a part of the staging too. Remember, these weren't professional killers here; not every single piece of evidence was used for staging purposes.

Userid,
By brush, if you mean the part left in the paint-tote, then superficially, yes. Yet we do not know what prior use was made of the complete paintbrush?

If it were not for the use of the paintbrush or the presence of the pink nightgown the R's staging would have been very convincing, and apart from the parents forensic evidence, pretty much uncontestable.

No intruder needs the paintbrush to asphyxiate JonBenet, a hand over the mouth is sufficient. I reckon there is another motive at play by including the paintbrush and by association the ligature?

.

 

[Cottonstar]

If you accept that JB died or voided at the spot about where the paint tray was just outside the cellar door, then you can clearly see that there was no room to “murder” JB in that area. This would mean that after she was moved to the cellar, someone placed, moved, and staged that area just outside the cellar door. Someone would have had to physically pick up the paint tray and place it in that nice and neat position near the paintings outside the door.


Why is the pink nightgown with JB blood on it, the notepad with Patsy’s doodling, and the paint tray, with the portion of the brush inside, all part of the crime scene?


It’s my view, that these items are all staged. Since the nightgown and paint tray were used in some way during the crime, the stager chose to give LE automatic, easy reasonings to how and why these items show up at the crime scene. If the stager decided to hide the incriminating paint tray, the nightgown with blood on it, or the notepad, then they would run a huge risk of that item being found by LE. An intruder wouldn’t hide these items, and it would look very incriminating upon the family if those items were found in separate hidden places inside the house. The stager is attempting to drive us to the basement, and to the wine cellar. The stager is attempting to author a story to LE of where JB was killed and how. This is why all of these items show up at the murder scene. Since, no intruder would come unprepared without their favorite choking device-if that was the intent of the killer, then the stager offers up an easy explanation as to why the brush was used. Well, hey look the paint tray was right here, so that’s why they decided to use a brush from this paint tray to choke her.

The stager(s) have to stage, or make use of what was already used in commission of the crime to explain away those crucial pieces of evidence. We see it upstairs with the note, and how Patsy “bounded” up the stairs over the note, and JR read it as it was sprawled out on the floor. The Rams don’t hand it to French when he arrives, instead, they show him the spot where it’s laid out on the floor. And presto! we have an automatic reason given by the stager(s) as to why we don’t see their fingerprints on the note.

 

[Userid]

If you accept that JB died or voided at the spot about where the paint tray was just outside the cellar door, then you can clearly see that there was no room to “murder” JB in that area. This would mean that after she was moved to the cellar, someone placed, moved, and staged that area just outside the cellar door. Someone would have had to physically pick up the paint tray and place it in that nice and neat position near the paintings outside the door.


Why is the pink nightgown with JB blood on it, the notepad with Patsy’s doodling, and the paint tray, with the portion of the brush inside, all part of the crime scene?


It’s my view, that these items are all staged. Since the nightgown and paint tray were used in some way during the crime, the stager chose to give LE automatic, easy reasonings to how and why these items show up at the crime scene. If the stager decided to hide the incriminating paint tray, the nightgown with blood on it, or the notepad, then they would run a huge risk of that item being found by LE. An intruder wouldn’t hide these items, and it would look very incriminating upon the family if those items were found in separate hidden places inside the house. The stager is attempting to drive us to the basement, and to the wine cellar. The stager is attempting to author a story to LE of where JB was killed and how. This is why all of these items show up at the murder scene. Since, no intruder would come unprepared without their favorite choking device-if that was the intent of the killer, then the stager offers up an easy explanation as to why the brush was used. Well, hey look the paint tray was right here, so that’s why they decided to use a brush from this paint tray to choke her.

The stager(s) have to stage, or make use of what was already used in commission of the crime to explain away those crucial pieces of evidence. We see it upstairs with the note, and how Patsy “bounded” up the stairs over the note, and JR read it as it was sprawled out on the floor. The Rams don’t hand it to French when he arrives, instead, they show him the spot where it’s laid out on the floor. And presto! we have an automatic reason given by the stager(s) as to why we don’t see their fingerprints on the note.

Then why not leave the bottom portion of the paint brush? If all these items, including the brush part of the paintbrush, was left purposefully, why not leave that bottom portion in the tray also? Or leave that bottom portion in the wine cellar next to her body?

Isn't it also possible that the the brush was thrown into that tray (after it had been moved to that spot) somewhat willy-nilly? As in, the stager didn't think it would raise any red flags one way or the other? If the stager didn't realize that the garrote could be tied back to the brush head (remember, it was broken very close to the metal part of the brush-head; and the bottom part was disposed), (s)he would have no real concern to dispose of it, as it would have contained no DNA from JBR or the stager (logically assuming the stager was wearing gloves while it was broken). If the stager saw it on the ground, while doing a "last check" of the area, if she didn't think the item posed any threat, (s)he may have simply thrown it into the tray. Remember, these aren't professional murderers we're dealing with here. I could very easily the stager fixing up the area -- doing a "last check" of the area quickly -- seeing that part on the ground and simply tossing it into the tray. Why hold even more items (connected to the crime) on your person than you already have? Especially, when you consider the item

 

[Cottonstar]

Then why not leave the bottom portion of the paint brush? If all these items, including the brush part of the paintbrush, was left purposefully, why not leave that bottom portion in the tray also? Or leave that bottom portion in the wine cellar next to her body?

Isn't it also possible that the the brush was thrown into that tray (after it had been moved to that spot) somewhat willy-nilly? As in, the stager didn't think it would raise any red flags one way or the other? If the stager didn't realize that the garrote could be tied back to the brush head (remember, it was broken very close to the metal part of the brush-head; and the bottom part was disposed), (s)he would have no real concern to dispose of it, as it would have contained no DNA from JBR or the stager (logically assuming the stager was wearing gloves while it was broken). If the stager saw it on the ground, while doing a "last check" of the area, if she didn't think the item posed any threat, (s)he may have simply thrown it into the tray. Remember, these aren't professional murderers we're dealing with here. I could very easily the stager fixing up the area -- doing a "last check" of the area quickly -- seeing that part on the ground and simply tossing it into the tray. Why hold even more items (connected to the crime) on your person than you already have? Especially, when you consider the item

Yes, I agree. I don’t think the brush end was left/put back in the paint tray to necessarily, show exactly what brush the wooden stick was fashioned from but rather, as a convienant way/place to dump incriminating evidence.

 

[Cottonstar]

Then why not leave the bottom portion of the paint brush? If all these items, including the brush part of the paintbrush, was left purposefully, why not leave that bottom portion in the tray also? Or leave that bottom portion in the wine cellar next to her body?

Isn't it also possible that the the brush was thrown into that tray (after it had been moved to that spot) somewhat willy-nilly? As in, the stager didn't think it would raise any red flags one way or the other? If the stager didn't realize that the garrote could be tied back to the brush head (remember, it was broken very close to the metal part of the brush-head; and the bottom part was disposed), (s)he would have no real concern to dispose of it, as it would have contained no DNA from JBR or the stager (logically assuming the stager was wearing gloves while it was broken). If the stager saw it on the ground, while doing a "last check" of the area, if she didn't think the item posed any threat, (s)he may have simply thrown it into the tray. Remember, these aren't professional murderers we're dealing with here. I could very easily the stager fixing up the area -- doing a "last check" of the area quickly -- seeing that part on the ground and simply tossing it into the tray. Why hold even more items (connected to the crime) on your person than you already have? Especially, when you consider the item

Why does there have to be another end to the brush? It looks to me, as if, we may be looking at the other end of the paintbrush in the wooden stick photos.

 

[Userid]

Why does there have to be another end to the brush? It looks to me, as if, we may be looking at the other end of the paintbrush in the wooden stick photos.

If memory serves, there is a photo of the garrote that illustrates that there is a break present on both ends of it (i.e. one end isn't "rounded off").