Questions you'd like answers to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since the AR does not identify the foreign "birefringent material" or cellulose, I personally don't know enough to draw any conclusions. I can see the argument that the report doesn't include known specifics (perhaps at the request of investigators) as an aid to preserve the investigation. But I can also see the argument that perhaps the material(s), or its source(s), was unidentifiable due to inadequate quantities, or other reasons. JMO

I am curious, though. There are many materials with birefringent properties that also contain some form of cellulose. Paint, detergents, soaps, cosmetics, nail polish, industrial dust, etc. etc. etc. If whatever the ME found WAS identified (even partially), and we know it could have possibly been introduced via "digital penetration," than that seems like key evidence for profiling, at the very least. If it was paint that matched the paintbrush, versus nail polish, versus industrial dust...those clues might lead in completely different directions.

Just some amateur thoughts. :)

TL4S,
well observed.

I am curious, though. There are many materials with birefringent properties that also contain some form of cellulose.
Top of the list might be varnish or residue from the paintbrush handle, but which piece, i.e. missing or extant?

If its something else, i.e. not connected with the paintbrush then we have potentially interesting forensic evidence?

The unknown regarding the paintbrush is why bother simply placing one piece back in the paint-tote and removing the other piece, where is the percentage in that?

You have to wonder how Lawrence Schiller knew what the materials composition was if the Coroner did not identify it as such?

Maybe this is all it is, e.g.

Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Excerpt
The police would have to track down the origin of a small amount of cellulose that had been found in JonBenét’s vagina. *

* Cellulose is a carbohydrate of high molecular weight that is the chief constituent of the cell walls of plants. Raw cotton is 91 percent cellulose. Other important natural sources are flax, hemp, jute, straw, and wood

Steve Thomas in his book refers to a splinter

If this is the default position does it represent staging?


.
 
JonBenet

ST/ITRMI:

p254

"Then we has the experts assess why a tiny splinter had been found in JonBenet's vagina.
The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrote. Although the source of the splinter was never definitively proved,
I considered it highly unlikely that it originated anywhere else.
And that brush belonged to Patsy Ramsey."

p342

"only as "prior vaginal trauma."
Then we presented information on the paintbrush, the handle for the garrote, the paint tray, and the matching paint on the handle and the broken brush. The splinter in the vagina
had caused a disagreement among the examiners. Some examiners said it had been in the vagina as long as a week but..."
 
JonBenet

ST/ITRMI:

p254

"Then we has the experts assess why a tiny splinter had been found in JonBenet's vagina.
The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrote. Although the source of the splinter was never definitively proved,
I considered it highly unlikely that it originated anywhere else.
And that brush belonged to Patsy Ramsey."

p342

"only as "prior vaginal trauma."
Then we presented information on the paintbrush, the handle for the garrote, the paint tray, and the matching paint on the handle and the broken brush. The splinter in the vagina
had caused a disagreement among the examiners. Some examiners said it had been in the vagina as long as a week but..."

Tadpole12,
Sure and but ...
but the detectives sided with Dr. Spitz's conclusion that it was inserted about the time of death as part of the staging.

I tend to agree it looks like staging to me, the question is did Patsy do this and to what extent does the staging compromise the Coroner's prior Sexual Contact remarks or are both consistent with Patsy attempting to mask a prior sexual assault with the use of the paintbrush?


.
 
JonBenet

ST/ITRMI:

p254

"Then we has the experts assess why a tiny splinter had been found in JonBenet's vagina.
The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrote. Although the source of the splinter was never definitively proved,
I considered it highly unlikely that it originated anywhere else.
And that brush belonged to Patsy Ramsey."

p342

"only as "prior vaginal trauma."
Then we presented information on the paintbrush, the handle for the garrote, the paint tray, and the matching paint on the handle and the broken brush. The splinter in the vagina
had caused a disagreement among the examiners. Some examiners said it had been in the vagina as long as a week but..."
Thank you for the quotes. I can't readily get ahold off this book, so the quotes are very helpful!

Is there anything said that links the "birefringent material" and the cellulose (possibly a splinter) as being one and the same? Or are those terms referring to materials found separately?
 
Since the AR does not identify the foreign "birefringent material" or cellulose, I personally don't know enough to draw any conclusions. I can see the argument that the report doesn't include known specifics (perhaps at the request of investigators) as an aid to preserve the investigation. But I can also see the argument that perhaps the material(s), or its source(s), was unidentifiable due to inadequate quantities, or other reasons. JMO

I am curious, though. There are many materials with birefringent properties that also contain some form of cellulose. Paint, detergents, soaps, cosmetics, nail polish, industrial dust, etc. etc. etc. If whatever the ME found WAS identified (even partially), and we know it could have possibly been introduced via "digital penetration," than that seems like key evidence for profiling, at the very least. If it was paint that matched the paintbrush, versus nail polish, versus industrial dust...those clues might lead in completely different directions.

Just some amateur thoughts. :)

Birefringent material is an identifying factor in and of itself. This is microscopic material we're talking about here. The fact the ME both classified it as "microscopic" and "birefringrent" is as specific as the ME could have been, with regard to this particular piece of evidence.

Not every piece of evidence, especially microscopic evidence, is automatically traced back to a source when recovered from a crime scene or a victim. We know the victim was assaulted; we don't know if it was necessarily via digit or if something was used. We just know an assault took place. I don't think nail polish would leave an ample amount of birefringent material. So I tend to believe that something was used, other than a digit. And as Tadpole just posted, whatever was used, didn't leave enough of a sample size behind to definitively confirm what it was (be it the paintbrush, etc.); particularly, since the missing part of the paint brush (the most likely source of the birefringent material) was never found. Hence, why it was listed as such in the AR.
 
Last edited:
The unknown regarding the paintbrush is why bother simply placing one piece back in the paint-tote and removing the other piece, where is the percentage in that?

This is a very intriguing question. Did the Ramsey's ever address the paintbrush issue?

If I allow myself to consider either parent staging anything, I can still not make sense of them doing it to cover BR. Finding your little girl near death, especially at the hands of your other child, would be complete devastation, IMO. How this would lead to staging by use of garrote - of all things, and a ransom note filled with violent threats to the same little girl you just lost (beheading?), and perhaps a staged sexual assault to boot... Even out of desperation to protect their son, I can't buy this theory. JMO

Of course, I find it hard to believe the parents would stage such atrocities to their own child under any circumstance, unless there was something sinister going on already. If the SA was staged, then why hide the broken piece of handle? Why go to the trouble of writing a two and a half page ransom note that doesn't correspond with the scene set up on the body? To me, none of this points to an innocent accident (by BR or the parents) later covered up to protect them.

If I'm going to believe one or both parents staged anything, the motive I feel comfortable looking at first would be to cover up something pre-existing. Something they didn't want ever to be discovered. And in order for one parent to willingly cover for the other, they both had to be involved and/or negligent in stopping it. That's not to say I think the murder itself was premeditated. Possibly an accident in the unfolding of another crime. I feel to stage this on your own child would have to require duress of being found depraved in some manner. Something socially unacceptable. Be it sexual abuse, or something else, IDK.

It's all so perplexing and I'm sorry if I'm rehashing thoughts likely talked about for 20 plus years. I'm looking for reasons why this happened, whether by family, friend, or intruder.
 
Thank you for the quotes. I can't readily get ahold off this book, so the quotes are very helpful!

Is there anything said that links the "birefringent material" and the cellulose (possibly a splinter) as being one and the same? Or are those terms referring to materials found separately?

TL4S,
No there is nothing linking the birefringent material and the cellulose splinter. Lawrence Schiller in his book, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town and Steve Thomas in his book JonBenet: Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation only refer to a cellulose splinter.

So its a grey area, or an open question as to the actual status of the birefringent material?

Although the safe money is on it simply being a splinter of wood, yet if you read Steve Thomas' book you can come away realizing there is more evidence yet to be made public, since BPD ringfenced what could be released along with their use of phrases such as prior vaginal trauma, i.e. not sexual assault.

.
 
This is a very intriguing question. Did the Ramsey's ever address the paintbrush issue?

If I allow myself to consider either parent staging anything, I can still not make sense of them doing it to cover BR. Finding your little girl near death, especially at the hands of your other child, would be complete devastation, IMO. How this would lead to staging by use of garrote - of all things, and a ransom note filled with violent threats to the same little girl you just lost (beheading?), and perhaps a staged sexual assault to boot... Even out of desperation to protect their son, I can't buy this theory. JMO

Of course, I find it hard to believe the parents would stage such atrocities to their own child under any circumstance, unless there was something sinister going on already. If the SA was staged, then why hide the broken piece of handle? Why go to the trouble of writing a two and a half page ransom note that doesn't correspond with the scene set up on the body? To me, none of this points to an innocent accident (by BR or the parents) later covered up to protect them.

If I'm going to believe one or both parents staged anything, the motive I feel comfortable looking at first would be to cover up something pre-existing. Something they didn't want ever to be discovered. And in order for one parent to willingly cover for the other, they both had to be involved and/or negligent in stopping it. That's not to say I think the murder itself was premeditated. Possibly an accident in the unfolding of another crime. I feel to stage this on your own child would have to require duress of being found depraved in some manner. Something socially unacceptable. Be it sexual abuse, or something else, IDK.

It's all so perplexing and I'm sorry if I'm rehashing thoughts likely talked about for 20 plus years. I'm looking for reasons why this happened, whether by family, friend, or intruder.

TL4S,
This is a very intriguing question. Did the Ramsey's ever address the paintbrush issue?
Nope, yet Patsy's fibers are embedded into the knotting on the ligature, in the Paint Tote and on the underside of the duct tape found on JonBenet's mouth.

Foreign Faction by James Kolar, Excerpt
It would take a year before the black and red Essentials brand jacket Patsy was photographed wearing was finally delivered to them. It was frustrating. The clothing articles seemed to trickle into their office a piece or two at a time. In one instance, a sweater – that Patsy was said to be wearing under the jacket – was delivered that looked like it had just come off the shelf of a retail clothing store. The fold marks were crisp and clearly present, suggesting it had never been worn.

Trujillo advised me that lab technicians had identified eight different types of fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape used to cover JonBenét’s mouth. They included red acrylic, gray acrylic, and red polyester fibers that were subsequently determined by laboratory examination to be microscopically and chemically consistent to each other, as well as to fibers taken from Patsy Ramsey’s Essentials jacket.

Further, fibers from this jacket were also matched to trace fibers collected from the wrist ligature, neck ligature, and vacuumed evidence from the paint tray and Wine Cellar floor.

Some intruder theorists thought that the transfer of Patsy’s jacket fibers to the duct tape may have taken place after John had removed it from JonBenét’s face, and placed it on the white blanket in the cellar. They believed it possible that prior contact taking place between the blanket and jacket could account for the transfer of these fibers to the tape.

Lab technicians had conducted experiments with the same brand of duct tape, by attempting to lift trace fibers from the blanket recovered in the Wine Cellar. Direct contact was made in different quadrants of the blanket. There was some minimal transfer of jacket fibers made to the tape during this exercise, but Trujillo told me lab technicians didn’t think that this type of transfer accounted for the number of jacket fibers that had been found on the sticky side of the tape. It was thought that direct contact between the jacket and tape was more likely the reason for the quantity of fibers found on this piece of evidence.

BPD investigators looked to the other jacket fibers found in the Wine Cellar, in the paint tray, and on the cord used to bind JonBenét as physical evidence that linked Patsy with the probable location of her daughter’s death – the basement hallway and Wine Cellar.

The paint tray was reported to have been moved to the basement about a month prior to the kidnapping, and investigators doubted that Patsy would have been working on art projects while wearing the dress jacket. The collection of jacket fibers from all of these different locations raised strong suspicions about her involvement in the crime.

Investigators also learned that fibers collected from the interior lining of the Essentials jacket did not match control samples from the sweater that had been provided to police by Ramsey attorneys. Investigators thought that this suggested she had been wearing some other article of clothing beneath the jacket.

If the SA was staged, then why hide the broken piece of handle? Why go to the trouble of writing a two and a half page ransom note that doesn't correspond with the scene set up on the body?
The missing piece has either been redacted or removed because the stager left forensic evidence on it. The RN is there to explain why the parents moved JonBenet from upstairs to downstairs, it does not correspond as its all been staged.

If I'm going to believe one or both parents staged anything, the motive I feel comfortable looking at first would be to cover up something pre-existing.
What's being covered up is that JonBenet was being sexually abused, she was an innocent victim trapped inside a bubble of extreme wealth and neglect.

It's all so perplexing and I'm sorry if I'm rehashing thoughts likely talked about for 20 plus years. I'm looking for reasons why this happened, whether by family, friend, or intruder.
You can rule out an intruder as there is zero forensic evidence linking to anyone outside the Ramsey house.

You should consider loaning Foreign Faction by James Kolar from your local library or buying it on Amazon. A lot of what seems inconceivable behaviour on the part of the parents or that of their children becomes transparently evident regardless of who you think did it.

.
 
Regarding the tip of the paint brush that was found in the tray, these are two possibilities. The paintbrush was cracked near to the paint tray. We know JBR was on the carpet just outside the wine cellar; and that is where the paint tray ended up after her body was moved into the cellar. So either the killer/stager broke the brush in the immediate area and the brush head landed there unintentionally (since it was a small space where it was cracked), or the killer didn't realize it would be incriminating enough if found in the tray with all the other brushes, and decided to simply leave it in the tray.

Another thing to consider: if the brush was broken, and at first the brush head was lost. Perhaps it landed somewhere where the stager couldn't find it initially, and it was found after the other items had been disposed (and after the police, others had arrived)-- so there was no other choice but to toss it in the tray, as to not look suspicious. JR wouldn't have wanted to be searched and for it to have been found in his pocket, say.
 
I remember when this all happened, I was too young to really understand then. Now it makes me sick suspecting the parents, but I always have, and I try to reason it out, but how can you make reason out of something so warped? The sweater fibers make me sicker yet.
 
So many pages, please excuse me if this has been brought up already but from the very beginning I have wondered why was the Home Security system not utilized?
As was repeated many times, the Ramsay's were prominent and wealthy, living in a very well to do neighborhood yet I have never read anywhere why the alarm was not set?
Were John and Patsy ever questioned about this?
 
So many pages, please excuse me if this has been brought up already but from the very beginning I have wondered why was the Home Security system not utilized?
As was repeated many times, the Ramsay's were prominent and wealthy, living in a very well to do neighborhood yet I have never read anywhere why the alarm was not set?
Were John and Patsy ever questioned about this?

Gypseygirl,
Were John and Patsy ever questioned about this?
Short answer : yes.

It was not activated the night JonBenet was killed.

You do not need to read all the pages, follow a theory that you like, until you realize its nonsense then switch to a better theory and just read pages relevant to it, e.g. JDI, PDI, BDI, etc and repeat above if required.

Alternatively get James Kolar's book, reserve a weekend, check coffee supply sit back and enjoy ...


.
 
I remember when this all happened, I was too young to really understand then. Now it makes me sick suspecting the parents, but I always have, and I try to reason it out, but how can you make reason out of something so warped? The sweater fibers make me sicker yet.

TL4S,

how can you make reason out of something so warped?
Thats where websleuths comes in, someone will have posted on an angle that you find inexplicable, there are some reasoned theories out there that think one of the parents did it or it was the son, there is no other alternative once you realize there was no intruder !

.
 
Gypseygirl,

Short answer : yes.

It was not activated the night JonBenet was killed.

You do not need to read all the pages, follow a theory that you like, until you realize its nonsense then switch to a better theory and just read pages relevant to it, e.g. JDI, PDI, BDI, etc and repeat above if required.

Alternatively get James Kolar's book, reserve a weekend, check coffee supply sit back and enjoy ...


.
 
I understand it wasn't set, I have just never heard the excuse as to why. I will check out the book, thanks.
Never mind I found the answer online, guess I should have checked there first.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the tip of the paint brush that was found in the tray, these are two possibilities. The paintbrush was cracked near to the paint tray. We know JBR was on the carpet just outside the wine cellar; and that is where the paint tray ended up after her body was moved into the cellar. So either the killer/stager broke the brush in the immediate area and the brush head landed there unintentionally (since it was a small space where it was cracked), or the killer didn't realize it would be incriminating enough if found in the tray with all the other brushes, and decided to simply leave it in the tray.

Another thing to consider: if the brush was broken, and at first the brush head was lost. Perhaps it landed somewhere where the stager couldn't find it initially, and it was found after the other items had been disposed (and after the police, others had arrived)-- so there was no other choice but to toss it in the tray, as to not look suspicious. JR wouldn't have wanted to be searched and for it to have been found in his pocket, say.

Userid,
garrote3.jpg

Another thing to consider: if the brush was broken, and at first the brush head was lost. Perhaps it landed somewhere where the stager couldn't find it initially, and it was found after the other items had been disposed (and after the police, others had arrived)-- so there was no other choice but to toss it in the tray, as to not look suspicious. JR wouldn't have wanted to be searched and for it to have been found in his pocket, say.
The paintbrush is broken at either end and there is a piece missing as one end was recovered from the paint-tote, see below.

Regarding the tip of the paint brush that was found in the tray, these are two possibilities. The paintbrush was cracked near to the paint tray. We know JBR was on the carpet just outside the wine cellar; and that is where the paint tray ended up after her body was moved into the cellar. So either the killer/stager broke the brush in the immediate area and the brush head landed there unintentionally (since it was a small space where it was cracked), or the killer didn't realize it would be incriminating enough if found in the tray with all the other brushes, and decided to simply leave it in the tray.
I suppose its possible but improbable that it landed in the paint-tote on being broken, more likely it was tossed there with the stager knowing full well its forensic importance.

179paint-tote.jpg


JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation
In the far corner of the basement, just outside the small room where the body had lain, Detective Mike Everett discovered a half-dozen oil paintings on canvas and an artist's plastic tote box belonging to Patsy. In the tote was a broken brush splotched by paint. Splinters were on the floor beside the tote. It was a major find because the broken brush matched the fractured end of the multicolored stick used in the garrote. The detectives had found the source of part of the murder weapon and where it had been broken.

BPD hoovered the wine-cellar floor for forensic evidence, and I presume they did something similar around the area where the paint-tote and splinters were, and to date we have a missing piece of paintbrush handle!

So the question arises why did the stager remove one piece and casually leave the other in the paint tote?

The wine-cellar and white blanket, etc
149blanket.jpg

Note also the gift at bottom of photo in FAO Schwartz wrapping paper. Partially wrapped FAO Schwartz gifts (55KKY, 56KKY, 57KKY) were taken into evidence.
Remember John Ramsey claimed Patsy was unaware the Schwartz wrapped gifts were in the wine-cellar.

The Bonita Papers say:
A red Swiss army knife was also found lying in the corner of the room away from the blanket.

I reckon rather than an argument over pineapple more likely it was over opening those Schwartz wrapped gifts, that Kolar say Burke admitted to opening Christmas Day afternoon?

Meaning if its all staged how does Burke know what to say, unless ... ?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
One or more of the group of individuals (alters) in Patsy's mind did everything with no thought to include the outside world. It was indeed an inside job. Imo.

One being the protectorate and the other the writer?
 
I haven't worked out the roles or number of alters. Patsy said there had to be at least two, the killer and someone the killer may have confided in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
757
Total visitors
847

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,743
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top