Not only possible, but probable. Whatever you think of ST and his investigation of the case, he did say that the public has only about 10% of the information on this crime. He also made a comment long ago that some of the information that has never been made public was truly shocking (even more so than what we know). As he was a staunch PDI, I can only guess what that hidden information might be. ST was no fan of the DA's office, and no fan of the BPD LE by the time he left either.
I'd say there are more than a few items kept under wraps.
I do not recall that the hairs found on JB were positively identified as wolf hairs. Wolf's dogs were hybrids, a product of mating a dog with a wolf.
DeeDee249,
Thats surely the case. There is a hint though, as to what might be available.
Consider
Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, stated she had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of the investigation; in 2006 she stated: "There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith....While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions."
Now we know indirectly from Det. Jane Harmer:
Steve Thomas, hardback, p. 305:
"She [Det. Jane Harmer] showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy six-year-old girl and contrasted it with a photo of the vagina of JonBenét. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of "chronic sexual abuse", although the detectives referred to it only as "prior vaginal trauma".
So the BPD were all over JonBenet's underwear by the third day of the investigation. The provisional autopsy results were in, Coroner Meyer had offered his opinion regarding
digital penetration and
sexual contact. Holly Smith an experienced investigator into child abuse cases, would have also offered her opinion, since this would be her remit, not that of ST or Jane Harmer.
Now when Holly Smith came to write her autobiography, she included a piece on JonBenet, but this was excised when it was presented for a draft review.
So what opinion could Holly Smith propose that required redaction? Sexual abuse well that is out in the wild, e.g.
prior vaginal trauma, not unless it was simply a litigation issue wrt the Ramsey's.
I reckon it must be JonBenet's underwear, whatever it is will probably reveal why it was so important for the Ramsey's to discover the size-12's hiding out in a packing crate, and
return them to Boulder. Holly Smith will also know if there are other Wednesday pairs of
size-6 underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer. And if there are then this firms up the crime-scene as patently staged. If Team Ramsey was privy to this information it might prompt the return of the remaining size-12's, particularly after Patsy's interview testimony.
JonBenet may have suffered internal injuries that have simply been redacted from the Autopsy Report. This would be consistent with the paintbrush initially being used to fake a sexual assault with a foreign instrument.
The bottom line is this, even if it was PDI, as per ST, then someone somewhere had been sexually abusing JonBenet over a prolonged period.
If you accept the latter scenario, and that the wine-cellar crime-scene was staged, then this implies the Ramsey's were aware of this abuse since they covered it up, and hid JonBenet away in the wine-cellar, calling it an abduction, instead of JonBenet being discovered, in her own bed, dead, bloodied and sexually assaulted, the victim of a psychopathic intruder.
According to Coroner Meyer
sexual contact had occurred prior to JonBenet's death. This seems to me to be inconsistent with a PDI based on Patsy disciplining JonBenet with rough wiping or whatever.
.
