(My, my -- such and impatient group.)
I'm trying to cover the physical evidence left at the scene and what it tells us, and everyone wants to know the answers before we even know all of the questions.
Okay, let me say this... I have a theory based on what the evidence tells me, but the very same evidence may tell you something else. We will never know with certainty what happened. Sorry to disappoint, but that is the one thing that is almost certain. All we (or investigators) can do is look at what we know and what we dont know, and then draw conclusions based on the best information we have. And then remember too that investigators have information we dont; and because of spin and misdirection, we probably have information that is incorrect. Then filter that through where we get our information (newspapers, magazines, tabloids, television, radio, and internet) and tell me what the chances are of getting a real clear picture of what happened.
The problem here (as is often the case) is that the "evidence" we know about is a mixture of elements. Those elements are:
- Items from what actually happened -- both pertinent and non-pertinent (Examples: Does food in the refrigerator have anything to do with JonBenets death? No. But if I tell you there was pineapple from the refrigerator in a bowl on the counter, and that pineapple was found in her stomach, suddenly it is (or at least might be) pertinent. The task here is recognizing the difference.)
- Items unrelated to the initial event added afterward as staging (Examples: A doll placed next to her body? Some people might say the ransom note had nothing to do with her death, but was added later -- of course, making that a separate crime.)
- Items from the "initial event" that were altered or moved to misdirect (Example: Maybe a suitcase used for one purpose was moved to another location for the purpose of misdirection.)
, you ask about the paint brush. Let me direct you to the pieces of evidence that you, the police, and everyone here already knows and see if you draw the same conclusion I draw about that.
For now, dont focus on the entire crime, and forget about any conclusions youve already made. I wont spell it out, but Ill simply point out which pieces of evidence I see as pertinent in this and let you figure it out.
- An artists paint brush (with its factory finish deteriorating and coming off) broken into three pieces -- brush end found in a paint supply tray, middle piece attached to a piece of cord left around the decedents neck, and the end piece (notably) missing.
- A family conscious of social standing and public image.
- Coroners report describing atypical findings of a pre-pubescent girls genitalia.
- Coroners report describing birefringent foreign material in the vaginal mucosa. It really would be best if you (and everyone else) read the coroners exact wording on that again to understand exactly what he is saying (IMO).
- (Now this item is admittedly my interpretation, but I feel it is obvious, and pertinent, and therefore evidentiary.) The parents of an assumedly murdered child lying to, and later evading questions from, investigators.
Got it? Five items. Why did the end piece have to disappear?