Incest Crime vs Rage Attack

[JMO8778]

I didn't word this the way I should have. What I mean is that talc can be birifringent material but talc cannot be cellulose.
Cellulose means wood or wood fiber, and the paintbrush piece, whether a splinter or larger piece can be seen as both cellulose and birifringent.

thx

 

[JMO8778]

DeeDee249,
Cellulose is a birefringent foreign material.


It was Dr. Spitz's conclusion that the splinter in JonBenet's vagina was part of the staging, yet Steve Thomas completely declines to run with this idea, it forms no part of his PDI.

So why does Steve Thomas not discuss this feature, or the missing piece of the paintbrush, was this originally redacted from the Autopsy Report?

Thomas made a comment in his book that he hoped JB hadn't been conscious when she was stabbed w/ the paintbrush..do you think that could be a hint? It sounds like one to me...

 

[JMO8778]

DeeDee249,
Cellulose is a birefringent foreign material.


It was Dr. Spitz's conclusion that the splinter in JonBenet's vagina was part of the staging, yet Steve Thomas completely declines to run with this idea, it forms no part of his PDI.

So why does Steve Thomas not discuss this feature, or the missing piece of the paintbrush, was this originally redacted from the Autopsy Report?

..he doesn't include the size 12 underwear in his theory,either.Or even speculates on the missing size 6's.I think that's significant.

 

[JMO8778]

rashomon,

Whaaat, after whacking her on the head, garroting her, watching her have a seizure and bleed from her nose, she then decides hey thats enough violence, mmm I doubt it.


Sure and John displays his round table credentials by removing his shirt to wipe away the blood, and deposit forensic evidence, why did Patsy not suggest size-6's instead of size-12's then?


Maybe, since we do not know if John handled the paintbrush handle too, also we do not know where the missing piece of the paintbrush is. Can you see why these items which appear to have no reason for not being present, become more relevant if they link to John rather than Patsy e.g. why would Patsy remove the missing piece of paintbrush yet leave behind the unused piece and her fibers on the used piece, go figure? Why would Patsy redress JonBenet in size-12's, and remove her size-6's then later lie about their location knowing in advance she better have a credible story for JonBenet wearing size-12's, more to figure out?

IMO the staging was intended to hide a sexual assault gone wrong. This is why medical assistance was never called for, this is why the staging reflects an intruder homicide by garroting. The deal was to fake a crime-scene to buy get away time, John Ramsey was prepared to flee airborne interstate that morning.

If the missing piece of the paintbrush eventually turns up as having been inserted inside JonBenet as staging, then the addition of the size-12's destroys this as staging since no intruder knew about those panties, and no intruder would waste time redressing his victim.

So for whomever redressed JonBenet in those size-12's that was a big risk factor so large it blew away any semblence of staging. What would impel John or Patsy to do that, Patsy would know what size-12's on JonBenet would imply. So who took that risk, why was JonBenet dressed in underwear no deviant pedophile would ever consider doing, who would want JonBenet to appear dressed as normal, when the staging required the opposite?

good point.

Would Patsy after purchasing the size-12's for Jenny, citing them as a Xmas gift, probably charged to her Bloomingdales card, then forget to place the remainder in JonBenet's panty drawer to backup her bogus story about JonBenet wanting to wear them, all after explicitly digging out the Bloomingdales tube and removing just that one pair of size-12's? I doubt it!


.

..and then comes the 'opps! you must have overlooked them...here they are' story when turn the rest back in.

 

[JMO8778]

rashomon,

Whaaat, after whacking her on the head, garroting her, watching her have a seizure and bleed from her nose, she then decides hey thats enough violence, mmm I doubt it.


Sure and John displays his round table credentials by removing his shirt to wipe away the blood, and deposit forensic evidence, why did Patsy not suggest size-6's instead of size-12's then?


Maybe, since we do not know if John handled the paintbrush handle too, also we do not know where the missing piece of the paintbrush is. Can you see why these items which appear to have no reason for not being present, become more relevant if they link to John rather than Patsy e.g. why would Patsy remove the missing piece of paintbrush yet leave behind the unused piece and her fibers on the used piece, go figure? Why would Patsy redress JonBenet in size-12's, and remove her size-6's then later lie about their location knowing in advance she better have a credible story for JonBenet wearing size-12's, more to figure out?

IMO the staging was intended to hide a sexual assault gone wrong. This is why medical assistance was never called for, this is why the staging reflects an intruder homicide by garroting. The deal was to fake a crime-scene to buy get away time, John Ramsey was prepared to flee airborne interstate that morning.

If the missing piece of the paintbrush eventually turns up as having been inserted inside JonBenet as staging, then the addition of the size-12's destroys this as staging since no intruder knew about those panties, and no intruder would waste time redressing his victim.

..but would Thomas have addressed a splinter being found inside JB in his book IF his intention was to fool the R's into believing that he really thought PDI? Because one,or both,of the R's would KNOW that the paintbrush handle was left inside her,if indeed it was,so the splinter would be irrelevant then,and not worth,or perhaps better off,not being discussed at all.

Also,do you have any opinion on Patsy's fiber evidence,if JR was the perp? Perhaps he asked her to find and bring those items to him,and her fibers transferred via that way?

 

[UKGuy]

..he doesn't include the size 12 underwear in his theory,either.Or even speculates on the missing size 6's.I think that's significant.

JMO8778,
I agree, because plain comon sense tells you if Patsy redressed JonBenet in size-12's she would have distanced herself from this by placing the remaining size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer as per her inconsistent statement to the interviewers, or some other excuse.

Steve Thomas probably does not mention the size-12's or size-6's because ultimately once you look past the intruder or Patsy you have another theory on offer?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Thomas made a comment in his book that he hoped JB hadn't been conscious when she was stabbed w/ the paintbrush..do you think that could be a hint? It sounds like one to me...

JMO8778,
IMO thats Steve Thomas courting the molestation theory, it does sound like a hint, although its difficult to pin him down.

 

[UKGuy]

I didn't word this the way I should have. What I mean is that talc can be birifringent material but talc cannot be cellulose.
Cellulose means wood or wood fiber, and the paintbrush piece, whether a splinter or larger piece can be seen as both cellulose and birifringent.

DeeDee249,
But no mention of talc as distinct from cellulose has ever been mentioned. The discovery of talc would swing things towards a toilet rage scenario, since its on record that JonBenet had poor hygiene habits.


.

 

[UKGuy]

..for which her lame excuse was that it was just her 'sense of humor'. Haha,SS.

JMO8778,
Must have been a conspiratorial sense of humor.

 

[UKGuy]

good point.
..and then comes the 'opps! you must have overlooked them...here they are' story when turn the rest back in.

JMO8778,
Of course, the Ramseys recognizing their big mistake had to magic up some size-12's, since the size-12's prove that a Ramsey was involved in redressing JonBenet. Because by Patsy's own testimony to the interviewers she may have been the only person to know where they were located in the house, never mind existed period.

Here is the next question some attorney had told them was coming:

Mrs Ramsey why do you think the kidnapper left JonBenet behind but removed all remaining pairs of her clean size-12's, when these will be purchasable from bloomingdales?


.

 

[UKGuy]

..but would Thomas have addressed a splinter being found inside JB in his book IF his intention was to fool the R's into believing that he really thought PDI? Because one,or both,of the R's would KNOW that the paintbrush handle was left inside her,if indeed it was,so the splinter would be irrelevant then,and not worth,or perhaps better off,not being discussed at all.

Also,do you have any opinion on Patsy's fiber evidence,if JR was the perp? Perhaps he asked her to find and bring those items to him,and her fibers transferred via that way?

JMO8778,
imo avoiding any discussion of the splinter in the context of a PDI theory places the focus onto Patsy. I reckon this was the investigators strategy : to go for Patsy hoping she would do some kind of plea bargain, they knew she was involved, but the separate attorneys retained by the Ramseys tell you what they were expecting, never mind the choice on spouses not testifying.

Also,do you have any opinion on Patsy's fiber evidence,if JR was the perp? Perhaps he asked her to find and bring those items to him,and her fibers transferred via that way?

It was likely Patsy who vetoed the dumping outdoors of JonBenet, if she had killed JonBenet can you see her vetoing John, when she needs his support?

No its the other way round, after refusing to dump JonBenet outdoors, the next big plan was probably the ransom note scenario?

Here is how I see it, Patsy authors the ransom note while John is busy staging matters down in the basement, including depositing that collection of photographs of JonBenet. So its John who wipes JonBenet down since he is worried about her genital area, its John who garrotes JonBenet using the ligature. But its Patsy who adds the stick to the ligature and places the tape on JonBenet's mouth, maybe even mocking up the restraints on her wrists? Or as you suggest Patsy brings these items to John as he shouts out for them, thus contaminating them with her fibers?

Although I can see Patsy colluding with John in a cover up, I cannot see her killing JonBenet for John, not unless she was involved originally. The big mistake in the staging and the subsequent PDI theory is how come Patsy knowingly dresses JonBenet in size-12's, either before or after killing her then has no account for this lying to investigators?

The answer: she never knew, John in a hurry had cleaned up JonBenet dressed her in a pair of panties, then longjohns, he thought: job done, lets dump the body, Patsy said no, and proceeded to add melodramatic touches to the staging, invoking her vision as per the ransom note of nasty kidnappers?


.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Whaaat, after whacking her on the head, garroting her, watching her have a seizure and bleed from her nose, she then decides hey thats enough violence, mmm I doubt it.

We don't know whether JonBenet had seizures or not. Not all people get seizures after receiving severe head injuries.

Sure and John displays his round table credentials by removing his shirt to wipe away the blood, and deposit forensic evidence, why did Patsy not suggest size-6's instead of size-12's then?

The black shirt fibers needn't have gotten there through wiping. Remember that blue fibers similar to cotton cloth were found in the vagina, and JonBenet was probably wiped with this blue cloth. (I think this is mentioned in the Bonita papers). Why additionally wipe her with a shirt (!) when you have a cotton cloth? This doesn't make sense imo.
Re choosing the brand-new size 12's instead of the size 6's: maybe Patsy did not want to choose the size 6's because even the laundered pairs had traces of prior soiling on them?

Maybe, since we do not know if John handled the paintbrush handle too, also we do not know where the missing piece of the paintbrush is. Can you see why these items which appear to have no reason for not being present, become more relevant if they link to John rather than Patsy e.g. why would Patsy remove the missing piece of paintbrush yet leave behind the unused piece and her fibers on the used piece, go figure?

Why do you think the acute genital wound was inflicted?
Do you seriously believe John sexually assaulted his daughter with a broken paintbrush?

 

[UKGuy]

We don't know whether JonBenet had seizures or not. Not all people get seizures after receiving severe head injuries.

The black shirt fibers needn't have gotten there through wiping. Remember that blue fibers similar to cotton cloth were found in the vagina, and JonBenet was probably wiped with this blue cloth. (I think this is mentioned in the Bonita papers). Why additionally wipe her with a shirt (!) when you have a cotton cloth? This doesn't make sense imo.
Re choosing the brand-new size 12's instead of the size 6's: maybe Patsy did not want to choose the size 6's because even the laundered pairs had traces of prior soiling on them?


Why do you think the acute genital wound was inflicted?
Do you seriously believe John sexually assaulted his daughter with a broken paintbrush?

rashomon,

We don't know whether JonBenet had seizures or not. Not all people get seizures after receiving severe head injuries.

OK then just a profuse emission of fluid from her nose.

The black shirt fibers needn't have gotten there through wiping.

OK they arrived there when a naked JonBenet came in physical contact with John Ramsey.

Remember that blue fibers similar to cotton cloth were found in the vagina, and JonBenet was probably wiped with this blue cloth. (I think this is mentioned in the Bonita papers).

So thats two sets of fibers then, one set from his Israeli manufactured shirt and another set from your blue fiber cloth.

Why additionally wipe her with a shirt (!) when you have a cotton cloth? This doesn't make sense imo.

Because maybe the initial cleanup was done with the blue cotton cloth, or was it a bathrobe, then later as I suggested JonBenet was wiped down again, as per Coroner Meyers remarks.

Of course it will not make sense if you have a linear theory that allows no divergence from dogma. IMO blue cloth, or black shirt the order is irrelevant. John Ramsey stated he never undressed JonBenet after she returned from the Whites, and Patsy stated John never assisted in dressing JonBenet for the Whites. So assuming John put on his Iraeli shirt just prior to setting out for the White's JonBenet should have no fibers from that shirt on her genital region period.


For your delectation:

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.

Coroner Meyer is stating an absence of blood on her genitals and the presence of blood stains on the corresponding region of her panties allows him to form the opinion that JonBenet had been wiped down.

Why do you think the acute genital wound was inflicted?

It may have been a molestation gone wrong, hence the scream, then the whack on the head?

Do you seriously believe John sexually assaulted his daughter with a broken paintbrush?

Did I say that he did?

Anyway why does the paintbrush have to be broken? IMO, her internal injuries do not reflect this.

Also the likely circumstance in which Patsy would collude with John, knowing that he had just killed JonBenet, would be if she had prior knowledge that he was molesting JonBenet. And I content there is enough circumstantial evidence to support this e.g. evidence of chronic abuse, JonBenet's pageant training from an early age, the collection of photographs dumped in the basement, unlikely to be Patsy's pageant mementoes?

 

[rashomon]

[rashomon]:
Do you seriously believe John sexually assaulted his daughter with a broken paintbrush?

[UKGuy]:
Did I say that he did?

Anyway why does the paintbrush have to be broken? IMO, her internal injuries do not reflect this.

How did the splinter fom the paintbrush end up in the vagina?

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
Must have been a conspiratorial sense of humor.

amen!

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
I agree, because plain comon sense tells you if Patsy redressed JonBenet in size-12's she would have distanced herself from this by placing the remaining size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer as per her inconsistent statement to the interviewers, or some other excuse.

true,and if JR put the size 12's on her,as it appears,that begs the question...how did JR know where the size 12's were?

Steve Thomas probably does not mention the size-12's or size-6's because ultimately once you look past the intruder or Patsy you have another theory on offer?


.

I do believe so.

 

[DeeDee249]

While I am aware that the missing part of the paintbrush has not been accounted for (though if it was found actually inside her, this has not been made public) I feel that her vaginal injuries would have been more severe if she had been jabbed with it. There would be lacerations, not just bruising and reddish hyperemia as noted. I lean towards a splinter from the finger that had been used to break the paintbrush. But the fact that part of the paintbrush IS missing (as far as we are told) is compelling....
Talc is commonly found as a dusting on latex gloves. If talc was the birefringent material, it could have come from a glove. With such an absence of fingerprints, gloves must have been used. Wouldn't it have been wonderful of the Rs hands had been tested for traces of talc?

As far the coroner noting an absence of blood on the genitals while noting blood stains on the panties...I don't interpret it quite this way. As I see it, noting that the genital area (including her thighs) had been wiped down, and confirming this with a black light, is not the same as there being an "absence" of blood. Evidence of blood that has been wiped away shows that there WAS blood- but it is no longer visible because it was wiped away. But it WAS there.
IMHO, this is very different than an absence of blood. THAT, to me, would only be the case if there had never been any indication that blood had been wiped away and the black light test had been negative. We know that was not the case.
So to me, finding blood stains on the crotch of the panties ALONG WITH evidence that blood had been wiped from the area do go hand in hand.

 

[JMO8778]

..then that begs the question,how did the blood get on her thigh? Why was she bleeding if there wasn't a staged assault?
I used to think she had been jabbed w/ the paintbrush to stage a fake sexual assault;I'm not so sure anymore.

 

[DeeDee249]

..then that begs the question,how did the blood get on her thigh? Why was she bleeding if there wasn't a staged assault?
I used to think she had been jabbed w/ the paintbrush to stage a fake sexual assault;I'm not so sure anymore.

Oh, she was assaulted all right. The blood got there because she WAS assaulted. It happened one of three ways, as I see it.
1. From a too-forceful douching after soiling herself that night when she returned from the White's
2. From being sexually assaulted with a finger or object other than a penis
3. From the paintbrush used as the primary article of the assault OR used to cover up previous damage (caused by sexual abuse or douching).
There was also a small amount of blood still seen inside the vagina. There must have been significant bleeding for there to be enough to run down her thighs. And if cloth was used to wipe up inside her as well, that accounts for fibers in the area as well.

 

[trixie]

Wouldn't there be a signifcant amount of JB's DNA on the painbrush, at least as far up on the handle as it went in, if he/she had inserted it up inside her? Has anyone ever read anything about whether or not there was DNA, blood or vaginal fluid, on the paintbrush handle?