Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by youngsters, Sep 9, 2018.
Thanks UKGuy, this was my initial thought.
It appears to be true based on the autopsy, the broken handle of the paintbrush tied into what some say is a garrote, that was tightly cinched around her neck, and the actual bristle portion of the paint brush being missing from the scene. All that can be deduced to it being used on her but not absolutely for certain. If it was, no one can say for certain when it was used, either before or after her death, or whether it was used as part of her molestation or used to cover for molestation, or whether it was used as part of the staging to make it look like an intruder molested and killed her. But, because the bristle part of the paintbrush was never found we don't know if it was actually used...that the bristle portion was, or if something else was. Birefringent material was found upon autopsy that many have connected to the paintbrush...perhaps saying the shiny refractive particles were from bits of chipped of painted wood from the broken paintbrush handle that could have been used on her. Birefringent material to me is refractive of light...shiny, or crystalline. ME's don't say the name of something they find on autopsy they only describe what they see. For instance, maybe a gold wedding ring would be described as a yellow metal band. So in this case, they don't say it's a piece of chipped wood that is painted on one side and therefore shiny. So in my mind, birefringent means refractive or crystalline, reflecting light. They never say chipped wood particles. I also don't recall them stating the size of the birefringent material, which is annoying. It could be glitter for all we know.
"Perhaps the only logical explanation is that they rendered assistance to a third party. Why would that third party not be named? Colorado statue at that time held that persons under the age of 10 could not be held responsible for a criminal act…
--My opinion only."
I don't know why a verified lawyer can't come post and explain exactly what they meant.
Why are we all still talking about it?
It was the kidnapping that wasn't a kidnapping. A long rambling ransom letter that LE would say is a first.
Brutal murder of a pretty 6 year old (on Christmas) that did beauty pageants. The beauty pageant videos and pics hurled the murder mystery forward as again many had never seen such a sexualized 6 year old. This was before social media; so it was very rare to see a murder victim so photographed and video'd. I think this made people feel they "knew" her.
Wealthy white parents that refuse to help police. And then immediately lawyer up.
First time TV was used as the Ramseys used it. None of us had seen such a thing before. Or such odd parents
From memory one posted a reply to otg. I think its in this thread, Colorado Statutes relating to JonBenet Ramseys death
Patsy's paintbrush was used in the wine-cellar crime-scene, but this does not mean it was used in the initial assault on JonBenet?
The paintbrush might represent crime-scene staging, a little something to send you off on a wild goose hunt.
everything relating to JonBenet in the wine-cellar could be deliberately staged, just as people think the ransom note was faked, her clothing might be fresh on just for the wine-cellar.
The stuff you see in the TV Documentaries is mostly made up to fit the known evidence or popular theory.
This is interesting that you mention glitter, Waterdog. There is an exchange in one of Patsy's interrogations that focuses on glitter..
John and Patsy each had nine counts against them. The only counts made public were IV (a) and VII. So, whatever count I was, it's going to be a lot more serious than child abuse and accessory to first degree murder.
There were 18 counts, nine against each parent.
"John Bennet Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly, and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted had committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death."
"Patricia Paugh Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly, and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted had committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death."
John assisted Patsy. Patsy assisted John.
Garnett did say that, if the necessary pieces fell together, he would charge someone.
‘I’ll tell the whole world’: Boulder prosecutor’s bombshell claim. ‘I’ll tell the whole world’
Asked if he thought he knew who killed JonBenet, Mr Garnett replied, “I do.” He added: “If we can ever FILE A CASE in open court, I’ll tell the world.”
The DA last week announced he was retesting DNA evidence from the 20-year-old crime scene using the latest techniques, but warned he would need “several different pieces of evidence to come together” TO PROSECUTE.
He said whether he could FILE A CASE would depend on “what the evidence turns into.”
Garnett was clearly talking about the possibility of prosecuting someone. Burke is exempt. Mrs Ramsey is dead. That leaves Mr Ramsey (or, a non-Ramsey).
I agree. This is the same thing I have been saying. But many here disagree. Some say that gannet never made that statement but I believe he did
The bristle portion was found in the paint tray. The birefringent material was wood.
John Ramsey can still be charged for murder. If Garnett thought he knew who killed her, and had evidence that person was John, he would have filed charges.
I don't believe it was, otherwise the ad nauseam discussion of whether or not the paint brush was broken in 2 places would not have occurred as it would be clear that the bristle portion, if it was found in the tray, would fit on one end of the paintbrush. Where does it say the birefringent material was wood? Wood is not refractive.
I’ve attached a crime scene photo showing the bristle or brush end of the paintbrush inside the paint tray.
The second photo is a paragraph from the “Horita” memo.
He later said (like many others have) that because the investigation was so compromised it could probably never be brought to trial. Which does contradict what he said before.
Isn't a third piece of the paint brush missing?
Yes there is a piece of the paintbrush missing, some speculate it was left inside JonBenet and reference to the splinter by Steve Thomas is just LEA code to avoid being explicit. This might be correct as Coroner Meyer departed from his usual direct description, e.g. Yellow metal band to telling us it was birefringent material, again as evidenced by recents posts its an opaque descriptor.
For something to be recorded as birefringent material it has to pass particular lab tests, usually using a laser, the results allow it to be automatically matched to some material.
Wood is a birefringent material as its mostly all cellulose in composition.
Could be BPD has matched what they found inside JonBenet to a piece of the paintbrush, but they have not made the results public, which does suggest they matter.
Anyone any idea why the paintbrush needed to be broken, what does that do for the killer?
Ive speculated before that JonBenet's size-6 Wednesday Day-Of-The-Week underwear, purchased at Bloomingdales with JonBenet present might also be missing?
Why, because JonBenet was redressed in the size-12's Wednesday Day-Of-The-Week, suggesting staging via cleanup as JonBenet was bleeding internally, i.e. it precedes the staging?
A very sad case that doesn't get worldwide news but made a massive impact on the news in India i read. When researching on child murder cases i found this very tragic one in India.
8 year old Asifa Bano gang-rape and murder. Its such a horrible crime that made it wide-spread all across USA. After reading about this case i just wish the world would know about her case, like maybe put it on CNN. Search up Asifa Bano and you get tons of news about this shocking crime against a young child.
Burke can not be even charged. Under Colorado law, they can not implicate a minor so no charges can be filed.
THank you for the clarity, It would take a lot of time to go back and read all of the posts and points on this, wish I"d followed it closer but I do know the note must've been staged as I have read....makes sense the rest was too, I always wondered abou the brother but thought he was too young to commit that sort of military style killing or whatever so now it makes sense what you point out. Thanks
WOW, seems they could have atleast described it and then given some possible examples? Or is that like leading an investigation if so ?