Questions you'd like answers to...

[IridescentDreams]

IridescentDreams,

Today the answer is yes. Back then, no.

If BPD have kept forensic samples relating to JonBenet, e.g. tissue specimens were sliced for microscopic analysis, then any foreign touch dna can be identified.

Some people think that Coroner Meyer's Digit can be substituted with the paintbrush handle.


JonBenet's vaginal injuries can be interpreted as a sexual assault, staging or both.

What you decide should help inform your theory since each option rules out the others. .

And we would have no way of knowing if it was done. I imagine that would be a very significant piece of evidence. But if indeed it was done, and there were conclusive results of such wouldn't that be enough for charges to be laid for sexual assault of a minor?

I belive it to be both. Sexual assault followed by the paintbrush penetration to mask it.

Regarding the touch-dna. I think it was released by accident. Someone scraped the details from a screen capture during a TV documentary, so its not like it was a public release.

The fingerprint information is incidental, but can place BR in the breakfast bar along with JonBenet. See the CBS Documentary. .

Ah, fair enough. I'm glad to have found knowledgeable people who can explain these things. I have seen the CBS documentary but I will be going back and rewatching what I can. What, in your opinion, are informative and accurate pieces/docos to watch on the case; there has been so many.

Absolutely. Note no reference to JR's touch-dna, despite interview questions about the presence of his shirt fibers.

PR and JR's touch-dna can be expected to be found on JonBenet's person, as can that of BR, but not on her genital region either!

So does it mean Patsy played a masterstroke of staging when she redressed JonBenet in Burke Ramsey's long-johns?

An example of a Smoking Gun would be Burke Ramsey's touch-dna on the size-12 underwear!

Either parents touch-dna deposited on the size-12's would be similarly instructive, particularly that of JR's, Patsy has a Get Out Of Jail Card, since she claims to have redressed JonBenet but never noticed what underwear she was wearing !

.

I suppose I just question why their DNA has never been mentioned, at least not in anything I've read yet, especially when you'd certainly expect to find their DNA on her.

Oh absolutely, but on the other side of the coin, if we argue touch DNA can come from anywhere, ie JBR touching a door handle then touching herself when wiping could deposit the DNA there, could not the same be said for any of the family? JR carried her upstairs to bed, PR dressed her for bed and her and BR were playing earlier that night. All of their DNA would be all over her, so wouldn't it be possible for her to later scratch/touch her genital region in her sleep and deposit that DNA? I just find it curious there is no mention of their DNA on her at all, the question is why hasn't that been mentioned?

Indeed, that would be a smoking gun with a massive neon sign, as far as I'm concerned but yet another thing we will never know unless BR himself comes out at a later date publicly confessing.

PR was quite on the ball with that one. I may not notice specifically what my child is wearing but if they're too small or double the size of what they'd usually wear I certainly do.

 

[UKGuy]

And we would have no way of knowing if it was done. I imagine that would be a very significant piece of evidence. But if indeed it was done, and there were conclusive results of such wouldn't that be enough for charges to be laid for sexual assault of a minor?

I belive it to be both. Sexual assault followed by the paintbrush penetration to mask it.




Ah, fair enough. I'm glad to have found knowledgeable people who can explain these things. I have seen the CBS documentary but I will be going back and rewatching what I can. What, in your opinion, are informative and accurate pieces/docos to watch on the case; there has been so many.



I suppose I just question why their DNA has never been mentioned, at least not in anything I've read yet, especially when you'd certainly expect to find their DNA on her.

Oh absolutely, but on the other side of the coin, if we argue touch DNA can come from anywhere, ie JBR touching a door handle then touching herself when wiping could deposit the DNA there, could not the same be said for any of the family? JR carried her upstairs to bed, PR dressed her for bed and her and BR were playing earlier that night. All of their DNA would be all over her, so wouldn't it be possible for her to later scratch/touch her genital region in her sleep and deposit that DNA? I just find it curious there is no mention of their DNA on her at all, the question is why hasn't that been mentioned?

Indeed, that would be a smoking gun with a massive neon sign, as far as I'm concerned but yet another thing we will never know unless BR himself comes out at a later date publicly confessing.

PR was quite on the ball with that one. I may not notice specifically what my child is wearing but if they're too small or double the size of what they'd usually wear I certainly do.

IridescentDreams,
If we swabbed all the Ramsey forensic evidence for dna traces I reckon we could identify who sexually assaulted, redressed and asphyxiated JonBenet!

Ramsey dna profiles were probably excluded from analysis due to the family relationship. Yet we can infer some locations where they should not really be: JonBenet's genitals, artifact in the wine-cellar, and the size-12's.

Why, because these areas should be off limits to all and sundry except JonBenet's assailant.

BR will do further media interviews, if only to prevent doorstepping questions.

.

 

[IridescentDreams]

IridescentDreams,
If we swabbed all the Ramsey forensic evidence for dna traces I reckon we could identify who sexually assaulted, redressed and asphyxiated JonBenet!

Ramsey dna profiles were probably excluded from analysis due to the family relationship. Yet we can infer some locations where they should not really be: JonBenet's genitals, artifact in the wine-cellar, and the size-12's.

Why, because these areas should be off limits to all and sundry except JonBenet's assailant.

BR will do further media interviews, if only to prevent doorstepping questions.

.

Im with you on that one. I wonder why LE never thought of this? Or maybe they did and we don't know but I'd imagine finding R DNA inside her vagina would be pretty damning. Maybe that douching theory does have a part to play if LE did infact do swabs for DNA and nothing turned up.

Hmm maybe, nothing stopping him from pulling the same "no I don't want to talk, LW save me" again. Depends how much daddy dearest leaves in inheritance I suppose :fence:

 

[questfortrue]

Im with you on that one. I wonder why LE never thought of this? Or maybe they did and we don't know but I'd imagine finding R DNA inside her vagina would be pretty damning. Maybe that douching theory does have a part to play if LE did infact do swabs for DNA and nothing turned up.

Hmm maybe, nothing stopping him from pulling the same "no I don't want to talk, LW save me" again. Depends how much daddy dearest leaves in inheritance I suppose :fence:

As we know there is no SoL for such crimes as murder, kidnapping, treason, and forgery. However, In 2006 the Colorado legislature refined the SoL on certain sexual crimes.

The Colorado statute passed in 2006 and applied to a sexual assault after July 1996 -
Section 16-5-401 (1) (a), C.R.S. Applies to Crimes Committed BEFORE JULY The bill took effect on July 1, 2006, and applies to offenses that were committed on or after July 1, 1996

The Prosecution of sexual assault must commence within 10 years of the crime’s commission or, if the victim is a minor at the time of the offense, within 10 years after the victim reaches the age of 18. ***There is no time limit for the prosecution of sexual assault if the identity of the suspect is determined by forensic DNA evidence. *** The time limit for most other felonies is three years after the commission of the crime.

I’ve read that there is also such a statute on the federal books. Anyway, Coroner Meyer took several swabs from JB’s orifices. If DNA of a perpetrator were found on one of the swabs, conceivably a case could be opened if the DNA revealed an adult perpetrator.

 

[IridescentDreams]

As we know there is no SoL for such crimes as murder, kidnapping, treason, and forgery. However, In 2006 the Colorado legislature refined the SoL on certain sexual crimes.

The Colorado statute passed in 2006 and applied to a sexual assault after July 1996 -
Section 16-5-401 (1) (a), C.R.S. Applies to Crimes Committed BEFORE JULY The bill took effect on July 1, 2006, and applies to offenses that were committed on or after July 1, 1996

The Prosecution of sexual assault must commence within 10 years of the crime’s commission or, if the victim is a minor at the time of the offense, within 10 years after the victim reaches the age of 18. ***There is no time limit for the prosecution of sexual assault if the identity of the suspect is determined by forensic DNA evidence. *** The time limit for most other felonies is three years after the commission of the crime.

I’ve read that there is also such a statute on the federal books. Anyway, Coroner Meyer took several swabs from JB’s orifices. If DNA of a perpetrator were found on one of the swabs, conceivably a case could be opened if the DNA revealed an adult perpetrator.

Im not familiar with US law but it will be something I look further into, thank you for the reference.

We've heard a lot of "there's no smoking gun", I imagine something of this nature would be exactly that, or at least a significant part. It could very well be the case they did find DNA belonging to BR, we'd never know. Finding his DNA inside her vagina only points to sexual assault, not the murder or cover up.

Has the knot in the ligatures been untied and tested? I've seen comments about it but was under the impression it has not been done.

 

[ItzShea]

there are some things about this case that will never be known, but they are details that drive you nutz - here's a few I have, what are yours?

1. Why was it so important to the Ramseys' story that JonBenet was asleep when they got home and was taken directly to bed? Burke said she woke up and helped carry stuff into the house. We know she had pineapple, so why lie about her being asleep? It seems as though it would have been easier to say that she woke up when they pulled into the garage, they futzed around and had a snack and then went to bed - why was it important enough to lie about it? It's as if they were afraid to have anyone know the child was on the first floor that night between those hours - why? Did something happen in that part of the house?

2. Why did Burke act so strangely that morning? Why did he pretend to be asleep, and why didn't his parents wake him up and ask him if he had seen or heard anything in the night? Why when his father came up to get him to take him to White's house, did he remain silent and not ask any questions? That's not the way nine year old boys act - they want to know everything that's going on and if a cop walks in the house, they're fascinated by him, and want to know why he's there. This kid did not ask ONE question or exhibit any fear or curiosity at all. (In my opinion, someone put the fear of God in this kid to keep him quiet. I can hear it now, "no matter what anyone asks you, you say you don't know, do you hear me?? Do you want Mom and Dad in jail?? Don't say anything!!!, I mean it, Burke!!!) And I don't care what anyone says about everyone being "different", nine year old boys don't act like that in that kind
of situation - he didn't even ask, "is JonBenet going with us to the Whites?"

3. How did that blood get in the underwear? She's been wiped clean, but there is blood on the crotch panel - so she had to have had them on, been injured, wiped clean, and then the underwear put back on with the longjohns with the urine stain in the front - otherwise, how could the blood have gotten there? Which means she had that pair of underwear on, she was injured, the underwear were pulled up, and then someone thought better of it, pulled them down, wiped her clean and then pulled the underwear back up. How else could the blood have gotten on that part of the underwear?

4. Patsy Ramsey was so insistent on the ransom note being on the spiral staircase, saying, "and that's how I come down every morning." How would an intruder know that? Why not leave it in her bed, or on the kitchen counter or the windshield of the car, or the steps leading down from their bedroom, where the parents would be sure of seeing it. And why would she never admit to having read the damned thing? Or why wouldn't she read it in the first place? If it was my kid, I'd of have it memorized. She insinuated to LE that it was 'weird" that Fleet White knew it so well - well, anyone with a brain and a heart would be reading that note over and over wondering if there was anything about it that could tell them who killed that little girl. What's weird, is that Patsy Ramsey didn't do that.

This baloney that the parents shouldn't be suspected because of their behavior, because everyone acts "differently" is just that - baloney. If everyone acted differently, we wouldn't have societal norms, we wouldn't have traditions, we wouldn't know how to act appropriately in situations. Not to get into anything too esoteric, but there is a biological mechanism in the brain called "theory of mind mechanism". It allows us to understand and act appropriately in society, because we observe appropriate behavior and store those reactions in the brain. These parents didn't act in the way innocent parents act - they go on tv, but can't talk to the police. They call a lawyer the very day it happened, and then refuse to be interviewed, they have investigators on Dec. 27th, taking statements from people who were there that day and don't even inform the police. They give physical evidence but won't talk to the cops or take polygraphs or do one thing to remove themselves as suspects in the case. Things have to make sense and this just does not make any sense at all.

I think she was carried in, but she was dead. And they say she was sleeping in case anyone saw the body being carried in.
The proximity of the freezer in the cellar to her ‘discovered’ body makes me think that is why she was ‘wrapped up like an Indian papoose’ as John said.
The M.E. said she smelled of decomposition. So I think she was dead longer than anyone says.
I think it was some demented group activity. Which is why Patsy called everyone that could have left hair, DNA, or physical evidence on the body. That way, their presence in the home when the body was ‘discovered’ could explain away any new unforeseen and unplanned for (not included in the official ‘story’) physical evidence.
I didn’t used to think this way about this case. But I am not a professional or a police person. I am a single, never married, Frum Jewish girl. And once a distant while ago, and then again about a month ago, I asked Hashem to give me a sliver of an insight on what happened that night.
And so I had the same really dark horrific dream both nights, years apart.
And I won’t say it. But I know that the detectives and the police force in this country have to stare down the into the minds of some terrible people in this country.
I don’t think it was as innocent as a young Burke hitting his sister in the head, in a fit of rage.
But you know, there IS a G-d. (Thank You Patsy for this silver lining..)...and he DID see what happened that night.
As a Jewish girl, I believe in lifetimes. And I think that sweet soul of Jonbenet will have a chance to be born back once again, to people who really will love and protect her. And then she will become, in America- the land of wild improbabilities!- anything or everything her little soul ever dreamed of.

 

[BoldBear]

Does anyone know when the victim's advocates left the house? Was that with all the police officer after 10:00 am?

 

[Tadpole12]

As we know there is no SoL for such crimes as murder, kidnapping, treason, and forgery. However, In 2006 the Colorado legislature refined the SoL on certain sexual crimes.

The Colorado statute passed in 2006 and applied to a sexual assault after July 1996 -
Section 16-5-401 (1) (a), C.R.S. Applies to Crimes Committed BEFORE JULY The bill took effect on July 1, 2006, and applies to offenses that were committed on or after July 1, 1996

The Prosecution of sexual assault must commence within 10 years of the crime’s commission or, if the victim is a minor at the time of the offense, within 10 years after the victim reaches the age of 18. ***There is no time limit for the prosecution of sexual assault if the identity of the suspect is determined by forensic DNA evidence. *** The time limit for most other felonies is three years after the commission of the crime.

I’ve read that there is also such a statute on the federal books. Anyway, Coroner Meyer took several swabs from JB’s orifices. If DNA of a perpetrator were found on one of the swabs, conceivably a case could be opened if the DNA revealed an adult perpetrator.

ty qft
that's the tie in...
Where should BR's not be found? if re-tested.

 

[otg]

Although Steve Thomas, in his book, refers to the birefringent marterial as a splinter, so it looks like it could be a piece of varnish from the paintbrush.

Wouldn't it be more likely to actually be a splinter opposed to varnish if he describes it specifically as a splinter?

It could be either, e.g. splinter of varnish or a splinter of wood. Either way the same interpretation can be followed.

Personally I would more likely call it a flake of varnish, not a splinter. To me a splinter is fractured pieces of a solid form, a flake is fractured/peeling coating, but that's just me. It's all semantics, at the end of the day something was found in her vagina that shouldn't have been there.

Actually, Thomas didn’t mention the birefringent material in his book at all. The word birefringent is never used in it. Thomas refers to a “a tiny splinter” that “had been found in JonBenét’s vagina.” In the very next sentence, Thomas states (emphasis mine), “The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrote.”

Yet birefringent foreign material is Meyer’s only reference to the material he found under the microscopic examination of a section of tissue from her hymen. In the AR, Meyer never used the word cellulose or splinter.

After Thomas’ book was published, many people made the assumption that Meyer’s birefringent material was the same material as Thomas’ reference to a cellulose splinter. It might be, but it is not certain they are the same.

I don’t believe cellulose by itself is birefringent unless it is coated with something that is. My understanding (and I certainly don’t claim expertise) is that the refractive properties of a material refers to how the light passes through a transparent (or at least translucent) material in two separate paths. Cellulose is the cellular structure of plant fiber (or wood), and in a large enough quantity to make up a splinter, it would be opaque and not birefringent.

 

[otg]

So far two different detectives on the same case, have seen the same evidence and have come out with two different who dunnits.

Steve Thomas left somewhat early on (comparatively speaking) in the investigation. When he left, they hadn't yet even confirmed that the "cellulose splinter" was consistent with the paintbrush. (It was confirmed after he left.) James Kolar was hired to review all the evidence that had been gathered up to the point that the investigation had been turned over to the DA's office. Not that this means Kolar's opinion is necessarily correct (I disagree with much of it myself), but in fairness we should realize there was a lot of evidence that Thomas did not have access to at the time he wrote his book.

Even today there are detectives who are able to look at all the evidence (which we do not have access to) but nevertheless disagree on how to interpret it.

 

[otg]

Does anyone know when the victim's advocates left the house? Was that with all the police officer after 10:00 am?

I wouldn’t think they would have left at 10:00 am. That was the time the “kidnappers” had said they would have called by. When no call came, most of the police began leaving, but there was still need for the victim advocates.

So your question got me wondering. The following quotes are from the book, “Listen Carefully!” Truth and Evidence in the JonBenét Ramsey Case (emphasis mine):

Boulder Police Officer Linda Arndt arrived at the Ramsey home a little past 8 am on December 26, 1996. Prior to her arrival several officers with the Boulder Police Department had responded to the Ramseys’ 911 call. Finding the doors locked and no sign of a kidnapper, the responding officers departed after 10:00 am, leaving Arndt alone with the Ramseys, several friends, their pastor, and two victim advocates.
​

Later in the book, it says:

As most of the people in the house began to gather around JonBenét’s body, John Ramsey told Arndt it “looked like an inside job.” Victim advocate, Grace Morlock, later informed detectives, John said more than once he didn’t think the kidnapper meant to kill his daughter, because she was wrapped in her blanket.
​

So apparently the VAs were still there when the body was brought up from the basement.

 

[Cottonstar]

The Victim Advocates were with the Ramseys’ all day, they actually left with JR and PR and were with them at the Fernie’s until 5pm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[otg]

The Victim Advocates were with the Ramseys’ all day, they actually left with JR and PR and were with them at the Fernie’s until 5pm.

Thanks, CS. It makes sense that they would still be needed until the Ramseys were being watched over by others, including Dr. Feelgood with his handy-dandy happy pills :giggle:.

 

[UKGuy]

Actually, Thomas didn’t mention the birefringent material in his book at all. The word birefringent is never used in it. Thomas refers to a “a tiny splinter” that “had been found in JonBenét’s vagina.” In the very next sentence, Thomas states (emphasis mine), “The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrote.”

Yet birefringent foreign material is Meyer’s only reference to the material he found under the microscopic examination of a section of tissue from her hymen. In the AR, Meyer never used the word cellulose or splinter.

After Thomas’ book was published, many people made the assumption that Meyer’s birefringent material was the same material as Thomas’ reference to a cellulose splinter. It might be, but it is not certain they are the same.

I don’t believe cellulose by itself is birefringent unless it is coated with something that is. My understanding (and I certainly don’t claim expertise) is that the refractive properties of a material refers to how the light passes through a transparent (or at least translucent) material in two separate paths. Cellulose is the cellular structure of plant fiber (or wood), and in a large enough quantity to make up a splinter, it would be opaque and not birefringent.

otg,


Journal of the American Institute for Conservation; JAIC 1991, Volume 30, Number 2, Article 3 (pp. 145 to 162), Excerpt

4.1.2 Optical Characteristics

Cellulose has an optically biaxial and positive unit cell and is highly birefringent.

...

Wikipedia article on Cellulose, Excerpt

Cellulose can be assayed using a method described by Updegraff in 1969, where the fiber is dissolved in acetic and nitric acid to remove lignin, hemicellulose, and xylosans. The resulting cellulose is allowed to react with anthrone in sulfuric acid. The resulting coloured compound is assayed spectrophotometrically at a wavelength of approximately 635 nm.

From the above Cellulose is a birefringent material which can be identified using Updegraff's procedure followed by spectographic analysis.

John E. Meyer, M.D., Boulder County Coroner. Autopsy Report, Excerpt

Vaginal Mucosa

...

A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material.

From Coroner Meyer's Autopsy Report we can deduce lab tests were performed on the foreign material since he tells us it has birefringent properties. i.e. it exhibits double refraction and polarization say using a laser.

After Thomas’ book was published, many people made the assumption that Meyer’s birefringent material was the same material as Thomas’ reference to a cellulose splinter. It might be, but it is not certain they are the same.

I agree, Meyer's reference and that of Thomas may refer to separate forensic items?

Wikipedia article on Birefringence, excerpt

Birefringence is responsible for the phenomenon of double refraction whereby a ray of light, when incident upon a birefringent material, is split by polarization into two rays taking slightly different paths.

I don’t believe cellulose by itself is birefringent unless it is coated with something that is. My understanding (and I certainly don’t claim expertise) is that the refractive properties of a material refers to how the light passes through a transparent (or at least translucent) material in two separate paths. Cellulose is the cellular structure of plant fiber (or wood), and in a large enough quantity to make up a splinter, it would be opaque and not birefringent.

It is the molecular structure of the material in question that largely determines whether it is birefringent, e.g. crystals and plastic.

A transparent or translucent medium such as water displays singular refraction, offering the illusion of short depth, e.g. swimming baths, shallow end v.s. deep end.

see Wikipedia Refraction article and the Pencil example as illustration.

Another visual example:
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/images/49-refraction-of-light-in-water

So in general as light enters a medium it changes direction, but in some mediums it has two changes or displays double refraction or what is termed birefringence.

Coroner Meyer refers to birefringent foreign material. and Steve Thomas refers to The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrote. As both Thomas and Meyer refer to the same location on JonBenet's person and we know cellulose is a birefringent material then its probable they refer to one and the same thing?

Thomas is helpful in identifying the splinter as cellulose. This implies he knows the results of some lab test?

Where does all that leave us? Well it appears someone assaulted JonBenet digitally after breaking the paintbrush handle?

Unless there are two forensic samples, i.e. cellulose, and say splinter of varnish, e.g. residue from the outer coating of the paintbrush handle?

This leaves open the possibility that the paintbrush played a role prior to JonBenet's death, and that its use as part of a garrote is artifact staging?

Also that the paintbrush played some perimortem or postmortem role cannot be excluded, in the former or latter on the basis of Kolar's dysfunctional personality or in the latter case where staging has been performed?

.

 

[kaykay543]

To this day it makes me so sad that they left her there alone under the Christmas tree for all those hours. I can't even imagine doing that. They wouldn't have been able to drag me away.

 

[BoldBear]

I wouldn’t think they would have left at 10:00 am. That was the time the “kidnappers” had said they would have called by. When no call came, most of the police began leaving, but there was still need for the victim advocates.

So your question got me wondering. The following quotes are from the book, “Listen Carefully!” Truth and Evidence in the JonBenét Ramsey Case (emphasis mine):

Boulder Police Officer Linda Arndt arrived at the Ramsey home a little past 8 am on December 26, 1996. Prior to her arrival several officers with the Boulder Police Department had responded to the Ramseys’ 911 call. Finding the doors locked and no sign of a kidnapper, the responding officers departed after 10:00 am, leaving Arndt alone with the Ramseys, several friends, their pastor, and two victim advocates.
​

Later in the book, it says:

As most of the people in the house began to gather around JonBenét’s body, John Ramsey told Arndt it “looked like an inside job.” Victim advocate, Grace Morlock, later informed detectives, John said more than once he didn’t think the kidnapper meant to kill his daughter, because she was wrapped in her blanket.
​

So apparently the VAs were still there when the body was brought up from the basement.

Thank you very much. I checked several sources, but didn't search that one last night. I had it in my notes that 9 'civilians' were in the house, but didn't source it. All the books have events happening in different orders after 10:00 and the VAs seemed to disappear.

 

[Cottonstar]

I believe the VA’s actually left the house twice and came back. They left to go get bagels and fruit in the morning and then at noon they left to grab lunch. They made it back just in time to see JR and Patsy’s histrionics @1:05pm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BoldBear]

April 30th 1997, John Ramsey interview.

http://www.acandyrose.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

TT: Can, could you tell me step-by-step when you found her, tell me how you picked her up and tell me (inaudible).

JR: Right. I found her and I, the first hope of course is that she’s OK. I took the tape off her lips, and her lips were blue. And I tried to untie her hands and her arms. She was stiff, and so I was afraid that she was gone, and so I just picked her up, and screams, and the I went upstairs and laid her down on the floor and I heard Suzanne, she said she’s dead.

I'm just curious. Who's Suzanne?

People in the house at the time: Linda Arndt, John, Patsy, Fleet White, Priscilla White, John Fernie, Barbara Fernie, Father Rol, Mary Lou Jedamus and Grace Morlock.

 

[887sMtreme]

I can’t find a thread about this thing for which I would like to have answers. BR said JBR helped deliver Christmas gifts to friends en route home from the Whites’ dinner party. PR claimed she was fast asleep in the car and remained so while she carried her upstairs and put her to bed.

Question: Have the families to whom the gifts were deilvered ever said anything about seeing JBR awake and participating in the gift-giving?

 

[ItzShea]

Who is Suzanne?