Why not very much blood?

[UKGuy]

If it is a fact that emotional attachment to the child is demonstrated by her being wrapped "papoose-like" in the blanket, then it's reasonable to conclude that the mom or the dad were involved at some point and to some degree.

RedChief,
Hello there, your posts are quite illuminating. Now your phrase - wrapped "papoose-like" - Do you have a source for it? Since I have read many variations on this theme including the premise: "that emotional attachment to the child is demonstrated by her being wrapped "papoose-like" in the blanket".

There is a more pragmatic explanation for her being "wrapped" in a blanket.

Who knows other than Fleet White, who touched her cold feet, or John Ramsay who lifted her up. Whether the blanket lay over her, lay under her, or was wrapped "papoose-like" around her?

 

[RedChief]

Hi, UKGuy,

Two sources for papoose-like: PMPT and '98 interview of John by LE. The latter you can download from acandyrose. I don't have the exact conversation in my files. I think one of the interrogators asked (I paraphrase), like a papoose? and John said yeah. She was lying ON the blanket, and the blanket was folded AROUND her.

This is contrary to what John Douglas was told. I don't remember if that was by John or by his attorney. He was told that the blanket was draped over her, and he drew his conclusions from that. This is in Cases That Haunt Us.

Hope this helps.

R.C.

 

[UKGuy]

RedChief,

Thanks for that reply. I'll check JR out again.

 

[RedChief]

Staging of the crime scene is a specific type of precautionary act that is done to deflect suspicion away from the offender

Staging often involves the addition of, removal of, and manipulation of objects in the crime scene to change the apparent "motive" of the crime (Turvey 1999).

JonBenet's crime scene satifies the above, so to dwell on the staged aspects such as the ligature or the note must fulfill the stagers intentions. This is why the evidence is so equivocal.

The paintbrush handle was likely added to the staging. It needed to be broken to satisfy the twisting motion that would secure it to her neck as evidenced by strands of her hair caught up in the knotting, also to break it on two sides requires a lot of strength. Try it yourself one side is easy, the thicker side not so.

So you may ask why? Re-dressing can be excused on grounds of modesty, but creating and adding what can be interpreted as an AEA device is another matter.

I would suggest this was done deliberately to add the idea of a signature to JonBenet's staging. This was done by someone who had done some background reading in this area and had a good understanding of the required elements.

Attaching the paintbrush suggests its the tool of a sexual sadist!

There is evidence that JonBenet's body was relocated at least twice and possibly three times. She was similarly redressed at least twice.

So it appears she was asphyxiated, then possibly regained conciousness, only to be bludgeoned to death by a blow to her head. Applying Occams Razor, removes the AEA explanation since it requires evidence and accomplices external to the published evidence. That leaves any one of an Intruder, John, Patsy or Burke available as prime suspects.

To view JonBenets murder as a Staged Homicide and not a Sexual Homicide helps to eliminate some potentially confusing elements.

Hey, thanks for all the above.

Just a few points concerning which I require clarification: You say the perp broke the paintbrush handle to satisfy a twisting motion that would secure it to her neck. What twisting motion? Do you refer to the wrapping of the cord around the stick? I once postulated that the handle had been broken to produce a short enough piece that would be easy to apply half hitches to. But, frankly, I don't know how long the original unbroken paintbrush was, do you? I agree, nonetheless, that the hair became entwined during the operation that was used to fasten the cord to the piece of handle. I can readily see that a twisting motion, rather than half-hitching could be employed; if that were the case, at some point some means of preventing the cord from unwinding from the stick had to be employed-some sort of reverse twist or a knot of some kind. The suggestion has been made that this "knot" at the stick (means of fastening) is a particular kind of knot that boy scouts might be taught. I believe there is a photo of it among the material that is attributed to "cutter", at one of the URL's that the moderator supplied. I'm going to have to dig into that further. Were both hands needed to fasten the cord to the stick?

You're the second person to point out that breaking the handle isn't so easy. In order to try it myself, I'd need to know exactly which brush to experiment on. How can I come by this information?

What were the stager's intentions? I don't see that the girl's sexual injuries, and the ligatures are consistent with a kidnapping attempt. I'm aware that kidnap victims are sometimes (all too often) killed, but what fool (perp or investigator) would be pursuaded that killing this particular victim, in this particular manner with this particular apparatus constitutes clear evidence of a kidnapping attempt? There is nothing other than the tape over her mouth and the stun marks, if such they are, to suggest a failed kidnapping attempt. Whereas binding the victim could reasonably be deemed to be a kidnapping element, this victim wasn't properly bound; in a sense, she was virtually unbound. As John Ramsey himself pointed out in DOI, the cord was tied around each wrist [loosely] but her hands were free to move (15 inches of slack). What was the point or purpose of that? We seem to have elements of BOTH kidnapping (possibly) and sexual sadism. The ransom note is the goofiest piece of evidence.

"JonBenet's crime scene satifies the above, so to dwell on the staged aspects such as the ligature or the note must fulfill the stagers intentions. This is why the evidence is so equivocal."

Would you mind rephrasing the foregoing? Who is it that's dwelling on the staged aspects? The perp? You mean by "dwelling" that he's taking the time to do them? Why does that make the evidence equivocal? Is this the perp's intention also? What makes the evidence equivocal, by definition, is that it doesn't clearly point to kidnapping or to snuff sex or to sexual sadism.

The paintbrush handle as staging: You seem to be suggesting that a piece of the paintbrush handle, as staging, would be more convincing than the paintbrush in it's entirety. Why is that? Obviously, assuming that the handle was hard to break, the perp must have had some very good reason for breaking it. You've suggest two reasons. I'm always skeptical of multiple reasons for one piece of evidence.

"Redressing" excused on grounds of modesty: Yes, if in fact, redressing occurred. But, how is redressing to be reconciled with kidnapping?????

Which device are you interpreting as an AEA device? AEA=?

Done to add the idea of a signature: The signature being?????? The broken paintbrush?

"There is evidence that JonBenet's body was relocated at least twice and possibly three times. She was similarly redressed at least twice."

What is/are your source/s? Please elaborate on this!

If the AEA evidence hadn't been removed through the application of Occam's Razor, who then would be the prime suspects?

Just so we're clear on this (to summarize), please list the elements of staging and distinguish them from the elements of homicide. Also, which potentially confusing elements are eliminated by viewing this as a staged homicide?

Are we making any progress?

 

[RedChief]

RedChief,
Hello there, your posts are quite illuminating. Now your phrase - wrapped "papoose-like" - Do you have a source for it? Since I have read many variations on this theme including the premise: "that emotional attachment to the child is demonstrated by her being wrapped "papoose-like" in the blanket".

There is a more pragmatic explanation for her being "wrapped" in a blanket.

Who knows other than Fleet White, who touched her cold feet, or John Ramsay who lifted her up. Whether the blanket lay over her, lay under her, or was wrapped "papoose-like" around her?

"There is a more pragmatic explanation for her being "wrapped" in a blanket."

Would you be so kind as to enlighten me as to the foregoing? John Douglas said the perp may have intended to use the blanket to carry JBR. He based this on being told that the blanket had been draped over her rather than wrapped around her.

John knows and he has spoken.

 

[BlueCrab]

"There is a more pragmatic explanation for her being "wrapped" in a blanket."

Would you be so kind as to enlighten me as to the foregoing? John Douglas said the perp may have intended to use the blanket to carry JBR. He based this on being told that the blanket had been draped over her rather than wrapped around her.

John knows and he has spoken.

From the 1998 interviews:

MIKE KANE: "All right. Okay. Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it like -- "

JOHN RAMSEY: "It was like an Indian papoose."

MIKE KANE: "Okay."

JOHN RAMSEY: "You know, the blanket was under her completey. It was brought up and folded over like that."

 

[Camper]

Here is a link fromt the Rocky Mountain News that is a goldmine on the case.

Scroll about halfway down the page and there are several pictures of the device handle. The break on the brush portion shown looks OLD to me, but the picture does not have good close up detail enough to be positive.

As a matter of fact it appears to me that looking on the right side of the picture, that the brush had perhaps been cut to an approximate half distance through the handle and THEN broken the rest of the way.

This might indicate a young whittler with a pocket knife, rather than a professional pervert.

Here is the link. Takes a bit to load, but well worth the wait for people new to this discussion.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html



.

 

[BrotherMoon]

This might indicate a young whittler with a pocket knife, rather than a professional pervert.

I think you underestimate the professional perverts, they are, after all, professionals.

 

[Nehemiah]

Nehemiah, yes, "but", if we are using that dna to solve the crime then we must eliminate any possibility of a Ramsey ,as well?!

That's true. It's either all or nothing.

 

[BlueCrab]

As a matter of fact it appears to me that looking on the right side of the picture, that the brush had perhaps been cut to an approximate half distance through the handle and THEN broken the rest of the way.

This might indicate a young whittler with a pocket knife, rather than a professional pervert.

Camper,

I agree with you the wooden handle on one end was likely cut with a knife before being broken the rest of the way. The grain of the wood runs the length of the handle and would not have broken so cleanly.

The opposite end of the paint brush handle is missing and appears to have been completely whittled off. It was just the tip. It would have been close to impossible to have manually broken such a short piece off the handle without a vise and pliars -- it had to have been whittled off with a sharp knife. But WHY?

The shards from the whittling were on the floor just outside of the wine cellar door. The handle appears to be about 1/2" to 5/8" in diameter, when compared to the white cord, which we know is 1/4" wide. The whittling off of such a short piece of the handle obviously wasn't necessary to the design of the ligature handle. The whittling seemed instead to be motivated by a desire to destroy possible evidence on the tip of the handle. But what evidence?

 

[cappuccina]

...fingerprints, perhaps?

Now, one would wonder why PR wouldn't just wipe the paintbrush in a similar manner to the flashlight...unless some fingerprints dried in paint were on there from previous use...Although it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the brush came from in the first place...

Just my opinion...

BrotherMoon...your humor is very dry, very funny, and eerie at the same time!

 

[BrotherMoon]

BrotherMoon...your humor is very dry, very funny, and eerie at the same time!

I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[RedChief]

Camper,

I agree with you the wooden handle on one end was likely cut with a knife before being broken the rest of the way. The grain of the wood runs the length of the handle and would not have broken so cleanly.

The opposite end of the paint brush handle is missing and appears to have been completely whittled off. It was just the tip. It would have been close to impossible to have manually broken such a short piece off the handle without a vise and pliars -- it had to have been whittled off with a sharp knife. But WHY?

The shards from the whittling were on the floor just outside of the wine cellar door. The handle appears to be about 1/2" to 5/8" in diameter, when compared to the white cord, which we know is 1/4" wide. The whittling off of such a short piece of the handle obviously wasn't necessary to the design of the ligature handle. The whittling seemed instead to be motivated by a desire to destroy possible evidence on the tip of the handle. But what evidence?

BlueCrab,

Thanks for furnishing that excerpt from the '98 John interview.

Camper,

Thanks for leading us to that "goldmine" webpage. Looks like Lou Smit has it all figured out.

Regarding the stick: In the autopsy report, conducted by John Meyer, the medical examiner, it says, "This wooden stick is irregularly broken at both ends and there are several colors of paint and apparent glistening varnish on the surface. Painted in gold letters on one end of the stick is the word "Korea".

Apparently, the stick had not been whittled on nor any portion cut with a knife. Also, apparently, the "shards" that have been mentioned as being evidence of the whittling are likely splinters.

Possible evidence of sexual sadism: (1.) The apparent visciousness of the killing, (2.) The vaginal injury, which was apparently inflicted prior to her death (I believe this is the concensus of the experts) with some object such as the missing piece of paintbrush handle, (3.) The stun marks, (4.) The garotte, (5.) The wrist ligature, and (6.) The tape over the mouth.

Possible evidence of staged homicide: (1.) The piece of broken paintbrush handle with the word "Korea" printed on it, which was attached to the tailing end of the ligature possibly to simulate a garotte, (2.) The ransom note which referred to a foreign faction which had no qualms about killing, (3.) The location of the body when it was found-on the premises, and (4.) The tape covering the mouth. Note: The apparent wiping of the pubic area of the body, in this scenario, might have been done in an attempt to hide the "fact" that sexual injury had occurred. Granted, that this injury had occurred, would be likely to be discovered by investigators anyway; but, panic or naivete may apply here, and perhaps the perp thought it was worth a shot. Also, the over-sized panties (were there others in her drawer with Wednesday printed on them?) might indicate that the panties they replaced contained evidence of sexual injury; i.e., blood or the perp's DNA. I think I've heard it postulated that the perp put those too-big panties on her inadvertently, because he was unfamiliar with her clean underwear supply (where things were kept). So, maybe, in this scenario, she was sexually injured, wiped, redressed and then, at some point, wet herself. Seriously, I think this dog could hunt. Allow me to add: the blood (several red areas of staining) found in the inner aspect of the crotch of the too-big panties might have been deposited (leaked out) when John picked her up and brought her upstairs. It might not have been present on the panties until he moved the body that morning. I have reason to believe it was deposited after she urinated. You know, blood first coagulates, then becomes watery as it decomposes (the serum dominates).

Possible evidence of a kidnapping attempt gone sour: (1.) The stun marks, (2.) The ransom note, and (3.) The duct tape. Note: Not much evidence of this. Allow me to add: There appear to be mixed messages here (ambiguity) regarding the evidence. Even if you see evidence of staging, you have to ask, what did the perp (the stager/s) want us to think-that she died in a kidnapping attempt, or that she had been sexually abused by a vicious sadist? I'm inclined to think the he/they wanted us to think she had been viciously murdered (executed, as the note warned) in a kidnapping attempt.

Now, where does all this leave us? Aside from deciding which of the above scenarios is correct, it leaves us to explain what appeared to be tenderness on the part of the perp or his/her accomplice-the body having been wrapped in the white blanket "like an Indian papoose." Of course, we have to consider that this, too, may have been staging. It doesn't seem to really fit with any of the aforementioned scenarios. Rather than a sign of tenderness (affection toward the body), it might be more of a sign of remorse. Now, if the body had simply been unceremoniously wrapped, we might speculate that the perp did so to avoid transferring his hairs, clothing fibers and/or DNA to the body.

What is your take?

 

[Camper]

I am in a hurry now have to be somewhere soon this AM, will reflect more later today.

HOWEVER, I doubt that the Medical Examiner has ever tried to break a large artists brush before or his report might have read a bit differently.

I am still of the opinion that the device handle appears to have been cut part way through then broken in two. I would like to see the back side of that area to see it, there should be a long piece missing behind the cut area on the side that we see, IF IF my thoughts are correct.




.

 

[trixie]

BlueCrab,

Thanks for furnishing that excerpt from the '98 John interview.

Camper,

Thanks for leading us to that "goldmine" webpage. Looks like Lou Smit has it all figured out.

Regarding the stick: In the autopsy report, conducted by John Meyer, the medical examiner, it says, "This wooden stick is irregularly broken at both ends and there are several colors of paint and apparent glistening varnish on the surface. Painted in gold letters on one end of the stick is the word "Korea".

Apparently, the stick had not been whittled on nor any portion cut with a knife. Also, apparently, the "shards" that have been mentioned as being evidence of the whittling are likely splinters.

Possible evidence of sexual sadism: (1.) The apparent visciousness of the killing, (2.) The vaginal injury, which was apparently inflicted prior to her death (I believe this is the concensus of the experts) with some object such as the missing piece of paintbrush handle, (3.) The stun marks, (4.) The garotte, (5.) The wrist ligature, and (6.) The tape over the mouth.

Possible evidence of staged homicide: (1.) The piece of broken paintbrush handle with the word "Korea" printed on it, which was attached to the tailing end of the ligature possibly to simulate a garotte, (2.) The ransom note which referred to a foreign faction which had no qualms about killing, (3.) The location of the body when it was found-on the premises, and (4.) The tape covering the mouth. Note: The apparent wiping of the pubic area of the body, in this scenario, might have been done in an attempt to hide the "fact" that sexual injury had occurred. Granted, that this injury had occurred, would be likely to be discovered by investigators anyway; but, panic or naivete may apply here, and perhaps the perp thought it was worth a shot. Also, the over-sized panties (were there others in her drawer with Wednesday printed on them?) might indicate that the panties they replaced contained evidence of sexual injury; i.e., blood or the perp's DNA. I think I've heard it postulated that the perp put those too-big panties on her inadvertently, because he was unfamiliar with her clean underwear supply (where things were kept). So, maybe, in this scenario, she was sexually injured, wiped, redressed and then, at some point, wet herself. Seriously, I think this dog could hunt. Allow me to add: the blood (several red areas of staining) found in the inner aspect of the crotch of the too-big panties might have been deposited (leaked out) when John picked her up and brought her upstairs. It might not have been present on the panties until he moved the body that morning. I have reason to believe it was deposited after she urinated. You know, blood first coagulates, then becomes watery as it decomposes (the serum dominates).

Possible evidence of a kidnapping attempt gone sour: (1.) The stun marks, (2.) The ransom note, and (3.) The duct tape. Note: Not much evidence of this. Allow me to add: There appear to be mixed messages here (ambiguity) regarding the evidence. Even if you see evidence of staging, you have to ask, what did the perp (the stager/s) want us to think-that she died in a kidnapping attempt, or that she had been sexually abused by a vicious sadist? I'm inclined to think the he/they wanted us to think she had been viciously murdered (executed, as the note warned) in a kidnapping attempt.

Now, where does all this leave us? Aside from deciding which of the above scenarios is correct, it leaves us to explain what appeared to be tenderness on the part of the perp or his/her accomplice-the body having been wrapped in the white blanket "like an Indian papoose." Of course, we have to consider that this, too, may have been staging. It doesn't seem to really fit with any of the aforementioned scenarios. Rather than a sign of tenderness (affection toward the body), it might be more of a sign of remorse. Now, if the body had simply been unceremoniously wrapped, we might speculate that the perp did so to avoid transferring his hairs, clothing fibers and/or DNA to the body.

What is your take?

RedChief, you did not include the heart drawn in her palm in your evidence. What is your take on that?

 

[BrotherMoon]

Sex had very little to do with the crime. Lou Smit is delusional.

 

[RedChief]

Camper et al,

This is an argument (whittling, etc.) that I had with some posters many moons ago. I will tell you what I told them. The coroner saw this broken piece of paintbrush with his own eyes. There was no need for him to attempt to break it or another like it in order to ascertain that it had been broken (not whittled). Also, splinters (not shards) were found near the tray, on the ligature and elsewhere. A shard is not a splinter, and a splinter is not a shard; but a rose is a rose is a rose.

Though they are informative, those photos are not high resolution, to put it mildly; consequently, it is possible for you and I and others to "see" all sorts of stuff that isn't there, and to miss stuff that is. I would much rather rely on what the coroner (and others) saw in the autopsy room that day, than what we can "see" in fuzzy photos.

I do value your opinion, however, and wish to thank you again for leading us to that webpage-the best overview of the evidence I've seen.

"The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft' interred with their bones."--WS

 

[RedChief]

RedChief, you did not include the heart drawn in her palm in your evidence. What is your take on that?

trixie,

Rest assured that if I'd known you'd require that, I'd sure as heck of said sumpin' about it.

Actually, from looking at the fuzzy photos, that red drawing (how do you know it was drawn?) on her hand looks to this ole boy more like a kidney; and, as such, is apt to be the most important clue in this entire riddle.

I can't imagine this little girl drawing a kidney in her hand (her left hand) unless she was trying to draw our attention to the mysterious twin skin lesions on her left lower back. Obviously, at that point in time, she was conscious and communicative.

But, on a slightly more serious note, I wasn't aware that there was a "palm in my evidence". It's good that you pointed that out, 'cuz now that I've been made aware of it, what excuse could I possibly offer for not commenting on it. Well, it WAS smeared, and so of little evidentiary value. Still, I'd rather have a palm in my evidence than a fly in my soup.

But, on an even slightly more serious note, I've heard it postulated that either the girl drew it herself (she was right-handed, according to John, who, when he pointed that out, hastened to add that, of course, he didn't know which palm contained the "heart") or one of her little friends drew it. It could also have been stamped.

What's your take? 50/50?

 

[sissi]

Sorry Red Chief , I wanted to respond , but may have to do so in little bits and pieces over the day.
I am NOT convinced the LHP group had anything to do with this murder, I do however believe , perhaps because she had the same access to the house as the Ramseys, coupled by far more in depth knowledge of just where everything was placed (only because it was her job to organize and put things away), that she and hers can not be dismissed so quickly.
Her first interviews with Schiller seemed to contain far more in the way of "alibi speak" than necessary.
In her way, she covered for the pineapple bowl, using the ovaltine jar as the reference. She did the same for explaining away the nightgown/blanket issue, insisting it could be static cling in a later interview. On and on, she seemed to touch on every piece of evidence, with a little anecdote.
Maybe I am reading too much into her interviews?
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/02181999lindapughstorypmpt.htm


You had asked if I believed the pad and pen used in the writing of the ransom note were the same as found in the house. We can only believe Steve Thomas and his Ubowski quotes, in that the pages were torn and matched to tears. Do I REALLY believe this, NO, because unless the person tearing the pages actually tore them, there would be no differences in pages torn from one glued top of a pad of paper to another, nothing scientific there..jmo. Is the paper identical to other pads of paper, Yes of course. If it is ,indeed, one of several pages missing from that pad, could it not indicate it was written elsewhere by someone who helped themselves to a chunk of that pad?
Do I believe the sharpie was the ONE!? No, in my experience no one purchases ONE sharpie, they are purchased in packs, 6-8 or 12. Each and every one coming out of that pack is likely identical to the others.

I would suggest the pads and pens the Pughs had "borrowed" from the Ramseys were just as identical to those used in the ransom noteas the ones John handed over.

The red fibers from Patsy's jacket being identical to the four found on the tape is a questionable finding imo ,as well. A tri-colored jacket dropping four fibers of only one color is interesting if nothing else.
The animal hairs in her hands,and this may sound way off but Lou Smit said, "we will find this wolf" which I believe was a slip and perhaps telling that the fur was from perhaps a wolf dog. Who in this group of suspects owned a wolf dog?

 

[RedChief]

Sorry Red Chief , I wanted to respond , but may have to do so in little bits and pieces over the day.
I am NOT convinced the LHP group had anything to do with this murder, I do however believe , perhaps because she had the same access to the house as the Ramseys, coupled by far more in depth knowledge of just where everything was placed (only because it was her job to organize and put things away), that she and hers can not be dismissed so quickly.
Her first interviews with Schiller seemed to contain far more in the way of "alibi speak" than necessary.
In her way, she covered for the pineapple bowl, using the ovaltine jar as the reference. She did the same for explaining away the nightgown/blanket issue, insisting it could be static cling in a later interview. On and on, she seemed to touch on every piece of evidence, with a little anecdote.
Maybe I am reading too much into her interviews?
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/02181999lindapughstorypmpt.htm


You had asked if I believed the pad and pen used in the writing of the ransom note were the same as found in the house. We can only believe Steve Thomas and his Ubowski quotes, in that the pages were torn and matched to tears. Do I REALLY believe this, NO, because unless the person tearing the pages actually tore them, there would be no differences in pages torn from one glued top of a pad of paper to another, nothing scientific there..jmo. Is the paper identical to other pads of paper, Yes of course. If it is ,indeed, one of several pages missing from that pad, could it not indicate it was written elsewhere by someone who helped themselves to a chunk of that pad?
Do I believe the sharpie was the ONE!? No, in my experience no one purchases ONE sharpie, they are purchased in packs, 6-8 or 12. Each and every one coming out of that pack is likely identical to the others.

I would suggest the pads and pens the Pughs had "borrowed" from the Ramseys were just as identical to those used in the ransom noteas the ones John handed over.

The red fibers from Patsy's jacket being identical to the four found on the tape is a questionable finding imo ,as well. A tri-colored jacket dropping four fibers of only one color is interesting if nothing else.
The animal hairs in her hands,and this may sound way off but Lou Smit said, "we will find this wolf" which I believe was a slip and perhaps telling that the fur was from perhaps a wolf dog. Who in this group of suspects owned a wolf dog?

sissi,

I can't disagree with anything you've put in the above-quoted post. It's all quite good, except for those parts with which I find myself in agreement (tongue in cheek). I find your reasoning sound and hope others will carefully consider what you've posted here.

I haven't trusted Thomas much from the beginning, and now that I've read his deposition, I trust him even less. I think he was bent on nailing Patsy from early on. That is not to say she's been cleared.

OK, not to argue, but don't you think it would be kinda dumb for LHP to use an identical pad (containing identical paper) or pen borrowed from the Ramseys? Further, don't you think it would be kinda dumb for LHP to hang onto other identical pads and pens (those found in her home)? Now, please do correct me if you find errors of fact or analysis. I have no wish to mislead anyone. Is LHP a clever woman? It is also possible that the ransom note sheets and pen didn't come from either household. They weren't collectors' items, were they?

Of course, if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the alleged Ubowski finding is correct, that wouldn't eliminate LHP, but would it make you less suspicious? As for the likelihood that the three-page note had come from the Ramsey pad, doesn't the three-page gap between page 26 (the so-called practice note; why hadn't that been torn out also?) and page 30 suggest that it had, or is that just a coincidence? The note can't be dated so we can't know when it was written. But the cirmcumstantial evidence is fairly strong: note written on identical paper (whether you subcribe to tear pattern analysis); note written with identical ink (for sure) and style of pen (apparently) if not THE same pen as that alleged; pad belonging in house and provided to LE by John Ramsey has several (three would be enough) pages missing (between the last doodle sheet and the "practice" sheet) and THREE (the same amount as in the note) missing between the "practice" sheet (which began, Mr. and Mrs I) and the remaining unused sheets in the tablet.

Her Schiller interviews are located at the URL you provided?

Yeah, the red fibers and the animal hairs, not to mention numerous other fibers of unknown source. I find it interesting that the FBI disagreed with CBI about the source of the fibers that CBI thought had come from the fabrics within the suitcase. Which lab is more likely to be correct? Are the items found in the suitcase of any significance to you?

Well, I gotta go for a walk and try to shed some pounds. Besides, there is a report of some Eurasian doves in the area-a rarity.