SuperDave,
You can demonstrate this by pointing out where else at the crime-scene and related artifacts have an absence of said DNA!
.
Mark Beckners AMA
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
SuperDave,
You can demonstrate this by pointing out where else at the crime-scene and related artifacts have an absence of said DNA!
.
Moving away from Ms. Simpsons personal R commercial. . .
Beckner also gave some interesting responses to questions about Lou Smit which shed some insights into the issues involved with Smits participation on this case. In response to a question about why AH tried to keep Lou Smit away from the GJ by court order, which Smit had appealed and the court had overturned, Beckner suggested it may have been because LS had taken the case public and was misrepresenting some of the evidence.
Additionally, Beckner states, Originally, I wanted to rely on some of Lou's conclusions based on the evidence he was telling me about. More than once, I followed up on the evidence he was using to support his belief, and I found it not to be accurate.
Essentially both AH and Beckner had arrived at the same conclusion which was that LS was misrepresenting evidence. Its also been referenced at our sister site that much of the evidence presented in the civil case between the Rs and CW, at the Carnes court, was from LSs Powerpoint presentation. It was not evidence confirmed by the BPD. (BTW when the initials SMF- Statement of Material Fact-follow a quote about evidence, it is from the civil case in Georgia and the likely source is LS.)
One example of what might be referenced as misrepresentation of evidence, from the alleged depo of LS in the civil suit, as sworn by LS:
Q: Is there any evidence that any member of the Ramsey family had ever owned a logo Hi-Tec boot or shoe?
Answer from Smit: There is no evidence that I know of that anyone in that family owned that type of shoe.
ACR-During the Atlanta 2000 Interviews, a statement was made as FACT that prior to 1996 that Burke Ramsey said he owned a pair of Hi-Tec boots. The boots apparently were purchases while shopping with his parents in Atlanta, Georgia. During the same interview it was stated that "Fleet Junior also says that he had Hi-Tec shoes." Patsy Ramsey stated she can't remember Burke ever having any shoes or boots with compasses on them. When asked if this interview was the first time she heard Burke said he owned Hi-Tec shoes with compasses and Patsy said yes.
__________
My posts are my opinion, protected under the Freedom of Speech Amendment
questfortrue,
BBM: Indirect evidence for a cover-up, BR is deliberately distanced from the wine-cellar, why so? Despite Kolar citing BR being down in the wine-cellar Christmas afternoon opening gifts!
.
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 195
:facepalm:
We’ve been here before, my friend. I’ve never understood the logic (and still don’t) behind the idea that someone would think a second assault with an object would “mask” a digital assault, especially considering that the evidence of any assault was then removed. If there was an attempt at “masking” one assault, why wipe away the blood from her thighs and her genitals, change the panties, and then dispose of the object that was most likely used (the end of the paintbrush)? And no, before you or anyone else suggests it, the end of the paintbrush was not left inside her. Were that the case, it would have been so noted in the AR. It is not -- and all redactions have been removed. I think you’re basing this idea only on the wording in the AR that you think indicates two separate assaults. The medical examiner wouldn’t be able to determine that and didn’t intend it to be interpreted that way. If you really think that is what happened, please explain the logic behind it.
otg,
As Mr Spock might say Not everything is logical Captain. The person attempting the alleged staging might consider a second assault a good idea? Also we might have postmortem behavior playing out here, with JonBenet being used as a mere plaything?
kolar thinks one person did it all, which is a bit much to swallow, particularly for BDI proponents. Personally I do think there was both genital and neck staging in an attempt to obfuscate the forensic evidence, this has been successful.
Its possible the missing piece of paintbrush was employed to mask a prior digital assault, and the ligature/paintbrush a prior neck compression, this speculation is consistent with other staging, i.e. size-12's, wrapping JonBenet in a blanket.
The missing piece of paintbrush will potentially have the same forensic deposits as that recovered, so where else might it be, I guess you know my answer?
The logic behind it is that of JonBenet's person left in the wine-cellar, nearly every aspect of her was staged, with masking prior events as the motive. e.g. her death could not be contested, neither that she bled, etc, but the means could be faked, at least in the eyes of the stager?
This is the convoluted logic applied by the R's, its a form of amateurish abduction reasoning normally employed by Sherlock Holmes in solving his cases, except here the R's think others will fall for it.
With hindsight being an exact science patently you do not buy it!
.
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 195
Thats a writers line given to a fictional character in a fantasy series. Despite that fact, I agree that we dont always understand the logic that someone else sees. Just as (in an example from your quoted character) Spock questioned his wife (thats right, for all you non-trekkies, Spock was married) in Amok Time when she put him in the situation that forced him to kill Captain Kirk:
https://youtu.be/ZCt3yrWSqi0?t=10m44s
One of my favorite lines comes from that episode when Spock tells his wifes paramour: After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true.
If that person considered it a good idea, why not follow through with it and leave the evidence that he/she created pointing to it.
Tell me which of any sexual behavior was done postmortem, because as far as I can read in the AR, it was all done antemortem.
Kolar (so far as I know) has never stated publicly his entire theory, so I dont know what all he believes was done by the one person he insinuates is responsible for the sexual assault and the bludgeoning. Im also not really clear on who he thinks strangled her or got her to the basement from the kitchen where he has said he thinks she was bludgeoned. Even if he has stated all this, it doesnt make him correct. I still think he got a few things wrong because he depended on the opinion of others in some cases -- not to mention any names of course (Spitz). :lol:
I know. We can disagree and still be friends. Just explain to me the logic. Why stage something (the sexual assault) and then remove the evidence of it. While its true we might not know the killers thought process, if you believe that is the case you should be able to come up with something better than simply saying we dont know what he/she was thinking. Why subscribe to something if you dont understand it?
Many things are possible, but without evidence of it, why complicate things? What purpose is served by attempting to obfuscate a digital assault with some other object? What is the reason for doing that, and then why remove the evidence that you just created? (And BTW, the ligature doesnt mask some other form of neck compression.)
No, I dont.
To a certain extent, UKG, I agree with you here. Much was staged; much also was undone. The reason for both was to hide the motivation behind it all. And it succeeded. But just because some things were staged doesnt mean (IMO, of course) that everything was. An attempt was made to hide the forensic evidence that could be wiped away, and what couldnt be hidden was altered to change the apparent motive. This was never an abduction or a kidnapping. It was not a burglary. It was not an assassination. It was a sexually motivated crime with unintended consequences. Understanding that is the first step in understanding what happened and therefore who is responsible. (All, of course, simply MOO.)
And most did; and many still do.
Patently, I dont have the time or money to waste on crap. (But youll notice, UKG, I find the time to discuss it with you, so obviously I dont think thats a waste of time or money :biggrin:.)
.
singularity
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2015
- Messages
- 727
- Reaction score
- 49
Very interesting indeed.
Good point.
Its unfortunate that a proper timeline was never established on Jonbenet's activities throughout the entire day.
This is the first time I've read the Beckner AMA. Not a lot of detail there but he does insinuate the possibility of a fourth person in the house that night. Interesting.
Yeah I never bought the "you've seen most of the evidence in this case" line. Horse manure.
otg,
Thanks for the reply, I'll keep mine short so you can return to the Olympics.
Because they were not thinking in the manner you requested, i.e. it was not deductive or inductive logic it was abductive.
The crime-scene was not planned in advance it was executed in phases with more than one person, we can infer this from the various R's personal forensics left at the crime-scene. Also various forensic items were just dumped in the wine-cellar indicating there was no premeditation on this aspect!
Sure, but the killer might have thought JonBenet was dead, as per head injury?
I'm assuming Kolar cannot really tell us real clues, etc. This would breach his employment contract. So I doubt he has told us everything he knows.
BBM: Absolutely, if I'm wrong I'd like to know. I am claiming to understand it, something was staged and then removed because another person imposed themselves on the crime-scene
The reasoning employed by the stager(s) is not that of your everyday garden type of thinker, its abductive, they were thinking in parts and attempting to construct a narrative.
To avoid the technical I like to use the analogy of Columbo, e.g. the narrative flow there is back to front, i.e. we get to see the murder then Columbo solves it all.
Its similar in the JonBenet case, we have a murder and we have all the TV coverage, we think its staged, so we have to work backwards in an attempt to solve it.
The reason is an attempt at staging, possibly it failed, or another R removed said evidence? There is not much point in staging one aspect of the murder and leaving others, so the paintbrush/ligature was applied. Like I suggest their thinking was not deductive, they were in a hurry and some things were not done, i.e. check JonBenet's asymmetric ponytails, pineapple residue, size-12's and the used breakfast bar!
Applying deductive logic, if the stager was happy to leave 70% of the paintbrush behind, including any forensic deposits then what value does the missing piece have?
I conclude none and assume it was left inside JonBenet as part of the staging?
.
That's the way I look at it, too. Which is where intent comes into play.
Tadpole12,
It looks that way to me. Coroner Meyer even mentions it in his AR. The missing piece of paintbrush should have been close by JonBenet's body, lying on the floor somewhere, or under some artifact.
Forensically there is no reason to privilege it above the pieces left behind, so why bother removing it, if it was?
Either it was used as part of the staging for effect, or JonBenet's killer placed it inside her as part of some assumed postmortem behavior ritual?
In homicide cases that kind of information is nearly never disclosed so to catch the real killer and reject all those with bogus claims.
.
questfortrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,005
- Reaction score
- 135
I have appreciated the exchange between you both and wanted to add my 2 cents.
As far as the sexual assault that night, to me this is where forensics meets behavior analysis. Ive turned myself inside out trying to bring both into focus on the sexual assault with a paintbrush, because it speaks to the psychology in the attack on JB or to the staging of JB, depending on how one considers it. (In reference to Beckners AMA, he thought the assault was staging because he believed JB was unconscious at the time.) I just cant conclude who was responsible, but here are my past thoughts.
- BR. Well a kid is capable of any aberrant behavior, so he could have been responsible, and it was not intended to mask prior sexual injuries. Parents cleaned her up. This is a classic Ockhams Razor scenario.
However, as noted, not everything in Vulcans and human relationships and interactions, is logical. When lies are perpetrated among family members, reactions cannot be logical and predicted because the reactions may be organized around wrong assumptions or emotional habits. Plus where you have 3 possible actors in a crime, 1 of whom may have been immediately apprehended and sent to bed, Ockhams Razor may miss.
-PR. My instinct says that Patsy would not have used her own paintbrush to mask prior abuse. Former participant poster KoldKase believed otherwise. Patsy may not have expected that forensics would determine thered been a paintbrush assault. She did use her own note pad and pen to write the RN after all. Its just that the paintbrush seems like such extremely callous behavior, putting her also in close proximity to the strangulation (though some attribute her with that via fibers). But I could be wrong, and maybe Patsy was truly half crazy that night and cant be eliminated. JR came along and didnt want anything to call attention to a sexual assault and so cleaned her up.
-Then I came to JR. If he was responsible, it was to create a fresh injury so that an intruder could be blamed. Perhaps he just didnt want anyone in the family held responsible for prior abuse, which posits knowledge of prior abuse. HOWEVER, this is a man who was a master of the Plan B. So, hes considers hed better clean her up, cover this up, no use waving it like a flag, maybe hoping the autopsy will miss that she had been previously assaulted. His calculating thoroughness may even have considered the necessity of wiping down the batteries of the flashlight which belonged to you guessed it an Intruder! Well, investigators found out from JF and LPH that it was JRs flashlight, so that didnt totally work out. But the window staging (plan B for entry, if the inside job explanation wasnt accepted) did work, courtesy of Smit.
My small attempt to explain logic as applied to the paintbrush injury. Though we all have our top theories, I concluded any of em could have been responsible.
questfortrue,
There is an occam version of the missing piece of paintbrush and it goes like this: the initial assailant left the piece of paintbrush inside JonBenet exhibiting a behavioral motive. Since it was inside her no other family member was aware of its location?
This is consistent with Kolars claim that one person did it all? The other claim is that one or both parents were aware of the chronic abuse and wished to obfuscate it by leaving the missing piece of paintbrush inside JonBenet?
Where the missing piece of paintbrush is, depends on your theory since not all theories consider the missing piece important.
If you consider what we know:
1. True Bills charged the parents with abuse via neglect and assisting an offender.
2. Kolar thinks one person did it all
3. We can conclude BDI and given Kolars hints regarding a personality disorder this might tie in with any assumed ritualistic postmortem behavior?
So all the cleaning up and staging without leaving obvious evidence is that of the parents arriving late and trying to save the day, hence my emphasis on them creating a narrative, particularly Patsy, e.g. the Lit' graduate, and JR with his broken window and suitcase story, again an attempt at narrative?
So for the sake of theoretical purity I'll go with the occam version and revise if any evidence surfaces to the contrary.
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 195
Bonita Papers (Sauer):
CELLULOSE PARTICLE IN VAGINA possibly from paint brush handle
PMPT (Schiller):
The police would have to track down the origin of a small amount of cellulose that had been found in JonBenéts vagina. The possibility existed that it could have come from the broken paintbrush used for the ligature.
Finally, the detectives turned to the microscopic splinter of cellulose found in JonBenéts vagina, which looked like wood. The broken paintbrush that had been tied to the stick was splintered into shards. Logic suggested that a splinter of wood might have stuck to the perpetrators finger before he or she penetrated JonBenét vaginally. It could also have broken off the end of the paintbrush if the stick, rather than a finger, was used to penetrate her.
If the cellulose did, in fact, come from the paintbrush, then most probably the garrote had been assembled before JonBenét was violated.
There remained the question whether JonBenét had also been penetratedthat is, sexually abusedpreviously. Here the experts disagreed. Dr. David Jones said the childs vagina showed a history of abuse, since the cellulose dated from an old injury. Dr. Spitz, however, said there was no clear indication of prior penetration and that the cellulose dated from the injury that had taken place around her time of death.
and:
Several experts had told the police that the microscopic piece of cellulose found in JonBenéts vagina was wood. Most likely it came from the same splintered paintbrush that had been used for the garrote. If she was penetrated with part of the paintbrush or a finger that carried the cellulose into the body, it had probably taken place around the time of the garroting or while JonBenét was dying.
IRMI (Thomas):
Then we had the experts assess why a tiny splinter had been found in JonBenéts vagina.
The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrote. Although the source of the splinter was never definitively proved, I considered it highly unlikely that it originated anywhere else. And that brush belonged to Patsy Ramsey.
FF (Kolar):
He (Dr. Meyer) observed that there was fresh trauma located at the 7:00 oclock position at the hymeneal opening. The area was inflamed and had been bleeding, and it appeared to Dr. Meyer that a foreign object had been inserted into JonBenéts genitalia at or near the time of her death.
The site of the damaged tissue was excised and prepared for a pathology slide. Later examination would reveal the presence of cellulose material in the membrane of the hymeneal opening that was consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote.
He noted that he didnt consider this injury the result of a particularly vicious assault with a foreign object. A very small splinter of material was discovered during microscopic examination, and more trauma to the site would have been expected if the perpetrator had been intent on physically torturing the child.
The cellulose has been variously described by four different authors (each of whom had access to evidence and information we havent seen) as: a small amount, a very small splinter, a tiny splinter, and even a microscopic splinter. They also state that it was thought, believed, or that it possibly might have come from the paintbrush. Schiller wrote that it looked like wood. Thomas wrote that the source of the splinter was never definitively proved. If it was the entire end of the paintbrush, the broken ends would match up like the brush end found in Patsys paint tote did, and there would be no question as to what it was.
Uh, no, he doesn't. The AR does not have the word "cellulose" in it. Dr. Meyer only mentions the "birefringent foreign material" (probably because it's from that "foreign faction":lol
that everyone assumes is the cellulose (which I agree with). But notice that it is mentioned in the section of the autopsy that lists the microscopic evidence.You're only allowing two possibilities?
You can continue thinking that the cellulose material somehow represents the missing end of the paintbrush if you like, but I dont think so. Instead it might be better to try and figure out how it disappeared. Did it get thrown in the fireplace? Was it dropped in one of the holes in the wall shown in Kolars video? Was it thrown along with a pair of bloody panties into the neighbors trash can that John was checking with the binoculars to see if it had been picked up? Or was it simply dropped in someones pocket or purse?
Bonita Papers (Sauer):
CELLULOSE PARTICLE IN VAGINA possibly from paint brush handle
PMPT (Schiller):and:
The police would have to track down the origin of a small amount of cellulose that had been found in JonBenéts vagina. The possibility existed that it could have come from the broken paintbrush used for the ligature.
and:
Finally, the detectives turned to the microscopic splinter of cellulose found in JonBenéts vagina, which looked like wood. The broken paintbrush that had been tied to the stick was splintered into shards. Logic suggested that a splinter of wood might have stuck to the perpetrators finger before he or she penetrated JonBenét vaginally. It could also have broken off the end of the paintbrush if the stick, rather than a finger, was used to penetrate her.
and:
If the cellulose did, in fact, come from the paintbrush, then most probably the garrote had been assembled before JonBenét was violated.
There remained the question whether JonBenét had also been penetratedthat is, sexually abusedpreviously. Here the experts disagreed. Dr. David Jones said the childs vagina showed a history of abuse, since the cellulose dated from an old injury. Dr. Spitz, however, said there was no clear indication of prior penetration and that the cellulose dated from the injury that had taken place around her time of death.
and:
Several experts had told the police that the microscopic piece of cellulose found in JonBenéts vagina was wood. Most likely it came from the same splintered paintbrush that had been used for the garrote. If she was penetrated with part of the paintbrush or a finger that carried the cellulose into the body, it had probably taken place around the time of the garroting or while JonBenét was dying.
IRMI (Thomas):
Then we had the experts assess why a tiny splinter had been found in JonBenéts vagina.
The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrote. Although the source of the splinter was never definitively proved, I considered it highly unlikely that it originated anywhere else. And that brush belonged to Patsy Ramsey.
FF (Kolar):
He (Dr. Meyer) observed that there was fresh trauma located at the 7:00 oclock position at the hymeneal opening. The area was inflamed and had been bleeding, and it appeared to Dr. Meyer that a foreign object had been inserted into JonBenéts genitalia at or near the time of her death.
The site of the damaged tissue was excised and prepared for a pathology slide. Later examination would reveal the presence of cellulose material in the membrane of the hymeneal opening that was consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote.
He noted that he didnt consider this injury the result of a particularly vicious assault with a foreign object. A very small splinter of material was discovered during microscopic examination, and more trauma to the site would have been expected if the perpetrator had been intent on physically torturing the child.
The cellulose has been variously described by four different authors (each of whom had access to evidence and information we havent seen) as: a small amount, a very small splinter, a tiny splinter, and even a microscopic splinter. They also state that it was thought, believed, or that it possibly might have come from the paintbrush. Schiller wrote that it looked like wood. Thomas wrote that the source of the splinter was never definitively proved. If it was the entire end of the paintbrush, the broken ends would match up like the brush end found in Patsys paint tote did, and there would be no question as to what it was.
Uh, no, he doesn't. The AR does not have the word "cellulose" in it. Dr. Meyer only mentions the "birefringent foreign material" (probably because it's from that "foreign faction":lol
You're only allowing two possibilities?
You can continue thinking that the cellulose material somehow represents the missing end of the paintbrush if you like, but I dont think so. Instead it might be better to try and figure out how it disappeared. Did it get thrown in the fireplace? Was it dropped in one of the holes in the wall shown in Kolars video? Was it thrown along with a pair of bloody panties into the neighbors trash can that John was checking with the binoculars to see if it had been picked up? Or was it simply dropped in someones pocket or purse?
otg,
Well, well, whenever I see a multiplicity of citations, I just know the theory is in doubt.
but birefringent foreign material is the scientific description of cellulose.
nope, it might just be artifact from the missing piece of paintbrush, which by definition should be somewhere on the basement floor?
Yet is nowhere to be seen, presumably it could have been left inside JonBenet?
DeDee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 7,344
- Reaction score
- 42,149
The missing end of the broken paintbrush has often drawn on my attention. Your speculation makes great sense for me.
It is not unknown for killers to leave their victims wearing their death weapon whether it be a rope, a slug, a circular bruise, etc. If one of those parents left a stick inside their child when they suffocated her, then, they are more wretched than once believed. There is no excuse for them doing that to her. None. Oh, my. What am I saying? They are diabolical.
I suppose there could be an unredacted AR that the public has not seen but was shown to the GJ. No. otg says no.
Chief Mark Beckner wrote that the public knows most of the facts + believes some myths.
:cow:
DeDee,
The birefringent foreign material cited in the AR might just be crime-scene artifact, but I seriously doubt it.
If it is just artifact then surely it must arise from digital penetration as per Meyer's verbatim statement.
So assuming the latter does the digital assault and birefringent foreign material constitute staging?
Most is not all, and not one theory from all the LEA has been consistent, they all have big holes in them.
Bear in mind the LEA are under contract not to divulge case evidence to the public, their pensions, jobs and future employment is at stake.
The best theory so far has been BDI, it explains more of the events than the other theories, but even it does not have a smoking gun.
.
DNASolves
Online statistics
- Members online
- 228
- Guests online
- 287
- Total visitors
- 515