Questions you'd like answers to...

[DeeDee249]

How do you know the brush handle was inserted into JonBenet?

I believe wood splinters were found in her vagina that may have matched the broken brush handle. These may have been on the autopsy report as "cellulose". I think it was one of the detectives present at the autopsy who said it, or it may have been the coroner's own comment in his notes, not all of which were included in his official report. His comment to detectives Arndt and Trulio, both present at the autopsy, that in his opinion there was evidence of digital penetration, was also not stated specifically in the report.

 

[NanaNZA]

For sure, Dee. There were splinters on the carpet just outside the wine cellar room. Did someone transfer a shard from their finger/glove to Jonbenet..or is paint brush handle itself the culprit?

 

[NanaNZA]

My questions: what piece(s) of evidence compelled the grand jury to sign the true bills for patsy and John Ramsey?
Why blood on nightgown, blanket, white top and large underwear..but not on long johns? And why did original underwear need to disappear?

 

[UKGuy]

My questions: what piece(s) of evidence compelled the grand jury to sign the true bills for patsy and John Ramsey?
Why blood on nightgown, blanket, white top and large underwear..but not on long johns? And why did original underwear need to disappear?

NanaNZA,

but not on long johns? And why did original underwear need to disappear?

Obviously a sexual assault was being covered up and JonBenet was being dressed to match the forthcoming parent's version of events, so clean on longjohns were required possibly to replace nightgown?

The original underwear was likely bloodstained, the size-12's were a replacement at a prior staging, since Coroner Meyer said the bloodstains on her size-12's did not match parts of her groin region, suggesting she had been wiped down?

Patsy is patently helping to stage for either John, Burke or both of them as its anyones guess as to who was abusing JonBenet?

.

 

[UKGuy]

I believe wood splinters were found in her vagina that may have matched the broken brush handle. These may have been on the autopsy report as "cellulose". I think it was one of the detectives present at the autopsy who said it, or it may have been the coroner's own comment in his notes, not all of which were included in his official report. His comment to detectives Arndt and Trulio, both present at the autopsy, that in his opinion there was evidence of digital penetration, was also not stated specifically in the report.

DeeDee249,
Nice to see you posting, hope you will return to help out?

Pefect Murder Perfect Town - Part Three: Stories within Stories, Chapter Six

Pathologists had to be consulted to determine if JonBenét’s vaginal injury had taken place before or after her death and, if it was prior, to see if penetration had come from the child herself or from another person.

The police would have to track down the origin of a small amount of cellulose* that had been found in JonBenét’s vagina. The possibility existed that it could have come from the broken paintbrush used for the ligature. The knot on the ligature that acted like a slip-knot also required more investigation.

footnote:
* Cellulose is a carbohydrate of high molecular weight that is the chief constituent of the cell walls of plants. Raw cotton is 91 percent cellulose. Other important natural sources are flax, hemp, jute, straw, and wood.

Steve Thomas refers to a Splinter in his book, so its seems that much had been established, although the status of the missing piece of paintbrush and its role, if any, has never been resolved.

 

[Dragognosis]

The evidence was John and Patsy were the only two people in the house that night capable of doing what was done to JonBenet.

Beyond that the Grand Jury was baffled by the case. A member was quoted by Charlie Brennan as saying they didn't know who did what between John and Patsy. They wanted it cleared up in trial.

 

[Userid]

The evidence was John and Patsy were the only two people in the house that night capable of doing what was done to JonBenet.

Beyond that the Grand Jury was baffled by the case. A member was quoted by Charlie Brennan as saying they didn't know who did what between John and Patsy. They wanted it cleared up in trial.

Your first paragraph, in my view (although others will disagree), is accurate.

Your second paragraph: they were baffled as to which person (JR and PR) did which act. That's why the GJ used the specific language. They wanted both indicted, but they couldn't prove which parent committed which act, which is why they left it open-ended, so to speak.

 

[Swirlz]

If Burke hit JonBenet because she took a piece of his pineapple, wouldn't the fact that he can't recognize the picture of the pineapple bowl be a point in his favor? I mean, if he were eating from the bowl right before he clobbered her, he'd be much more likely to be able to identify it in a picture. Is it possible that he's acting like he doesn't know what that is because he didn't eat from it?

Also, as a side note, I'm not sure why people keep acting like he couldn't recognize it. He did toward the end of the exchange say he thought it looked like fruit.

 

[Beltonian]

Swirlz, I agree. Imo nothing points towards Burke. He is boy on autistic spectrum who had a bad luck to be born in Ramsey family and be a sibling of his poor sister...

 

[NanaNZA]

Nothing points to Burke? How about the fact that he had hit her before? That he had anger issues? That JonBenét was getting the lions share of Patsys attention which may have sparked jealousy? That his fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple? That his DNA is on the blood stained Barbie nightgown? That the suspicious marks on jonbenet match up perfectly to pieces of his train track? That he was supposedly asleep the whole time per Patsy and John, but by his own admission, was awake when patsy entered his room, when the police officer entered his room, and was near the kitchen phone during the 911 call?

 

[Dragognosis]

None of that is evidence of involvement in what was done to JonBenet.

 

[Userid]

None of that is evidence of involvement in what was done to JonBenet.

Agree. There are many siblings -- arguably, the majority -- on this planet that have the exact same issues, with regard to hitting and anger.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the barbie nightgown was on a life-size doll in the toy room, correct? And that toy room was shared by both siblings, correct? And understandably, since it was on a toy, there would be no need to wash it. So, finding BR's touch DNA on that nightgown isn't out of the ordinary at all, at least to me.

 

[NanaNZA]

Huh? No it was JonBenéts favorite nightgown. True a lot of siblings have anger issues. These children were in therapy. Were their issues extraordinary? Circumstantial evidence is important. That’s all we have in this case. It just depends on what evidence you choose to buy into.

 

[Dragognosis]

No, evidence is indicative of a cause. The trail in sleuthing goes backwards from results to cause and the person responsible for the cause.

If the evidence is not strong it will lead nowhere or anywhere without direction.

 

[Userid]

Huh? No it was JonBenéts favorite nightgown. True a lot of siblings have anger issues. These children were in therapy. Were their issues extraordinary? Circumstantial evidence is important. That’s all we have in this case. It just depends on what evidence you choose to buy into.

Okay, maybe I'm wrong -- but then, why is it called a "Barbie" nightgown? Because it came with the life-sized Barbie, I imagined. I just assumed the nightgown was always on the Barbie and not necessarily meant for a child to wear.

 

[Dragognosis]

It was printed with Barbie images.

 

[Dragognosis]

Example: Burke's prints on the bowl is evidence he may be involved in JonBenet being fed or eating pineapple. That's all. The investigator's questions look for connections trying to find the trail. If a trail isn't discovered the prints on the bowl have little meaning.

Same thing with fibers from John's sweater found in the undies. That is a starting point, an indication of personal proximity but not proof of it. Follow up questions look for connections but the trail might not lead far. In the case of the fibers all it means is someone was close to the sweater and the undies at some point. It doesn't indicate violence resulting in death.

 

[UKGuy]

Example: Burke's prints on the bowl is evidence he may be involved in JonBenet being fed or eating pineapple. That's all. The investigator's questions look for connections trying to find the trail. If a trail isn't discovered the prints on the bowl have little meaning.

Same thing with fibers from John's sweater found in the undies. That is a starting point, an indication of personal proximity but not proof of it. Follow up questions look for connections but the trail might not lead far. In the case of the fibers all it means is someone was close to the sweater and the undies at some point. It doesn't indicate violence resulting in death.

Dragognosis,
Your conclusions are incorrect in both cases.

Burke's prints are not only on the bowl but on the teaglass, add his touch-dna is on the barbie nightgown, i.e. a crime-scene item, then this links him directly to the death of JonBenet.

Similarly with John's alleged fibers, since they are unique, i.e. non US origin, then they should not be found on JonBenet's crotch, inside the wine-cellar. Outside might be explained away as chance but inside no!

Add in Patsy's forensic evidence this means all three Ramseys can be linked directly to the wine-cellar and JonBenet was allegedly murdered there, so go figure !

.

 

[UKGuy]

Agree. There are many siblings -- arguably, the majority -- on this planet that have the exact same issues, with regard to hitting and anger.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the barbie nightgown was on a life-size doll in the toy room, correct? And that toy room was shared by both siblings, correct? And understandably, since it was on a toy, there would be no need to wash it. So, finding BR's touch DNA on that nightgown isn't out of the ordinary at all, at least to me.

Userid,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the barbie nightgown was on a life-size doll in the toy room, correct?

Nope, it was one of JonBenet's many nightgowns.

BPD 1998 Patsy Interview Excerpt

1 TOM HANEY: What is it?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: It is her Barbie nightgown.

3 TOM HANEY: Is that hers or her Barbie

4 doll's? When would she have worn that last, do you

5 know?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, she didn't wear it that

7 night because she had her -- she had the long underwear

8 pants and her little white shirt. And the night before

9 on Christmas Eve night she wore the pink little

10 (inaudible) that was under her pillow. You saw that.

11 And before that I don't remember. But neither of those

12 two nights she wore that.

13 TOM HANEY: Where would this particular --

14 well, let me back up.

15 Does this item have some particular

16 significance?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: No. No.

18 TOM HANEY: How many nightgowns did she have?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: A lot.

20 TOM HANEY: Twenty, 30?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, 10 or so.

Just consider that Patsy says 10 or more, so if the case is PDI thats how many gowns Patsy can select from, this disregards all the other pajama sets.

Folks here have been baffled by the Barbie Nightgown, a favorite explanation is it arrived by accident on the white blanket, carried by static, as it was taken from the Tumbler Dryer.

IMO this is a confabulation in the face of cognitive dissonance as it relates to a favorite theory.

Since the Barbie Nightgown is bloodstained with JonBenet's blood and has Burke Ramsey's touch dna deposited on it, then obviously it played a role in the death of JonBenet.

One simple assumption: that nightgown was clean on JonBenet, i.e. as staging then since it is in the wine-cellar, how come it gets bloodstained and deposited with Burke's touch dna?

Things are obviously not what they seem at the JonBenet Crimescene !
.

 

[Userid]

Okay, thanks. Last question: was it ever determined what happened to the clothes the life-size doll was wearing? There was a nude life-sized doll found in the toy room, correct?