Steve Thomas's Theory/Murder Timeline

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

And your source for this little nugget is?

If the device operated as a slipknot, why bother with a broken piece of paintbrush handle, why not simply apply as a ligature? Given the length of the ligature why not simply attach the complete paintbrush handle, why was it necessary to break it?

.

There is no evidence that the missing piece of the paintbrush handle was left inside of the victim. If it had been found inside the victim than it wouldn’t be missing. It would have been noted in the AR. Thomas, or Kolar, or Smit would have mentioned it; etc.
.

I can understand using a handle. That makes sense to me, but it is harder to understand why the handle needed to be broken.
The handle is almost my favorite piece of evidence. I could go on about it forever. I have the same questions about it as you, only more!

Consider it in the light of RDI. The Ramseys get rid of the roll of tape and the remainder of the cord (wipe batteries, etc...) because these items could connect them to the crime, but they unnecessarily break a paintbrush and use one part of it for the garrote and place another part of it in the paint tote, thus connecting the murder weapon to the house. This contradicts the supposed motivation for disposing of other items.

In the light of IDI – well, there’s not much light. We don’t know the motivation.
...

AK

 

[WhoKnowsWhat]

My brother had the skin peel off his hands during chemo. I would think it would be obvious if anyone happened to look.

 

[midwest mama]

My brother had the skin peel off his hands during chemo. I would think it would be obvious if anyone happened to look.

Sure. It had been a while since finishing the treatment, and I have no idea how long "the peel" could have affected the reappearance of a complete set of prints. Do you have any info about that?

 

[midwest mama]

As I see it, the only thing that suggests the intent to dispose of the body is the ransom note. But, the body wasn’t disposed of, and it wasn’t located as if it was ready to be disposed of, and the police were called (Mrs Ramsey would not have made that call if she knew about the body and Mr Ramsey would not have allowed that call if he knew about the body).

If the plan had been to relocate the body, than why is it in the basement? It should be in the trunk of his car, or stashed somewhere in the garage.
.

Well, I can think of a reason or two why an intruder might redress his victim, and as to why he might put the body in the WC. And, if I couldn’t think of any reasons, it would mean nothing.
...

AK

BBM. I agree regarding PR making the call, since I do not feel she "faked" it. But I have to add that JR would not have allowed the call, IF he had been in the vicinity of PR picking up the phone when she did. Their story of the happenings from the time she said she found the note and him being fully dressed to greet arriving officers has more than one explanation on record, and I find it completely possible she started that call before he could get her stopped. I think Burke coming into the vicinity and her having made that call in spite of the warnings, was plenty to get JR snappy at BR with "we're not talking to you", when BR was thought to have asked them questions at the end of the call.

Will you share your reasons for an intruder doing the redressing, and I also would be interested in hearing more about your "handle" assessment. I wondered if anyone in forensics ever unwrapped the handle to look for fingerprints and or DNA of any sort under the knot, since I would expect the "handle" to be wiped as were the batteries.

 

[Mama2JML]

BBM. I agree regarding PR making the call, since I do not feel she "faked" it. But I have to add that JR would not have allowed the call, IF he had been in the vicinity of PR picking up the phone when she did. Their story of the happenings from the time she said she found the note and him being fully dressed to greet arriving officers has more than one explanation on record, and I find it completely possible she started that call before he could get her stopped. I think Burke coming into the vicinity and her having made that call in spite of the warnings, was plenty to get JR snappy at BR with "we're not talking to you", when BR was thought to have asked them questions at the end of the call.

Will you share your reasons for an intruder doing the redressing, and I also would be interested in hearing more about your "handle" assessment. I wondered if anyone in forensics ever unwrapped the handle to look for fingerprints and or DNA of any sort under the knot, since I would expect the "handle" to be wiped as were the batteries.

IIRC, brown, cotton fibers (thought to be from work gloves?) were isolated from the nylon cord/in the knots. If the perp wore gloves during most of the crime's *required activities*, it seems a lack of distinguishable prints wouldn't necessitate "wiping" of any proposed murder weapon.

 

[DeeDee249]

My brother had the skin peel off his hands during chemo. I would think it would be obvious if anyone happened to look.

When I applied for my firearms license years ago, I discovered that I had no prints on most of my fingers. The local police even called in fingerprint experts from the State to see if they had better luck. They asked me what I did for a living (housewife/former HS teacher) and I told them I also played the piano. Certainly nothing that should have worn off my prints. They even examined my fingers for evidence of plastic surgery or other means of removing my fingerprints. Nothing. I never had chemo. They ended up using the chemical they put on cadavers that have been in the water. I think it was called "Ever-raise". It didn't help much, but I was able to get my license.
I have no clue what happened to my prints, but my husband says it proves his alien abduction theory. He is SURE they swapped me out for someone programmed to drive him nuts.

 

[DeeDee249]

That's the rule- but this was Boulder. The rule also is when a 911 call is placed -such as was placed from the R home the evening of their party on the 23rd- police are sent to the house. The rule is they MUST enter the house where the call was placed and speak to the person who made the call to be sure they are OK. Someone opening the door a crack or dismissing the police with "it's OK- it was a mistake" should never be grounds for the police actually leaving. They still are supposed to enter the house and speak to the person who made the call.

 

[bettybaby00]

When I applied for my firearms license years ago, I discovered that I had no prints on most of my fingers. The local police even called in fingerprint experts from the State to see if they had better luck. They asked me what I did for a living (housewife/former HS teacher) and I told them I also played the piano. Certainly nothing that should have worn off my prints. They even examined my fingers for evidence of plastic surgery or other means of removing my fingerprints. Nothing. I never had chemo. They ended up using the chemical they put on cadavers that have been in the water. I think it was called "Ever-raise". It didn't help much, but I was able to get my license.
I have no clue what happened to my prints, but my husband says it proves his alien abduction theory. He is SURE they swapped me out for someone programmed to drive him nuts.

:lol:

 

[Anti-K]

BBM. I agree regarding PR making the call, since I do not feel she "faked" it. But I have to add that JR would not have allowed the call, IF he had been in the vicinity of PR picking up the phone when she did. Their story of the happenings from the time she said she found the note and him being fully dressed to greet arriving officers has more than one explanation on record, and I find it completely possible she started that call before he could get her stopped. I think Burke coming into the vicinity and her having made that call in spite of the warnings, was plenty to get JR snappy at BR with "we're not talking to you", when BR was thought to have asked them questions at the end of the call.

Will you share your reasons for an intruder doing the redressing, and I also would be interested in hearing more about your "handle" assessment. I wondered if anyone in forensics ever unwrapped the handle to look for fingerprints and or DNA of any sort under the knot, since I would expect the "handle" to be wiped as were the batteries.

(Docg’s theory is DESTROYED by his own logic: Mrs Ramsey would not have made that call if she knew about the body and Mr Ramsey would not have allowed that call if he knew about the body)

As long as the body was still in the house, nothing could have been more important to him than preventing that call. And, preventing that call should have been easy. All he had to do was make sure that he was present when Mrs Ramsey discovered the note. He could have arranged it so that they discovered it together, or, he could have pretended to find it himself. OMG! Look at these threats! Beheadings! Denial of proper burial! We can’t call anybody.

Nothing could have been more important to him than preventing that call. Preventing that csall should have been easy.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM. I agree regarding PR making the call, since I do not feel she "faked" it. But I have to add that JR would not have allowed the call, IF he had been in the vicinity of PR picking up the phone when she did. Their story of the happenings from the time she said she found the note and him being fully dressed to greet arriving officers has more than one explanation on record, and I find it completely possible she started that call before he could get her stopped. I think Burke coming into the vicinity and her having made that call in spite of the warnings, was plenty to get JR snappy at BR with "we're not talking to you", when BR was thought to have asked them questions at the end of the call.

Will you share your reasons for an intruder doing the redressing, and I also would be interested in hearing more about your "handle" assessment. I wondered if anyone in forensics ever unwrapped the handle to look for fingerprints and or DNA of any sort under the knot, since I would expect the "handle" to be wiped as were the batteries.

The handle. Hmmm; well...

I guess the first thing to say is that handles are nice. They give you something to hold onto. You might not always use them, but that’s what they’re there for.

There is hair entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle and this hair, as described by Kolar, was pulled from Jonbenet’s head and neck area. This strongly suggests that the handle, with the victim’s hair caught up in it, was used to pull the ligature tight.

I know that a lot of people have noted that the handle was not necessary, but it is only true that it was not necessary for pulling the garrote tight, although one might still use it (and, it seems, did use it).

Since the killer took the time to construct it, we must conclude that it was necessary even if we cannot not know why it was necessary (of course, I have ideas on that...).

What is more fascinating, and possibly revealing, is that the paint brush was broken into pieces and that one piece was placed back into the paint tote. Why? This act unnecessarily connects the garrote to the home. It is something that a Ramsey, a Ramsey concerned enough to wipe fingerprints, wear gloves, dispose of items, etc, would not do. It contradicts their supposed intent.

The paintbrush end in the paint tote and the so-called practice note in the notepad are, to me, almost exactly the same thing: pieces of evidence that should not exist, and that connect the killer through the garrote and through the ransom note to the house. items left that no one should have been expected to find, except for the investigators
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

The handle. Hmmm; well...

I guess the first thing to say is that handles are nice. They give you something to hold onto. You might not always use them, but that’s what they’re there for.

There is hair entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle and this hair, as described by Kolar, was pulled from Jonbenet’s head and neck area. This strongly suggests that the handle, with the victim’s hair caught up in it, was used to pull the ligature tight.

I know that a lot of people have noted that the handle was not necessary, but it is only true that it was not necessary for pulling the garrote tight, although one might still use it (and, it seems, did use it).

Since the killer took the time to construct it, we must conclude that it was necessary even if we cannot not know why it was necessary (of course, I have ideas on that...).

What is more fascinating, and possibly revealing, is that the paint brush was broken into pieces and that one piece was placed back into the paint tote. Why? This act unnecessarily connects the garrote to the home. It is something that a Ramsey, a Ramsey concerned enough to wipe fingerprints, wear gloves, dispose of items, etc, would not do. It contradicts their supposed intent.


The paintbrush end in the paint tote and the so-called practice note in the notepad are, to me, almost exactly the same thing: pieces of evidence that should not exist, and that connect the killer through the garrote and through the ransom note to the house. items left that no one should have been expected to find, except for the investigators
...

AK

Anti-K,
BBM: It follows, if your persuaded by an RDI theory, that it is all restaging, with different actors playing out different roles, so missing important pieces of evidence?

The paintbrush handle is completely redundant. Its only purpose can be for supposed dramatic effect. I speculate that the breaking of the handle was the stagers idea of realism, since the handle on a garrote need not be the length of a paintbrush handle, a shorter handle offers the potential for more torque.

There is the possibility that its BDI with PR constructing an initial crime-scene to cover for him, which later JR reconfigures. For those that are PDI, their theories have to explain how JR knows where JonBenet was located?

I reckon much of the evidence, if not all, is best explaind by a BDI, with input from both PR and JR afterwards, including the injuries to JonBenet herself.

This leaves open the possibility that BR initiated some of the staging himself, i.e. Painbrush Handle, thus explaining why it was incorporated into the final wine-cellar crime-scene?


.

 

[UKGuy]

There is no evidence that the missing piece of the paintbrush handle was left inside of the victim. If it had been found inside the victim than it wouldn’t be missing. It would have been noted in the AR. Thomas, or Kolar, or Smit would have mentioned it; etc.
.

I can understand using a handle. That makes sense to me, but it is harder to understand why the handle needed to be broken.
The handle is almost my favorite piece of evidence. I could go on about it forever. I have the same questions about it as you, only more!

Consider it in the light of RDI. The Ramseys get rid of the roll of tape and the remainder of the cord (wipe batteries, etc...) because these items could connect them to the crime, but they unnecessarily break a paintbrush and use one part of it for the garrote and place another part of it in the paint tote, thus connecting the murder weapon to the house. This contradicts the supposed motivation for disposing of other items.

In the light of IDI – well, there’s not much light. We don’t know the motivation.
...

AK

Anti-K,

There is no evidence that the missing piece of the paintbrush handle was left inside of the victim. If it had been found inside the victim than it wouldn’t be missing. It would have been noted in the AR. Thomas, or Kolar, or Smit would have mentioned it; etc.

All of which suggest your conclusions are invalid.

I can understand using a handle. That makes sense to me, but it is harder to understand why the handle needed to be broken.

So to offer a rationale for its use in staging, i.e. it was already part of a prior crime scene?

This contradicts the supposed motivation for disposing of other items.

Not quite, JonBenet's bloodstained pink barbie nightgown was left in the wine-cellar, presumably part of a prior crime-scene.

.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
BBM: It follows, if your persuaded by an RDI theory, that it is all restaging, with different actors playing out different roles, so missing important pieces of evidence?

The paintbrush handle is completely redundant. Its only purpose can be for supposed dramatic effect. I speculate that the breaking of the handle was the stagers idea of realism, since the handle on a garrote need not be the length of a paintbrush handle, a shorter handle offers the potential for more torque.

There is the possibility that its BDI with PR constructing an initial crime-scene to cover for him, which later JR reconfigures. For those that are PDI, their theories have to explain how JR knows where JonBenet was located?

I reckon much of the evidence, if not all, is best explaind by a BDI, with input from both PR and JR afterwards, including the injuries to JonBenet herself.

This leaves open the possibility that BR initiated some of the staging himself, i.e. Painbrush Handle, thus explaining why it was incorporated into the final wine-cellar crime-scene?


.

First of all, I’m not persuaded by an RDI theory. I’m not persuaded by any theory; I’m persuaded by evidence.
.

Restaging, un-staging, incomplete staging, etc are speculative positions only.
.

The evidence strongly suggests that the handle, with the victim’s hair caught up in it, was used to pull the ligature tight. So, we could say that that was its purpose: to hang onto while pulling the ligature tight.

The length of the handle is meaningless as far as “torque” goes. It only needs to be long enough to fit the hand. It’s just something to hang onto while pulling. It’s just a handle.

As an aside: redundancy is often good, even necessary. Redundancy makes for improved functionality and reliability. It makes things safe. Nothing wrong with redundancy. Mind you, I don’t consider redundancy to be a meaningful observation when in reference to the handle.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

All of which suggest your conclusions are invalid.


So to offer a rationale for its use in staging, i.e. it was already part of a prior crime scene?


Not quite, JonBenet's bloodstained pink barbie nightgown was left in the wine-cellar, presumably part of a prior crime-scene.

.

There is no evidence that the missing piece of the paintbrush handle was left inside of the victim. “birefringent foreign material” was found inside the victim; but that is all.
.

The handle was used to tighten the garrote. It was pulled. Hair entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle was pulled out of the victim’s head and neck area when the handle was pulled. This really happened. It was not staged.
.

I’m not sure what you mean by, “part of a prior crime-scene.” I don’t know how that Barbie night gown being in the WC changes anything that I’ve said.
...

AK

 

[Salem]

Birefringence is the optical property of a material having a refractive index that depends on the polarization and propagation direction of light.[SUP][1][/SUP] These optically anisotropic materials are said to be birefringent (or birefractive). The birefringence is often quantified as the maximum difference between refractive indices exhibited by the material. Crystals with asymmetric crystal structures are often birefringent, as well as plastics under mechanical stress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence

This is from Wiki - not always a solid source but this matches up with all the other returns I got. I have never heard the word birefringent before. Does this mean that crystal or some kind of plastic crystal was found? Was the material ever identified?

Salem

Spoken as a member and not a moderator.

 

[Anti-K]

Birefringence is the optical property of a material having a refractive index that depends on the polarization and propagation direction of light.[SUP][1][/SUP] These optically anisotropic materials are said to be birefringent (or birefractive). The birefringence is often quantified as the maximum difference between refractive indices exhibited by the material. Crystals with asymmetric crystal structures are often birefringent, as well as plastics under mechanical stress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence

This is from Wiki - not always a solid source but this matches up with all the other returns I got. I have never heard the word birefringent before. Does this mean that crystal or some kind of plastic crystal was found? Was the material ever identified?

Salem

Spoken as a member and not a moderator.

The birefringment material is believed to be from the missing piece of the paintbrush handle. I think somewhere someone has said that it could be from talcum powder, or latex gloves. Theories abound, but as far as I know this birefringment material is the basis for the claim that the missing end of the paint brush was used for the penetration.
...

AK

 

[Chrishope]

Interestingly, the police did NOT actually find the body, though. I think they thought the winecellar was hidden enough (you could only get to it from another room, not from the hallways of the basement) that she wouldn't be found by police. And she wasn't- although Officer French DID locate the room- he couldn't figure out how to open the door. He claimed later that he just didn't think it was important to open the door because no one could be hiding in there since the latch worked from the outside. Of course, he never thought someone might have HIDDEN something (like JB) in there. Yes- police work at its finest.

It is interesting, but my point is that any rational actor would have had to anticipate the body being found. As I've often pointed out, if the K9 unit had been called in, the body would have been found within minutes. A rational person would have anticipated the K9. What if Officer French had looked up, saw the block of wood that served to hold the door closed, and had opened the door?

I just don't see how there could have been a (rational) plan to call the police with the body in the house and have any real hope that the police wouldn't find it. To put it another way, how could the culprit(s) counted on the stunning incompetence of BPD?

 

[Chrishope]

(Docg’s theory is DESTROYED by his own logic: Mrs Ramsey would not have made that call if she knew about the body and Mr Ramsey would not have allowed that call if he knew about the body)

As long as the body was still in the house, nothing could have been more important to him than preventing that call. And, preventing that call should have been easy. All he had to do was make sure that he was present when Mrs Ramsey discovered the note. He could have arranged it so that they discovered it together, or, he could have pretended to find it himself. OMG! Look at these threats! Beheadings! Denial of proper burial! We can’t call anybody.

Nothing could have been more important to him than preventing that call. Preventing that csall should have been easy.
...

AK

That's as good a critique as I've ever seen. I agree in general, that it seems odd that JR would allow the phone call. However, if he was on the other side of the kitchen when she picked up the phone she could dial 911 before he could stop her. Once dialed, the call is "in", even if she hangs up (or JR hangs up the phone) the dispatcher should call back and/or dispatch a patrol unit to the address.

IOWs JR would have to be within arms length of PR at all times. Difficult to do, not to mention slightly suspicious.

In the bad 'ol days before 911 service, when you had to know and dial the 7 digit number for the local police, it would be hard for Doc to make the case. These days, if JR was 4 or 5 steps away when PR picked up the phone ....

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

I reckon the R's assumed that JonBenet would be found by LE or cadaver dogs early that morning. When this never happened JR took the opportunity to immediately relocate BR out of the house. This was patently a revision of any prior planning. The received wisdom for months after JonBenet was found was IDI and LS's psychopathic pedophile with an AE fetish was prime candidate.



If Plan A is to relocate JonBenet away from the house, then cleaning and redressing JonBenet is redundant?

The redressing of JonBenet is intended as domestic staging, not as part of some external crime-scene deposit, but to hide and mask whatever took place that night, since the R's assume that JonBenet's body is going to be discovered by LE, then they go to great lengths to hide her acute sexual assault and over stage her asphyxiation, so to mask any prior injuries to her neck? External crime-scene deposits are rarely staged, commonly the victim is posed.

In short if JR intended to relocate JonBenet then all the redressing is not required, even he would realize once an Autopsy was performed, questions would be asked why the kidnapper redressed JonBenet in clean size-12's, wiped her down with JR's shirt, and fed her pineapple in the breakfast bar prior to whacking her on the head?


I'm not sure what you are asking here, the trial is hypothetical but DocG's theory is allegedly more advanced, it is a theory with lots of evidence to support it, except many aspects are events which were to take place in the future, i.e. not the night JonBenet was killed. This means the theory cannot be tested. JR can never be put on trial using DocG's theory as a prosecution case.


.

Working from bottom to top;

I don't see that any theory can be "tested" in any meaningful sense. The closest we could come would be a trail.

All theories depend on believing some action is credible or not. All theories require conjecture as to why certain things were done. It really comes down to what each individual "sleuth" finds convincing. W/o a trial to settle the matter, we will forever be going 'round and 'round because we believe different things are likely/unlikely.

The cleaning and redressing wouldn't be redundant in a plan to dump the body. One must consider the very real possibility of the body being discovered under a pile of leaves, in a culvert, at the bottom of a ravine, etc, even if it's days/weeks afterward. Once found, the body should be dressed, if dressed at all, as JBR was dressed at the time she went to bed. (At least in a manner consistent with how the Rs said she was dressed for bed) It would be odd indeed were she dressed in her own clothes, but different clothes than what she wore to bed. At least, it would be odd given the R's story -"we put her to bed, we went to bed ourselves, we woke up to find a RN, yada yada yada."

The redressing can only hide what happened from one of the Rs who is ignorant of the details. With the body in the house, there is no reasonable expectation it won't be found, (that much we seem to agree on) and once found, the coroner will examine it in detail. The SA can't be "hidden" except that the officers on the scene won't know about it, but that really isn't important. The coroner will know, the next day. Likewise, any possible prior neck injury. So all the "staging" you're talking about does nothing at all to hide anything from the authorities, except in a very temporary way. It would hide those details from another family member ignorant of such details.

The size 12s however, don't seem to fit either your theory, or mine. They hide nothing temporarily, as they are obscured by LJs. As soon as the coroner pulls down the LJs, there's a problem. They don't fit my theory either, as she likely was not wearing size 12s at bedtime.

The received wisdom of the lead investigator, ST, was that it was an RDI case.

 

[Chrishope]

In my experience, it depends on how you tie it (type of slip knot). It can slip with ease in both directions, or it can slip in one direction (tight) only, and everything in between
...

AK

If tied as per the "Delmar England" instructions on FFJ, it will slip only in direction of tightening.

The point we should take is that the garrotte as we find it on the body, is quite capable of asphyxiating her. Whether or not the garrotte is staged is another issue, but it could be the "actual" instrument of her strangulation.

It could also have been the actual instrument, but altered later.

One reason the handle might be broken is that it was only a paintbrush, hardly made for applying such force, if indeed the handle was used to pull on the standing end of the line.