The garrote points to........

[Whaleshark]

Why bash her on the head, why not place your hand over her mouth?

- victim is struggling?
- wasn't just to keep person quiet, but was out of rage/fighting?
- accident from horseplay?
- purposefully tried to silence due to reaction to assault?
- pick and choose -- depending on the scenario you believe, the reason will be different.. as you know.

Also assuming this was not the first time, what was different, which led directly to JonBenet's death?

Who knows; different experience - level of experimentation -- of course, again, assuming that's the scenario in which it happened, and not for a different reason like other as noted above...

According to Kolar it all took place within a 90 minute timeframe. So assuming BDI thats how long it took before the wine-cellar staging began. So maybe she was dead before 12:00 that night?

So thats approximately 5-hours to wait until the next morning, and to check over the staging, for me something does not quite add up, including the pineapple snack not being cleaned up by say Patsy?

A lot of things were not cleaned up.... staging didn't seem to include anything about tidying up.....
Plus, do not forget that people came in the next morning and moved things and changed the crime scene, including making sandwiches and coffee in the kitchen, which would require getting things in and out of pantry/fridge/cabinets, etc...
And the crime scene photo takers said that the crime scene evidence photos lied -- were inaccurate because evidence was not preserved in its original position as found, ie: RN had been photographed on the stairs, but it was placed back there after it had already been handled and moved around - not where it was when originally 'found', of course - ....and rolls of crime scene photos were dated a few days later than the crime, so even though pineapple was in her stomach and we know she ate it, it does not necessarily mean that where the bowl of pineapple was photographed is where it was when she ate out of it.

People keep forgetting, don't know, or don't realize this..... you cannot count on the crime scene photos to be of how things looked exactly as the night before..... the bowl may have been moved out of the fridge and set on that table that morning when the advocates were making sandwiches and food. The glass may have been set there that morning too, by someone with the intention of making tea, and got interrupted by someone/something, or the events as they changed that morning.

Again, it was noted that policemen were also in the kitchen making and drinking coffee, and the Rev. H was in the microwave to heat up water or some crap.....the crime scene was never contained.

And, JonBenet could have opened the fridge and got a piece of pineapple straight from the bowl and closed the fridge door that night... (or not)

So I wouldn't get too hung up on why Patsy supposedly didn't clean up the bowl....it may not have even been there at the time (assuming she was part of that scenario, and as if she would have cleaned it up anyway, which she probably isn't worried about or even considering how it might fit in the crime scene scenario, if she would have - which she most likely wouldn't, considering all the nastiness and disarray in the rest of the house)
And please remember, a lot of other things weren't cleaned up either - poo, clothes, toys, paper, drawers askew, things in general disarray.... housekeepers noted that they left food out and clothes everywhere until the housekeeper came to clean up all the time. It wasn't anything new or out of the ordinary for them to leave things 'out' anyway, if it was left out from the night before...

And it's not like the crime scene was pristine except for one odd bowl of pineapple out, or anything like that.... so I would not get hung up on why it was out.... but the important thing is that she had some in her stomach that was not fully digested at time of death, suggesting she had been awake when home at some time, and not put straight to bed, or got up later... focus on that part of the discrepancy...not why anything was exactly where it was at around the house as a sure sign of how the crime scene puzzles fit....crime scene had changed and some evidence photos lied. that's a fact.

 

[Whaleshark]

...And here's a perfect example of the/an interruption I'm talking about:

Quote:
"Father Holverstock advised he had been heating a glass of water in the kitchen microwave when things began to happen. Fleet White had a look on his face that he'd "never seen before," and racing past him through the kitchen, exclaimed that JonBenet had been found.

The next thing he knew, he was standing in the foyer area near the top of the basement stairs, and John Ramsey had his daughter in his hands. It was Holverstock's recollection that Ramsey blurted out, "I don't think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket," or that "she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket."
__

So he was heating up water in microwave in a glass (maybe/probably for hot tea), when JonBenet is found and brought up --

So, whatever was all going on in the kitchen at that time, suddenly got interrupted by the finding of JonBenet. And as you see, Rev H. left the kitchen immediately... and probably so did anyone else in there who may have been doing what they were doing in the kitchen (or anywhere else in the house at the time)..... and everything that was left in the kitchen at that moment, probably sat exactly the way it did until the photos of them were taken later...

 

[UKGuy]

...And here's a perfect example of the/an interruption I'm talking about:

Quote:
"Father Holverstock advised he had been heating a glass of water in the kitchen microwave when things began to happen. Fleet White had a look on his face that he'd "never seen before," and racing past him through the kitchen, exclaimed that JonBenet had been found.

The next thing he knew, he was standing in the foyer area near the top of the basement stairs, and John Ramsey had his daughter in his hands. It was Holverstock's recollection that Ramsey blurted out, "I don't think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket," or that "she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket."
__

So he was heating up water in microwave in a glass (maybe/probably for hot tea), when JonBenet is found and brought up --

So, whatever was all going on in the kitchen at that time, suddenly got interrupted by the finding of JonBenet. And as you see, Rev H. left the kitchen immediately... and probably so did anyone else in there who may have been doing what they were doing in the kitchen (or anywhere else in the house at the time)..... and everything that was left in the kitchen at that moment, probably sat exactly the way it did until the photos of them were taken later...

Whaleshark,

The next thing he knew, he was standing in the foyer area near the top of the basement stairs, and John Ramsey had his daughter in his hands. It was Holverstock's recollection that Ramsey blurted out, "I don't think he meant to kill her, because she was wrapped in a blanket," or that "she was warm, she was wrapped in a blanket."

And it might be that peoples recollections are not accurate, victim advocate Grace Morlock claimed JR said this.

The crime-scene can never be pristine or assumed to be as was in a homicide, particularly where staging is suspected since items will have been removed and others relocated, so to fabricate the crime-scene.

JonBenet did eat pineapple, there was bowl on the table, so its safe to assume it was consumed there. Its not a given but a good bet.

JonBenet very quickly that night went from snacking pineapple to being abused, whacked on the head, asphyxiated, all in approximately 90-minutes!

For that to occur, taking into account prior abuse, something must have changed. I know PR could have flaked out through use of meds etc, but I do not think its a case where a mother flips.

.

 

[UKGuy]

- victim is struggling?
- wasn't just to keep person quiet, but was out of rage/fighting?
- accident from horseplay?
- purposefully tried to silence due to reaction to assault?
- pick and choose -- depending on the scenario you believe, the reason will be different.. as you know.



Who knows; different experience - level of experimentation -- of course, again, assuming that's the scenario in which it happened, and not for a different reason like other as noted above...



A lot of things were not cleaned up.... staging didn't seem to include anything about tidying up.....
Plus, do not forget that people came in the next morning and moved things and changed the crime scene, including making sandwiches and coffee in the kitchen, which would require getting things in and out of pantry/fridge/cabinets, etc...
And the crime scene photo takers said that the crime scene evidence photos lied -- were inaccurate because evidence was not preserved in its original position as found, ie: RN had been photographed on the stairs, but it was placed back there after it had already been handled and moved around - not where it was when originally 'found', of course - ....and rolls of crime scene photos were dated a few days later than the crime, so even though pineapple was in her stomach and we know she ate it, it does not necessarily mean that where the bowl of pineapple was photographed is where it was when she ate out of it.

People keep forgetting, don't know, or don't realize this..... you cannot count on the crime scene photos to be of how things looked exactly as the night before..... the bowl may have been moved out of the fridge and set on that table that morning when the advocates were making sandwiches and food. The glass may have been set there that morning too, by someone with the intention of making tea, and got interrupted by someone/something, or the events as they changed that morning.

Again, it was noted that policemen were also in the kitchen making and drinking coffee, and the Rev. H was in the microwave to heat up water or some crap.....the crime scene was never contained.

And, JonBenet could have opened the fridge and got a piece of pineapple straight from the bowl and closed the fridge door that night... (or not)

So I wouldn't get too hung up on why Patsy supposedly didn't clean up the bowl....it may not have even been there at the time (assuming she was part of that scenario, and as if she would have cleaned it up anyway, which she probably isn't worried about or even considering how it might fit in the crime scene scenario, if she would have - which she most likely wouldn't, considering all the nastiness and disarray in the rest of the house)
And please remember, a lot of other things weren't cleaned up either - poo, clothes, toys, paper, drawers askew, things in general disarray.... housekeepers noted that they left food out and clothes everywhere until the housekeeper came to clean up all the time. It wasn't anything new or out of the ordinary for them to leave things 'out' anyway, if it was left out from the night before...

And it's not like the crime scene was pristine except for one odd bowl of pineapple out, or anything like that.... so I would not get hung up on why it was out.... but the important thing is that she had some in her stomach that was not fully digested at time of death, suggesting she had been awake when home at some time, and not put straight to bed, or got up later... focus on that part of the discrepancy...not why anything was exactly where it was at around the house as a sure sign of how the crime scene puzzles fit....crime scene had changed and some evidence photos lied. that's a fact.

Whaleshark,

- victim is struggling?
- wasn't just to keep person quiet, but was out of rage/fighting?
- accident from horseplay?
- purposefully tried to silence due to reaction to assault?
- pick and choose -- depending on the scenario you believe, the reason will be different.. as you know.

I'm assuming both prior abuse and that JonBenet was a compliant victim, known to her abuser. Someone for whom physical force, never mind deadly force, should not even be an option.

- accident from horseplay?

Possibly, but many people think the force required to crack her skull, was similar to say a car crash impact, that is, a domestic accident should not have led to such a skull injury.

Most people agree on the sequence of events, but not the location:

1. Pineapple Snack.

2. Sexual Assault.

3. Head Trauma.

4. Asphyxiation.

And according to Kolar the timeframe is approximately 90 minutes.

So speculating JonBenet moves from the Breakfast Bar to someone's bedroom is assaulted, and whacked on the head.

From here she is moved to the basement and staged accordingly in the wine-cellar.


If she was assaulted initially in the basement why bring her back up to her bedroom, then down again to the basement. The Q is for those that think it all took place in the basement?


.

 

[Whaleshark]

The crime-scene can never be pristine or assumed to be as was in a homicide, particularly where staging is suspected since items will have been removed and others relocated, so to fabricate the crime-scene.

Right. But additionally so, because all those people came over too, contaminating it even more, going through the house, searching for her, changing things already, getting into the kitchen stuff, making food and drinks, using appliances, etc. So even if elements were left and staged on purpose or whatever, they could have gotten moved again by people who came in the house....

JonBenet did eat pineapple, there was bowl on the table, so its safe to assume it was consumed there. Its not a given but a good bet.

Perhaps, but in this case, with all the chaos that morning, and those people taking food, drinks, dishware, etc. in and out of the kitchen and dining area, there is just as much possibility at this point that the bowl could have been moved from where it last was the night before....

...Especially since we have the words from the crime scene evidence photo takers themselves that crime scene photos did not accurately portray items in the place they were originally found as shown in the photos...

JonBenet very quickly that night went from snacking pineapple to being abused, whacked on the head, asphyxiated, all in approximately 90-minutes!

For that to occur, taking into account prior abuse, something must have changed. I know PR could have flaked out through use of meds etc, but I do not think its a case where a mother flips.

Well, yeah, something changed, or she wouldn't be murdered in the first place. But it doesn't matter where the pineapple bowl was in order to determine that. We know she ate some within a certain timeframe before she died and that the pineapple was from her house, so we know she was up in her own house at some point before being killed, so the significance of that is it possibly contradicts the Ramseys story that she went straight to bed, or never got up, but was kidnapped straight from her bed, and also that the bowl and pineapple isn't theirs... (They may not know about it though, if she really did go to bed, but had gotten up later with Burke, or by herself, and had some pineapple at that time)...and even later, though, when one of them, or they, wrote the RN, and were down in that area at that time, they may not have paid the pineapple any mind - if it was there at the time... as they didn't clean up regularly anyway...

But either way, it doesn't matter if it really was left out there from the night before or moved there later that day, because we know she had some, so at some point was up in her house eating it before she was killed. ...not that it was on the table where it was found, or whether Patsy cleaned it up or not.

 

[Chrishope]

It would be nice to encapsulate all evidences of the 'staging' into one list. But I'm sure it'll be absolutely impossible based on so many interpretations of the multi-fauceted evidences. The above subject is one of them. For example: let's talk about the LAST sexual assult. Based on AR we know what kind of acute vaginal damage has been done. The evidence of the blood was found. The evidence of the digital penetration was suggested. Even the evidence of let say the 'foreign' material left from (pick one!) the painbrush or transfers from painbrush or/and some kind of task powder from the rubber gloves has been found.

So, if the LAST sexual assult was part of the 'staging' then why wipe it off, change the panties and make it looks like nothing sexual happens during the 'kidnapping'? If the LAST sexual assult was NOT part of the 'staging' then all the above described actions will fit RN perfectly. So, it's IMHO that the last sexual assult was NOT part of the 'staging'. But of course, as many people we have on WS as many different 'staging list' will be compiled!...

It would be nice, but as you note, impossible. Multiple interpretations are possible even within a particular case theory.

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy never put anything away. That was well-known. LHP stated that if she didn't put things away, no one did. The counter was always cluttered with crumbs and whatever the Rs had taken out of the cupboards and fridge. Milk, peanut butter, etc. It is entirely in Patsy's usual habits NOT to have put that bowl away. And if this hadn't happened, that bowl would have been there till the next time LHP came to clean (it was supposed to be the 27, I believe, while the Rs were away on their trip).

 

[qtc]

If that bowl and glass were moved by someone else (the rev., victims advocates, etc) isnt it a good chance their fingerprints would have been on it?

 

[OpenMind4U]

If that bowl and glass were moved by someone else (the rev., victims advocates, etc) isnt it a good chance their fingerprints would have been on it?

Good point!!!!

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

- victim is struggling?
- wasn't just to keep person quiet, but was out of rage/fighting?
- accident from horseplay?
- purposefully tried to silence due to reaction to assault?
- pick and choose -- depending on the scenario you believe, the reason will be different.. as you know.



Who knows; different experience - level of experimentation -- of course, again, assuming that's the scenario in which it happened, and not for a different reason like other as noted above...



A lot of things were not cleaned up.... staging didn't seem to include anything about tidying up.....
Plus, do not forget that people came in the next morning and moved things and changed the crime scene, including making sandwiches and coffee in the kitchen, which would require getting things in and out of pantry/fridge/cabinets, etc...
And the crime scene photo takers said that the crime scene evidence photos lied -- were inaccurate because evidence was not preserved in its original position as found, ie: RN had been photographed on the stairs, but it was placed back there after it had already been handled and moved around - not where it was when originally 'found', of course - ....and rolls of crime scene photos were dated a few days later than the crime, so even though pineapple was in her stomach and we know she ate it, it does not necessarily mean that where the bowl of pineapple was photographed is where it was when she ate out of it.

People keep forgetting, don't know, or don't realize this..... you cannot count on the crime scene photos to be of how things looked exactly as the night before..... the bowl may have been moved out of the fridge and set on that table that morning when the advocates were making sandwiches and food. The glass may have been set there that morning too, by someone with the intention of making tea, and got interrupted by someone/something, or the events as they changed that morning.

Again, it was noted that policemen were also in the kitchen making and drinking coffee, and the Rev. H was in the microwave to heat up water or some crap.....the crime scene was never contained.

And, JonBenet could have opened the fridge and got a piece of pineapple straight from the bowl and closed the fridge door that night... (or not)

So I wouldn't get too hung up on why Patsy supposedly didn't clean up the bowl....it may not have even been there at the time (assuming she was part of that scenario, and as if she would have cleaned it up anyway, which she probably isn't worried about or even considering how it might fit in the crime scene scenario, if she would have - which she most likely wouldn't, considering all the nastiness and disarray in the rest of the house)
And please remember, a lot of other things weren't cleaned up either - poo, clothes, toys, paper, drawers askew, things in general disarray.... housekeepers noted that they left food out and clothes everywhere until the housekeeper came to clean up all the time. It wasn't anything new or out of the ordinary for them to leave things 'out' anyway, if it was left out from the night before...

And it's not like the crime scene was pristine except for one odd bowl of pineapple out, or anything like that.... so I would not get hung up on why it was out.... but the important thing is that she had some in her stomach that was not fully digested at time of death, suggesting she had been awake when home at some time, and not put straight to bed, or got up later... focus on that part of the discrepancy...not why anything was exactly where it was at around the house as a sure sign of how the crime scene puzzles fit....crime scene had changed and some evidence photos lied. that's a fact.

The Pastor that was there said he was heating up a glass in the microwave when Fleet White came up from the basement with a terrible look on his face. I didn't know when the crime scene photos were taken and of that could of been the glass that was out, but many have said Burke's prints were on it.

 

[Whaleshark]

If that bowl and glass were moved by someone else (the rev., victims advocates, etc) isnt it a good chance their fingerprints would have been on it?

Fingerprints: What They Can & Cannot Do!
http://www.scafo.org/library/100601.html

..."The concept that “something may adhere and may be transferred is important"

Each of the following various factors independently or in combination can account for the lack of prints on a surface:
1) Individuals don't always have a sufficient quantity of perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands to be deposited,
2) When someone touches something, they may handle it in a manner which causes the prints to smear,
3) The surface may not be suitable for retaining the minute traces of moisture in a form representative of the ridge detail, and
4) The environment may cause the latent print to deteriorate. The most important fact dealing with the lack of fingerprints is that it neither suggests, implies, or establishes that any person did or did not touch the item of evidence. Items which have been witnessed to have been handled and laboratory experimentation repeatedly reiterate this premise.

"( have used the following example and explanation in court many times. If I were to provide a clean, smooth piece of glass to the jury and have them hand it from one to another and then I were to process it for fingerprints, I would not have the expectation of obtaining identifiable prints for each juror on that glass. Although the surface of the glass is what most technicians would agree is a superb surface for obtaining prints, not all of the donors would have perspiration and/or contaminates on their hands, (some individuals have very little natural palmar perspiration), some would probably grasp with such firmness they would smudge or smear their prints, and some would touch the surface in the same location as a previous donor's print)".

"When a report reads “no prints”, what does that really mean? It means no prints of evidentiary value were preserved. It does not mean that the item was wiped down, or that no one had ever touched or handled it."

"There are several negatives about fingerprints--—not being able to determine the age of a print, not always developing a print even though an object was obviously touched, the lack of a definitive quantitative measure necessary for an identification, wide variations in processing techniques, and even, a lack of consistent terminology within the field. Some of these factors may see change in the years to come, but none of them should ever be allowed to diminish the value of a fingerprint identification".

 

[otg]

Fingerprints: What They Can & Cannot Do!
http://www.scafo.org/library/100601.html
(snip)

That's very good, Whaleshark. I especially liked the example of a glass passed around to a jury. I think a lot of people expect that if someone touched something, that something will have fingerprints on it that can be used to identify the person. Not so.

Another thing is that some people just don't have the oils/sweat in their palms that is typical. Mrs. otg, for instance, is one of those people. Same thing on her feet, which means her feet and her shoes never stink -- even when she gets back from a jog. She also has very low-profile print ridges, which makes getting a set of her fingerprints with ink very difficult.

At one time there was a discussion on one of the forums about "non-secretors" because of a lack of fingerprints in this crime scene. That is not the same thing. Google non-secretors to learn more about it. One out of five people are non-secretors, and there are health consequences.

 

[RedWing7]

I would be interested in hearing any theories as to why the brush had to be broken. Would an unbroken brush not have had the same effect?

 

[otg]

I would be interested in hearing any theories as to why the brush had to be broken. Would an unbroken brush not have had the same effect?

That’s a good question, Redwing7. I guess you would first have to answer the question, “What was the effect it had?” -- or to put it another way, “What was its purpose?”

If you believe that it had the effect of facilitating the twisting or pulling on a piece of cord tied around a child’s neck, then the answer to your question is that it didn’t have to be broken. In fact, if you believe that that was its purpose, then it didn’t even have to be the paintbrush -- it could have just as easily been anything that would have served the same purpose.

If OTOH you believe its purpose was as a part of the staging done to distract attention away from what really happened, then it would not have had the same effect unbroken as it did. After all, just look at how well it worked. To this day, most of the media still refer to it as a “professional garrote”, and still think and say it was tied by an “expert”. If the body had been found with a cord tied to an unbroken paintbrush, the emphasis might have been on what the significance of the paintbrush was rather than seeing it as a strangulation device.

Now, you answer the next question that this leads to, RW7: Why the paintbrush, and not something else? And what happened to the missing piece?
.

 

[Chrishope]

That’s a good question, Redwing7. I guess you would first have to answer the question, “What was the effect it had?” -- or to put it another way, “What was its purpose?”

If you believe that it had the effect of facilitating the twisting or pulling on a piece of cord tied around a child’s neck, then the answer to your question is that it didn’t have to be broken. In fact, if you believe that that was its purpose, then it didn’t even have to be the paintbrush -- it could have just as easily been anything that would have served the same purpose.

If OTOH you believe its purpose was as a part of the staging done to distract attention away from what really happened, then it would not have had the same effect unbroken as it did. After all, just look at how well it worked. To this day, most of the media still refer to it as a “professional garrote”, and still think and say it was tied by an “expert”. If the body had been found with a cord tied to an unbroken paintbrush, the emphasis might have been on what the significance of the paintbrush was rather than seeing it as a strangulation device.

Now, you answer the next question that this leads to, RW7: Why the paintbrush, and not something else? And what happened to the missing piece?
.

One possibility. The "garrotte" only worked by pulling. It's easier to pull on a stick (paintbrush) than to pull on the cord itself, (though IMO it should not have been difficult to pull the cord) The paintbrush wasn't designed to take that type of stress, so it broke as the "garrotte" was being tightened by pulling on the handle. That might explain why it's broken - it was an object not really suited to the job.

Why the paintbrush and not something else? Probably because the murderer used whatever was first noticed that might seem useful.

Where is the missing piece? Who knows ?

 

[DeeDee249]

One possibility. The "garrotte" only worked by pulling. It's easier to pull on a stick (paintbrush) than to pull on the cord itself, (though IMO it should not have been difficult to pull the cord) The paintbrush wasn't designed to take that type of stress, so it broke as the "garrotte" was being tightened by pulling on the handle. That might explain why it's broken - it was an object not really suited to the job.

Why the paintbrush and not something else? Probably because the murderer used whatever was first noticed that might seem useful.

Where is the missing piece? Who knows ?

I have often wondered why the paintbrush was broken, when it could have been used intact the same way. This explains it perfectly. I can picture someone (an adult, IMO) holding the paintbrush with a hand gripping each end tightly and pulling. The brush was old- it may have been brittle. The cord wrapped around the center protected it in a way-making it thicker and stronger. But the end could have been snapped right off that way.
As for the missing piece- I find it odd that LE did not seem to make a big deal of it. Which leads me to think that is isn't really missing at all- just unavailable.
As for why not something else? Well- carpet fibers on the body from an area where the paintbrush was located, as well as the supposed creatinine on the same carpeted area, indicate she may have been placed on her stomach on the floor right near that paint tote. The tote itself was right out in plain sight, not put away (they never put anything away anyway), so it was handy.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

I have often wondered why the paintbrush was broken, when it could have been used intact the same way. This explains it perfectly. I can picture someone (an adult, IMO) holding the paintbrush with a hand gripping each end tightly and pulling. The brush was old- it may have been brittle. The cord wrapped around the center protected it in a way-making it thicker and stronger. But the end could have been snapped right off that way.
As for the missing piece- I find it odd that LE did not seem to make a big deal of it. Which leads me to think that is isn't really missing at all- just unavailable.
As for why not something else? Well- carpet fibers on the body from an area where the paintbrush was located, as well as the supposed creatinine on the same carpeted area, indicate she may have been placed on her stomach on the floor right near that paint tote. The tote itself was right out in plain sight, not put away (they never put anything away anyway), so it was handy.

I'd come closer to thinking Pasty was the one who pulled the cord that way. John, by being in the Navy and having a sailboat, would of known that holding the ends to pull up would of been the weakest parts and would break.
If John took the paintbrush with the cord wrapped around the middle of it, he could of been held it in one hand and between the fingers and then pulled up and killed her.

Has anything ever been said what size the paintbrush was? The length?

 

[UKGuy]

I would be interested in hearing any theories as to why the brush had to be broken. Would an unbroken brush not have had the same effect?

RedWing7,
The simple answer is for affect.


The more interesting question is why bother with the paintbrush handle at all? Bare hands, a plastic bag, or the ligature would have been sufficient to achieve the desired purpose!

So I would like to suggest that the paintbrush was initially broken for some other reason, e.g. to assault JonBenet internally, then the remaining piece was factored into JonBenet's staging.

That is in JonBenet in the wine-cellar represents an example of stepwise refinement as applied to staging.


.

 

[Chrishope]

I'd come closer to thinking Pasty was the one who pulled the cord that way. John, by being in the Navy and having a sailboat, would of known that holding the ends to pull up would of been the weakest parts and would break.
If John took the paintbrush with the cord wrapped around the middle of it, he could of been held it in one hand and between the fingers and then pulled up and killed her.

Has anything ever been said what size the paintbrush was?

That's quite possible. I was not suggesting anyone pulled on it at the ends. I'd think anyone, Navy veteran or otherwise would pull it like you pull on an old fashioned lawn mower starter cord.

But a large hand may have had the heel of the hand far enough back to break it, or if held the other way around the thumb place on would put downward force on it as the center of the brush was pulled up.

But there are other ways to look at it too. John wouldn't really need the handle to pull on, he was plenty strong enough to pull that cord w/o it. A small or weak hand, such
as a woman's or a child's might need the assistance.

So as is usual in this case, we have choices. A large hand broke it accidentally. A small hand pulled on the wrong part. It was done prior to fashioning the garrotte just because it would be more puzzling.

It's interesting, in and of itself, but it's also the kind of thing that can drive one crazy. It probably can't be known with any degree of certainty until the crime is solved. (IOWs never) and it probably doesn't help at all in solving it.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

That's quite possible. I was not suggesting anyone pulled on it at the ends. I'd think anyone, Navy veteran or otherwise would pull it like you pull on an old fashioned lawn mower starter cord.

But a large hand may have had the heel of the hand far enough back to break it, or if held the other way around the thumb place on would put downward force on it as the center of the brush was pulled up.

But there are other ways to look at it too. John wouldn't really need the handle to pull on, he was plenty strong enough to pull that cord w/o it. A small or weak hand, such
as a woman's or a child's might need the assistance.

So as is usual in this case, we have choices. A large hand broke it accidentally. A small hand pulled on the wrong part. It was done prior to fashioning the garrotte just because it would be more puzzling.

It's interesting, in and of itself, but it's also the kind of thing that can drive one crazy. It probably can't be known with any degree of certainty until the crime is solved. (IOWs never) and it probably doesn't help at all in solving it.

Yes much like a lawnmower with it being held by a knot in the middle and pulled. I see Pasty as holding onto the ends instead of the middle where the knot is and the ends breaking off.

John would probably use the handle instead of pulling with just his hands.

It wasn't meant to be interesting..... just efficient for the task.