Was Burke Involved # 5

[UKGuy]

If you suspect it was quoted out of context, follow the link I provided to read it for yourself. It is not. It is the words of someone who was in the home. Now you might say it was an exaggeration, or you might say it was a particular circumstance when they hadn’t done the laundry recently. You might even say Wilcox hadn’t been in the home for a period of time when Patsy changed her ways and began making sure all JonBenet’s clothing was laundered and in its place all the time. I don’t doubt that she did have some clothing that was not “hand-me-downs.” The only point I was making is that it wasn’t unusual for her to be wearing something that had previously belonged to Burke.

otg,

The only point I was making is that it wasn’t unusual for her to be wearing something that had previously belonged to Burke.

Sure and that was when? Did it continue as common practice?

I'm not saying it could never have happened, but in the context of a homicide staging to use your sons long johns to redress your dead or dying daughter, appears bizarre, particularly when JonBenet has a full drawer of bedclothes available?

I guess we would have to know the contents of the bedclothing drawer to know if Patsy was being truthful, i.e. no other pajama bottoms in the drawer. Bear in mind this was Patsy's rationale for dressing JonBenet in the long johns, i.e. she did not want to have to undress JonBenet to put a nightgown on her.

Of course nobody in the interview said where the pink pajama bottoms went, curious that.

.

 

[otg]

otg,

Coroner Meyer knew it from the lab results that told him what they thought the birefringent foreign material was. I know it from reading Steve Thomas' book and cross-referencing with the Autopsy Report. In his book in the Chapter Not So Grand Jury, Thomas says: Then we had the experts assess why a tiny splinter had been found in JonBenet's vagina.

The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garrote.

i.e. it had been to the lab and been identified as cellulose, more commonly known as wood, or plant material. I doubt if it had been a fragment of resin from the paintbrush Thomas would refer to it as a splinter and as cellulose?

I know it's not a 100% identification, but assuming Thomas and Meyer are straight it looks like the birefringent foreign material is a splinter of wood.

In Thomas’ book, he never uses the word “birefringent” or “birefringence.” In Meyer’s AR, he never uses the word “cellulose” or “splinter.”

In its native form, cellulose is not birefringent. “Cellulose” describes the microscopic cellular structure of an item found by the ME, and it is noted in the “MICROSCOPIC DESCRIPTION” section of the AR. Until Thomas’ book was published (AFAIK), the word “splinter” was never used to describe anything found during the autopsy. Everyone assumed the splinter mentioned by Thomas was the “birefringent foreign material” found by the ME. Dr. Cyril Wecht speculated that it might have been talcum powder from medical gloves used during the CS staging. IIRC, someone has even speculated that the “splinter” found was actually the missing end-piece of the paintbrush giggle.

BTW, also in IRMI, Thomas wrote the following about Spitz and the splinter:

[FONT=&amp]
Then we presented information on the paintbrush, the handle for the garrote, the paint tray, and the matching paint on the handle and the broken brush. The splinter in the vagina had caused a disagreement among the examiners. Some examiners said it had been in the vagina as long as a week, but the detectives sided with Dr. Spitz’s conclusion that it was inserted about the time of death as a part of the staging.[/FONT]
​

Notice Thomas mentions the “matching paint on the handle and the broken brush” and the “splinter in the vagina” separately.

Spitz concluded “it was inserted as a part of the staging?” Really? Is it any wonder that Thomas and Kolar have gotten so much wrong if they put so much credence in anything that came from Spitz’s mouth?

If you chose to make the connection, that’s fine with me. But don’t state it as fact because, until someone confirms it, it isn’t.

Technically its correct, yet long white underwear leaves out the fact they belonged to Burke Ramsey.

Dr. Meyer didn’t know who the clothes belonged to when he did the autopsy. He very well might not have known who all lived in the Ramsey house at the time. Don’t expect him to put things into his AR that he did not know. There is no conspiracy here to write Burke out of the picture. That didn’t happen until later when they began to suspect the possibility but knew he couldn’t be considered a “suspect” for something with which he could not be charged.

So do you think its just coincidental? Like her clothing down in the basement is bloodstained, we know she was sexually assaulted, Meyer even opines it was chronic, and he gets a second opinion to confirm it! The investigators know its JonBenet's blood before they ask, otherwise it would be does Burke suffer from nosebleeds?

Correct.

In Thomas' book in the Chapter A Gathering Storm Thomas cites Meyer as telling him face to face to explain JonBenet's internal injuries, That chronic vaginal abuse was possible

If you Email Henry Lee he might confirm whether the pillow that went missing from the kitchen photos, was the same one that was found bloodstained in her bedroom?

The only other explanation for JonBenet's vaginal injuries seems to be staging, but then why wipe her down, leaving fibers behind, redress her as if you wish to undo the staged sexual assault?

To me, as per KISS and Occam, it appears JonBenet had been sexually assaulted antemortem and possibly perimortem?

I don’t disagree with any of that so I won’t be emailing Dr. Lee. I think (mainly because of the reason you state) that suggesting the sexual assault was “staged” is ridiculous. Why stage it and then do everything possible to hide it?

 

[otg]

otg,

Sure and that was when? Did it continue as common practice?

Questions I don’t have answers for.

I'm not saying it could never have happened, but in the context of a homicide staging to use your sons long johns to redress your dead or dying daughter, appears bizarre, particularly when JonBenet has a full drawer of bedclothes available?

Agreed (if indeed she had “a full drawer of bedclothes available”).

I guess we would have to know the contents of the bedclothing drawer to know if Patsy was being truthful, i.e. no other pajama bottoms in the drawer. Bear in mind this was Patsy's rationale for dressing JonBenet in the long johns, i.e. she did not want to have to undress JonBenet to put a nightgown on her.

Of course nobody in the interview said where the pink pajama bottoms went, curious that.

...more than just curious, my friend -- something I’d like the answer to as well. The pajama bottoms might very well have gone to the same place as the missing paintbrush end, the panties she was wearing before the assault, and any number of other things that would fill in some of the blanks.

 

[archieil]

possible timeline:

JonBenet undressed
She starts gasping/panting (head moved in the process, I was thinking about "cleaning of her hairs with a brush" too)
someone inserts the brush
convulsion starts
he tries to calm her
checks her state (neck abrasions)
decides to kill her
tries to strangle her lightly first
than he strangle her/forms a garrote
after a while, he breaks the brush and dress her, probably heart drawn on the inside of her hand at this point.
(it is possible that after doing a heart he did a "fat" cat on the carpet near the body to blame her death on his payer)

I will check autopsy more closely to be sure but it seems coherent at the moment

 

[UKGuy]

In Thomas’ book, he never uses the word “birefringent” or “birefringence.” In Meyer’s AR, he never uses the word “cellulose” or “splinter.”

In its native form, cellulose is not birefringent. “Cellulose” describes the microscopic cellular structure of an item found by the ME, and it is noted in the “MICROSCOPIC DESCRIPTION” section of the AR. Until Thomas’ book was published (AFAIK), the word “splinter” was never used to describe anything found during the autopsy. Everyone assumed the splinter mentioned by Thomas was the “birefringent foreign material” found by the ME. Dr. Cyril Wecht speculated that it might have been talcum powder from medical gloves used during the CS staging. IIRC, someone has even speculated that the “splinter” found was actually the missing end-piece of the paintbrush giggle.

BTW, also in IRMI, Thomas wrote the following about Spitz and the splinter:

[FONT=&amp]
Then we presented information on the paintbrush, the handle for the garrote, the paint tray, and the matching paint on the handle and the broken brush. The splinter in the vagina had caused a disagreement among the examiners. Some examiners said it had been in the vagina as long as a week, but the detectives sided with Dr. Spitz’s conclusion that it was inserted about the time of death as a part of the staging.[/FONT]
​

Notice Thomas mentions the “matching paint on the handle and the broken brush” and the “splinter in the vagina” separately.

Spitz concluded “it was inserted as a part of the staging?” Really? Is it any wonder that Thomas and Kolar have gotten so much wrong if they put so much credence in anything that came from Spitz’s mouth?

If you chose to make the connection, that’s fine with me. But don’t state it as fact because, until someone confirms it, it isn’t.


Dr. Meyer didn’t know who the clothes belonged to when he did the autopsy. He very well might not have known who all lived in the Ramsey house at the time. Don’t expect him to put things into his AR that he did not know. There is no conspiracy here to write Burke out of the picture. That didn’t happen until later when they began to suspect the possibility but knew he couldn’t be considered a “suspect” for something with which he could not be charged.


Correct.


I don’t disagree with any of that so I won’t be emailing Dr. Lee. I think (mainly because of the reason you state) that suggesting the sexual assault was “staged” is ridiculous. Why stage it and then do everything possible to hide it?

otg,

In Thomas’ book, he never uses the word “birefringent” or “birefringence.” In Meyer’s AR, he never uses the word “cellulose” or “splinter.”

The above offers three conclusions:

1. Two different objects were found in JonBenet's vagina?

2. Meyer's scientific description and Thomas' everday description refer to the same object?

3. Nothing as you are inferring from a negative?

Notice Thomas mentions the “matching paint on the handle and the broken brush” and the “splinter in the vagina” separately.

So are you inferring there were two distinct objects or substances in JonBenet's vagina?

It might be that the paintbrush was used to effect staging or it was a weapon used during the sexual assault on JonBenet?

I reckon we know enough to assume that the splinter came from the broken paintbrush handle? A splinter does not constitute the missing piece of paintbrush, so maybe that's the part of the jigsaw that needs slotted into place?

Spitz concluded “it was inserted as a part of the staging?” Really? Is it any wonder that Thomas and Kolar have gotten so much wrong if they put so much credence in anything that came from Spitz’s mouth?

I do not buy Spitz's line. I reckon JonBenet was sexually assaulted antemortem and quite possibly perimortem, i.e. a rage attack combining a sexual motive?

Thomas knew enough about this aspect to the case to have made it central in his original theory, that is until the R's threatened litigation when they heard about his book, so he reworked it into a bedwetting homicide.

Dr. Meyer didn’t know who the clothes belonged to when he did the autopsy. He very well might not have known who all lived in the Ramsey house at the time. Don’t expect him to put things into his AR that he did not know. There is no conspiracy here to write Burke out of the picture. That didn’t happen until later when they began to suspect the possibility but knew he couldn’t be considered a “suspect” for something with which he could not be charged.

Well he knew the long white underwear did not belong to JonBenet, unless she was an early cross-dresser.

Lets just say, despite people saying how Meyer's job is to simply report what he observes, he left out the fact that JonBenet was found dead wearing male long white underwear.

I don’t disagree with any of that so I won’t be emailing Dr. Lee. I think (mainly because of the reason you state) that suggesting the sexual assault was “staged” is ridiculous. Why stage it and then do everything possible to hide it?

I agree 100%. The case is BDI all the way down, unless its JDI with JR telling Patsy what to stage, etc. Which I doubt. Patsy's forensic evidence can be explained away as she is staging Burke out of the homicide, correspondingly she seems to lack knowledge of other important details, e.g. size-12's and the pineapple-snack?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Questions I don’t have answers for.


Agreed (if indeed she had “a full drawer of bedclothes available”).


...more than just curious, my friend -- something I’d like the answer to as well. The pajama bottoms might very well have gone to the same place as the missing paintbrush end, the panties she was wearing before the assault, and any number of other things that would fill in some of the blanks.

otg,

...more than just curious, my friend -- something I’d like the answer to as well. The pajama bottoms might very well have gone to the same place as the missing paintbrush end, the panties she was wearing before the assault, and any number of other things that would fill in some of the blanks.

ITA 100%. We even have Patsy telling us as part of the R's version of events that the Pink Pajama Bottoms were missing, and BPD have never confirmed or denied anything about a size-6 pair of Bloomingdales Wednesday Underwear being taken from her underwear drawer as part of the search warrant execution.

My money is on them being absent from her drawer, whilst the others are present or in the washing, etc?

.

 

[otg]

otg,

The above offers three conclusions:

1. Two different objects were found in JonBenet's vagina?

2. Meyer's scientific description and Thomas' everday description refer to the same object?

3. Nothing as you are inferring from a negative?

One of those three should be correct.

So are you inferring there were two distinct objects or substances in JonBenet's vagina?

There is that distinct possibility. No?

It might be that the paintbrush was used to effect staging or it was a weapon used during the sexual assault on JonBenet?

My supposition would be the latter.

I reckon we know enough to assume that the splinter came from the broken paintbrush handle? A splinter does not constitute the missing piece of paintbrush, so maybe that's the part of the jigsaw that needs slotted into place?

Okay. I don't think of a section of paintbrush as a "splinter."

I do not buy Spitz's line. I reckon JonBenet was sexually assaulted antemortem and quite possibly perimortem, i.e. a rage attack combining a sexual motive?

Thomas knew enough about this aspect to the case to have made it central in his original theory, that is until the R's threatened litigation when they heard about his book, so he reworked it into a bedwetting homicide.

He "reworked it into a bedwetting homicide?" And you know this how? You don't think he took his cue here from Dr. Krugman?

Well he knew the long white underwear did not belong to JonBenet, unless she was an early cross-dresser.

Lets just say, despite people saying how Meyer's job is to simply report what he observes, he left out the fact that JonBenet was found dead wearing male long white underwear.

He also left out of the AR his opinion reportedly stated in one of the SWs that the vaginal injuries were consistent with "digital penetration." The AR is not the place for opinions -- only information. That's why it's called an autopsy "REPORT" -- not an autopsy "OPINION."

I agree 100%. The case is BDI all the way down, unless its JDI with JR telling Patsy what to stage, etc. Which I doubt. Patsy's forensic evidence can be explained away as she is staging Burke out of the homicide, correspondingly she seems to lack knowledge of other important details, e.g. size-12's and the pineapple-snack?

Did Patsy "lack knowledge" or simply deny knowledge about each of those things?

 

[TiffanyL_AS]

It's just my opinion but I think some people here are giving way too much credence to Patsy or John's ability to stage a crime. And to them having forethought. They would have been in a panic, with high levels of internal stress due to finding their dead or dying daughter. Especially if BDI. How horrifying to learn or discover the other, more "problem" child who'd had violent tendencies had killed in a horrific manner, your only daughter.

I do not think these parents would have been thinking clearly at all. And even if they would have been,one can never account for all variables. The long John's were probably not in their minds very much. The entire site was a sick disaster if BDI. They still would likely feel love and the parental need to protect their now only living child. It also may be to protect themselves so that the parents won't be scrutinized or punished for raising a child that could do that,as we in society will look to the parents to see "what they did wrong".

I don't know if I've made my point well. I just keep seeing a lot of "well, why wouldn't they have done X or why didn't they do Y"? When I think this was 1996, pre crime TV Era like it is nowadays, and these were not seasoned criminals by any means. They both made a lot of mistakes, yet they also didn't because everyone has gotten away with it. And they've left enough ambiguity to last a lifetime.
Which is probably all they wanted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[archieil]

they used a brush out of their mind and took a line from their pajamas?

for me there are only 2 possibilities:

* planned murder by Ramseys

* a person not living in the house.

 

[flourish]

Wait wait wait... I wore some sweat pants bought in the "boys" section of a store when I was a kid... Did that make me an "early cross dresser?" that's going a bit extreme, IMO

 

[UKGuy]

It's just my opinion but I think some people here are giving way too much credence to Patsy or John's ability to stage a crime. And to them having forethought. They would have been in a panic, with high levels of internal stress due to finding their dead or dying daughter. Especially if BDI. How horrifying to learn or discover the other, more "problem" child who'd had violent tendencies had killed in a horrific manner, your only daughter.

I do not think these parents would have been thinking clearly at all. And even if they would have been,one can never account for all variables. The long John's were probably not in their minds very much. The entire site was a sick disaster if BDI. They still would likely feel love and the parental need to protect their now only living child. It also may be to protect themselves so that the parents won't be scrutinized or punished for raising a child that could do that,as we in society will look to the parents to see "what they did wrong".

I don't know if I've made my point well. I just keep seeing a lot of "well, why wouldn't they have done X or why didn't they do Y"? When I think this was 1996, pre crime TV Era like it is nowadays, and these were not seasoned criminals by any means. They both made a lot of mistakes, yet they also didn't because everyone has gotten away with it. And they've left enough ambiguity to last a lifetime.
Which is probably all they wanted.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TiffanyL,
I'll put my hands up for well, why wouldn't they have done X or why didn't they do Y. Its simply a method to try theories out, nobody is saying the R's did everything listed in our theories, but they are our Inference To The Best Explanation. We suggest Y happened because of X, so we go looking for evidence to support X. If we can string enough Xs and Ys together we might arrive at a reasonable explanation, e.g. The grass is wet, so it must have been raining. So we look further to see if the sidewalk is wet, if the roof is wet etc, and although not conclusive we can say It Rained.

The white long underwear is a good example also, e.g. If Patsy is staging a homicide why inject your son by dressing your daughter in his long johns?

Someone was thinking clearly because they got away with murder, no court case, no jury decision, nothing, JonBenet's killer is still out there walking free.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Wait wait wait... I wore some sweat pants bought in the "boys" section of a store when I was a kid... Did that make me an "early cross dresser?" that's going a bit extreme, IMO

flourish,
Nope. its just an alternative explanation for the why? Sometimes described as rhetoric. Dont lose any sleep over it.

 

[flourish]

flourish,
Nope. its just an alternative explanation for the why? Sometimes described as rhetoric. Dont lose any sleep over it.

Uh yeah I'm not being over dramatic about it... it's a weird comment to make in the first place; my questioning it isn't. But thank you for the sleepy time well wishes

Point is a girl wearing an item of clothing designed for a boy does not a cross dresser make.

 

[pukasonqo2]

Wait wait wait... I wore some sweat pants bought in the "boys" section of a store when I was a kid... Did that make me an "early cross dresser?" that's going a bit extreme, IMO

my DD would flatly refused to wear girly clothes so we used to let her wear her brother's fatigues and trackies
she was ok with leggings and shorts
so, no it doesn't make anybody a x-dresser


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

One of those three should be correct.


There is that distinct possibility. No?


My supposition would be the latter.


Okay. I don't think of a section of paintbrush as a "splinter."


He "reworked it into a bedwetting homicide?" And you know this how? You don't think he took his cue here from Dr. Krugman?


He also left out of the AR his opinion reportedly stated in one of the SWs that the vaginal injuries were consistent with "digital penetration." The AR is not the place for opinions -- only information. That's why it's called an autopsy "REPORT" -- not an autopsy "OPINION."


Did Patsy "lack knowledge" or simply deny knowledge about each of those things?

otg,

He "reworked it into a bedwetting homicide?" And you know this how? You don't think he took his cue here from Dr. Krugman?

I read it in some book or the Bonita Papers. Steve Thomas had drafted an outline for his book, in which JonBenet is seriously sexually assaulted.

When the R's found out they threatened litigation if he included those details in his published book. So he amended his theory, removed any reference to a serious sexual assault, and as you suggest Thomas took his cue from Dr. Krugman and made his RDI a PDI bedwetting theory.

Thomas alludes to the above events in his own book. Recounting how the sexual assault became known as Vaginal Trauma, to satisfy the R's agenda.

Did Patsy "lack knowledge" or simply deny knowledge about each of those things?

Well deny knowledge it could be. If she dressed JonBenet in the size-12's she should know the remaining pairs were not in her underwear drawer.

The splinter or birefringent foreign material might be a consequence of her assault or/and accidental transfer as she was cleaned up?

Its not a major point of difference since we both agree the paintbrush was used to sexually assault JonBenet, so what happened next is up for debate.

.

 

[otg]

otg,

I read it in some book or the Bonita Papers. Steve Thomas had drafted an outline for his book, in which JonBenet is seriously sexually assaulted.

When the R's found out they threatened litigation if he included those details in his published book. So he amended his theory, removed any reference to a serious sexual assault, and as you suggest Thomas took his cue from Dr. Krugman and made his RDI a PDI bedwetting theory.

Thomas alludes to the above events in his own book. Recounting how the sexual assault became known as Vaginal Trauma, to satisfy the R's agenda.

The wonderful thing about having electronic documents over paper is that a search can be done simply by typing a phrase and clicking a mouse.

The Bonita Papers don't mention anything about Thomas writing a book or his changing his theory because of a threat from anyone.

He certainly doesn't mention in his book that the Ramseys threatened a lawsuit over his choice in phraseology. (Even if he did make such a change at their request, it didn't stop them from suing him anyway.)

I think you might have read the following paragraph in IRMI and formed your thoughts around it that Thomas changed his theory around it:

Detective Harmer presented a surprising anatomy lesson on vaginas to a meeting attended primarily by men. She showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy six-year-old girl and contrasted it with a photo of the vagina of JonBenét. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of “chronic sexual abuse,” although the detectives referred to it only as “prior vaginal trauma.”
​

It's not important where it came from though. It's only important that I don't think it's correct that Thomas changed his theory to the "toilet rage" theory to suit the wishes of the Ramseys. If you have another idea about where it might have come from, just let me know.

Well deny knowledge it could be. If she dressed JonBenet in the size-12's she should know the remaining pairs were not in her underwear drawer.

She knew.

The splinter or birefringent foreign material might be a consequence of her assault or/and accidental transfer as she was cleaned up?

Its not a major point of difference since we both agree the paintbrush was used to sexually assault JonBenet, so what happened next is up for debate.

True that. I only want you to consider that the "birefringent foreign material" might not be the same item as the "cellulose" or the "splinter."

 

[UKGuy]

The wonderful thing about having electronic documents over paper is that a search can be done simply by typing a phrase and clicking a mouse.

The Bonita Papers don't mention anything about Thomas writing a book or his changing his theory because of a threat from anyone.

He certainly doesn't mention in his book that the Ramseys threatened a lawsuit over his choice in phraseology. (Even if he did make such a change at their request, it didn't stop them from suing him anyway.)

I think you might have read the following paragraph in IRMI and formed your thoughts around it that Thomas changed his theory around it:

Detective Harmer presented a surprising anatomy lesson on vaginas to a meeting attended primarily by men. She showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy six-year-old girl and contrasted it with a photo of the vagina of JonBenét. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of “chronic sexual abuse,” although the detectives referred to it only as “prior vaginal trauma.”
​

It's not important where it came from though. It's only important that I don't think it's correct that Thomas changed his theory to the "toilet rage" theory to suit the wishes of the Ramseys. If you have another idea about where it might have come from, just let me know.


She knew.


True that. I only want you to consider that the "birefringent foreign material" might not be the same item as the "cellulose" or the "splinter."

otg,

It's not important where it came from though. It's only important that I don't think it's correct that Thomas changed his theory to the "toilet rage" theory to suit the wishes of the Ramseys. If you have another idea about where it might have come from, just let me know.

At some point I'll find the reference for you. Steve Thomas' first draft was binned because the Ramsey's did not like it, they complained about JonBenet being sexually assaulted, and threatened litigation so internally the sexual assault became Vaginal Trauma, i.e. something nasty intruder did with paintbrush, Lou Smit, etc.

She knew.

Any thoughts on why she denied knowing?

True that. I only want you to consider that the "birefringent foreign material" might not be the same item as the "cellulose" or the "splinter."

ITA. Its not a settled issue there is wriggle room, even for the missing piece of paintbrush to have been left inside JonBenet?

.

 

[Userid]

The wonderful thing about having electronic documents over paper is that a search can be done simply by typing a phrase and clicking a mouse.

The Bonita Papers don't mention anything about Thomas writing a book or his changing his theory because of a threat from anyone.

He certainly doesn't mention in his book that the Ramseys threatened a lawsuit over his choice in phraseology. (Even if he did make such a change at their request, it didn't stop them from suing him anyway.)

I think you might have read the following paragraph in IRMI and formed your thoughts around it that Thomas changed his theory around it:

Detective Harmer presented a surprising anatomy lesson on vaginas to a meeting attended primarily by men. She showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy six-year-old girl and contrasted it with a photo of the vagina of JonBenét. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of “chronic sexual abuse,” although the detectives referred to it only as “prior vaginal trauma.”
​

It's not important where it came from though. It's only important that I don't think it's correct that Thomas changed his theory to the "toilet rage" theory to suit the wishes of the Ramseys. If you have another idea about where it might have come from, just let me know.


She knew.


True that. I only want you to consider that the "birefringent foreign material" might not be the same item as the "cellulose" or the "splinter."

I don't either. That makes no sense. "You know what Steve, you can write about us being directly involved in our daughter's murder, but ONLY if you don't mention the sexual assault..."

Really?

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

otg,

Any thoughts on why she denied knowing?

Yes.

 

[jade.and.pals]

CBS listened to the 911 call and in the background you can hear burke say "what did you find?". so i'm not sure if it was him. John (the father) had another daughter who had also died. she died in an automobile accident but maybe it wasn't. two years after his daughter died he remarried to Patsy and had Burke and JonBenet. My suspicion is that John killed JonBenet and Pam helped him cover it up. the ransom note was written on Patsy's notepad and when they compared the handwriting it was very similar to Patsy's. what do you guys think?