What's eating you alive re this case?

[UKGuy]

Hi guys, I'm sorry to butt into the conversation here. But I have been wondering if the button had been from the alleged boot? This is an example image of a hi-tec boot. Looks very standard, imo.

View attachment 76862

I've attached an image, if you look toward the top you can see two buttons at the top of the shoe. Below is a linked image of the mysterious mark on JB's face ***(autopsy photo, warning!)***

the mark on JB's face.

They are similar in shape and size. Purely speculation, but it could be possible that the killer used their legs/feet as leverage or to hold her down, during the actual murder. Thus, causing the abrasion.

mochii,
Good sleuthing. I guess any of those mettalic buttons might have caused the abrasions, including the ones speculated to being caused by PR's ring, i.e. those with the boat marks.

Also we need to demonstrate that BR wore the hi-tec shoes that night, otherwise its just speculation.

.

 

[DeeDee249]

Spitz didn't SEE a mark from a button. He saw a PHOTO of a mark on JB's cheek which he said COULD have come from a snap or something similar and he saw a boat-shaped structure in the mark. I have seen a close up of that mark (it was posted here many times) and you can see a shape inside the mark which is boat-shaped, but you cannot say it is actually a BOAT or that it came from a button. The abrasion has more depth and texture in the close up photo than in the standard autopsy photo we have all see so many times. But it is incorrect to say that Spitz definitively identified it as a button mark. At first look, the cheek mark seems to be the same as the twin parallel marks on her back. I have not seen a close up of the marks on her back that have as much detail as the closeup of the mark on her cheek, but it is possible they were made by different things that pressed into her skin. Nothing can take the place of seeing the actual marks or wounds on a body-certainly nothing definitive can be said about something seen only in a photograph. Any forensic expert can read a written autopsy report and view autopsy photos and form an educated opinion on the findings. But I saw nothing in Spitz's comments which suggest he felt it was definitely made by a button.

 

[BBB167893]

Right. She stopped on time. BC next I would be pulling out Dr Spitz`s "button" theory.

That's NOT what I meant.

 

[BBB167893]

By a "snap" button, I believe he meant one of these kinds of buttons:

View attachment 76832​

Not these kinds, which you may have been thinking of:

View attachment 76833​

And, yes, I do find it believable.

Perhaps Patsy Ramsey herself can shed some light on the subject:

TOM HANEY: Okay. Anything else on the bed?

PATSY RAMSEY: Well, this looks like a little -—the little pot holder square she was making. This multicolored thing here. This black thing I can’t (INAUDIBLE). Oh, that’s sort of looks like it might be the little velvet dress (INAUDIBLE). Little silver snaps.

TRIP DeMUTH: When did she last wear that?

PATSY RAMSEY: She wore that to the Whites on the 25th.

TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. The evening of the 25th?

 

[BBB167893]

I haven't read Dr. Spitz refer to the area of the "boat shaped structure" as being the "ear", or backside, area of the button. The "boat shaped structure", or design, is not on the backside of a button, it's in the front, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see it unless the clothing was inside-out.

Who's to say it wasn't inside-out, if it was laying around?

 

[BBB167893]

I do not know who is right out of two of us, but I would think it was button with boat shaped design it would have been big deal for LE. Button with designed imprinted on her cheek? And nobody`s exited about it? I don`t think so. I think what DR meant-- average plain button with the recognizable structure of an "ear".

Design or not, button or not ,how it was applied unknown. But rather violently. Dr said button and went home. And we are debating his button all evening long. And nothing we got.
It`s becoming late in my village. It was nice talking to you. Till next time, bye.

I don't know if he just "went home." For all we know, that interview was much longer than just that segment.

 

[CorallaroC]

Perhaps Patsy Ramsey herself can shed some light on the subject:

TOM HANEY: Okay. Anything else on the bed?

PATSY RAMSEY: Well, this looks like a little -—the little pot holder square she was making. This multicolored thing here. This black thing I can’t (INAUDIBLE). Oh, that’s sort of looks like it might be the little velvet dress (INAUDIBLE). Little silver snaps.

TRIP DeMUTH: When did she last wear that?

PATSY RAMSEY: She wore that to the Whites on the 25th.

TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. The evening of the 25th?

RBBM

Nice find SuperDave... she describes "little silver snaps" then addition to PR's earlier answer about the white top she slept in the night of the murder - the top which had "rhinestones" or "sequin like things" in the shape of a silver star. Any one of those adornments could have caused an abrasion, yes? So for now, we just don't know for sure and can only speculate. I was impressed by mochii's stock photo of the hi-tech boot. Also Kolar's "O" gauge model train tracks, the prongs had an odd shape, when I look at a modern-day usb plug in, the metal prong on many of those are boat shaped. So many possibilities right there at the crime scene!

PS-regarding the enlarged photo from autopsy (for those who choose to bypass the WARNING-GRAPHIC - we are talking about the gouged flesh spot and NOT the black-burn-like circle, am I correct? IIRC at least 1 forensic expert speculated the small gouge mark to be consistent with a fingernail or perhaps someone's (PR's) ring on a finger, yes?

As with many other aspects of this case, a fairly reasonable explanation can be found right there in the home near the crime scene. Time and again, things contained within the home, items belonging to the family, corresponding to crime-scene photos etc. IMO the information is all there.

 

[tovarisch]

RBBM

Nice find SuperDave... she describes "little silver snaps" then addition to PR's earlier answer about the white top she slept in the night of the murder - the top which had "rhinestones" or "sequin like things" in the shape of a silver star. Any one of those adornments could have caused an abrasion, yes? So for now, we just don't know for sure and can only speculate. I was impressed by mochii's stock photo of the hi-tech boot. Also Kolar's "O" gauge model train tracks, the prongs had an odd shape, when I look at a modern-day usb plug in, the metal prong on many of those are boat shaped. So many possibilities right there at the crime scene!

PS-regarding the enlarged photo from autopsy (for those who choose to bypass the WARNING-GRAPHIC - we are talking about the gouged flesh spot and NOT the black-burn-like circle, am I correct? IIRC at least 1 forensic expert speculated the small gouge mark to be consistent with a fingernail or perhaps someone's (PR's) ring on a finger, yes?

As with many other aspects of this case, a fairly reasonable explanation can be found right there in the home near the crime scene. Time and again, things contained within the home, items belonging to the family, corresponding to crime-scene photos etc. IMO the information is all there.

You should say YOU WISH, that everything for everything right there in the house, not that it was. Because it was not, and the abrasion origin is not identified as of today, silver snaps were not considered a source.

 

[andreww]

You should say YOU WISH, that everything for everything right there in the house, not that it was. Because it was not, and the abrasion origin is not identified as of today, silver snaps were not considered a source.

Maybe they were maybe they weren't, but they weren't stun gun marks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mochii]

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Instead, Spitz believes the large dark mark on JonBenet's face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing"

Dr. Werner Spitz: "You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. If you look at it closely with a magnify glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Unfortunately with only photographs to go by no expert, not Dr. Spitz and not Dr. Dobersen can be one hundred percent sure."


Tova, I think Dr. Spitz is referring to the boat shaped mark not matching up with what was thought to be the stun-gun marks. He isn't saying that because there is a "boat shaped" structure that MEANS it's a button (for example, there wasn't a button with a boat shape pattern embedded into it. That'd be a whole different story if so!) He's only pointing out that it doesn't contain the abrasion pattern that is found elsewhere on the body. It's it own, new, separate injury. He explained it boat shape (perhaps crescent would have been better), to give it identity and differentiate it. He (we) have only speculated it come from button, due to size and what would be hard enough material to form a bruise.

 

[tovarisch]

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Instead, Spitz believes the large dark mark on JonBenet's face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing"

Dr. Werner Spitz: "You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. If you look at it closely with a magnify glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Unfortunately with only photographs to go by no expert, not Dr. Spitz and not Dr. Dobersen can be one hundred percent sure."


Tova, I think Dr. Spitz is referring to the boat shaped mark not matching up with what was thought to be the stun-gun marks. He isn't saying that because there is a "boat shaped" structure that MEANS it's a button (for example, there wasn't a button with a boat shape pattern embedded into it. That'd be a whole different story if so!) He's only pointing out that it doesn't contain the abrasion pattern that is found elsewhere on the body. It's it own, new, separate injury. He explained it boat shape (perhaps crescent would have been better), to give it identity and differentiate it. He (we) have only speculated it come from button, due to size and what would be hard enough material to form a bruise.

Totally agree, that Dr Spitz has never gave positive identification, nevertheless the most close that he came up was snap button like on the jeans.That is strange, considering his experience he could give list of possible objects, but he gave one example and stopped at this.

I personally think it`s made by a tool, the divider (crescent)in the middle of the circle should have some purpose in the object. If I would be technical I might find some similarity, like car door locker, welder tool, car lighter, who knows. I`m not technical person. The crescent mark stands out in the abrasion ,it`s too visible to ignore it, it`s possibly was prominent structure in the round end of the object/ tool.

 

[mochii]

Well, I mean, I trust his professional opinion. I am sure he has seen his fair share of button induced injuries! To be honest, the shape and coloring could have come from an off-center pressure point, like if she were at an angle. I myself am not well-versed in tools or anything, but I guess you can't rule out, either. I don't like the idea of the crime being even more brutal than it already is. :/.... Olivia's post with different shaped buttons can bring us right back to it, though, because the rise of the button could account for the color difference of the bruise. If we are going with practical, some type of button makes most sense. It's in a really random spot; and there is only one of that kind of injury found on her body. I believe it was an unintentional injury, and not purposefully put there by the perpetrator.

 

[LadyTudorRose]

To me the who is less important than the how. There's too much about this case that doesn't make sense to be whether it's RDI or IDI. I only recently got interested in this case, and it certainly is an odd one.

First, why keep the body in the house? I understand it was snowing, but she was a tiny girl and she probably could've been hidden somewhere and with the bad weather she might not have been found for a long time. If you're the Ramseys, it would have to occur to you that keeping her body in the house undermines the ransom note and puts suspicion back on the parents, but if you're an intruder leaving her body in the house completely defeats the purpose of the ransom note. Even if it's not really a ransom note (which IMHO seems pretty obvious) presumably the purpose of it would be to throw off the motive, as in make it look like a kidnapping for ransom rather than a rape/murder at the hands of a pedophile or a murder because of a personal vendetta. It actually makes a lot of sense to leave a ransom note (though not preparing it in advance is kinda weird) because that would make the police look for someone with criminal connections who's desperate for money rather than a pedophile or someone with a grudge against the family.

The most credible theory for the note, IMHO, is that one of the parents did it and prepared the ransom note to get rid of the other one or give them an excuse to leave so they could hide the body. But it still then makes no sense to call 911. Why would you call 911? In that scenario the parent who did it would try and talk the other one out of getting the police involved until the body was safely hidden.

I just can't get my head around the combination of ransom note and body in the house. There's no theory I've seen that adequately explains it.

 

[BBB167893]

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Instead, Spitz believes the large dark mark on JonBenet's face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing"

Dr. Werner Spitz: "You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. If you look at it closely with a magnify glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Unfortunately with only photographs to go by no expert, not Dr. Spitz and not Dr. Dobersen can be one hundred percent sure."


Tova, I think Dr. Spitz is referring to the boat shaped mark not matching up with what was thought to be the stun-gun marks. He isn't saying that because there is a "boat shaped" structure that MEANS it's a button (for example, there wasn't a button with a boat shape pattern embedded into it. That'd be a whole different story if so!) He's only pointing out that it doesn't contain the abrasion pattern that is found elsewhere on the body. It's it own, new, separate injury. He explained it boat shape (perhaps crescent would have been better), to give it identity and differentiate it. He (we) have only speculated it come from button, due to size and what would be hard enough material to form a bruise.

If I might, I'd just like to add something here. We know from his own statements that Spitz conducted several forensic tests. Is it not possible that he did tests involving buttons and the marks they make?

 

[BBB167893]

In keeping with the theme of this thread, let me say this:

When I found out that my predictions were right and that Alex Hunter had in fact decided not to go forward with the indictment, it just confirmed my thoughts on him even more. Even granting that a prosecutor should not be forced into making a case, the idea that they can just one because they think it's too much hard work is APPALLING to me.

God forbid an elected official getting rich on our tax money should have to do any work!

 

[tovarisch]

If I might, I'd just like to add something here. We know from his own statements that Spitz conducted several forensic tests. Is it not possible that he did tests involving buttons and the marks they make?

If he did, where was his affirmative description of the snap? Not in this interview. He was rather vague.

 

[BBB167893]

If he did, where was his affirmative description of the snap? Not in this interview. He was rather vague.

Given how these things are edited, tovarisch, it's tough to know what he did and didn't say.

 

[tovarisch]

Given how these things are edited, tovarisch, it's tough to know what he did and didn't say.

Agree. So, we face the wall and cannot move forward with this unique evidence. As always.

 

[BOESP]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. If the Duckmeister believes it a duck then I'm going with duck too.

 

[tovarisch]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. If the Duckmeister believes it a duck then I'm going with duck too.

And where the alleged snap button impression came from? Found? Not? I know, I`m annoying.... but what next step after naming the duck ? Go and find that duck, isn`t that the procedure? So, did anybody from LE try to find the duck? Did they bring all ducks to Dr to look with magnifying glass at?