Christmas Morning Picture of Burke and JB...

[BOESP]

If you look at Patsy's behavior before JonBenet was "found", that would explain if she was in any psychological state of mind, e.g. psychosis, neurosis.

Patsy cried most of the time. She was hysterical. She cried out for her daughter. She wanted to trade places with JonBenet. She even tried to comfort herself when she told LE that LHP could be the culprit but would never "harm" JonBenet. Patsy even managed to go up to the second floor and look through JonBenet's portfolio for a recent picture of her.

Her behavior:

Distraught mother - normal behavior.

Trade spaces - normal behavior.

Positive JonBenet would be safe with LHP - that's up in the air.

Helpful - Personally went upstairs to fetch a pic of JB for the Police.

This sounds like a Mother who is displaying normal behavior under the circumstances. Personally, I do not see any acute psychosis, acute neurosis, nothing that sticks out.

So if Patsy were in a, lets say, acute psychotic state when she killed JonBenet, than she would have still displayed those symptoms when Officer French appeared at her front door.

My belief is that JonBenet was struck by an enraged Patsy. A hair-trigger reaction to rage....pick up the thing closest to you and hit your target.

Toltec, do you agree or disagree or have no opinion on the various claims that Patsy was bipolar?

 

[rashomon]

I believe it is in ST's book. He believes it went from manslaughter to first-degree due to the staging that took place afterwords, e.g. the strangulation and sexual assault.

ST, p. 287:

"as I envisioned it, Patsy returned to the basement, a woman caught up in panic, where she could have seen - perhaps by detecting a faint heartbeat or a sound or a slight movement - that although completely unconscious, JonBenet was not dead. Others might argue that she might no know that the child was still alive. In my hypothesis, she took the next step, looking for the closest available items in her desperation. Only feet away was her paint tote. she grabbed apaintbrush and broke it to fashion the garrote with some cord. Then she looped the cord around the stick.
In my scenario, she choked JonBenet from behind, with a grip on the broken paintbrus handle, pulling the ligaure. JonBenet, still unconscious,would never have felt it. there are only four ways to die: suicide, natural, accidental, or homicide. This accident, in my opinion, had just become a murder.

ST makes it clear that this was only his hypothesis, a scenario he thought probable.
But had this case been brought to trial, imo no prosecutor could have proved to the jury that Patsy knew JonBenet was still alive when she put the cord around her neck. For no prosecutor could have known what exactly went on in Patsy's head, so the jury would have had to give her the benefit of the doubt on that.

Ironic as it sounds, at trial in a circumstantial evidence case against Patsy, the defense (trying to prevent a first-degree murder verdict) could have argued that the so-called 'garrote' (cord wrapped around a stick) could not have functioned as a killing tool, since a double knot had been tied on the neck first (see autopsy report), and however hard someone pulled tight the 17-inch space of cord between the neck knot and the paintbrush handle (17 inches being far too long for effective pulling anyway), this pulling on the paintbrush handle would have had no effect at all, since the knot had already locked. Also, the multiple cord wrappings around the handle are totally counterproductive to effective pulling as well.
So the defense could have argued that the so-called garrote had been constructed for mere staging purposes and not to murderously 'finish off ' a victim who was in a deep coma but still alive.

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

ST, p. 287:
ST makes it clear that this was only his hypothesis, a scenario he thought probable.
But had this case been brought to trial, imo no prosecutor could have proved to the jury that Patsy knew JonBenet was still alive when she put the cord around her neck. For no prosecutor could have known what exactly went on in Patsy's head, so the jury would have had to give her the benefit of the doubt on that.

Ironic as it sounds, at trial in a circumstantial evidence case against Patsy, the defense (trying to prevent a first-degree murder verdict) could have argued that the so-called 'garrote' (cord wrapped around a stick) could not have functioned as a killing tool, since a double knot had been tied on the neck first (see autopsy report), and however hard someone pulled at the 17-inch space of cord (far too large for effective pulling anyway) between the neck knot and the paintbrush handle, this pulling would have had no effect at all, since the knot had already locked.
So the defense could argue the garrote had been constructed for mere staging purposes and not to 'finish off ' a victim who was in a deep coma but still alive.

jmo

rashomon,

ST makes it clear that this was only his hypothesis, a scenario he thought probable.

I agree, but would replace the probable with possible, its not much different from his Toilet Rage theory e.g. speculative.

And of course, why does Patsy require a paintbrush handle to simply asphyxiate JonBenet, the cord would be sufficient, patently the defense could argue as you suggest that the garrote is obviously staging, and I would agree.


.

 

[Toltec]

We are all in agreement that the "garrote" was made in the basement, outside the wine cellar door due to presence of paintbrush shavings. The paintbrush tote was placed in the basement before or at the day of the Christmas party of the 23d. So between 12/22 - 12/25, someone fashioned that garrote. But since JonBenet's hair is ensnared in the paintbrush handle...then it's safe to positively say that it was made the night she was murdered.

Also the cord used was a pair of shoelaces....with the plastic tips cut off.

 

[UKGuy]

We are all in agreement that the "garrote" was made in the basement, outside the wine cellar door due to presence of paintbrush shavings. The paintbrush tote was placed in the basement before or at the day of the Christmas party of the 23d. So between 12/22 - 12/25, someone fashioned that garrote. But since JonBenet's hair is ensnared in the paintbrush handle...then it's safe to positively say that it was made the night she was murdered.

Also the cord used was a pair of shoelaces....with the plastic tips cut off.

Toltec,

Sure I agree with your version of events.

Do you have a source for this though?

Also the cord used was a pair of shoelaces....with the plastic tips cut off.

.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'd never read that the cord was a pair of shoelaces. It seemed too long. And the hardware store where PR shopped sold the exact nylon cord.

 

[Toltec]

Toltec,

Sure I agree with your version of events.

Do you have a source for this though?


.

No source...just a guess. Shoelaces make more sense to me than an entire roll of cord. The cord looks like shoelaces to me. The duct tape and the shoelaces came from one of the pictures in the basement.

 

[DeeDee249]

LE established that it was a nylon cord, of the type sold at a local Army-Navy and also at a local hardware store, where the Rs shopped. I know the type of shoelace you are thinking of, though. It looks similar in a photo, a kind os flat weave, but shoelaces are not that long, and that type of white shoelace is usually made of cotton.

 

[lovebites]

I agree with you. I just do not believe that John was molesting his daughter. And IF she had been previously molested, I suspect Grandpa Paugh....just my gut instinct. And EVEN IF John had been molesting her (which, I don't think he was)....I don't believe that he would have tried that on Christmas night, when Patsy was around, and they had to get up early the next morning, and they had such a big day. I just don't believe that she was molested that night..by anyone...except for the paintbrush insertion, as she was dying...to make it look like an sexual sadist did it.

Sorry to butt in on the conversation here, but I've wondered if it was ever definitively substantiated that there was a paintbrush inserted into JB's vagina? (graphic - sorry)

 

[lovebites]

Ames, this is strictly my personal opinion but in reference to your friend and her daughter, I believe people who have never been exposed to deviant behavior and who do not have perverted thinking often genuinely do not recognize there are perverts and deviants out there. Your friend may recognize that pedophilia is immoral and abusive yet not see glamorizing her daughter as provocative behavior (a pedophile would love it but the mother would never think such a thing while allowing a child to dress that way). Normal minds won't think like that, or at least allow no more than a passing thought at most, due to their inherent decency, proper training, upbringing, lack of desire, etc. It never occurs to them to think that way.

I don't mean to offend but it is often like people who think if they pray long enough and hard enough for those in prison that they will effect positive change in the convict through prayer. Those well-meaning folks don't realize there is such a thing as a perverted mind and it enjoys evil and it will never change. Then you have the "jail-house religion" group, which is a whole other story. It is just the old good versus evil.

In my opinion, Patsy and Pam saw JonBenet's garb and performance as something that would help JonBenet get noticed by the judges and move up toward eventually being Miss America. I don't think they consciously thought it would cause a problem. They just thought it was cute and made JonBenet look pretty. That's naive thinking but I'd bet that was their thought process --- produce a winner, that is the goal!

I guess I've taken the blabbermouth route to saying I don't think JonBenet's pageantry had anything to do with her death. I think it is an unrelated side issue. The only thing I can see is it suggests something about Patsy's mindset and behavior.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I think Patsy simply had dreams of her daughter eventually becoming another Miss America (as you said) and was looking at the pageants as a performance - like theater, the costumes as merely costumes and not as something "sexualized".

 

[lovebites]

The way I see it re the sexualization of her daughter, PR viewed herself as being at her most beautiful during her pageant years. She needed to be seen as desired. I'm not seeing "sexy" here, per se, but desired, envied, admired. I don't think PR thought she was presenting JBR is a "sexual" way. I think she thought she WAS presenting her in an adult version of beauty, allure, etc. I think other pageant moms share this view. They'd be insulted at the inference that they "sexualized" their daughters. Because in their world, they want their daughters to appeal to the adult sense of what is beautiful, not necessarily sexy.
PR wanted the world to view her daughter as very beautiful, in a coquettish, flirtatious way. I do not think PR was a very "sexy" woman at all, even in her own pageant pictures. You can be pretty yet not sexy. And I am sure she felt that the ravages of her illness took her own beauty. Her interest in sex was by her own admission, virtually non-existant. I don't think PR wanted JBR to be seen as a sexual substitute for herself, but rather to be seen as a young beauty who will grow up to be a great beauty. The blonde curls, the blue contact lenses, big earrings, make up, outfits that were mini versions of adult clothes. It is as if the pageant mind-set is "You see how beautiful she is now? Just wait!"

Exactly DeeDee! I agree with you 100% on this. I think these moms see it as a form of theater, a show being put on, on stage, where during that time, there are fancy costumes and makeup and singing and dancing - it's merely a theatrical performance to them.
It may not be right, but it's ridiculous to suggest that the mothers are intending this as some kind of kiddie sexual boot camp where their children are being preened deliberately for the purpose of being pimped out to grown men and male family members as has been suggested in this thread.

 

[lovebites]

rashomon,

Yes one or both did, including , potenially, other members of JonBenet's extended family, hence the deafening silence!

Even if Patsy did not physically molest JonBenet she assisted in creating the cirumstances in which it could occur. Her sexualisation of JonBenet via the pageants is an example, her distancing John from any involvment via remarks about las vegas, or Nedra sleeping in JonBenet's bedroom. So she knew what may have been taking place, she was aware, be in no doubt, look at her response on being informed that the police had evidence of prior sexual molestation!

Then there are JonBenet's non-pageant photographs where she can be seen posing and pouting, wearing makeup and lipstick all at 5 or 6-years old.

So many people make excuses for Patsy's behaviour e.g. it was an accident, she was simply idealising JonBenet's beauty, she was mentally ill, she had been drinking the night of JonBenet's death etc etc.

Yet JonBenet was sexually molested, then asphyxiated and whacked on the head, and the autopsy yielded evidence of past and current sexual abuse, and after the evidence linking the residents to the crime-scene, still people wish to construct fanciful theories that do not match the forensic evidence.

JonBenet's death is what it appears to be: a case of incest gone wrong resulting in a homicide!

No accident requires her sexual assault to be covered up!


.

(sorry to be posting so much here, I guess I'm the only one here at this ungodly hour)

Now, your theory here, UKGuy, intrigues me. I've always wondered if John was perhaps the killer and not Patsy.

 

[rashomon]

LE established that it was a nylon cord, of the type sold at a local Army-Navy and also at a local hardware store, where the Rs shopped. I know the type of shoelace you are thinking of, though. It looks similar in a photo, a kind os flat weave, but shoelaces are not that long, and that type of white shoelace is usually made of cotton.

Lab tests revealed that the cord used on JonBenet was consistent with the samples wich S. Thomas had bought both at McGuckin's and at the army store:
a fifty foot long, white Stansport 32-strand, 3/16 inch woven soft flat nylon cord. (ST, p. 234)

 

[BOESP]

Sorry to butt in on the conversation here, but I've wondered if it was ever definitively substantiated that there was a paintbrush inserted into JB's vagina? (graphic - sorry)

You aren't butting in. I haven't seen anything that indicates someone used the paintbrush on JonBenet vaginally. I've re-read the depos, interviews, autopsy, books, etc. and I only see speculation about that happening. What isn't speculation is the splinter found on JonBenet's eroded hymeneal orifice. It *could* have come from the paintbrush being inserted, but it also could have come from a finger or other means.

If I interpret their statements correctly, some believe the paintbrush was used vaginally as a staging element so as to either cover up chronic/acute sexual abuse (she WAS abused the night of the death and before that time as well) or else to stage things to look like a intruding pedophile killed her.

 

[UKGuy]

(sorry to be posting so much here, I guess I'm the only one here at this ungodly hour)

Now, your theory here, UKGuy, intrigues me. I've always wondered if John was perhaps the killer and not Patsy.

lovebites,
Well assuming we are dealing with a homicide that includes a sexual assault, it seems reasonable to speculate that a male person killed JonBenet, and that at root the motive was sexual, the opportunity was the vacation, and the evidence does not contradict this.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Sorry to butt in on the conversation here, but I've wondered if it was ever definitively substantiated that there was a paintbrush inserted into JB's vagina? (graphic - sorry)

lovebites,

No but some of the mystery lies in the missing piece of the paintbrush handle, and that Coroner Meyer only referred to the splinter in the autopsy report as birefringement material, effectively hiding its origin.

It would seem curious to insert a finger inside JonBenet then redress her and wrap her in blankets, just what was going on?

Possibly the paintbrush was the original sexual assault weapon, which caused a panic response by JonBenet, eventually leading to its use as staging. This I have factored into a JDI theory.


.
.

 

[Toltec]

Let's look at the paintbrush itself.

We know it was broken into three parts... the middle of the brush was used to fashion a garrote.... The brush part was found in Patsy's paint tote.... the tip was inserted into JonBenet's vagina.

The question is who came first....the chicken or the egg?

Was the paintbrush broken to sexually assault JonBenet and strangulation was an afterthought?

Was the paintbrush broken to strangle JonBenet and sexual assault was an afterthought?

It just boggles the mind....the sexual aspect of it makes no sense to me other than staging.

 

[IrishMist]

Let's look at the paintbrush itself.

We know it was broken into three parts... the middle of the brush was used to fashion a garrote.... The brush part was found in Patsy's paint tote.... the tip was inserted into JonBenet's vagina.

The question is who came first....the chicken or the egg?

Was the paintbrush broken to sexually assault JonBenet and strangulation was an afterthought?

Was the paintbrush broken to strangle JonBenet and sexual assault was an afterthought?

It just boggles the mind....the sexual aspect of it makes no sense to me other than staging.

Do we know for sure that the part used to fashion the garrote wasn't the same piece that caused the vaginal injury?

 

[UKGuy]

Let's look at the paintbrush itself.

We know it was broken into three parts... the middle of the brush was used to fashion a garrote.... The brush part was found in Patsy's paint tote.... the tip was inserted into JonBenet's vagina.

The question is who came first....the chicken or the egg?

Was the paintbrush broken to sexually assault JonBenet and strangulation was an afterthought?

Was the paintbrush broken to strangle JonBenet and sexual assault was an afterthought?

It just boggles the mind....the sexual aspect of it makes no sense to me other than staging.

Toltec,
The paintbrush may have been used to initially sexually assault JonBenet, or it may simply be staging.

Now the missing piece and the splinter along with someone inserting it inside JonBenet is consistent with it happening either prior to the garrote being affixed or after. Either way it seems quite calculated, and not entirely random.

But we have the issue of her thighs and genitalia being cleaned of blood smears, and eventually wiped down. So when did this occur?

Minimally we have someone inserting either a finger or the paintbrush or part thereof inside JonBenet, the forensic evidence tells us this, also it informs us that she was wiped clean.

Now a finger may leave dna traces, so discounting this, that leaves the paintbrush handle or a piece.

Was the diameter of the paintbrush handle wide enough to enlarge JonBenet's hymen or cause substantial damage e.g. I suspect the handle would be tapered, and not cause substantial damage, in the widening and tearing sense?

So using it to explicitly mask a digital penetration appears naive, since I assume the paintbrush diameter would not match a finger?

So after all that it seems reasonable to assume someone has inserted the missing piece of the paintbrush handle inside JonBenet to stage a ritualistic homicide?

This would also explain why Coroner Meyer obliquely referred to the splinter or cellulose as birefringement material.

If this speculation is correct then it is the one question that only the stager/killer can answer?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Lab tests revealed that the cord used on JonBenet was consistent with the samples wich S. Thomas had bought both at McGuckin's and at the army store:
a fifty foot long, white Stansport 32-strand, 3/16 inch woven soft flat nylon cord. (ST, p. 234)

This is exactly what I said. It was NOT a shoelace.