IDI: Whats your problem?

[turtle]

HOTYH--tell me all your clues.

 

[MurriFlower]

I just think it was a matter of JB's panties being laundered along with all the rest of her clothes and not particularly pre-treated or soaked. I think it was a matter of just saying well, she stains all her panties, so it if all doesn't come out in the wash, no big deal.
LHP was there for three days a week, and from all accounts the Rs house was a very messy one. (Not dirty, just messy) and that even Patsy's mother Nedra used to tell Patsy that she needed to try to be neater so LHP would have more time to clean and not spend so much time picking up stuff. I think she didn't have time to give special treatment to JB's panties.
Soiled diapers and fecal stains can be easily cleaned with bleach, but panties that are colored or printed can't be washed with bleach without ruining them. Of course, to me, the fecal stains ruin them anyway, so moot point.

Here we use a product marketed originaly as a 'nappy sanitiser', but because of the common use of disposables, most people now use it to soak out stains. It doesn't 'bleach' as such and can be used on printed or coloured fabrics. Perhaps it's not available in USA?

 

[MurriFlower]

I was about to suggest the same thing.

Okay, I get what you're saying. My point is this: if it were the attacker's gratification, the motive would be sex. If it was to humiliate the victim, it would be hatred. In either case, you would expect the damage to be far more extensive. I've been arguing that for some years now. And it's not just me. That was an element of the crime that the FBI studied closely, and they came to the same conclusion.

So did Nedra, incidentally. Her words were, "just a little bit molested."

Remember UKguy posted a screen capture of a forensic report a little while ago? It said there was blood on the blanket, nightgown, shirt, etc. I think either DD or maddy also questioned why there was so much blood, when there was (according to the autopsy report) only minor genital injury.

I now think that the autopsy report we have seen may be incomplete or was deliberately changed. It appears that there may have been genital mutilation by cutting. This would account for the amount of blood.

 

[UKGuy]

Remember UKguy posted a screen capture of a forensic report a little while ago? It said there was blood on the blanket, nightgown, shirt, etc. I think either DD or maddy also questioned why there was so much blood, when there was (according to the autopsy report) only minor genital injury.

I now think that the autopsy report we have seen may be incomplete or was deliberately changed. It appears that there may have been genital mutilation by cutting. This would account for the amount of blood.

MurriFlower,

If there was an intruder its entirely possible. I wanted to draw attention to the other items which were blood-stained, but were discounted in some other theories. For me this meant these theories were inconsistent with the forensic evidence.

Some people assert the dna sample from her underwear is not touch-dna, whilst other samples are touch-dna. So is the underwear sample touch-dna or not?

A negative seems to make autopsy contamination less likely. Then why should the fingernail samples match the clothing touch-dna, even partially, am I correct here? This would mean the FAO Schwartz transfer occurred when JonBenet was alive e.g. was she caught opening the gifts? To reiterate: why should the dna-sample in her underwear, assuming to be a different type, match that of the sample under her fingernails, assuming the transfer was by touch alone?

If it is autopsy contamination, how does non touch-dna arrive in her underwear co-mingled with blood?

When JonBenet's clean, brand new size-12's were placed on her, presumably the one spot free of touch-dna should be where the blood-stain eventually arrived?

I can understand autopsy transfer via the nail-clippers, but to her underwear and longjohns, well thats a stretch, particularly to the bloodstained size-12's.

Seems to me that there is some forensic evidence absent e.g. was touch-dna recovered form other samples from areas not already tested. A positive would make autopsy cross-contamination more credible, and likewise for an IDI.

.

 

[ziggy]

If you don't wash your undies in hot water then the fecal matter remains - it's horrible! TMI but I have a lot of black underwear and they wear out so fast when I wash them in hot water, but ever since I found out that little household hint and how the cold water washed undies can even be the source of infections down yonder well...hot water for mine and I'll stimulate the economy with panty purchases I guess.

Maybe they just didn't launder things properly. If a CSI crew came out to the average person's house I bet they would find things that might horrify average Joe about what's around them.

 

[joeskidbeck]

For the life of me I have never been able to comprehend Patsy letting JB wear panties that were stained with fecal matter. This just does not make any sense to me. If she was really concerned with appearances, this would not have happened. But, I also would never have pegged her as someone who would wear the same outfit two days in a row, so who knows?

 

[MurriFlower]

If there was an intruder its entirely possible. I wanted to draw attention to the other items which were blood-stained, but were discounted in some other theories. For me this meant these theories were inconsistent with the forensic evidence.

If we were able to access the ENTIRE forensic evidence I would agree. We can only draw conclusions from that which is available to us. This may mislead due to some things being held back by LE. In any investigation, you do not have all the 'dots' and merely need to join them up, so it shouldn't really prevent us from solving the crime, but it might mean we follow up leads that we wouldn't have needed to do if we had access to all the information.

Some people assert the dna sample from her underwear is not touch-dna, whilst other samples are touch-dna. So is the underwear sample touch-dna or not?

I believe it was never stated reliably whether it was saliva, skin, blood or whatever DNA. I believe it wasn't 'touch DNA' as you call it, because it was found early on in the investigation mixed with some of her blood. The touch DNA taken from the longjohns was recovered recently (2006/7?) and this was due to improvements in testing procedures.

A negative seems to make autopsy contamination less likely. Then why should the fingernail samples match the clothing touch-dna, even partially, am I correct here? .

Much is made of the contamination of the fingernail samples by using unsterilised clippers. I'm not sure if this is true. So, if fingernail, underwear and clothing have same/similar/partial matches perhaps you could draw the conclusion that they were from the same person (unknown as yet).

This would mean the FAO Schwartz transfer occurred when JonBenet was alive e.g. was she caught opening the gifts? To reiterate: why should the dna-sample in her underwear, assuming to be a different type, match that of the sample under her fingernails, assuming the transfer was by touch alone?

If it is autopsy contamination, how does non touch-dna arrive in her underwear co-mingled with blood?

When JonBenet's clean, brand new size-12's were placed on her, presumably the one spot free of touch-dna should be where the blood-stain eventually arrived?

I can understand autopsy transfer via the nail-clippers, but to her underwear and longjohns, well thats a stretch, particularly to the bloodstained size-12's.

Seems to me that there is some forensic evidence absent e.g. was touch-dna recovered form other samples from areas not already tested. A positive would make autopsy cross-contamination more credible, and likewise for an IDI

The FAO Schwartz transfer theory is you own invention. If it doesn't fit for you, then maybe you need to review it's appropriateness.

 

[DeeDee249]

Here we use a product marketed originaly as a 'nappy sanitiser', but because of the common use of disposables, most people now use it to soak out stains. It doesn't 'bleach' as such and can be used on printed or coloured fabrics. Perhaps it's not available in USA?

I am a LONG way past the diaper years for my kids, but we do have laundry additives and pre-treaters, etc. I don't think I have seen a "nappy (diaper) sanitizer. Certainly we have enzyme products that are used to soak. But again, that involves an extra step which seemed to be a problem in the R house. Possibly because LHP was there only till 3 pm (she left at that time to pick up her own daughter) and there was so much else to do. Many people do not consider "skid marks" to be a big deal in kids' underwear.

 

[UKGuy]

If we were able to access the ENTIRE forensic evidence I would agree. We can only draw conclusions from that which is available to us. This may mislead due to some things being held back by LE. In any investigation, you do not have all the 'dots' and merely need to join them up, so it shouldn't really prevent us from solving the crime, but it might mean we follow up leads that we wouldn't have needed to do if we had access to all the information.



I believe it was never stated reliably whether it was saliva, skin, blood or whatever DNA. I believe it wasn't 'touch DNA' as you call it, because it was found early on in the investigation mixed with some of her blood. The touch DNA taken from the longjohns was recovered recently (2006/7?) and this was due to improvements in testing procedures.



Much is made of the contamination of the fingernail samples by using unsterilised clippers. I'm not sure if this is true. So, if fingernail, underwear and clothing have same/similar/partial matches perhaps you could draw the conclusion that they were from the same person (unknown as yet).



The FAO Schwartz transfer theory is you own invention. If it doesn't fit for you, then maybe you need to review it's appropriateness.

MurriFlower,

I reckon its just as good an invention as that of an intruder for which there is no forensic evidence. Simply crime-scene artifacts labelled as belonging to some ethereal intruder who happened to take his gloves off to remove JonBenet's longjohns.

Is that credible, only in the land of the tabloids and those needing to sell google ads.

 

[MurriFlower]

This would mean the FAO Schwartz transfer occurred when JonBenet was alive e.g. was she caught opening the gifts? To reiterate: why should the dna-sample in her underwear, assuming to be a different type, match that of the sample under her fingernails, assuming the transfer was by touch alone?

If it is autopsy contamination, how does non touch-dna arrive in her underwear co-mingled with blood?

When JonBenet's clean, brand new size-12's were placed on her, presumably the one spot free of touch-dna should be where the blood-stain eventually arrived?

I can understand autopsy transfer via the nail-clippers, but to her underwear and longjohns, well thats a stretch, particularly to the bloodstained size-12's.

Seems to me that there is some forensic evidence absent e.g. was touch-dna recovered form other samples from areas not already tested. A positive would make autopsy cross-contamination more credible, and likewise for an IDI

Do correct me if I'm wrong but that quote of yours above appears to be YOU questioning YOUR OWN theory's credibility. I thought you had begun to 'grow a brain'.

I reckon its just as good an invention as that of an intruder for which there is no forensic evidence. Simply crime-scene artifacts labelled as belonging to some ethereal intruder who happened to take his gloves off to remove JonBenet's longjohns.

Is that credible, only in the land of the tabloids and those needing to sell google ads.

Personally, I don't give a toss what theory you believe in. If you choose to dismiss real evidence and invent a highly unlikely transfer scenario from some unknown male employee of the FAO Schwartz company who wrapped the parcels and then have his DNA transferred (by someone you obviously hold a grudge against) to several significant places on the crime scene, and then conveniently 'disappear' the parcel and contents, then you should think long and hard before you criticise other's theories as baseless. I'd have to give you points for an active imagination though. Perhaps I should start proposing the IDIs arriving via space ship because that's about as probable.

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, I agree with you. The sexual aspect (I'm pretty sure I've said this on several occasions) seemed quite 'minor' in comparison to the violence of the murder. One would assume if it was a sexually motivated crime, then the genital injuries would have been more significant and the bash/strangle came later to shut her up. This looks like the murder was the object and the sexual assault was an addition.

Now we're getting somewhere.

So it then appears that the motive was hatred. We can only wonder who would hate a pretty little 6 yo enough to want to torture, humiliate and strangle her with a cord on a stick (not to mention the head bash)? The sexual assault issue can't be dismissed though, nor the other injuries as not being a significant aspect of the crime.

I'm not saying we should dismiss any of the injuries. Farthest thing from my mind. But as for hatred being the motive, it doesn't really wash, mostly for the same reasons. You'd think that she'd either be physically ravaged much more or put in a place where the discovery of her body would be much more visceral. If not both.

Still, you ask a good question: who would hate a beautiful little girl that much? For me, it's kind of a rhetorical question.

I've also been thinking along the lines lately of a 'sacrifice', not in the traditional sense, but justified by a twisted religious doctrine. Jesus (who was good) was sacrificed for us (who are bad) so we could live. I asked this question before, but got no answer. When someone (who is bad) has their life saved, does someone (who is good) have to be sacrificed as atonement?

The idea that JB was killed as a sacrifice has been around for quite a while, MurriFlower. I'm not really up on the whole thing (not being a "traditionally" religious man), but yes, that's the idea: giving someone who is without sin as thanks for saving a wretch (as the song goes).

 

[BBB167893]

What is you guys take on why the R's did not comply with the note?
Not only did they call the police,they called their friends as well.Why?
I can't make sense of that.Unless they knew she was dead.

My take? Just the obvious one:

1) Provide a buffer between them and LE

2) Contaminate the scene

3) Provide a reason for JB to be found dead, i.e., "we disobeyed instructions, and they killed her."

 

[UKGuy]

Do correct me if I'm wrong but that quote of yours above appears to be YOU questioning YOUR OWN theory's credibility. I thought you had begun to 'grow a brain'.



Personally, I don't give a toss what theory you believe in. If you choose to dismiss real evidence and invent a highly unlikely transfer scenario from some unknown male employee of the FAO Schwartz company who wrapped the parcels and then have his DNA transferred (by someone you obviously hold a grudge against) to several significant places on the crime scene, and then conveniently 'disappear' the parcel and contents, then you should think long and hard before you criticise other's theories as baseless. I'd have to give you points for an active imagination though. Perhaps I should start proposing the IDIs arriving via space ship because that's about as probable.

Do correct me if I'm wrong but that quote of yours above appears to be YOU questioning YOUR OWN theory's credibility. I thought you had begun to 'grow a brain'.

MurriFlower,

My cranial capacity is many sizes above average, and has yet to reach its full size. I am questioning my own theory. That is what I do to try and improve it. I'll discard it if someone can demonstrate that the dna sample form her underwear is not touch-dna.

Otherwise the foreign touch-dna is a very good explanation for the crime-scene evidence. An intruder is not because of the lack of corroboration via other crime-scene artifacts.

The one inconsistency is the dna under JonBenet's fingernails which makes autopsy contamination seem more likely?

p.s. I do not believe in any particular theory. I run with the one that matches the crime-scene evidence the best. I leave believing to those who have a theology to guide them.


.
.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

My cranial capacity is many sizes above average, and has yet to reach its full size. I am questioning my own theory. That is what I do to try and improve it.

I'm sure given time that the head capacity to brain volume will stabilise, once adulthood is reached.

I'll discard it if someone can demonstrate that the dna sample form her underwear is not touch-dna. Otherwise the foreign touch-dna is a very good explanation for the crime-scene evidence. An intruder is not because of the lack of corroboration via other crime-scene artifacts.

The one inconsistency is the dna under JonBenet's fingernails which makes autopsy contamination seem more likely?

It's not really anyone else's responsibility to try to convince you of something that you seem incapable of understanding. This enlightenment will hopefully come in time also.

p.s. I do not believe in any particular theory. I run with the one that matches the crime-scene evidence the best. I leave believing to those who have a theology to guide them.

Well, openmindedness seems like a step in the right direction. Now you must learn to practice it as well as advocate it.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm sure given time that the head capacity to brain volume will stabilise, once adulthood is reached.



It's not really anyone else's responsibility to try to convince you of something that you seem incapable of understanding. This enlightenment will hopefully come in time also.




Well, openmindedness seems like a step in the right direction. Now you must learn to practice it as well as advocate it.

MurriFlower,

I'm sure given time that the head capacity to brain volume will stabilise, once adulthood is reached.

Your infantile characterisation of my faculties is so aptly ad hominem, it requires no reply.

It's not really anyone else's responsibility to try to convince you of something that you seem incapable of understanding. This enlightenment will hopefully come in time also.

I'm not a Zen devotee, engulfed in maya, awaiting enlightenment, . I'm a RDI seeking some IDI to offer evidence that incontrovertably supports their case?

All I seem to be offered is some new age medicine e.g.

Well, openmindedness seems like a step in the right direction. Now you must learn to practice it as well as advocate it.

Are you employed by websleuths to offer contra views?

.

 

[tragco]

My take? Just the obvious one:

1) Provide a buffer between them and LE

2) Contaminate the scene

3) Provide a reason for JB to be found dead, i.e., "we disobeyed instructions, and they killed her."

1 and 2, yes. But 3? I don't see that. They would surely think that JonBenet would be found fairly quickly in the home once police were called, and the time of death could be determined. ( prior to them disobeying instructions).

Are you saying they were just thinking about it in the heat of the moment when they wrote the note? Perhaps they had another plan that they didn't have time to complete? 3 just doesn't make sense to me so wanted your input to make sense of it.

 

[DeeDee249]

1 and 2, yes. But 3? I don't see that. They would surely think that JonBenet would be found fairly quickly in the home once police were called, and the time of death could be determined. ( prior to them disobeying instructions).

Are you saying they were just thinking about it in the heat of the moment when they wrote the note? Perhaps they had another plan that they didn't have time to complete? 3 just doesn't make sense to me so wanted your input to make sense of it.

I am not so sure they felt JB would be found by LE. I think what they hoped at first was that police would come, take statements, possibly set up wiretaps on the phone line. then LEAVE the house. After that, I feel the parents would then have made another call to police saying they found her, or she was left on the porch, etc. Something to that effect. Then, when LE did NOT leave the house, as the hours passed and it became apparent the police were not only not going to leave, but that the house would likely be cleared of everyone, including the parents. JB would have been left in the wineceller, and may not have been able to be found unless someone detected the smell. Identifying your child's body at that point would be a horrific event, and I am sure the Rs were well aware of that. So when Det. Arndt made that travesty of a protocol breach, and allowed the parent of a presumed missing child to search what was still an active crime scene, JR jumped at the chance and ran straight to the basement. Actually- he did MORE than that. He ran straight to the wineceller, and "found" her.

 

[BBB167893]

1 and 2, yes. But 3? I don't see that. They would surely think that JonBenet would be found fairly quickly in the home once police were called, and the time of death could be determined. (prior to them disobeying instructions).

Are you saying they were just thinking about it in the heat of the moment when they wrote the note? Perhaps they had another plan that they didn't have time to complete? 3 just doesn't make sense to me so wanted your input to make sense of it.

Hmm. You may be right. 3 is marginal, anyway. Although, you're question about another plan that couldn't be completed may be on to something. It's been speculated that one of the Rs at least meant to dump JB's body, but it wasn't feasible.

 

[UKGuy]

Hmm. You may be right. 3 is marginal, anyway. Although, you're question about another plan that couldn't be completed may be on to something. It's been speculated that one of the Rs at least meant to dump JB's body, but it wasn't feasible.

SuperDave,
IMO, the only R for it was not feasible to dump JonBenet, was possibly Burke. There was nothing to prevent the parents from undertaking an outdoor deposit!


.

 

[FairM]

wow this post has really got off topic!! Getting back to the poll, I voted botched investigation.

the BPD were like the keystone cops!