Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[Chrishope]

Wouldn't it have been possible to find out via lab examination
- whether it was a fresh break or an older break;
- whether the window had been broken from the inside or the outside?

But iirc, neither S. Thomas nor J. Kolar mention in their books whether the broken glass was examined in detail and what the results were.

Direction of break (inside/outside) yes. The lab can determine which side force was applied to. I have not been able to find anything on determining the freshness of a break.

One of the most useful things would have been to examine the family members for tiny pieces of glass in their hair and clothing. When glass breaks, tiny particles go in both directions - the direction of force against the window, and back towards the direction of the person breaking the window. If a person was within 3 meters of the window when it was broken there would be glass fragments (tiny fragments, much like fibers) in their hair and clothing.

Clothing holds glass in much the same fashion as fibers. Woolens and knitted clothing will hold glass fragments better than smoother fabrics which will loose the glass fragments quickly.

There was of course no reason to test the family for glass fragments before the body was found. Up to that point it was a kidnapping case.

 

[UKGuy]

Where was it found on her?


I meant as in cracks and crevices, dirt and grime found on her neck and other parts. I know what decomp smells like, but was just wondering if they saw that she hadn't been bathed recently.

Also there is a discussion for the cellulose material found in JonBenet's vagina. Pullup are made of cellulose. One Dr. thought the "material"
could of been there up to a week. Just thinking.

ILikeToBendPages,
There is a lot of speculation about the cellulose on the forums. In the Autopsy Report it is referred to as birefringent, this has a specific meaning which goes beyond the terms, cellulose, splinter, etc.

Coroner Meyer took a sample from JonBenet and sent it for analysis where the birefringent material was identified.

This means it can be matched against the paintbrush handle placed back into the paint-tote.

So BPD know what the status of what we term cellulose, specifically because Coroner Meyer referred to it as birefringent material in the AR.

All this suggests if the cellulose was residue from Pullups then any comparision between the paintbrush handle and JonBenet's sample would result in a mismatch?

BPD have yet to release these findings. but I reckon its safe to assume the source of the cellulose is the paintbrush handle either directly or via a finger?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Direction of break (inside/outside) yes. The lab can determine which side force was applied to. I have not been able to find anything on determining the freshness of a break.

One of the most useful things would have been to examine the family members for tiny pieces of glass in their hair and clothing. When glass breaks, tiny particles go in both directions - the direction of force against the window, and back towards the direction of the person breaking the window. If a person was within 3 meters of the window when it was broken there would be glass fragments (tiny fragments, much like fibers) in their hair and clothing.

Clothing holds glass in much the same fashion as fibers. Woolens and knitted clothing will hold glass fragments better than smoother fabrics which will loose the glass fragments quickly.

There was of course no reason to test the family for glass fragments before the body was found. Up to that point it was a kidnapping case.

Chrishope,

Clothing holds glass in much the same fashion as fibers.

Oh my G, and would not secondary transfer explain any glass fragments?

I have not been able to find anything on determining the freshness of a break.

This can be done. It requires state of the art instruments. Glass, in situ, drifts, similar to, but different from tree rings, that is from top to bottom a pane of glass should exhibit a linear flow.

So the glass left in pane should exhibit different properties from that lying on the basement floor.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Wouldn't it have been possible to find out via lab examination
- whether it was a fresh break or an older break;
- whether the window had been broken from the inside or the outside?

But iirc, neither S. Thomas nor J. Kolar mention in their books whether the broken glass was examined in detail and what the results were.

rashomon,
Yes, yes, yes.




.

 

[UKGuy]

Good point about the chair. A chair would have offered more stability, but I think the Ramsey who staged the scene just took some random item from the basement whose height he/she thought would 'fit'.

That suitcase under the window just screams staging. Poor staging because a suitcase that stands the way it was found at the crime scene can become pretty unstable if used for climbing purposes.
[Just as 'climbing over' the ransom note on those spiral stairs would most likely have landed Patsy on the floor if she had really done that ...].

rashomon,
Why select something at random then make assertions about it to officers of the law?

Was the chair replaced with the suitcase, simply to obsfucate a prior staging, i.e. that chair in front of a door, need an explanation?

[Just as 'climbing over' the ransom note on those spiral stairs would most likely have landed Patsy on the floor if she had really done that ...].

Abolutely, its beginning to look like BDI or PDI?


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Oh my G, and would not secondary transfer explain any glass fragments?


This can be done. It requires state of the art instruments. Glass, in situ, drifts, similar to, but different from tree rings, that is from top to bottom a pane of glass should exhibit a linear flow.

So the glass left in pane should exhibit different properties from that lying on the basement floor.


.

Given the tiny size of the fragments we're talking about I'd think secondary transfer of fragments is quite possible. I don't think that happened in this case as there was no contact between JR/PR the morning of the 26th. In fact they seemed to stay apart as much as possible.

If I understand what you're saying about the properties of glass, the fragments on the floor should match the remaining glass in the window frame, if the break is fresh ? If the fragments on the floor have been lying there for months, they should be different when compared to the glass in the window?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/april2009/review

"The above studies chiefly involve primary transfer—a transfer from the broken glass object to something else. Primary transfer also can occur when a person or object comes into contact with previously broken glass (Allen et al. 1998a). Additionally, there can be secondary transfer of glass between people and objects, such as when glass is transferred from a person to a vehicle seat (Allen et al. 1998c). During a glass examination, it cannot be positively determined whether the glass fragments found on an object were acquired through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or through contact with previously broken glass (Koons et al. 2002)."

 

[UKGuy]

Given the tiny size of the fragments we're talking about I'd think secondary transfer of fragments is quite possible. I don't think that happened in this case as there was no contact between JR/PR the morning of the 26th. In fact they seemed to stay apart as much as possible.

If I understand what you're saying about the properties of glass, the fragments on the floor should match the remaining glass in the window frame, if the break is fresh ? If the fragments on the floor have been lying there for months, they should be different when compared to the glass in the window?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/april2009/review

"The above studies chiefly involve primary transfer—a transfer from the broken glass object to something else. Primary transfer also can occur when a person or object comes into contact with previously broken glass (Allen et al. 1998a). Additionally, there can be secondary transfer of glass between people and objects, such as when glass is transferred from a person to a vehicle seat (Allen et al. 1998c). During a glass examination, it cannot be positively determined whether the glass fragments found on an object were acquired through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or through contact with previously broken glass (Koons et al. 2002)."

Chrishope,

If the fragments on the floor have been lying there for months, they should be different when compared to the glass in the window?

Yes, those on the floor have the downward linear flow suspended whilst the glass in window continues with a linear downward flow. The difference can be displayed graphically uisng lasers. Ol de Moivre, him of the difference between primary and secondary factors plays a role here, although a familiarity with arithmetic may assist?


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Yes, those on the floor have the downward linear flow suspended whilst the glass in window continues with a linear downward flow. The difference can be displayed graphically uisng lasers. Ol de Moivre, him of the difference between primary and secondary factors plays a role here, although a familiarity with arithmetic may assist?


.

Presumably CBI could do this. I don't recall reading about any glass fragments tested. One bit of evidence not leaked?

 

[midwest mama]

Presumably CBI could do this. I don't recall reading about any glass fragments tested. One bit of evidence not leaked?

These were listed on an Evidence List of items taken from the Ramsey house:

Trace evidence Glass broken, from wine cellar 1 13 KKY
Trace evidence Piece of window broken 1 5 KRV
Trace evidence Piece of window broken 1 6 KRV
Trace evidence Piece of window broken 1 7 KRV
Trace evidence Piece of window broken 1 8 KRV

Wouldn't it seem if they were taken as evidence, they would at least be tested to see if ALL the glass came from the same window? If they were going to test for that, would it follow they would do the tests you guys are talking about? Sorry, not enough scientific knowledge to follow you very carefully - just thought it interesting they decided to take a piece of glass from the Wine Cellar as well as the broken window.

 

[Chrishope]

These were listed on an Evidence List of items taken from the Ramsey house:

Trace evidence Glass broken, from wine cellar 1 13 KKY
Trace evidence Piece of window broken 1 5 KRV
Trace evidence Piece of window broken 1 6 KRV
Trace evidence Piece of window broken 1 7 KRV
Trace evidence Piece of window broken 1 8 KRV

Wouldn't it seem if they were taken as evidence, they would at least be tested to see if ALL the glass came from the same window? If they were going to test for that, would it follow they would do the tests you guys are talking about? Sorry, not enough scientific knowledge to follow you very carefully - just thought it interesting they decided to take a piece of glass from the Wine Cellar as well as the broken window.

I knew they took glass as evidence, but had not read anything about test results. Never heard what they found out, if anything. Maybe I missed it, or forgot it?

You are right that they'd at least test to see if the glass was from the same window. It would be interesting to know if the WC glass was from the window or not.

There seems to be a lag between what forensics is capable of and what forensic testing is actually done. I still have not run across anything on the forensics websites that talks about differentiating between fresh and old breaks, but I'll take UKGuy's word for it that such testing is possible.

I'm not pretending to understand the science in any detail. I just have a very basic grasp of the idea. Glass is a liquid. It appears solid because it flows extremely slowly. Glass in a vertical position will be pulled downward by gravity. Once it's broken and lying on the floor it will flow differently than when it was vertical. But I don't know the science well enough to say if there would be detectible differences after 4 months (Jr supposedly breaks the window in July/August, so we have a minimum of 4 months) UKGuy seems to think they could tell, and I have no reason to doubt him.

Since the DA often leaked evidence one might conjecture that if JR's story proved to be true, that info would have been leaked for the benefit of Team Ramsey? But that's just suspicion and conjecture, we can't really say it's the case.

 

[Chrishope]

I'd imagine the simplest test would be to examine the edges of the broken glass for signs of accumulated dust and dirt. I'd assume such a test must have been done, but if so the results were never made public.

Nevertheless, I'm convinced the glass was broken the night of the crime. First, because John's story about breaking in earlier isn't credible. Second, because if you look at the transcripts for both John and Patsy's interviews in both 1997 and 1998, you'll see that the interviewers were very interested in John's story and had many questions about how and why he broke in earlier. They also repeatedly ask both John and Patsy, in both years, whether the window had ever been repaired. It's inconceivable that they would devote so much time to such questions if forensics had determined it to be an old break.

My guess is that they were unable to tell for sure. The edges were probably clean (since John's story is bull crap), but the lack of broken glass on the floor probably stumped them. Also it seems as though they wanted to believe John's story, since in their minds it weakened the intruder theory.

What convinces me is simply that it's hard to believe they lived with a hole in the window for several months. Mice would come in, snow and rain would come in. Mosquitoes. They didn't even try to cover the hole with a piece of cardboard or something. It's just not credible.

Then there is the security issue. It's one thing for a man JR's size and age to try to get through that window well. But a prowler in his teens or early 20's?

Then there are the few pieces of glass. If it were broken in August the glass would be cleaned up -completely.

Then there is LHP, who doesn't remember a broken window. Something I'd expect a housekeeper would notice. Plus if I recall LHP's husband and some others (son in law?) helped take Christmas trees out of the WC and set them up in various rooms. They would have noticed the window, and had to have been asked about it.

It would be nice to have forensic proof of a fresh break, but I don't think we really need it to figure out what happened and what didn't.

 

[DIRK SCHILLER]

Police footage from the Ramseys' basement taken hours after JonBenet's body was discovered shows the window through which some believe an intruder might have come in. About 3:36 minutes in, a cobweb can be seen in the window frame. Former detective Jim Kolar believes the web, along with other evidence, points away from the intruder theory.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
Why select something at random then make assertions about it to officers of the law?

UkGuy,
John's confusing assertions about the suitcase ("old suitcase", "new suitcase") were every bit as awkward as was the putting of a suitcase in this position to suggest that a 'Foreign Faction' had used it for climbing out the window.
Imo all elements of the staged scene in the JBR case were the result of "any port in a storm" decisions by parents frantically trying to cover up what had happened.

Was the chair replaced with the suitcase, simply to obsfucate a prior staging, i.e. that chair in front of a door, need an explanation?

Why should the stager feel it necessary to replace a much more functional chair with a suitcase?

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
Why select something at random then make assertions about it to officers of the law?

UkGuy,
John's confusing assertions about the suitcase ("old suitcase", "new suitcase") were too awkward to sound convincing.
Imo all elements of the staged scene in the JBR case were the result of "any port in a storm" decisions by parents frantically trying to cover up what had happened.

Was the chair replaced with the suitcase, simply to obsfucate a prior staging, i.e. that chair in front of a door, need an explanation?

Why should the stager feel it necessary to replace a (much more functional) chair with a suitcase?

 

[DeeDee249]

UkGuy,
John's confusing assertions about the suitcase ("old suitcase", "new suitcase") were too awkward to sound convincing.
Imo all elements of the staged scene in the JBR case were the result of "any port in a storm" decisions by parents frantically trying to cover up what had happened.


Why should the stager feel it necessary to replace a (much more functional) chair with a suitcase?

Exactly. NO one would climb on a suitcase with a chair nearby. Had that idiot Smit actually tried to LAND on that suitcase when he made his squeeze through the window, he'd have seen just how impossible that was.

 

[UKGuy]

UkGuy,
John's confusing assertions about the suitcase ("old suitcase", "new suitcase") were too awkward to sound convincing.
Imo all elements of the staged scene in the JBR case were the result of "any port in a storm" decisions by parents frantically trying to cover up what had happened.


Why should the stager feel it necessary to replace a (much more functional) chair with a suitcase?

rashomon,
Presumably you consider the chair perspective as more effective than that of the suitcase?

So imagine John rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. He wants to alter the window as an entrance, so he moves the chair away and places it in front of another door, and either leaves or places the suitcase under the window.

Why does he do this, obfucation. John is deliberately laying a trail of uncordinated clues?

Otherwise he would leave the window open that he said he was unlatched?

Why close it and leave fingerprints omg, aposteriori, I require a rationale, so lets tell BDP I found it open then closed it, for no good reason, well I need a story to justify my fingerprints.

Does my psychological legend cut any ice with you?


.

 

[madeleine]

Sorry for off topic but good God am I mad!
I was just searching for something and came across some news re Michael Peterson being Released From Prison dec 2011 and Getting a New Trial.
WTH is wrong with this world lately???????? :banghead:

All this BS re the justice system lately makes me think JB will NEVER get justice.....I am so mad,should have stayed away from these topics.....

sorry once again for being off topic but nothing makes sense these days anymore...

 

[madeleine]

If they release Jeffrey MacDonalds next(wouldn't surprise me at all) ....then I can very well go and shoot myself cause I don't need my brains anymore.....logic has left the building and this world it seems....

 

[rashomon]

Also it seems as though they wanted to believe John's story, since in their minds it weakened the intruder theory.

One can indeed get that impression.

Nevertheless, I'm convinced the glass was broken the night of the crime. First, because John's story about breaking in earlier isn't credible.

Suppose it was John who broke the window the night of the crime with the intent to mislead LE by staging an 'intruder entry/exit' point, why didn't he just let the broken pieces of glass lie on the floor, instead of removing them and telling this absurd story about having broken the window earlier that summer? Was he afraid that he might have left fingerprints or other forensic evidence behind that could link him to the break?

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
Presumably you consider the chair perspective as more effective than that of the suitcase?

UKGuy,
Basically yes, but it would depend on what kind of chair it is. A rickety chair for example would be just as bad.

So imagine John rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. He wants to alter the window as an entrance, so he moves the chair away and places it in front of another door, and either leaves or places the suitcase under the window.

Since none of the persons who had been down (before John) in the basement mentioned a chair 'blocking' the train room door, imo it allows the inference that the chair never was in that position.
Does there there exist a crime scene picture that shows the chair where John said he put it after 'removing' it from in front of the train room door?

Why does he do this, obfucation. John is deliberately laying a trail of uncordinated clues?

Interesting that John himself used the words "funny little clues" which the alleged intruder left behind ...
I'm not sure though whether the uncoordinatedness was deliberate on John's part. Imo he simply could not think of anything that would look more 'convincing', given the state of mind he must have been in.

Otherwise he would leave the window open that he said he was unlatched?

Why close it and leave fingerprints omg, aposteriori, I require a rationale, so lets tell BDP I found it open then closed it, for no good reason, well I need a story to justify my fingerprints.

Does my psychological legend cut any ice with you?

I think it makes sense.