Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[andreww]

I tried, but was not successful at attaching a photo. You can see it here: http://tinyurl.com/opwryv2

The white paper laid over the brushes represents the garrote handle. IMO, the paint brush in the middle is the same size as the paint brush handle used by the killer.
...

AK

Thanks AK. What is left isn't exactly an ideal tool for sexual torture is it? I see you also did some tests to snap the handles?

 

[BBB167893]

During The ENQUIRER interview, Patsy admitted she considered and rejected the possibility that John was sexually abusing JonBenet. She openly admitted that during her struggle to defeat ovarian cancer between 1993 and 1994, John and Patsy's sex life suffered. She totally rejects the notion of John abusing JonBenet, but her reasoning is odd.


She said her mother "came to take care of the kids (when I had cancer). She slept in the other bed in JonBenet's room. I mean, if John was coming in to molest JonBenet, you know that's not going to happen 'cause Grandma was right there every night."

http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm

Since Grandma Paugh's presence = John not sexually molesting JonBenet, then that would mean that
Grandma Paugh's absence = John sexually molesting JonBenet.

Be one hell of a coincidence, wouldn't it?

 

[BBB167893]

When you say that the asphyxiation “LOOKS horrific” and you emphasize “look,” you are essentially saying that it was not horrific. It just LOOKS that way. IMO, this minimizes the horror (your word; I use “brutal”).

Your opinion notwithstanding, the autopsy report listed no damage to the internals of the neck. No strap muscle damage. No broken hyoid bone. No trauma to the trachea or the delicate thryroid cartilages-the assembly commonly called the Adam's apple that make up the larynx. No damage to the cricoid cartilages, which are the trachea. The tongue also failed to show any damage or injury.

I’d like to see where the FBI said that the asphyxiation only “LOOKED” horrific, or brutal, etc.;” please.

Will Werner Spitz do? "Someone took a long time to stage strangulation and sexual assault after she was unconscious."

Or perhaps, Norm Early: "You don't want the coroner to come back and say, 'oh, this strangulation couldn't have killed someone.' So you pull it deeper and deeper."

Even a fake strangulation is going to be pretty powerful, if for no other reason than it has to look convincing.

Don't you or anybody else tell me this wasn't horrific, Anti-K. You read me?

I don’t think you can easily make the assault that occurred on this child sound much worse than what it was. And, it is disturbing that you make it so.

I'm done talking about it anyway.

Yeah, I’m bored. List me all the missed opportunities.

Okay, then let's start with the REALLY big one:

All the detectives agreed that one major mistake had been made in the first weeks: Patsy had not been arrested. The detectives were sure that if only Hunter had agreed to jail Patsy--even for a short time--she would have caved in.
--PMPT, pages 377-378

This, to me, is numero uno of missed opportunities. The big one, as it were. This is how cases like this get solved: you throw the two parties into separate holding cells and see which one cracks first.

The police WANTED to do it.

The FBI and Dream Team guys TOLD them to do it.

Hell, even Lou Smit said he would have done it!

But AH wouldn't go for it.

As for the rest of them, ST lists quite a few:

We were getting ready to bug the Ramsey home in Atlanta in hopes of overhearing incriminating statements. I had firmed up the operation with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. "Not only is this operation doable, it's necessary," said Ralph Stone, the agent in charge.

The tentative plan was for a GBI technical specialist to enter the house while the Ramseys were in Boulder for interviews. With the bugs in place, we would start listening when John and Patsy returned home after being grilled. All that was needed to launch the operation was a sign-off by the Boulder police, but our fearful leaders chickened out.
-ITRMI, pages 279-280.

The FBI encouraged the District attorney's representatives to convene a grand jury immediately. Get the Ramseys in their to testify under the hammer of perjury.
-ITRMI, page 240

Among the best leads was still another we could not touch. The Ramsey credit card purchases showed up again, this time through the mail from a tabloid newspaper to Sergeant Wickman. He and I took it to Bob Keatley for a legal opinion and he almost had a heart attack. His exact words were most unKeatley-like--s**t, s**t, s**t!--and he snatched the documents away. "put it out of your mind," he ordered. It was a struggle to let those Visa documents vanish into the evidence room, where the Touch Tone records were already gathering dust.
-ITRMI, page 237

Everyone getting all of this, or am I just typing to myself?

 

[Anti-K]

Thanks AK. What is left isn't exactly an ideal tool for sexual torture is it? I see you also did some tests to snap the handles?

Yes, it does look “ideal.”

I can’t remember when I took those pictures, but it seems like it was a few years ago. I broke more than what you see. Different brushes use different wood and the type of wood seems to make a difference – as I remember it.

The paintbrush (and, the so-called practice note) is my “favorite” piece of evidence. I find it endlessly fascinating. For instance, let’s consider the tip, and let’s pretend that we know for certain that it was used for the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death.

It is missing.

The killer took it with him, or the Ramseys disposed of it.

Why?

Consider that the sexual assault was covered up – the genital area wiped, the clothing replaced, the victim covered and the instrument of assault removed. Is it possible that the killer did not want the assault to be connected to the crime?
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Everyone getting all of this, or am I just typing to myself?

loud and clear Dave. To me it has always been painfully obvious that the Ramsey had help escaping justice and that help came directly from the people in charge of serving it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[aussiesheila2]

loud and clear Dave. To me it has always been painfully obvious that the Ramsey had help escaping justice and that help came directly from the people in charge of serving it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

just quoting Tricia here:

"The days of allowing anyone to post anything because it's part of their "theory" are gone."

and wondering why this post is 'allowed'

 

[andreww]

just quoting Tricia here:

"The days of allowing anyone to post anything because it's part of their "theory" are gone."

and wondering why this post is 'allowed'

Its not just part of my theory. Dave just listed several points of FACT that I agreed with. Just because those FACTS don't align with your theory...

 

[otg]

Okay, before anyone gets too excited, I am NOT going to argue that prior abuse never happened. I’m more than happy to provisionally accept that “something” happened.

However...

OTG.

You may accept it as a fact that Jonbenet was sexually molested “repeatedly during an indeterminate period of time prior to her death,” but that doesn’t make it a fact. And, no one should have to accept it as such simply because you do.

You’re absolutely correct there, AK. I said, ”I accept as a fact...”, meaning of course that this is my opinion. No one has to accept my opinion as fact. Call my statement an “affirmation of faith” if you wish. But my acceptance of it as fact isn’t driven by my theory (as others have postulated). Nor are most RDI theories based on the prior sexual abuse as a predicate for what happened, despite that misconception by others. Had she never been molested prior to the night she died, it doesn’t change that she was on that night. Most theories that include the prior molestation do so to account for some dynamic that might have been going on in the Ramsey household leading up to the event because of the opinions on the subject expressed by the experts who were actually consulted by the Boulder investigators. We’ve all read about what they think and what they based their opinion on, but we haven’t seen the tissue slides and photos to which they had access. (Not that seeing any of it would get us any closer to understanding it, since probably none of us would know what we were even looking at.) So taken in the light that these experts have said there was acute as well as chronic abuse, it makes sense to surmise they are most probably related. Odds of course aren’t proof -- but they do suggest the unlikelihood of coincidence.

I think you and I could move past this element of the crime. You, because it seems you are agnostic about the possibility; and I, because it isn’t essential to what I believe happened. Others have difficulty moving beyond this perhaps because they think acceptance of prior abuse leads to the assumption of Ramsey guilt which they seem determined to try and disprove.

Even if we were to accept as fact that “something” occurred before the murder, we do not know how often it happened, we don’t know how many times it happened, we don’t know how recent to the murder it happened; and, we don’t even know for sure what that something was (innocent play between children; sexual abuse by either or both parents, or by JAR; corporal punishment by either or both parents; etc).
When it comes to facts, there is very little here.

Again, I agree with you, as did Dr. McCann (see * below), about not knowing the frequency of occurrences, or the length of time between them, or between any other incident and the one that occurred at her death (assuming the prior incidents to have happened). We can theorize about them possibly happening at the time of other known events that might possibly account for them (e.g., the 911 call from the party, the three calls to Dr. Beuf in one evening, the alleged account of LHP’s that the two kids were “caught” under the covers, etc.), but we don’t (and won’t) know with any certainty. And without the certain knowledge of when it happened, we can’t know for certain who might be responsible. Only theory.



* McCann’s opinion about frequency and number of incidents (emphasis mine):

Dr. McCann explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. In the case of JonBenet, the doctor (McCann) could only say that there was evidence of “prior abuse". The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration. However, it was not possible to determine the number of incidents, nor over what period of time. Because the prior injury had healed, any other incidents of abuse probably were more than 10 days prior.
​

Just to add another note for the benefit of others to understand why I have such a high opinion of Dr. McCann’s views, you should understand this about him: It was his research which led the rest of the medical community away from much of the misinformation it had about signs of sexual abuse in children. McCann eliminated the idea that some assumptions about it would show up as physical evidence in the child. So if he determines that actual sexual abuse of a child has occurred, I believe him. This is the main reason I accept as fact his determinations. If anyone wants to read more about this, it can be found in the following post:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?227531-Why-was-JB-killed&p=10165938#post10165938

 

[otg]

(bbm)

As we've pretty much exhausted this conversation, I'll move slightly off topic. It's commonly believed that the paintbrush was used to sexually assault JB, and that it was probably the missing piece that was used to do it. Does anybody know exactly how large the missing piece would have been? Would it have been long enough to inflict the internal damage in her vagina? Seems like the piece used on the garrote was about 5" and the piece in the tote was probably another 3" or so. I can't see that missing piece being much more than about 3" and if it was used as a weapon, at least an inch would be required as a handle. Has anybody done research on this?

You're assuming it might have been used after it had been broken off. Consider the possibility that it might have been used while the paintbrush was still intact.

 

[otg]

There as been a lot of discussion as to Dr. Krugman’s definition of sexual abuse vs physical abuse. There is another definition we've been ignoring and that is the legal definition. I'm sure that there are a lot of rapists in prison would would love to have their crime redefined as "physical abuse". That would change their crime to assault a remove them from the sex offender roles. Win-win.

We define how severe a murder is by what the murderer may have been thinking at the time the crime was committed: 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree. Are we now going to do that with sex crimes? What about sex crimes involving children? Do we now define the crime on whether or not the assailant achieves sexual gratification? Do we really need to know what was going through their head when this person committed these crimes?

I think it's pretty damn shameful that we're arguing whether or not an attack to a little girls sexual organs constitutes a sex crime or not.

Dr. Krugman seems to hide behind, "I'm much smarter than you. There's not enough time in the world to explain it. You'll just have to take my word for it." That's pretty damn arrogant to me--he gets to define what constitutes sexual abuse and we're not smart enough to understand it.

One phrase I've had drilled into my head all my life is, "Rape is Rape." The person committing the act doesn't get to define what it is. Now it seems like we have a new rule. "Rape is rape unless Dr. Krugman thinks it isn't."

I really don't care what you call it. Touching a child's genitalia in an act of aggression (sexual or otherwise), should continue to bear some of the worst penalties our society can give. I put it one rung below murder.

Finally, I've seen the statement that someone who believes that JBR was sexually molested needs to prove it. I disagree with that. If you believe that JBR wasn't sexually assaulted, prove it. Don't give me studies that require more investigation. Don't give me studies that involve more interviews with everyone involved. Don't give me quotes that biological parents are less likely to sexually assault their children. None of that is proof. Prove that she wasn’t because the bed-wetting, retracted hymen, enlarged vaginal opening, abrasions and multiple visits to the pediatrician point to the possibility of previous sexual abuse. So if someone wants to believe that she was sexually abused prior to the night that she was murdered, it makes sense to me. Honestly, ruling it out as a possibility, seems as childish as sticking your fingers in your ears and crying out, "la la la la la la la."

What I don't understand is how someone here goes out of their way to try to destroy someone's belief that JBR was sexually abused. That is the cornerstone of some people's theories. Make your point and move on. We should be discussing theories here and not stating that someone is wrong because 'you've' decided that there was no previous sexual abuse. Oh, I almost forgot that there have been denials here that there was sexual abuse on the night of her murder because it wasn't sexual abuse—we've redefined it. It was physical abuse.

I guess I'm not one of those people who can understand the difference between sexual abuse and physical abuse; although, I can. I can also see someone trying to reframe an argument to make a truly repulsive act sound less horrible (like calling it physical abuse will make it go away).

Greetings, BoldBear. I hope you didn't misinterpret my posting some of Dr. Krugman's statements as my agreement with his opinions. I posted the information so other posters could understand what he meant by the statement that is so often attributed to him as saying that he didn't see proof of "prior sexual abuse". The reason he said that is because he makes a distinction between sexual abuse and physical abuse based on the motive of the perpetrator. That should in no way diminish in the eyes of anyone the horror of what JonBenet had to have endured before she died . I simply want people to understand that that Dr. Krugman quote does not mean that he didn't see or believe the evidence of what had been done to her -- as many posters here try to imply.

 

[BBB167893]

loud and clear Dave. To me it has always been painfully obvious that the Ramsey had help escaping justice and that help came directly from the people in charge of serving it.

I'll tell you something else, andreww: those missed opportunities I listed were just on the part of the police and DA. In my book, I have a list of missed opportunities in the civil cases, as well.

Most notably, Darnay Hoffman tried very hard to get Patsy to give new handwriting samples, some wearing gloves, others with her left hand. Wood refused, and Carnes did nothing about that. She also did nothing about Hoffman's requests for materials that the Ramseys had. That's just one of many missed opportunities on his part.

One other thing. I mentioned earlier the plans to bug the Ramsey house in Atlanta. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that they had the DA's office bugged! (But that's neither here nor there.)

 

[Anti-K]

You’re absolutely correct there, AK. I said, ”I accept as a fact...”, meaning of course that this is my opinion. No one has to accept my opinion as fact. Call my statement an “affirmation of faith” if you wish. But my acceptance of it as fact isn’t driven by my theory (as others have postulated). Nor are most RDI theories based on the prior sexual abuse as a predicate for what happened, despite that misconception by others. Had she never been molested prior to the night she died, it doesn’t change that she was on that night. Most theories that include the prior molestation do so to account for some dynamic that might have been going on in the Ramsey household leading up to the event because of the opinions on the subject expressed by the experts who were actually consulted by the Boulder investigators. We’ve all read about what they think and what they based their opinion on, but we haven’t seen the tissue slides and photos to which they had access. (Not that seeing any of it would get us any closer to understanding it, since probably none of us would know what we were even looking at.) So taken in the light that these experts have said there was acute as well as chronic abuse, it makes sense to surmise they are most probably related. Odds of course aren’t proof -- but they do suggest the unlikelihood of coincidence.

I think you and I could move past this element of the crime. You, because it seems you are agnostic about the possibility; and I, because it isn’t essential to what I believe happened. Others have difficulty moving beyond this perhaps because they think acceptance of prior abuse leads to the assumption of Ramsey guilt which they seem determined to try and disprove.



Again, I agree with you, as did Dr. McCann (see * below), about not knowing the frequency of occurrences, or the length of time between them, or between any other incident and the one that occurred at her death (assuming the prior incidents to have happened). We can theorize about them possibly happening at the time of other known events that might possibly account for them (e.g., the 911 call from the party, the three calls to Dr. Beuf in one evening, the alleged account of LHP’s that the two kids were “caught” under the covers, etc.), but we don’t (and won’t) know with any certainty. And without the certain knowledge of when it happened, we can’t know for certain who might be responsible. Only theory.



* McCann’s opinion about frequency and number of incidents (emphasis mine):

Dr. McCann explained the term "chronic abuse" meant only that it was "repeated", but that the number of incidents could not be determined. In the case of JonBenet, the doctor (McCann) could only say that there was evidence of “prior abuse". The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration. However, it was not possible to determine the number of incidents, nor over what period of time. Because the prior injury had healed, any other incidents of abuse probably were more than 10 days prior.
​

Just to add another note for the benefit of others to understand why I have such a high opinion of Dr. McCann’s views, you should understand this about him: It was his research which led the rest of the medical community away from much of the misinformation it had about signs of sexual abuse in children. McCann eliminated the idea that some assumptions about it would show up as physical evidence in the child. So if he determines that actual sexual abuse of a child has occurred, I believe him. This is the main reason I accept as fact his determinations. If anyone wants to read more about this, it can be found in the following post:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?227531-Why-was-JB-killed&p=10165938#post10165938

When you say that you accept something as fact and then tell others who think otherwise that they should “take off the blinders,” than it does sound like you’re saying that everyone should accept that something is a fact. Perhaps, you could simply say that it is your opinion that these things occurred, and leave it at that? Because opinions and facts are two very different things. Even all the expert opinions that get thrown about by both sides are only opinions. They’re not facts.

And, I’m not agnostic about it. I do provisionally accept that “something” occurred, and I use the “prior abuse” label although I’m skeptical about the nature of that abuse.

Sadly, and here is where we differ if I’ve read your post correctly, the information known is not sufficient to do any real or meaningful “theorizing.” What everyone is doing is speculating; sometimes, wildly. I’m okay with that but I always find it unsettling when one gets confused with the other.

Connecting prior abuse (whatever that means) to the crime, so far, isn’t possible. The claim that the odds that they would not be connected are so high as to make the possibility of coincidence unlikely is, to be blunt, nonsense. I’ve seen this claim often and I’d really like to see the numbers behind it. Really.

I’m not arguing these things aren’t connected, but connections are things that can be demonstrated. Coincidences are primarily subjective and they happen ALL THE TIME!

Being a victim of prior abuse, whether it be innocent play by children or malicious disregard by parent, etc doesn’t protect any one from becoming an assault/murder victim at the hands of any other person so inclined to commit these acts.

Even if RDI, we still have nothing to make the connection because we don’t know what form the prior abuse took, we don’t know who was responsible for it and we don’t know who knew about it and there is no evidence connecting the prior abuse with the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death. But speculate away...

...

AK

 

[CherCher]

The definition of the word "speculation" ( in a criminal sense) is the formation of a theory without evidence. I would say that anyone who believes that a Ramsey family member or members have plenty of evidence to form an RDI theory.

Granted, some RDI theories are a bit wildly speculative, but unless or until an IDI theory can be PROVED (and a lot of them are just as wildly speculative) all we have are the facts.

What do you think about the "fact" that PR said in her first police interview that she didn't know about the threats to JB's life when calling 911, yet less than 2 years later, she admits to reading it and having 2nd thoughts about calling 911?

The fiber evidence alone would have been enough to bring a conviction against anyone else where a ransom note wasn't involved.

 

[BBB167893]

Its not just part of my theory. Dave just listed several points of FACT that I agreed with. Just because those FACTS don't align with your theory...

And I can go further than that, aussiesheila2.

FACT: the DA's office resisted the call for a grand jury and undercut some of its own witnesses.

FACT: the DA's office only agreed to a grand jury because the governor was feeling heat from ST's resignation letter and was threatening to take the case away from him.

FACT: Lou Smit was told that he would not testify before the grand jury and had to return the evidence he had taken (illegally) as part of his parallel investigation. He refused and hired a lawyer to--and there's no better word for it--blackmail the DA into keeping the evidence and testifying.

FACT: AH smeared former detectives who worked the case and Mary Lacy did the same thing to Jim Kolar. It's strongly implied that his tenure as DA's investigator ended because he didn't go along.

FACT: when FOXNews was preparing to defend against the Ramseys' lawsuit, they were trying to get access to the actual case file when the suit was dismissed. Mary Lacy made it clear she would fight their request tooth-and-nail.

Now, what does all that point to? I'll let you guys sort that question out.

Oh, there was one other missed opportunity I forgot to mention to Anti-K. Since it dovetails with this conversation, I'll post it here now. It refers to the interviews done April 1997:

The only time [Patsy's] composure broke was when she was asked to describe the discovery of her daughter's body. She dissolved into weeping, and although it was touching, it was also her weakest point of the session and time for me to press harder. But just as I was about to allow an opening, Pat Burke and Pete Hofstrom ruined the moment, consolingly saying, "let's take a break." Our own DA's chief trial deputy helped destroy what, in my opinion, was the best opportunity of the day. By the time the interview resumed, Patsy had gotten her wind back. I felt she knew she had dodged a bullet.
-ITRMI, page 188

Earlier, I quoted Johnny Cash. Right now, Willie Nelson seems appropriate:

All the Federales say
They could have had him any day
They only let him slip away
out of kindness, I suppose

 

[Anti-K]

The definition of the word "speculation" ( in a criminal sense) is the formation of a theory without evidence. I would say that anyone who believes that a Ramsey family member or members have plenty of evidence to form an RDI theory.

Granted, some RDI theories are a bit wildly speculative, but unless or until an IDI theory can be PROVED (and a lot of them are just as wildly speculative) all we have are the facts.

What do you think about the "fact" that PR said in her first police interview that she didn't know about the threats to JB's life when calling 911, yet less than 2 years later, she admits to reading it and having 2nd thoughts about calling 911?

The fiber evidence alone would have been enough to bring a conviction against anyone else where a ransom note wasn't involved.

RDI theories; yes, of course. But, I was talking about theories connecting prior abuse to the murder.
.

I think the change in story two years later supports the claim that memory is fallible and malleable. Her memory changed in those two years. There is nothing unusual or nonsensical about this and research/studies to date show that this is what happens. To all of us.
...

AK

 

[inspector rex]

The fiber evidence alone would have been enough to bring a conviction against anyone else where a ransom note wasn't involved.

Four red fibers, which were consistent with Patsys Black, Red and Gray Jacket?

How do you explain the hundreds of unsourced fibers that were found?

 

[andreww]

RDI theories; yes, of course. But, I was talking about theories connecting prior abuse to the murder.
.

I think the change in story two years later supports the claim that memory is fallible and malleable. Her memory changed in those two years. There is nothing unusual or nonsensical about this and research/studies to date show that this is what happens. To all of us.
...

AK

I don't buy that at all. I agree, memory is fallible, no denying that. But we are talking about significant events here. She was adamant that she didn't read the note. A year later she is remembering details that were in the note that she didn't read. It seems to me that as the memory fails, you forget certain details. In her case it seems like she is remembering new details.

An example:

I witness a bank robbery where I see a long haired man with a green shirt and blue pants rob a bank. I never see a gun even though he says he as one.

A year later I might say the man had mid length hair and was wearing a red shirt because my memory had faded. That would be acceptable because my brain had simply lost track of small pieces of information. But it would be highly unlikely that I would say it was a man with medium length hair, a green shirt who had a silver medium sized revolver. Here details have been added that were never there.


In my opinion in Patsy's second interview she embellishes rather than forgets detail. That is not a sign of faded memory. IMO, the change in her story was more likely a reaction to what was being said about her in the public. Nobody believed that she would not read that note. Nobody believed that they would not even consider the threats made in that note. So she simply changed her story, just like the story changed when Burke's voice was heard on the enhanced recording.

 

[Anti-K]

I don't buy that at all. I agree, memory is fallible, no denying that. But we are talking about significant events here. She was adamant that she didn't read the note. A year later she is remembering details that were in the note that she didn't read. It seems to me that as the memory fails, you forget certain details. In her case it seems like she is remembering new details.

An example:

I witness a bank robbery where I see a long haired man with a green shirt and blue pants rob a bank. I never see a gun even though he says he as one.

A year later I might say the man had mid length hair and was wearing a red shirt because my memory had faded. That would be acceptable because my brain had simply lost track of small pieces of information. But it would be highly unlikely that I would say it was a man with medium length hair, a green shirt who had a silver medium sized revolver. Here details have been added that were never there.


In my opinion in Patsy's second interview she embellishes rather than forgets detail. That is not a sign of faded memory. IMO, the change in her story was more likely a reaction to what was being said about her in the public. Nobody believed that she would not read that note. Nobody believed that they would not even consider the threats made in that note. So she simply changed her story, just like the story changed when Burke's voice was heard on the enhanced recording.

I’m not talking about faded memories. I’m talking about memories being “added” or altered. Research bears this out, this sort of thing does happen. For examples, read here (skip to Research Psychologists Respond if you have neither time nor inclination to rad the entire piece): http://tinyurl.com/oh4nykl

But, I do wholeheartedly agree with you that the story changed because of “what was being said about her in the public.” Except, I don’t see it as a story change so much as a memory change. Or, maybe it was a little bit of both? Regardless, I do agree with you on the cause.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

I’m not talking about faded memories. I’m talking about memories being “added” or altered. Research bears this out, this sort of thing does happen. For examples, read here (skip to Research Psychologists Respond if you have neither time nor inclination to rad the entire piece): http://tinyurl.com/oh4nykl

But, I do wholeheartedly agree with you that the story changed because of “what was being said about her in the public.” Except, I don’t see it as a story change so much as a memory change. Or, maybe it was a little bit of both? Regardless, I do agree with you on the cause.
...

AK

I'd be inclined to agree with you that it might be a combination of both, but look at it this way. Before Patsy's second interview I am sure that she read a transcript of her first interview. She would be an idiot if she didn't and Lin Wood and company would have been idiots to allow her to be interviewed without doing so. Those guys aren't idiots. So why does the story change, despite the fact that she would have been fully aware of what she had stated four months after the murder. My only conclusion would be that after reviewing her original testimony, they deemed certain parts to be unbelievable and they simply tweaked the story a bit. Of course she still never admits reading the note but she does offer the odd nugget that she was reading the odd line over John's shoulder.

But as you are probably quite aware AK, this is only one of a myriad of discrepancies in Patsy/John's testimony. I think even you have to admit that if the police were really on their game, they would have really pressed her on these issues. I can't even begin to tell you how many crimes, some with less evidence than this one, are solved simply because the suspect just caves under interrogation and confesses their part. For whatever reason the opportunities were missed time and time again in this case.

 

[icedtea4me]

(bbm)You're assuming it might have been used after it had been broken off. Consider the possibility that it might have been used while the paintbrush was still intact.

Or how about considering the possibility that, for some reason or another, it had been already broken off and had nothing to do with the crime.