Tea

[rashomon]

If it was staged it wasn't done "poorly" it was brilliant.

He uses a paintbrush, maybe his, maybe Patsy's, and "places" one broken piece back into the tray.
He uses the pad from the house, deposits it in the waste can next to the spiral stairs.
The pen from the house, was used as well, and returned to it's proper receptacle.
Pages were "reportedly" ( never verified) opened to the psalms .
IMO pineapple and spoon could indicate a formal last meal for Jonbenet.

The ransom note bought enough time to either get out of that basement or for the reason of getting a very long head start "getaway"

He lays that note in three pages, open for reading on a stair rung.

He latches the door to the wine cellar.

He leaves nothing behind that is HIS, because it's HIS!

I'm sure there's more that could be added.

Patsy , as noted by LHP was a bit of a slob, no one in that house put things back where they belonged. Who tells the truth? We are now to believe that the entire Ramsey clan has become obsessively neat....putting everything back where it belonged. I'm surprised this perp didn't make the beds before he left. The flashlight wiped clean of prints suggests he didn't miss many details. He had no intention of leaving a part of him behind. Why didn't he put the flashlight back into the drawer , would leaving it out minus prints prove to us how "competent" a felon he was?

His behavior suggests he is detail oriented, obsessive and controlling. When I said ritual, I wasn't suggesting a satanic cult, I was suggesting a person who planned this, fantasized in detail, included rituals that he needed to perform, as in the feeding of pineapple with a silver spoon. Some obsessive people go no further than washing their hands fifteen times a day, not fourteen not sixteen, some take it to a level that takes over their lives and it becomes a disability. Obsession is usually hyphenated to include compulsion, because what would an obsession be if you weren't compelled to do it. It's a part of staying in control, without it there is "fear" of something bad happening, not unlike our childish "step on a crack break your mother's back". Can obsession take one to murder, I doubt it, but an obsessive person would leave clues behind indicating he had this "problem". This killer seemed , beginning with his editing his own ransom note, to fit this picture. Is a serial killer's signature just that, or a needed ritual ? I threw that out because I've often wondered if that's the case.

Sissi: it was not brilliant staging, it was a jumbled mess, and the people most surprised that they got away with it probably were the Ramseys themselves.
You wrote that Patsy Ramsey was 'a bit of a slob', relying on LHP's statement that the house was pretty messy every time she arrived.
Patsy was a multimillionaire's wife, and therefore accustomed to other people doing the housework, true.
But does this mean Patsy would not have put back a cap on a felt tip pen? I don't think so.
Remember Patsy was always perfectly groomed, and would never have left the house without perfect make-up. If she had been a true slob, she would not have bothered to put on make-up each time she left the house.

And do you really believe 'ritualistic' killers would have used a mundane household item such as a paintbrush?
These people use ritualistic weapons like swords, daggers, etc.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And do you really believe 'ritualistic' killers would have used a mundane household item such as a paintbrush?
These people use ritualistic weapons like swords, daggers, etc.

Ritualistic killers may use items that have symbolic meaning to them. The paintbrush must have had some symbolic meaning, otherwise it would not have been used. Almost any household item could be used without having to be broken at either end.

Thats an important clue, BTW. Why the perp, RDI or IDI, would break both ends?

 

[UKGuy]

Ritualistic killers may use items that have symbolic meaning to them. The paintbrush must have had some symbolic meaning, otherwise it would not have been used. Almost any household item could be used without having to be broken at either end.

Thats an important clue, BTW. Why the perp, RDI or IDI, would break both ends?

Holdontoyourhat,

And of course the method or the how?


.

 

[sissi]

Found this.. Santa requested a picture of Jonbenet before her death.
Who was the couple, the artist and her husband that lived in the church basement as caretakers. Patsy went down there once, and said it reeked of pot smoke and the people were odd. Anyone know anything about them?

There is Simon the naked nut running around screaming "I didn't kill her".
I'm not convinced that the paintbrush was Patsy's.


quote...
Although analysis of the connections between artist and serial killer is beyond the purview of this article, it seems clear to me that a parallel can be drawn between the old fear that portrait images--particularly photographic portrait images--robbed the sitter of their soul, and the reality of murdered victims being robbed of their lives. If you’re interested in this parallel, you might want to re-visit Susan Sontag’s classic “On Photography.” Read her discussion of the relationship between photography and aggression. Indeed, we talk about “shooting" photographs. And is the artist’s paintbrush not only phallic but also equally threatening?
But only in the movies of course


http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...paintbrush&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=41&ie=UTF-8


The 1960s gave us “Color Me Blood Red” (1965, directed by gore specialist Hershell Gordon Lewis), in which a successful painter realizes that blood provides the best color for his images. He kills lovely young women again and again to get his preferred pigment. “In Color of Night” (1994, directed by Richard Rush), Bruce Willis plays a psychologist in pursuit of a crazed painter-killer (Much of this film was shot in the artists’ complex known as The Brewery in downtown L.A.). The 1998 remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s “Dial M for Murder”--re-titled “A Perfect Murder”--featured Michael Douglas as a corporate mogul who plots revenge on his unfaithful wife by hiring her lover--an artist--to kill her. More recently, Peter Kosminsky directed Michelle Pfeiffer as an artist who kills her lover--and exhibits at Bergamot Station (“White Oleander,” 2002). That same year, The French film known to English speakers as “He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not” presented Audrey Tautou as an art student who stalks, then attacks and cripples a handsome doctor. She makes relief portraits of him, first from the refuse she collects out of his trash, then from the pills she doesn’t take while interred in an insane asylum

http://www.yuppiepunk.org/2005/01/killer-art-serial-killer-art-review.html

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

And of course the method or the how?


.

In a doorjamb is my guess.

 

[sissi]

A door jamb would mean he/she had leverage, doesn't that go against the premise designed by "lee" , that it required strength to break it? I break things using my feet, holding part under my shoe and giving whatever it is, a tree limb,etc. a pull with my hand. The splinters , wouldn't they be under the door? Or am I not following??

To break it in half would be easy, to break ends off without using something such as your suggested door jamb would be "tough". Did anyone look to see if a nick fit, of course not.

 

[BBB167893]

"Sissi: it was not brilliant staging, it was a jumbled mess, and the people most surprised that they got away with it probably were the Ramseys themselves. You wrote that Patsy Ramsey was 'a bit of a slob', relying on LHP's statement that the house was pretty messy every time she arrived. Patsy was a multimillionaire's wife, and therefore accustomed to other people doing the housework, true. But does this mean Patsy would not have put back a cap on a felt tip pen? I don't think so. Remember Patsy was always perfectly groomed, and would never have left the house without perfect make-up. If she had been a true slob, she would not have bothered to put on make-up each time she left the house."

Rashomon is quite correct; take me, for example: I'm obsessive about somethings, sloppy about others.

"Why the perp, RDI or IDI, would break both ends?"

More managable that way.

"I'm not convinced that the paintbrush was Patsy's."

Well, it was in her paint box.

 

[UKGuy]

In a doorjamb is my guess.

Sure thats possible, as is using your foot, similar to breaking wood for the fire.

Depending on the design of the paintbrush it may have been very difficult to break the end closer to the bristles?

And unlike the flashlight which I presume is silent in use, breaking the paintbrush may have been a noisy affair?

As sissi remarks we have a tidy perpetrator.

.

 

[sissi]

Yes it was in her paint tote, however, where would an obsessive person discard of a paintbrush. There is nothing to indicate it was there before the murder, was there? I will say, it wouldn't "quite" fit with a person who takes obsession to the limits ,that I believe ,this killer did, I doubt he would leave anything he could call" MINE" . Were there signs, wood shavings, around the tote, or was the whittled paintbrush a myth?

 

[rashomon]

Ritualistic killers may use items that have symbolic meaning to them. The paintbrush must have had some symbolic meaning, otherwise it would not have been used. Almost any household item could be used without having to be broken at either end.
Thats an important clue, BTW. Why the perp, RDI or IDI, would break both ends?

But if the paintbrush had a symbolic meaning to the perp, how could he know where he would find one in the huge Ramsey home? Wouldn't ritualistic killers have brought their own weapons? I don't think any ritualistic killer would intrude a home, thinking: "I hope to get my hands on a paintbrush which I need for my symbolic killing ritual."

Nor do I read anything into the paintbrush being broken at two ends. I think the simple reason for that was what SuperDave said: to make it more manageable.

 

[BBB167893]

"As sissi remarks we have a tidy perpetrator."

Yeah, I'm surprised he didn't leave a mint!

"There is nothing to indicate it was there before the murder, was there?"

Nothing says it wasn't, either.

"Were there signs, wood shavings, around the tote, or was the whittled paintbrush a myth?"

I think there was some whittling, but I don't know if it was a paintbrush, specifically.

 

[UKGuy]

"Sissi: it was not brilliant staging, it was a jumbled mess, and the people most surprised that they got away with it probably were the Ramseys themselves. You wrote that Patsy Ramsey was 'a bit of a slob', relying on LHP's statement that the house was pretty messy every time she arrived. Patsy was a multimillionaire's wife, and therefore accustomed to other people doing the housework, true. But does this mean Patsy would not have put back a cap on a felt tip pen? I don't think so. Remember Patsy was always perfectly groomed, and would never have left the house without perfect make-up. If she had been a true slob, she would not have bothered to put on make-up each time she left the house."

Rashomon is quite correct; take me, for example: I'm obsessive about somethings, sloppy about others.

"Why the perp, RDI or IDI, would break both ends?"

More managable that way.

"I'm not convinced that the paintbrush was Patsy's."

Well, it was in her paint box.

SuperDave,

Given the length of the ligature I dont see the paintbrush size as a big issue, it should have been possible to have added a complete paintbrush to the ligature, and twisted it until it had the desired effect. What was actually done made it obvious it was not constructed as a garrote.

And why not break it in the middle and use either half of the paintbrush as the ends of a classical garrote, then us sleuthers would be on less firm ground in claiming it was staged.

The stager had the time and opportunity since two breaks were made in the paintbrush handle, whereas only one was required for a classical garrote.

.

 

[UKGuy]

"As sissi remarks we have a tidy perpetrator."

Yeah, I'm surprised he didn't leave a mint!

"There is nothing to indicate it was there before the murder, was there?"

Nothing says it wasn't, either.

"Were there signs, wood shavings, around the tote, or was the whittled paintbrush a myth?"

I think there was some whittling, but I don't know if it was a paintbrush, specifically.

SuperDave,

The use of the word whittling has connotations of BlueCrabs BDI. Shards is what I read about, lying on the basement floor.


.

 

[BBB167893]

"Given the length of the ligature I dont see the paintbrush size as a big issue, it should have been possible to have added a complete paintbrush to the ligature, and twisted it until it had the desired effect. What was actually done made it obvious it was not constructed as a garrote."

You asked, UKGuy. And yes, it did!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But if the paintbrush had a symbolic meaning to the perp, how could he know where he would find one in the huge Ramsey home? Wouldn't ritualistic killers have brought their own weapons? I don't think any ritualistic killer would intrude a home, thinking: "I hope to get my hands on a paintbrush which I need for my symbolic killing ritual."

Nor do I read anything into the paintbrush being broken at two ends. I think the simple reason for that was what SuperDave said: to make it more manageable.

This is a simplistic POV, as a paintbrush broken at both ends adds an additional weapon-like characteristic to the garrote. Its now sharp at both ends.

More manageable? Why would a 'prop' have to be 'more manageable'? Now you've got RDI staging theories falling apart with that one.

 

[rashomon]

Yes it was in her paint tote, however, where would an obsessive person discard of a paintbrush. There is nothing to indicate it was there before the murder, was there? I will say, it wouldn't "quite" fit with a person who takes obsession to the limits ,that I believe ,this killer did, I doubt he would leave anything he could call" MINE" . Were there signs, wood shavings, around the tote, or was the whittled paintbrush a myth?

Sissi: I don't think an obssessive-compulsive type of person would have left the Barbie nightgown lying in the basement.
I can't see anything in the crime scene which would point to a perp who took obsession to the limits. The perp simply made mistakes in staging the scene, which is something different. For example putting the chair back against the cellar door, forgetting at that moment that the alleged intruder would have had to exit through the broken window too.
I see all these things as elements of a helpless and panicky staging, which would confirm what profiler McCrary said: people who are no experienced criminals themselves have no idea how real crime scenes look like, which is why they do such a poor job when trying to stage a scene.

 

[BBB167893]

"More manageable? Why would a 'prop' have to be 'more manageable'? Now you've got RDI staging theories falling apart with that one."

I don't see how. Do you know how many times I've slipped up trying to tie something onto a handle that was too long?

 

[rashomon]

This is a simplistic POV, as a paintbrush broken at both ends adds an additional weapon-like characteristic to the garrote. Its now sharp at both ends.

More manageable? Why would a 'prop' have to be 'more manageable'? Now you've got RDI staging theories falling apart with that one.

HOTYH: "simplistic" POV? Remember that the 'keep it simple' principle is the royal road to the truth in the majority of crime cases, and the JB Ramsey case is no exception.
The crime scene stager wanted to wrap the cord around a stick to make her bogus garrote scenario appear convincing, which is why she broke that paintbrush handle down to a suitable size, simple as that. No RDI theory falls apart here imo.

But what you have in fact falling apart here is your own "paintbrush = ritualistic killing instrument of symbolic value" theory. For if this had been the case: a paintbrush being of symbolic and ritualistic value to the killer, then this killer would have left that paintbrush intact and not have broken it into pieces.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH: "simplistic" POV? Remember that the 'keep it simple' principle is the royal road to the truth in the majority of crime cases, and the JB Ramsey case is no exception.
The crime scene stager wanted to wrap the cord around a stick to make her bogus garrote scenario appear convincing, which is why she broke that paintbrush handle down to a suitable size, simple as that. No RDI intruder theory falls apart here imo.

But what you have in fact falling apart here is your own "paintbrush = ritualistic killing instrument of symbolic value" theory. For if this had been the case: a paintbrush being of symbolic and ritualistic value to the killer, then this killer would have left that paintbrush intact and not have broken it into pieces.

Sorry, but its a complete collapse of the prop/staging paintbrush handle theory.

The idea presented here, that "she broke that paintbrush handle down to a suitable size" requires only one break. Breaking both ends, thus turning the handle into a 'you cant grab it by the ends because its sharp' weapon makes way more sense, functionally. But that doesn't fit the prop theory at all. Instead, it fits the 'weapon actually used' theory, which is fully supported by the photos. The whole staging idea is contradicted by the photos.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"Remember that the 'keep it simple' principle..."


I'd say that this whole elaborate staging scheme isn't keeping it simple. The garrote 'fabricated' to 'make it look like the work of a foreign faction' is way more complicated than what is simply indicated by the crime scene photos:
Strangulation by garrote and headbash.