Tea

[BBB167893]

"I'd say that this whole elaborate staging scheme isn't keeping it simple."

Oh, it isn't? Let's see, a group of guys break into a house, write a three-page note in handwriting so close Patsy's own sister couldn't tell the difference, kill a kid after feeding her pineapple and vanish into the night without a trace? You call that simple?

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

I don't see how.

"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."

Pure sophistry.

"But that doesn't fit the prop theory at all."

Doesn't prove anything one way or another.

"Instead, it fits the 'weapon actually used' theory, which is fully supported by the photos. The whole staging idea is contradicted by the photos."

You obviously haven't been here:

http://misty.angelcities.com/article1.html

"Child abductors are predisposed to commit a crime and if an opportunity arises, and the child is not being monitored, the probability will increase that the child abductor will attempt to abduct the child. However, child abductors are not risk takers. If there is any apprehension that they will be discovered, the probability that these types will act significantly lessens. Therefore, if you profile a "typical" child abductor and then transpose what this intruder did to commit this crime, they do not parallel each other."

"How does a garrote work? The cord is tied around the victim and then the murderer pulls on the stick end. By pulling on the stick, it will force a great deal of pressure on the anterior (front) part of the neck but it will pull the knot away from the posterior (back) part of the neck, breaking the furrow line. Where is the impression from the knot? There isn't any. Nor, is there a break in the ligature furrow. If the garrote had been used to strangle JonBenet, there would either be the impression from theknot (the murderer twisting the garrote) or a break in the ligature furrow (the murderer pulling forcefully, which draws the ligature away from the neck).

Clearly, this is one of the most significant staging elements in this murder."

Or read the conclusions of the FBI's CASKU guys. I'll go with what they said for now.

 

[rashomon]

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.

HOTYH, where does it say that the paintbrush was broken at two ends? For from the link SuperDave gave in the # 81 post, there is a picture of the paintbrush handle and to me it looks like there is only one sharp end - the left end.
Has it been established that the injuries to JB's vagina were inflicted with that paintbrush too? If yes, wouldn't there have been JB's blood on the broken paintbrush?

What please is 'complicated' about tying a knot and then wrapping the remaining cord around a stick? And btw, according to Delmar England's analysis of the garrote, the multiple loops around the paintbrush handle would even have made effective garroting impossible.

 

[BBB167893]

HOTYH, where does it say that the paintbrush was broken at two ends? For from the link SuperDave gave in the # 81 post, there is a picture of the paintbrush handle and to me it looks like there is only one sharp end - the left end.
Has it been established that the injuries to JB's vagina were inflicted with that paintbrush too? If yes, wouldn't there have been JB's blood on the broken paintbrush?

What please is 'complicated' about tying a knot and then wrapping the remaining cord around a stick? And btw, according to Delmar England's analysis of the garrote, the multiple loops around the paintbrush handle would even have made effective garroting impossible.

I was examining that photo just last night, and I was struck at how clean and flat one of the ends was.

Some people think the paintbrush was used to violate JB's vagina, others think it was a finger that still had paintbrush material on it.

Delmar and the link I posted agree that the garrote would not be an effective weapon. The link even shows what a "normal" garroting looks like.

The FBI guys even said that there was "staging within staging." That refers to the wrist ties and the duct tape. The tape was clearly put over her mouth after she was dead. Now, if an intruder's already killed her, what's the point?

 

[rashomon]

Delmar and the link I posted agree that the garrote would not be an effective weapon. The link even shows what a "normal" garroting looks like.

The FBI guys even said that there was "staging within staging." That refers to the wrist ties and the duct tape. The tape was clearly put over her mouth after she was dead. Now, if an intruder's already killed her, what's the point?

Great link in your # 81 post, SuperDave - very informative!
If we combine the link you gave with Delmar England's exhaustive analysis of the garrote, one thing stands out in bold relief JonBenet was not garroted. Instead, the cord wrapped around the stick was a bogus contraption to provide a false motive for the crime.

Coroner Meyer called the knot around JB's neck a 'double knot'. Sounds like a simple overhand knot like in a shoelace, which is tied from both ends of the string.
And it seems it was the cord tied with the double knot which cut off JB's respiration, and not an elaborate garroting.
But if this crime was 'planned and premeditated', why build in a bogus garrote?
If a sexual predator planned this crime, why would he build in a bogus garrote?
If a family friend planned to abuse JB, why would he build in a bogus garrote after killing her?
Why not just bash JB's head in and leave suppose she said was going to tell her parents? And why on earth would this person write a ransom note at all?
These are just a few reasons why imo a planned and premeditated murder theory doesn't hold any water.

Nor do I believe for a second that Patsy and John would have silently and knowingly accepted it if their daughter had been abused by a pedophile ring. Totally absurd. In which way would the Ramseys have profited from that? In no way. They were no destitute third-world slum district parents who pimp their daughters for money. They didn't need any money, they were multimillionaires.

One always gets back to what the CASKU experts said: that the duct tape and the wrist ligatures were part of a staged scene (one can also add the garrote) which point away from an intruder.

 

[BBB167893]

A lot of it doesn't add up, rashomon. And it should, if it were a real intruder.

 

[aussiesheila]

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?

sissi, wrt the absence of fingerprints on the flashlight and batteries, do you this had to be because the perpetrator wiped them off? Do you think it could have been the glove-wearing Santa who used the flashlight to find his way around in JonBenet's bedroom? Then forgot to put it back in the drawer after he brought it down again?

And the fact that there were no fingerprints on the batteries, could this have been not that there were no prints at all, but rather that there were only small areas of prints on the batteries that were too small to be used for analytical purposes?

 

[BBB167893]

No, if that were the case, they'd be referred to as "partial" prints.

 

[aussiesheila]

No, if that were the case, they'd be referred to as "partial" prints.

Well maybe the lab reports did say that, but I don't think these have ever been made public. All we have been told is what must have come out in some summary report that there were no prints on the batteries.

 

[BBB167893]

Partials are still more than none.

 

[aussiesheila]

Partials are still more than none.

Well yes they are SuperDave, but my point is that I don't think the Maglite and the batteries were wiped clean at all. I feel sure there would have been traces of prints on the batteries at least, although since I think the perpetrator wore gloves I can believe there weren't any on the Maglite.

I have never seen the exact wording of the police report about the 'no fingerprints' but I think that whatever it said, it did not mean 'total absence of any traces of fingerprints whatsoever'. I think what the report would have meant was that 'there were some areas of fingerprints but they were so minute and so smudged that we could not obtain good enough samples to be able to analyse them'. They just didn't say this in the report because it was too much of a mouthful, and simply said 'no prints found' IMO.

So I just think people should get the notion that the Maglite and batteries had been wiped clean right out of their heads.

 

[tumble]

Maybe the batteries was put in at the factory. Maybe automatically by machine.

 

[BBB167893]

"They just didn't say this in the report because it was too much of a mouthful, and simply said 'no prints found' IMO."

I always figured it would say "no usable prints," but maybe it was just laziness.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I have never seen the exact wording of the police report about the 'no fingerprints' but I think that whatever it said, it did not mean 'total absence of any traces of fingerprints whatsoever'.

No usually means no, especially in police reports where detail may be crucial.

I think what the report would have meant was that 'there were some areas of fingerprints but they were so minute and so smudged that we could not obtain good enough samples to be able to analyse them'. They just didn't say this in the report because it was too much of a mouthful, and simply said 'no prints found' IMO.

That's where the phrase "partial prints found" would come in handy.

So I just think people should get the notion that the Maglite and batteries had been wiped clean right out of their heads.

I think people should get the pedophile ring theory out of their heads, but that's just my opinion. Neither is going away until they are disproved completely.

 

[aussiesheila]

Maybe the batteries was put in at the factory. Maybe automatically by machine.

Absolutely. Do they do that for you in the US?

 

[tumble]

Can't say I am from Sweden.

 

[BBB167893]

"Absolutely. Do they do that for you in the US?"

Only in the disposable kind.

 

[narlacat]

Well yes they are SuperDave, but my point is that I don't think the Maglite and the batteries were wiped clean at all. I feel sure there would have been traces of prints on the batteries at least, although since I think the perpetrator wore gloves I can believe there weren't any on the Maglite.

I have never seen the exact wording of the police report about the 'no fingerprints' but I think that whatever it said, it did not mean 'total absence of any traces of fingerprints whatsoever'. I think what the report would have meant was that 'there were some areas of fingerprints but they were so minute and so smudged that we could not obtain good enough samples to be able to analyse them'. They just didn't say this in the report because it was too much of a mouthful, and simply said 'no prints found' IMO.

So I just think people should get the notion that the Maglite and batteries had been wiped clean right out of their heads.

Yeah right Aussie, we'll just take your word for it over everything we've ever read!
Too much of a mouthful....god you come out with some crazy ideas and even scarier you believe them.
You posts contain the phrase 'I think' all the way through them, well you know what?
I THINK you think too much

 

[UKGuy]

So I just think people should get the notion that the Maglite and batteries had been wiped clean right out of their heads.

aussiesheila,

Its not the absence of fingerprints that is important. Its the fact that someone had wiped the flashlight clean including the batteries.

This in law enforcement 101 means the wiper was forensically aware, e.g. there was premeditation, criminal intent and the wiper wanted to remove any association to the flashlight!

The same principal applies to her size-6 underwear they have gone missing so to remove any forensic evidence that adhered to her size-6 underwear!

Other items of her clothing were left behind, there were soiled underwear upstairs in the bathroom, so this was not an issue.

JonBenet was dressed in day-clothes above her torso and night-clothes below.

If there is prior evidence of sexual abuse then it would appear a sexual assault was being hidden or masked.


.

 

[tumble]

This in law enforcement 101 means the wiper was forensically aware, e.g. there was premeditation, criminal intent and the wiper wanted to remove any association to the flashlight!

This is a good observation UKGuy.As JR had a natural association to the flashlight so this reasoning pretty much rules him out as the wiper, if he was not covering for someone else. If PR's prints had been on the flashlight that might have been suspicious at least to the ones who knew she never used it. I also think PR wavers abit describing the use of the flashlight, she says to the BPD

when they... John used it

during the interview she want it to be known that only John used it but in this staement she says they and quickly changes it to John as if she wanted Burke to be disconnected from the use of the flashlight too.

 

[BBB167893]

UKGuy's just talking common sense.