The Best Untainted Evidence-The Ransom Letter

[BBB167893]

..that's the problem w the R's....they didn't change their ways.
no confession,JB continues to be betrayed...they also threw a lot of innocent ppl under the bus,inc. former friends...I think they would even let someone else go to the death for this crime,or at the least..life in prison.
even so,betrayal may seem minor in comparison,but it is a very negative thing,and I believe they will indeed pay for it all someday in the afterlife,first and foremost for causing her death of course,and secondly,for betraying her.

Make no mistake. I think Patsy has been spared. I don't think the gods will look so favorably on John.

 

[icedtea4me]

Here is a link to one of my posts from FFJ which has the typed-out screen capture made by Why_Nut. I believe I've seen the original somewhere on one of these boards, but can't recall where.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=100265&postcount=1

I don't follow you.... why would a change of her outfit confirm she was abducted from her bed?

I think it's more so to show they had as little physical contact with her as possible that night when they got home.


-Tea

 

[LI_Mom]

Here is a link to one of my posts from FFJ which has the typed-out screen capture made by Why_Nut. I believe I've seen the original somewhere on one of these boards, but can't recall where.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=100265&postcount=1


I think it's more so to show they had as little physical contact with her as possible that night when they got home.


-Tea

Hi Tea, interesting link. Thanks.


It seems like they found blood on a lot of articles of clothing & the blanket. But if ANY blood was left by the perp, wouldn't they have a COMPLETE DNA file?

Anyway... I still don't understand why they'd lie about what she wore to bed... except we saw how many things they tried to claim were proof of an intruder... pineapple mystery, Santa Bear, flashlight, bat, Hi-Tecs, basement window, etc.... so it's not hard to believe they might be be wrong about what they reported JB wore to bed that night.

 

[JMO8778]

Hi Tea, interesting link. Thanks.


It seems like they found blood on a lot of articles of clothing & the blanket. But if ANY blood was left by the perp, wouldn't they have a COMPLETE DNA file?

Anyway... I still don't understand why they'd lie about what she wore to bed... except we saw how many things they tried to claim were proof of an intruder... pineapple mystery, Santa Bear, flashlight, bat, Hi-Tecs, basement window, etc.... so it's not hard to believe they might be be wrong about what they reported JB wore to bed that night.

Initially they told LE that JB had went to bed wearing the red turtleneck that was found balled up JB's bathroom counter.They said this to 3 different ppl,I believe.
So it seems upon talking w their attorneys (geez,no wonder it took them 4 months to talk..details,details!),the story was changed to 'she fell asleep in the car and was put straight to bed',b/c since she was found in the white top,that of course would be more believable.
If she did go to bed in the barbie gown,then they must have thrown in the red turtle neck initially to account for some evidence on it.
there is also something odd about Patsy saying she washed out a stain on the red jumpsuit that morning,as if she was trying to account for something on it.

 

[angelwngs]

The lights were on when Fleet White first went into th basement according to his interview.

John admittedly went to the basement prior to finding JBR's body.

Her arms were loosely tied...

Could there have been an afterthought realization that her shirt needed to be changed...which prompted yet another trip to the basement to untie her wrists, change her top and quickly retie her wrists, this time, by accident and in haste, more loosely than they should have been if a 'real intruder' had done it?

 

[angelwngs]

"You are not the only fat cat around..."

According to Access Graphics employees Don Paugh used the word "cat" as a slang refernce to people frequently, so this would have been commonly heard by PR and easily repeated when trying to take on a male persona.

 

[JMO8778]

The lights were on when Fleet White first went into th basement according to his interview.

John admittedly went to the basement prior to finding JBR's body.

Her arms were loosely tied...

Could there have been an afterthought realization that her shirt needed to be changed...which prompted yet another trip to the basement to untie her wrists, change her top and quickly retie her wrists, this time, by accident and in haste, more loosely than they should have been if a 'real intruder' had done it?

good thought.

 

[KoldKase]

Here is a link to one of my posts from FFJ which has the typed-out screen capture made by Why_Nut. I believe I've seen the original somewhere on one of these boards, but can't recall where.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=100265&postcount=1


-Tea

Well spotted, Tea! I totally missed that three of those samples had matched JB. I have a thread going on the DNA there, and in collecting stuff for it I did get the "screen captures" up from which this info came. They're really blurred, but with magnification and careful comparisons, they are legible.

I also posted a long excerpt from the Wolf civil suit deposition of Mark Beckner, where Wood grills Beckner on "DNAX". Beckner and Wood go quite a few rounds, and some things can be deduced from implications about this "DNAX" and the implications of it not being matched to anyone. It's tough, though, because Wood is bascially shadow boxing.

What I came to understand...I think...is that this DNAX wasn't matched to any donor, but it also wasn't "matched" to the partial strand in the underwear, right? If it had been, then why wouldn't they have a full DNA profile BEFORE NOW, or be talking about ANOTHER source of this "intruder DNA" not on JB's clothes?

Hope you'll go to FFJ and point out the three samples that belong to JB.

 

[KoldKase]

Hi, Koldkase- glad to see you here!

Like you, I have a hard time seeing evidence of manual strangulation or even strangulation with a scarf. To me, the autopsy photos indicate the strangulation was done with the ligature only, and the petechiae indicate she was still alive. The lack of much movement in the ligature as it went around her neck indicate to me that she was not conscious and was probably lying down. (as opposed to being propped up or strangled while standing).
These things also make me feel that the head bash came first, then as the horror of realizing that irreversible mortal damage had been done to JBR, a kidnapping/murder scene was enacted. The garrote was hastily made and pulled, tangling her hair as it tightened.

Hey, DeeDee. Glad to be here...as long as I last, anyway. Pyrate that I am....

UK has a lot of good info, but I may not be smart enough to see those fine distinctions in patterns of injury he does.

The lack of defensive injuries makes it clear to me she was unconscious when garroted. That puts the head blow first, IMO, as well.

I still think the paintbrush was inserted before it was broken to use as a handle. Think about it, though really it's just speculation: to break the paintbrush into three pieces, down to the [missing] tip, the eventual "handle", and the brush end left in the paint tray, would necessarily leave three choices for insertion. The brush end should have been tested for blood, and surely it was, so I'm eliminating it on faith--I know, I know, but if we don't assume SOME things, we may as well fold and all go home. That leaves the handle, which also should have been tested for blood, and surely it was. Now I know we could just not know about those test results, if there was blood on that "handle", but again, with nothing else to go by, I'm assuming there was no blood on that "handle", which would have been short for insertion after breaking and more difficult to insert, as well. Since there is no indication JonBenet fought anyone who was molesting her in such a painful attack, I don't know what the purpose of making this more difficult for the perp would be.

So that leaves the "tip", which I believe was taken from the home because it did have blood on it. It would have been rather much shorter, as well, to insert AFTER a break. It just doesn't make sense to me to break this brush down before the insertion, whatever reason one believes this was done.

Yes, I agree that it was in all likelihood something/wood from the paintbrush. Some speculated it was powder from gloves, but that's so long ago, I can't make that argument now. But I differ on the PLURAL of "wood shardS". I have seen no source but Carnes state there were multiple SHARDS of this birefrigent found. Carnes got some evidence badly construed, and she only had what was SAID in depositions. She never saw the case file, never heard any "experts" go through a criminal trial process of admitting and testifying about evidence, etc. All by way of saying that all sources I saw before Carnes' OPINION said there was a small piece, as in singular, of birefringent material. Maybe there are other sources and I missed them, so I'd be happy to learn about them, and thanks in advance.

 

[KoldKase]

IMO, the key word was "shards".... that points to splinters from the paintbrush handle.

Still, there would probably be separate forensic evidence from the handle itself, from what was ON the handle (paint, turpentine, foreign material from the paint tote, etc) and also from any physical contact before &/or after the paintbrush was inserted.

Good points, LI Mom. Ollie Grey speculated on TV during the "touch" DNA discussion on Nancy Grace that the "DNA" in the underwear might have come from the paintbrush. (First thing I ever heard him say that made sense.)

Wasn't the paintbrush quite used, with worn off places, etc.? They get that way with age, exposure to paints and turpentines, friction from being handled, etc.

 

[KoldKase]

KoldKase,

Have you never grabbed someone by their collar to restrain them, never seen it in a movie, or in real life? Collared or collar can also mean to arrest or charge a perpetrator with a crime. A variant is white-collar crime. In the emergency services the phrase Restraint Asphyxia is used to describe the unintentional death of someone as they are being attended to.

The important aspect to JonBenet's abrasions is that they are different the reddened lower abrasions resulting from a struggle and the ligature furrow abrasions appearing almost non-existent, almost hidden by the ligature.


mmm, well you make my point for me, presumably JonBenet's necklace moved as did her hair when the garrote was applied. If the lower abrasions were the result of the garrote sliding upwards then you should expect to see some contused pattern left as the result of JonBenet's necklace being compressed against her skin as it moves upwards, similarly with her hair.

Compare my Restraint Asphyxia theory with the standard stages in asphyxia:
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/notes/asphyxia.pdf#Stages



I've never seen any mention of pajama bottoms either, did they go the same way as JonBenet's size-6 underwear? Why did the staging mandate her wearing her White Gap-Top, and not any pajamas, which would remove the Ramsey's from being the last to touch and see JonBenet?


.

I still don't see it, UK, but I'll check out your link and maybe that will help me.

I believe some of the abrasion on the neck was the result of the necklace moving up the neck under so much pressure. But I could be wrong.

I wish we knew if they found those pajama bottoms. Haney discussed a pair of pants and dirty undies on the floor of JB's room, and he asked if they were from her playing that day, I believe. Of course, Patsy "didn't remember." Patsy also didn't remember helping JonBenet dress for the White party...or maybe she did...or maybe not....

But I "don't remember" Haney or anyone clearly getting any answers about those pajama bottoms. I have wondered about this before. Hm. Back to the transcripts....

 

[UKGuy]

Here is a link to one of my posts from FFJ which has the typed-out screen capture made by Why_Nut. I believe I've seen the original somewhere on one of these boards, but can't recall where.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=100265&postcount=1


I think it's more so to show they had as little physical contact with her as possible that night when they got home.


-Tea

icedtea4me,
Thanks for your link, which is very interesting and should change some theories?

#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt

Now to discover there was blood on JonBenet's white gap top, is not surprising, since she had a nose bleed of sorts, just depends if the source was her nose, or was it from her internal injuries?

#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??

Bloodstains on her barbie gown must change the ball game, since this means the barbie gown was in contact with JonBenet either prior to entering the wine-cellar or inside of it. Which is not consistent with the barbie-gown accidently arriving in the wine-cellar as suggested by some people.


I've always assumed that the barbie-gown was intended to redress JonBenet, and remove the white gap top. With both having blood stains it could be that your assumption is correct, since I do not understand the rationale behind leaving JonBenet in her white gap top whilst changing everything else?

So there is the strong possibility that JonBenet had been wearing the Barbie-Gown?



.

 

[UKGuy]

I still don't see it, UK, but I'll check out your link and maybe that will help me.

I believe some of the abrasion on the neck was the result of the necklace moving up the neck under so much pressure. But I could be wrong.

I wish we knew if they found those pajama bottoms. Haney discussed a pair of pants and dirty undies on the floor of JB's room, and he asked if they were from her playing that day, I believe. Of course, Patsy "didn't remember." Patsy also didn't remember helping JonBenet dress for the White party...or maybe she did...or maybe not....

But I "don't remember" Haney or anyone clearly getting any answers about those pajama bottoms. I have wondered about this before. Hm. Back to the transcripts....

KoldKase,
OK, I'm agnostic on the method of asphyxia. Yes those pajama bottoms may be important if JonBenet had been wearing them that night.

Of course, Patsy "didn't remember." Patsy also didn't remember helping JonBenet dress for the White party...or maybe she did...or maybe not....

She said she supervised it, but forgot the details. Since remembering would mean knowing what day of the week size-6's JonBenet wore to the White's?

Whats interesting about Patsy and that interview is that she knows when to forget stuff but can remember John did not assist in the washing or dressing of JonBenet for the White's. Then when it comes to the size-12 panties she lies through her teeth that she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer, and answers in the affirmative that if there are any more size-12's, then they could be found in the house. Only to be told, no size-12's were found in the Panty drawer. So it looks like when Patsy knows the answers she forgets and when she doesn't she simply makes it up?

I understand that there are underwear lying inside a pair of jeans on the bathroom floor although that is not explicitly stated?

I've always thought leaving soiled underwear in plain view and leaving JonBenet in urine-stained underwear and longjohns seems a touch inconsistent, with a complex post-mortem staging and some bedwetting rage theory, as per steve thomas?


.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't follow you.... why would a change of her outfit confirm she was abducted from her bed?

If the clothes she was wearing (according to the parents) were left behind ON HER bed, that would make sense.



Is it possible the original idea was to dispose of ALL the clothes she wore to bed.... the size 6's, the shirt & longjohns & leave her in the new underwear & Barbie nightgown BUT.....

the restraints & tape were already on her & it was impossible to remove her shirt so it becomes easier & quicker to just yank up the longjohns & leave her in the same outfit afterall?

LI_Mom,

I don't follow you.... why would a change of her outfit confirm she was abducted from her bed?

Because the nightgown or barbie-gown would suggest that she had been sleeping in her bed. The white gap top does not lend itself to JonBenet being abducted from her bed

Is it possible the original idea was to dispose of ALL the clothes she wore to bed.... the size 6's, the shirt & longjohns & leave her in the new underwear & Barbie nightgown BUT.....

Sure this is something I suggested before, but some people reckon the barbie-gown arrived in the wine-cellar by accident. Some think when John vanished mid-morning he may have been trying to redress JonBenet in the barbie-gown? Prior to knowledge of the pineapple residue found in JonBenet's digestive tract, the white gap top is incongruent.

the restraints & tape were already on her & it was impossible to remove her shirt so it becomes easier & quicker to just yank up the longjohns & leave her in the same outfit afterall?

Possibly or rigor-mortis played a part, I've always assumed the wine-cellar staging was a revision of some prior staging?

 

[UKGuy]

Hey, DeeDee. Glad to be here...as long as I last, anyway. Pyrate that I am....

UK has a lot of good info, but I may not be smart enough to see those fine distinctions in patterns of injury he does.

The lack of defensive injuries makes it clear to me she was unconscious when garroted. That puts the head blow first, IMO, as well.

I still think the paintbrush was inserted before it was broken to use as a handle. Think about it, though really it's just speculation: to break the paintbrush into three pieces, down to the [missing] tip, the eventual "handle", and the brush end left in the paint tray, would necessarily leave three choices for insertion. The brush end should have been tested for blood, and surely it was, so I'm eliminating it on faith--I know, I know, but if we don't assume SOME things, we may as well fold and all go home. That leaves the handle, which also should have been tested for blood, and surely it was. Now I know we could just not know about those test results, if there was blood on that "handle", but again, with nothing else to go by, I'm assuming there was no blood on that "handle", which would have been short for insertion after breaking and more difficult to insert, as well. Since there is no indication JonBenet fought anyone who was molesting her in such a painful attack, I don't know what the purpose of making this more difficult for the perp would be.

So that leaves the "tip", which I believe was taken from the home because it did have blood on it. It would have been rather much shorter, as well, to insert AFTER a break. It just doesn't make sense to me to break this brush down before the insertion, whatever reason one believes this was done.

Yes, I agree that it was in all likelihood something/wood from the paintbrush. Some speculated it was powder from gloves, but that's so long ago, I can't make that argument now. But I differ on the PLURAL of "wood shardS". I have seen no source but Carnes state there were multiple SHARDS of this birefrigent found. Carnes got some evidence badly construed, and she only had what was SAID in depositions. She never saw the case file, never heard any "experts" go through a criminal trial process of admitting and testifying about evidence, etc. All by way of saying that all sources I saw before Carnes' OPINION said there was a small piece, as in singular, of birefringent material. Maybe there are other sources and I missed them, so I'd be happy to learn about them, and thanks in advance.

KoldKase,

So that leaves the "tip", which I believe was taken from the home because it did have blood on it. It would have been rather much shorter, as well, to insert AFTER a break. It just doesn't make sense to me to break this brush down before the insertion, whatever reason one believes this was done.

I tend to agree with your analysis, except there is the possibility that the missing piece of paintbrush handle was left inside JonBenet and that this has been redacted from the autopsy?

Since why would someone enact an internal assault then remove the injuring item, and cover up any signs of an injury by redressing JonBenet in size-12's, longjohns and blankets? All the prior actions are redundant if you want to promote an intruder theory.

Part of my theory assumes the wine-cellar staging is a revision of some prior staging, or a sexual molestation of JonBenet that went badly wrong.


.

 

[KoldKase]

KoldKase,

I tend to agree with your analysis, except there is the possibility that the missing piece of paintbrush handle was left inside JonBenet and that this has been redacted from the autopsy?

Since why would someone enact an internal assault then remove the injuring item, and cover up any signs of an injury by redressing JonBenet in size-12's, longjohns and blankets? All the prior actions are redundant if you want to promote an intruder theory.

Part of my theory assumes the wine-cellar staging is a revision of some prior staging, or a sexual molestation of JonBenet that went badly wrong.


.

You bring up some interesting questions, of course.

What I have thought is most plausible is that the perp didn't want LE to know this vaginal assault was with the paintbrush. If you're staging a sexual assault by a terrorist/kidnapper/pedophile/intruder, maybe you want people to think this was done for the perp's pedophilia driven pleasure, not by a paintbrush.

Now that I'm thinking about it, if the perp knew that before that night, JonBenet HAD been sexually abused, then that person might also have some specific knowledge ABOUT that type of abuse and what the actual molester would have actually done, and knowing that it wasn't about torturing a little girl with a paintbrush, which is contrary to the average MO of pedophiles, that "paintbrush" being used needed to be covered up, as well...?

I have had a tendency to speculate that some of the elements of this crime just unfolded as they went. If not premeditated in any or some of the details, if the head blow was an accident, it had to happen that way, didn't it?

 

[UKGuy]

You bring up some interesting questions, of course.

What I have thought is most plausible is that the perp didn't want LE to know this vaginal assault was with the paintbrush. If you're staging a sexual assault by a terrorist/kidnapper/pedophile/intruder, maybe you want people to think this was done for the perp's pedophilia driven pleasure, not by a paintbrush.

Now that I'm thinking about it, if the perp knew that before that night, JonBenet HAD been sexually abused, then that person might also have some specific knowledge ABOUT that type of abuse and what the actual molester would have actually done, and knowing that it wasn't about torturing a little girl with a paintbrush, which is contrary to the average MO of pedophiles, that "paintbrush" being used needed to be covered up, as well...?

I have had a tendency to speculate that some of the elements of this crime just unfolded as they went. If not premeditated in any or some of the details, if the head blow was an accident, it had to happen that way, didn't it?

KoldKase,

What I have thought is most plausible is that the perp didn't want LE to know this vaginal assault was with the paintbrush. If you're staging a sexual assault by a terrorist/kidnapper/pedophile/intruder, maybe you want people to think this was done for the perp's pedophilia driven pleasure, not by a paintbrush.

That assumes that the missing piece was not left inside JonBenet and that nobody would consider the paintbrush as the assault weapon. If you are staging a sexual assault, then why do you then cover it up, where is the percentage in that?

Now that I'm thinking about it, if the perp knew that before that night, JonBenet HAD been sexually abused, then that person might also have some specific knowledge ABOUT that type of abuse and what the actual molester would have actually done, and knowing that it wasn't about torturing a little girl with a paintbrush, which is contrary to the average MO of pedophiles, that "paintbrush" being used needed to be covered up, as well...?

Sure, so why hide the sexual assault beneath layers of clothing, why not leave JonBenet lying in the wine-cellar naked from the waist down, minus the missing piece of paintbrush handle. Staging accom[lished e.g. it was a nasty intruder who did it?

I have had a tendency to speculate that some of the elements of this crime just unfolded as they went. If not premeditated in any or some of the details, if the head blow was an accident, it had to happen that way, didn't it?

Quite possibly, but I doubt the head injury was any accident, if so, why was medical assistance denied to JonBenet? On a prior occassion when Burke whacked JonBenet she was rushed to the hospital for treatment. The wine-cellar is a premeditated staged crime-scene nearly every element is designed to confuse and direct you down the wrong path e.g. Lou Smit.

So although it appears as if it just unfolded, many aspects are planned and deliberate e.g. wiping of the flashlight, inside and out. JonBenet has asymetric pigtails on her head , where did those come from, assuming she was placed straight to bed as asserted?

 

[Toltec]

What would anyone do to cover up a previous molestation? We know a garotte was fashioned to hide previous strangulation of JonBenet.

Any ideas?

 

[UKGuy]

What would anyone do to cover up a previous molestation? We know a garotte was fashioned to hide previous strangulation of JonBenet.

Any ideas?

Toltec,
Not much really, either you present JonBenet naked as the result of a bedtime abduction, and blame any injuries on the abductor, which should be the outcome of any staging?

The other course is to adopt the above strategy but modify it by injuring JonBenet genitally. To then hide this beneath layers of clothing not only contradicts the intended outcome, but signals to any investigator that someone has probably applied some staging?

So either her genital injury is staging and was revised and hidden, or it was an acute sexual assault that was cleaned up, and hidden beneath the layers of clothing.

An important aspect is that JonBenet does not need to be redressed in the size-12's , longjohns, and wrapped in the blankets to portray her as an abductee savagely assaulted then garroted. In fact you have the opposite, the garrote is plainly visible whilst her genital injury is hidden.



.

 

[JMO8778]

I've always wondered if JB could have been only semi-conscious from the head wound,unbeknowest to the stager though,and the scream heard was from an assault with the paintbrush.
Something Thomas says in his book...that he hoped JB was unconscious when that occurred..makes me wonder if that's what happened.