Was Burke Involved? # 4

[DakotaMayi]

Severely snipped to highlight this one thought: I think he should continue with his interviews! The more, the merrier! Next time he could end up completely incriminating himself! Go Burke Go!

Exactly this. I'm hoping for interview after interview. Every time I see this guy I become more convinced he's the one that did it.

 

[ThinkHard]

Are you actually positing that JonBenet had sensory processing issues?? Come on now. Burke was largely viewed as normal, and JonBenet was nothing but normal. You're spreading your own experience & knowledge into areas where it doesn't apply.

I never said that. But we are making guesses as to what these children were doing or being exposed to based on the known behavior that has been reported, and in doing so we should be thorough in considering and understanding that alternative causes for some of these signs and symptoms are possible. So we must remain cautious with the conclusion we draw.

For what its worth however SPD's tend to go hand in hand with ASD's, which many have speculated Burke may have had, and ASD's tend to be genetic, and present differently in females. So it is also not a completely baseless consideration to mention.

Even IF JBR did show any evidence of this, it is not the kind of thing those who would have known about it would have spoken about after her death. even the parents of the female I mentioned didn't bring her history to our attention until after we brought it to theirs it was happening at school. They had just hoped she wouldn't do it at school, and were too embarassed to broach the subject ahead of time.

 

[Charliegirl610]

I'm not sure I would consider, 2 6/7/8year old boys showing each other their penis's as innapropriate exposure. Perhaps there is more to the story or more incidents. But as a single incidents, I feel it's pretty common.

You're right, I typed inappropriate exposure but ended on "just a thought". It very well could have been only one incident and completely innocent. I only read it in PR's interview. However with the confliction of her innocent explanation of JBR's black eye from BR accidentally hitting her with the golf club and Judith Phillips stating that he had anger issues and that PR told her BR intentionally hit JBR, I have to wonder if PR's explanation was masking the incident and pooh poohing it off as nothing when in fact it could have been more. Again, this is during the time that S. Savage was caring for them, during PR's treatment and S. Savage stated that PR was isolated from the kids so as not to catch germs. With JR gone a lot for work and PR "isolated" the Ramsey children were likely going through some emotional distress although unable to articulate it. If there was a time that behaviors started with these kids if could very well have been around this time, it is easy for me to believe that. I'm not saying little boys that do this aren't typical but I suspect there is more to it.

 

[Mandala]

Isn't it fact that the blow to the head was forensically proven to come before the strangulation? Can anyone verify this? TIA

 

[HarmonyE.]

Isn't it fact that the blow to the head was forensically proven to come before the strangulation? Can anyone verify this? TIA

The pathologist who signed the autopsy report said she died from asphyxia, although the head injury was associated with her death due to its severity as she would have died from it eventually. The head trauma came before the strangulation. There was swelling and bleeding in the brain that would not have occurred if she was dead when the cord was used.

Lou Smit lied for his pals the Ramseys. Which begs another question - why?

 

[TheOtherChristina]

I think you are gravely misunderstanding why I said what I said and then turning and personally attacking me which I think is a bit unfair. For one I never called myself a professional nor have I ever claimed to be.

I'm not asking someone or telling someone that they can't have an opinion. Nor was I even suggesting that only a professional could have an opinion on it.

However one particular poster kept saying things that are not only innacurate but also potebtially damaging and that is of huge concern to me.

Do you know the number one reason parents with sexually aggressive children do not seek help early on because they are terrified others will believe their child's behavior is the result of sexual abuse and their child could be taken from them. It's true!

And who knows if Burkes parents might have had the same fears and delayed care and down played his behavior because of it.

It's damaging and dangerous to go around putting false information out there. Or to say what these kids are and aren't like if you haven't experienced it first hand.

Before I experienced first hand, I thought differently as well. And ONLY through first hand experience that I was truly able to grasp this illness more clearly.

So I said what I said to remind people to keep an open mind and not assume things are this or that if they don't really have a frame of reference to say.

Again I don't care about being right, that's not the point at all....but spreading misinformation such as that can be damaging, and I think we need to be careful in that regard.

Finally I don't really care that you decided to pick on my spelling, I think it's an unnacessary attack, but I will take it as an opportunity to educate you. I have aspergers. Which means I have splintering skills of intelligence. Grammar and spelling are hands down my weakest points, that doesn't mean I am not intelligent and it doesn't mean I am poorly educated. I have an undergrad degree and 2 graduate degrees one being from an Ivy League.

Again opinions are fine, but claiming you know what a child is or isn't like in a situation one has no experience in, is not ok. It's just not far to the children who have these issues.

My post was not intended as a personal attack and I'm sorry it seemed that way to you.

With all due respect, you have no idea what kind of experience other posters do or don't have with any of the topics at hand. To say that everyone else's comments come from a place of ignorance is an unfounded assumption. Something I love about Websleuths is that people here bring all kinds of specialized knowledge to the table. Some people have relevant educational backgrounds while others may be skilled amateurs. I think it's fabulous when we all pool our knowledge to gain greater insight about human behavior. I think you have contributed admirably in that regard.

I do want to be clear, I did not pick on your spelling; I stated that your repeated misspelling of a topic in which you claimed exclusive academic expertise was undermining your credibility, and I stand by that. When someone asserts authority, any errors in their work detract from their credibility in my eyes.

Personally, my memory is extremely poor. This is largely due to anxiety and medication side effects. However, knowing my memory is untrustworthy, I often do research and verify facts before posting. This is probably not something everyone needs to do, but because of my specific limitations, I do it. I don't have to, really, but I think frequent misstatements would detract from my credibility, so I make the effort. If spelling were a difficult subject for me, perhaps I would spell-check my posts. If you think that suggestion is unkind rather than helpful, so be it.

I don't want to derail this topic further, so if you have anything more to say to me, I suggest PMing me.

 

[UKGuy]

Isn't it fact that the blow to the head was forensically proven to come before the strangulation? Can anyone verify this? TIA

Mandala,
Its probable but it has not been conclusively established. In a court case the Coroner would offer his opinion, and the defense would produce an expert witness to likely say the opposite?

Since the factors in the cause of death are the same, i.e. hypoxia: Cerebral hypoxia or cerebral anoxia, a reduced supply of oxygen to the brain, its conceivable that JonBenet was ligature asphyxiated first followed by a head blow?

Unless some RDI theory relies on the head blow not arriving first, it does not seem to add much to the debate?

.

 

[YouWho]

Isn't it fact that the blow to the head was forensically proven to come before the strangulation? Can anyone verify this? TIA

In Foreign Faction, Kohler lays out Werner Spitz's opinion on the sequence of events which is this:

1) She was grabbed at the throat by her shirt collar. She reached to her neck causing scratches to her neck. The attacker released the collar and she turned to run.
2) That's when she received the head blow which rendered her unconscious.
3) As she lay slowly dying, the paintbrush was inserted into her vagina. He says this took place very close to her time of death.
4) The last injury was the tightening of the garrote.

I've had such a hard time imagining BR doing all this horror. But as many have said, we also cannot imagine that PR/JR would find their precious, unconscious child with an invisible fatal head wound, then decide to 'finish her off'.

Essentially, you've got to believe one or the other. My rational mind says that BDI is more likely than RDI, if you agree with Spitz's sequencing. And I do. So I have to conclude BR did all of that. And the parents did the RN, cover-up and the un-doing. It's still hard for me to grasp it. My son is a golden boy. But the facts are there. It's got to be Burke.

Frankly, it makes me hate the R's less. They didn't kill her. Their son did.

(I know y'all have known this for a long time, but it's taken me a long time to get here. I went with Steve Thomas' theory for a long time.)

 

[zencompass]

Exactly this. I'm hoping for interview after interview. Every time I see this guy I become more convinced he's the one that did it.

Hi kpetrova _x ,

I certainly agree with you because this could be the only way that the truth comes out. No matter what the truth is. Little JonBenet deserves the truth to come out.

I've been hoping and praying that someone close to the R's would tell something that would help solve this - they still may. I always have hope - hope for justice for JonBenet.

 

[HarmonyE.]

Mandala,
Its probable but it has not been conclusively established. In a court case the Coroner would offer his opinion, and the defense would produce an expert witness to likely say the opposite?

Since the factors in the cause of death are the same, i.e. hypoxia: Cerebral hypoxia or cerebral anoxia, a reduced supply of oxygen to the brain, its conceivable that JonBenet was ligature asphyxiated first followed by a head blow?

Unless some RDI theory relies on the head blow not arriving first, it does not seem to add much to the debate?

.

Ramsey supporters insist the stangulation came first and the head blow after she was dead or near death because they want to present this as a sexual torture crime. After the small foreign faction sexually tortured and strangled her they hit her in the head to ensure she was dead and not be able to indentify them later. Also, they want to minimize any gaps in time because, let's face it, that foreign faction was practically camped out in the Ramsey house all night as it is. Cutting down the time it took to commit the crime makes it more plausible (in their minds) that an intruder did it.

The head injury came first, either because her brother "accidentally" hit her too hard or intentionally wanted to hurt/kill her. The garroting was either part of the staging (probably by the parents if that's the case) or by Burke because he had alway wanted to try something like that with her and she couldn't fight back.

But the fact remains that there was a notable gap between the head blow and strangulation as indicated by the condition of the child's brain. This gap is a part of the mystery surrounding this case. Why was there a gap in time? What went on between the two significant events here?

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

Me too, OliviaG1996. You’ll probably be sorry you posed the question , but here are a few summarized thoughts.

As you and others likely recall, Kolar believes BR did both the head blow and asphyxiation. It was therefore interesting that Clemente took a different stance in his interview on NBC.

Point – Kolar saw all the evidence from the GJ (including BR's taped interviews) and may have read the psychological profile of BR contained within the testimony of friends and BR’s teacher, believing the simplest explanation is that BR meant to kill her, perhaps even having planned it. After seeing BR’s interview, I, too, can now understand why Kolar believes BR did it all. (BR should never do another interview.)

Counterpoint – In Clemente’s interview on NBC he claims the parents placed a ligature on her, believing she was deceased. The goal was to try to save their remaining family. The fibers from Patsy’s jacket were found inside the knot and JR’s fibers inside the crotch of her panties, which became stained with blood drops. Plus, someone wore gloves in attaching the paintbrush to the ligature. BR would not likely have worn gloves.

Point – BR could have used something else to asphyxiate her. (A scarf?) We also can’t discount the self-strangulation concept (unless there was a significant amount of time between the head blow and strangulation as per Rorke. {Poster Otg has some sound medical reasons to discount that time frame.)

Counterpoint from JR’s interview in ‘98 with a Delmar England commentary:

LS: ...Just a couple of questions, and these are just miscellaneous questions that I had. In what area of the house do you think that JonBenet received the injuries to her head? That is just from your own....
JR: Well, I guess my impression is that it was in the basement. But that's just purely an assumption. We didn't hear a thing. I think if she had cried out or - you know, we would have heard that. I didn't know she had any head injury at all. It wasn't - I just didn't see....
LS: You had no knowledge?
JR: I don't know. I just, that's something that's been difficult for me to think about it, is what exactly happened.
LS: And where?
JR: And where.
LS: Do you think that the head injury occurred at the same place as the other injuries, say, with the ligature?
JR: I mean, its just no reason to - to know that. I mean, I guess - well, like I say, I just - that's very difficult to think about and imagine, but I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her.

JR is speculating on whether the head injury came first, then strangulation? Of course, this potential doesn't go along with Smit's theory and could really mess it up. Smit want's nothing to do with this idea. He blocks this avenue of inquiry quickly and emphatically:

LS: All right. This is getting way off of that. Do you know who brought JAR to the airport, when he left for Atlanta?

Unlike Mr. Smit, I am very interested in the head injury and strangulation thing and really interested in JR's comments on it. To put things in perspective and see where I'm coming from and why, let's back up a bit and take it from there.

Prior to March, 2000, all I heard or knew about the Ramsey case were occasional sound bites from newscasts. During the Barbara Walters interview in March of 2000, JR said that the autopsy report said that JonBenet died from strangulation. He expressed no doubt then, nor later that I know of. Death by strangulation was the persistent story put out by JR, Smit and others.

However, in reading the NE Police Files, I came across this (from the LS and JR interview in 1998):

JR: "I mean, there's just no reason to - to know that. I mean, I guess - well, like I say - I just, that's very difficult to think about and imagine, but I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her."

Everything that moves leaves tracks. Believe it or not, this applies to thought as well as the physical. No thought exists in isolation. It is always connected to antecedent thoughts. A competent "mind tracker" can usually follow a given thought back to its source and motivation.

I won't take the time to validate by explaining the natural laws of mind operation, but demonstrate sufficiently to provide some insight into John's statement.

In Smit's theory of an intruder, with which John is usually in agreement, JonBenet is "controlled" by the "garrote", then strangled. The blow to the head is the last thing the intruder does according to Smit.

If JonBenet was being "controlled" by the "garrote" in some sexual happening as Smit declares, she was very much alive when she was strangled. If you interject the conclusion that she was dead from the head trauma before the cord was put around her neck, Smit's pedophile intruder story falls apart.

In the foregoing quote, John says you can't know. He speculates that maybe she was dead when the cord was put around her neck. Why would John introduce this thought and speculation which undermines the story of an intruder, hence, jeopardizes the basis for his claim of innocence?

Although it is the basis for the pedophile intruder story and his claim of innocence, for some reason John is uncomfortable with the conclusion that JonBenet was strangled to death. The fact that he utters the forgoing quote casting doubt on the pedophile intruder story, tells there is a very strong emotional motivation for the speculation that maybe JonBenet was dead when she was strangled. Indeed, we can take it a step further.

If he were comfortable with the idea of strangulation first, he would not question it and cast doubt on his defense. This tells me, even if not you, John DESIRES the conclusion that JonBenet was dead from the head trauma before she was strangled. Why?

The intensity of the concern is revealed by the utterance itself which sought assurance that she was dead before strangulation. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that death by head trauma is precisely what they sought to hide, but John sought to establish as fact in direct contradiction. There had to be a very personal and very intense reason for this.
______________

In conclusion, I still don’t have a firm conclusion. BR will always be reasonable doubt even if he was not responsible for the asphyxiation. jmho.

BBM Very interesting obervation QFT as always. Do you have any insight why JR might have such a desire ?

Might be a clever move to seem unbiased . Just like he did when he pointed the broken window which was indicating an intruder but then again mentioning he was the one breaking it a few months ago ..

 

[HarmonyE.]

BBM Very interesting obervation QFT as always. Do you have any insight why JR might have such a desire ?

Might be a clever move to seem unbiased . Just like he did when he pointed the broken window which was indicating an intruder but then again mentioning he was the one breaking it a few months ago ..

I've always figured it could be that he told neighbors or co-workers about his "break-in" and knew the truth could come out so he dare not lie about it. It had only been a few months before and people might remember. But if not, yes, trying to appear unbiased is possible.

The comment from JR about the strangulation coming second is very interesting and I hadn't noted it before. I'm not sure what to make of it, because he didn't need to say anything about the order of the injuries as he wouldn't know what happened if he wasn't there. (or wasn't told later). But it feels almost like a confession of some sort.

 

[Heymom]

BBM Very interesting obervation QFT as always. Do you have any insight why JR might have such a desire ?

Might be a clever move to seem unbiased . Just like he did when he pointed the broken window which was indicating an intruder but then again mentioning he was the one breaking it a few months ago ..

It's a pretty weird statement, if you think about it - if she was already dead, why would anyone bother to strangle her?? I mean, small foreign factions might be spelling and grammar-challenged but presumably they don't get anything out of choking an already-dead victim - she ain't gonna get any deader, KWIM?

 

[questfortrue]

Severely snipped to highlight this one thought: I think he should continue with his interviews! The more, the merrier! Next time he could end up completely incriminating himself! Go Burke Go!

:hilarious: :floorlaugh:

 

[questfortrue]

BBM Very interesting obervation QFT as always. Do you have any insight why JR might have such a desire ?

Might be a clever move to seem unbiased . Just like he did when he pointed the broken window which was indicating an intruder but then again mentioning he was the one breaking it a few months ago ..

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that JR was and is a person who’s always thinking and tailoring his responses for best effect. I recall that was Prosecutor Kane’s take on JR as well. Anyway . . .

This was a commentary from Delmar England who was writing to DA ML regarding the Rs involvement in the crime. He may as well been telling his parakeet this theory; ML was an intruder theorist from way back.

What I understood England to be conveying is an emotional component to JR’s question which could indicate that he was bothered by the idea that she was killed by asphyxiation, not the head blow. That path may lead to Clemente’s expressed theory that the parents believed her deceased and fashioned a ligature/garrote-looking device to distance the crime from a nice Christian family. Or, as you point out, he may have been wanting to seem unbiased or was testing the waters to hear how Smit incorporates the head blow. Either way, it was a strange comment, and England believed it was important to JR to inquire about it.

One other thought not discussed much is the Rs’ hire of experts. You’ve heard how they hired their own lie detector experts and their own handwriting experts. What many folks don’t know is that they also hired their own pathologist* to testify just in case. I suspect it was primarily to counter some of the experts who believed the head blow was first, diminishing Smit’s garrote-toting pedophile who came in to torture and molest her, before bashing her head.

*This was a Georgia state pathologist known by LW, whose opinion was sought after in court cases. IOW, it appears as though he was a ‘pathologist for hire.’ Rotten luck for this guy though; he was caught using state time to provide court room opinions. He retired quite suddenly and was ordered to pay back the state for his time spent giving his opinion in court.

 

[UKGuy]

Me too, OliviaG1996. You’ll probably be sorry you posed the question , but here are a few summarized thoughts.

As you and others likely recall, Kolar believes BR did both the head blow and asphyxiation. It was therefore interesting that Clemente took a different stance in his interview on NBC.

Point – Kolar saw all the evidence from the GJ (including BR's taped interviews) and may have read the psychological profile of BR contained within the testimony of friends and BR’s teacher, believing the simplest explanation is that BR meant to kill her, perhaps even having planned it. After seeing BR’s interview, I, too, can now understand why Kolar believes BR did it all. (BR should never do another interview.)

Counterpoint – In Clemente’s interview on NBC he claims the parents placed a ligature on her, believing she was deceased. The goal was to try to save their remaining family. The fibers from Patsy’s jacket were found inside the knot and JR’s fibers inside the crotch of her panties, which became stained with blood drops. Plus, someone wore gloves in attaching the paintbrush to the ligature. BR would not likely have worn gloves.

Point – BR could have used something else to asphyxiate her. (A scarf?) We also can’t discount the self-strangulation concept (unless there was a significant amount of time between the head blow and strangulation as per Rorke. {Poster Otg has some sound medical reasons to discount that time frame.)

Counterpoint from JR’s interview in ‘98 with a Delmar England commentary:

LS: ...Just a couple of questions, and these are just miscellaneous questions that I had. In what area of the house do you think that JonBenet received the injuries to her head? That is just from your own....
JR: Well, I guess my impression is that it was in the basement. But that's just purely an assumption. We didn't hear a thing. I think if she had cried out or - you know, we would have heard that. I didn't know she had any head injury at all. It wasn't - I just didn't see....
LS: You had no knowledge?
JR: I don't know. I just, that's something that's been difficult for me to think about it, is what exactly happened.
LS: And where?
JR: And where.
LS: Do you think that the head injury occurred at the same place as the other injuries, say, with the ligature?
JR: I mean, its just no reason to - to know that. I mean, I guess - well, like I say, I just - that's very difficult to think about and imagine, but I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her.

JR is speculating on whether the head injury came first, then strangulation? Of course, this potential doesn't go along with Smit's theory and could really mess it up. Smit want's nothing to do with this idea. He blocks this avenue of inquiry quickly and emphatically:

LS: All right. This is getting way off of that. Do you know who brought JAR to the airport, when he left for Atlanta?

Unlike Mr. Smit, I am very interested in the head injury and strangulation thing and really interested in JR's comments on it. To put things in perspective and see where I'm coming from and why, let's back up a bit and take it from there.

Prior to March, 2000, all I heard or knew about the Ramsey case were occasional sound bites from newscasts. During the Barbara Walters interview in March of 2000, JR said that the autopsy report said that JonBenet died from strangulation. He expressed no doubt then, nor later that I know of. Death by strangulation was the persistent story put out by JR, Smit and others.

However, in reading the NE Police Files, I came across this (from the LS and JR interview in 1998):

JR: "I mean, there's just no reason to - to know that. I mean, I guess - well, like I say - I just, that's very difficult to think about and imagine, but I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her."

Everything that moves leaves tracks. Believe it or not, this applies to thought as well as the physical. No thought exists in isolation. It is always connected to antecedent thoughts. A competent "mind tracker" can usually follow a given thought back to its source and motivation.

I won't take the time to validate by explaining the natural laws of mind operation, but demonstrate sufficiently to provide some insight into John's statement.

In Smit's theory of an intruder, with which John is usually in agreement, JonBenet is "controlled" by the "garrote", then strangled. The blow to the head is the last thing the intruder does according to Smit.

If JonBenet was being "controlled" by the "garrote" in some sexual happening as Smit declares, she was very much alive when she was strangled. If you interject the conclusion that she was dead from the head trauma before the cord was put around her neck, Smit's pedophile intruder story falls apart.

In the foregoing quote, John says you can't know. He speculates that maybe she was dead when the cord was put around her neck. Why would John introduce this thought and speculation which undermines the story of an intruder, hence, jeopardizes the basis for his claim of innocence?

Although it is the basis for the pedophile intruder story and his claim of innocence, for some reason John is uncomfortable with the conclusion that JonBenet was strangled to death. The fact that he utters the forgoing quote casting doubt on the pedophile intruder story, tells there is a very strong emotional motivation for the speculation that maybe JonBenet was dead when she was strangled. Indeed, we can take it a step further.

If he were comfortable with the idea of strangulation first, he would not question it and cast doubt on his defense. This tells me, even if not you, John DESIRES the conclusion that JonBenet was dead from the head trauma before she was strangled. Why?

The intensity of the concern is revealed by the utterance itself which sought assurance that she was dead before strangulation. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that death by head trauma is precisely what they sought to hide, but John sought to establish as fact in direct contradiction. There had to be a very personal and very intense reason for this.
______________

In conclusion, I still don’t have a firm conclusion. BR will always be reasonable doubt even if he was not responsible for the asphyxiation. jmho.

questfortrue,

However, in reading the NE Police Files, I came across this (from the LS and JR interview in 1998):

JR: "I mean, there's just no reason to - to know that. I mean, I guess - well, like I say - I just, that's very difficult to think about and imagine, but I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her."

I interpret JR's answers as him just spinning LS along. His reply to LS's asking about head blow location, appears to me to be offering a compelling rationale as to why JonBenet sustained two severe injuries?

JR seems to be confirming the staging to LS, e.g. JR: Well, I guess my impression is that it was in the basement. But that's just purely an assumption.

So rather than JR seeking to confirm whether JonBenet was dead after being whacked on the head he seems to be suggesting a failure to kill was the motive behind the ligature asphyxiation?

.

 

[Heymom]

It's a pretty weird statement, if you think about it - if she was already dead, why would anyone bother to strangle her?? I mean, small foreign factions might be spelling and grammar-challenged but presumably they don't get anything out of choking an already-dead victim - she ain't gonna get any deader, KWIM?

Quoting myself - I finally get it, JR is saying that the head bash DID NOT kill her and so they strangled her to be sure ... For some reason, I was reading it that he was saying the head bash HAD killed her and then they killed her again via choking. I think I've been spending too much time here again! Sheesh....

 

[UKGuy]

Quoting myself - I finally get it, JR is saying that the head bash DID NOT kill her and so they strangled her to be sure ... For some reason, I was reading it that he was saying the head bash HAD killed her and then they killed her again via choking. I think I've been spending too much time here again! Sheesh....

Heymom,
Thats it. JR is verbally embellishing the physical staging, i.e. They messed up so had to strangle her, when really its staging all the way down, JR style?

.

 

[otg]

(respectfully snipped for point)

One other thought not discussed much is the Rs’ hire of experts. You’ve heard how they hired their own lie detector experts and their own handwriting experts. What many folks don’t know is that they also hired their own pathologist* to testify just in case. I suspect it was primarily to counter some of the experts who believed the head blow was first, diminishing Smit’s garrote-toting pedophile who came in to torture and molest her, before bashing her head.

*This was a Georgia state pathologist known by LW, whose opinion was sought after in court cases. IOW, it appears as though he was a ‘pathologist for hire.’ Rotten luck for this guy though; he was caught using state time to provide court room opinions. He retired quite suddenly and was ordered to pay back the state for his time spent giving his opinion in court.

I did not know that, quest. Wow, I don't know how they managed to gloss over that so much that it's never mentioned in any online articles. I've never even heard it mentioned before.

Thanks. You're such a treasure.

 

[otg]

(bbm)

The problem with this theory is that there is zero chance you could have tied the paintbrush to that line after she was strangled with it. If you look at that knot it is very obvious this would have been nearly impossible. Plus her hair was tangled with this not, indicating the knot and paintbrush were already present when she was strangled.

I don't see at all how you arrived at that conclusion. Her hair being tied into the knot on the paintbrush means that it was tied while it was on her.