What's in this cellar room photo?

[cynic]

...for this to be a shadow the pic would have to be made straight in front of the fold of the blanket,like you made your photo.I'm really bad at explaining things (language barrier,lol) but I like to draw and from the angle the crime scene picture is taken the black tape could not have cast a straight up shadow like that ,the picture would have to be made facing the black tape straight....from that angle ,if it was a shadow it would be skinny and tilted to the right.

I agree if the light source was in line with the camera. However, if one light source was to the right of the camera, relatively in line with the "face" of the tape, it would produce that shadow.

 

[claudicici]

I don't know,I just can't see it.Unless the tape was sticking out much longer on top then I think it could look like that from that angle...

 

[claudicici]

.....but Murry I think the black and grey tape would be even harder to explain if IDI.Are you saying along with all that other crap he brought he now also brought in 2 different types of tape? If RDI the grey piece of tape maybe could have been something that was just laying around the cellar floor (well,if IDI that could be also) and attached itself to the blanket?

 

[cynic]

And of course IMO he was telling the truth, and continued to do so. This doesn't explain where is the black tape from her lips?

This is clearly grey tape, and what I set out to prove that it is grey on both sides and is the exact shape (mirror reversed) as what you are calling a shadow on the blanket.

You continue to deny that there was black and grey tape because this is just too hard to explain in an RDI theory.

How do you explain the identical crescent shaped grey shadow below the crescent shaped black tape in the crime scene pic, coincidence?

BTW, extra tape is meaningless to me; I just don't like to believe things for which there is no evidence. If extra tape were that relevant to IDI, I'm sure Lou Smit or some member of the RST would have mentioned it

 

[MurriFlower]

.....but Murry I think the black and grey tape would be even harder to explain if IDI.Are you saying along with all that other crap he brought he now also brought in 2 different types of tape? If RDI the grey piece of tape maybe could have been something that was just laying around the cellar floor (well,if IDI that could be also) and attached itself to the blanket?

My two (or three) IDIs are very well prepared for what they went there to do.

The RDI's on the other hand, are going to have to explain where two rolls of tape were purchased and disposed of, as well as all the other things that were not sourced in the house. All this of course, thought out on the spur of the moment after the traumatic (accidental) killing by one of them of their beloved 6yo daughter, because either she wet the bed one too many times, or because she was the victim of incest.

Does one of these to alternatives seem more likely to you??

 

[madeleine]

If IDI I don't think they brought the roll of tape with them.Maybe it's like JMK speculated.Just one piece stuck on a flashlight or something.
Same re RDI.
Who says there was a roll in the first place.
That piece could have been used on something else before.

 

[madeleine]

And this "not sourced in the house" always bothered me.
You can't source them back to the intruder either,first prove there was one,second prove these items belong to him.
I'd rather have a problem with LE not sourcing the remaining set of Bloomies.

 

[MurriFlower]

If IDI I don't think they brought the roll of tape with them.Maybe it's like JMK speculated.Just one piece stuck on a flashlight or something.
Same re RDI.
Who says there was a roll in the first place.
That piece could have been used on something else before.

And it would have the residue of whatever it was previously adhered to on it first and the JBR evidence after.

 

[MurriFlower]

And this "not sourced in the house" always bothered me.
You can't source them back to the intruder either,first prove there was one,second prove these items belong to him.
I'd rather have a problem with LE not sourcing the remaining set of Bloomies.

You completely miss the point maddy. If it wasn't in the house, then I don't need to PROVE anything, the evidence of IDI is there for all to see. Things don't just dematerialise. There is no middle ground here. RDI or IDI. If they didn't have them then they were brought in and taken out, it's that simple.

 

[UKGuy]

You completely miss the point maddy. If it wasn't in the house, then I don't need to PROVE anything, the evidence of IDI is there for all to see. Things don't just dematerialise. There is no middle ground here. RDI or IDI. If they didn't have them then they were brought in and taken out, it's that simple.

MurriFlower,

How can you know if it was never in the house? How can you know if it was simply a piece of tape that was lying about and was reused for effect?

Why did the intruder bring JonBenet's barbie doll and barbie-nightgown down to the cellar. Whats all that about?


.

 

[UKGuy]

No, he isn't lying that I can see. He said the tape on her mouth was black and a bit thicker than electrical tape. He said there was other tape on 'her legs' (meaning on the blanket where her legs were). This is the tape just where he described it.

Now we need to know where the black tape from her mouth went.

Fleet White went back down to the basement and took a long look at the black tape from her mouth.

He probably realized that the there was something amiss about the tape.



.

 

[UKGuy]

joeskidbeck,



From memory part of the paintbrush handle is still missing. Did either John or Patsy use this to injure JonBenet? Why would Steve Thomas refer to a splinter being found inside JonBenet?

He was most likely referring to the birefringent material that he assumed was a splinter as wood from the paintbrush would be birefringent material. So would the paint from the handle as well as a slew of other materials.

I think additional testing said it was paint from the handle of the brush. I am assuming the paint is the factory paint put on the brush handle at the time of manufacture and not paint that was used to paint with the brush.

CathyR,

Two possibilities here: The existence of the paintbrush handle has been redacted as it was found inside JonBenet, and only the killer can know this. Alternately either the intruder or some Ramsey removed it along with other evidence e.g. JonBenet's size-6 underwear?

Paint from the handle or splinter can both be separately identified, this will have been done, but patently the results have been redacted.

I have assumed that the missing piece of the paintbrush was left inside JonBenet?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

LE bought tape and cord in Boulder that matched exactly the tape and cord found on JB. These items were sold in two stores in Boulder- an Army-Navy store and McGuckin's Hardware, where the Rs were known to shop.
The tape was black on one side, gray on the other, and LE were able to trace the EXACT piece of tape to a particular manufacturer who confirmed it was theirs, and which lot it belonged to, even down to matching the fibers in the tape. The tape on JB came from a manufacture lot that had been shipped to McGuckin's Hardware in Boulder.
So I guess the SFF did some local shopping (with a R credit card?) . Oh wait- even JR didn't believe in the SFF. He said it was an inside job. REAL inside.

 

[rashomon]

DeeDee249,

The source for the wine-cellar picture is a screen capture from the Schiller documentary, there are a few others from different angles.

19 TOM HANEY: 145.

20 PATSY RAMSEY: What is the pink thing?

21 TOM HANEY: We have next up, we have some

22 close-ups of the two items in 145, which is the white

23 blanket and the paint can. So if we take -- and if we

24 skip to the other numbered one and go to -- there is a
Trip DeMuth interjects with questions about the white blanket.
Still on the wine-cellar.
Quote:
7 TRIP DEMUTH: Looking at picture 145.

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay. What is this pink --

9 what is that?

10 TOM HANEY: We will show you a photo of that

11 in just a second.

[UKGuy]: I assume the pink object is in an evidence bag?]

Quote:
21 TOM HANEY: This is the pink -- excuse me --

22 the pink item that again is in a plastic bag where the

23 photo was taken.

24 PATSY RAMSEY: That is her (inaudible). Why

25 was that there?

0383

1 TOM HANEY: What is it?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: It is her Barbie nightgown.

3 TOM HANEY: Is that hers or her Barbie

4 doll's? When would she have worn that last, do you

5 know?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, she didn't wear it that

7 night

[UKGuy]: Patsy explcitly identifies the pink object as JonBenet's Barbie nightgown, but does not confirm if it is her Barbie Doll's , which is important if her doll is at the crime-scene.

Patsy and Tom Haney state they can see a Barbie Doll. I'm assuming its under the nightgown?]

Quote:
11 PATSY RAMSEY: I'm thinking of a Barbie

12 nightgown that had a big face of Barbie.

13 TRIP DEMUTH: It has a plastic over it, so

14 there is some glare there. You see the plastic.

15 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah; right. What I'm saying,

16 I'm -- I remember a Barbie nightgown with a picture,

17 big picture of the head of Barbie on it. So I am not

18 quite sure this is her -- you know, one that she had.

19 TOM HANEY: Okay. You know, it appears --

20 PATSY RAMSEY: That is a Barbie doll under

21 there.

22 TOM HANEY: It appears from the waist down

23 you can see that much, but from the waist up, because

24 of the plastic, there is a flash and the reflection

25 that is washed out.

[UKGuy]: So I'm confident we have the Barbie nightgown and a Barbie doll located in the wine-cellar and documented as evidence.

Thanks for posting this excerpt of the interview, UKGuy. OMG - all the time the info about the doll had been available via this interview!!
I'm not a very visually oriented type of person - where exactly in the picture can the Barbie doll can be seen?

I reckon she was wearing it. Although it may have been part of prior staging. I reckon there was a minimum of two staging events.

I agree with your assumption of two staging events. The 'sexual predator' staging contradicts the 'kidnapping for ransom' staging.
For some reason the Ramseys must have decided, in the process, to switch from one version to the other.
OR - also a possibility - they just threw everything they could think of into the mix, hoping it would be swallowed. Such procedure too would result in a staged scene where several elements contradict each other.

 

[DeeDee249]

LE also felt it was "staging within staging". (their words)

 

[joeskidbeck]

I believe they staged the sexual assault and then realized "OMG, that will lead right back to us" So then the kidnapping staging took place. I'd say by then they were running out of time and didn't put a lot of thought into the rn, just random things they had heard in ransom notes from tv, etc.

 

[MurriFlower]

LE bought tape and cord in Boulder that matched exactly the tape and cord found on JB. These items were sold in two stores in Boulder- an Army-Navy store and McGuckin's Hardware, where the Rs were known to shop.
The tape was black on one side, gray on the other, and LE were able to trace the EXACT piece of tape to a particular manufacturer who confirmed it was theirs, and which lot it belonged to, even down to matching the fibers in the tape. The tape on JB came from a manufacture lot that had been shipped to McGuckin's Hardware in Boulder.
So I guess the SFF did some local shopping (with a R credit card?) . Oh wait- even JR didn't believe in the SFF. He said it was an inside job. REAL inside.

Except the tape we are looking at is grey on both sides.

I think you are mistaken about this tape and the tape on her mouth. They were different according to JR (who was there and removed the tape), because he commented on it when shown the grey tape. BPD were determined to find evidence against them, so they used their imagination to find the tape and the means by which the Rs obtained it, not unlike what happens here.

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks for posting this excerpt of the interview, UKGuy. OMG - all the time the info about the doll had been available via this interview!!
I'm not a very visually oriented type of person - where exactly in the picture can the Barbie doll can be seen?
I agree with your assumption of two staging events. The 'sexual predator' staging contradicts the 'kidnapping for ransom' staging.
For some reason the Ramseys must have decided, in the process, to switch from one version to the other.
OR - also a possibility - they just threw everything they could think of into the mix, hoping it would be swallowed. Such procedure too would result in a staged scene where several elements contradict each other.

rashomon,

No problem, for myself it was the status of the barbie nightgown that did it. I intuitively knew it was no accident that it was located in the wine-cellar. As you know others had alternative explanations such as static cling etc. I reckon the white blanket is included to give the impression that JonBenet has been scooped from her bed wrapped in the blanket and taken down to the basement.

Nice to see you posting again, I have always enjoyed your comments. Just think what else might be lurking in as yet unexamined interviews. The barbie doll which I have great difficulty visualising, but appears to be in the bottom right of the gown. Please correct me if I am mistaken. The resolution on those crime-scene photos will have been greater, allowing Patsy to immediately identify the doll. One wonders with Patsy's immediacy, if the doll is meant as staging, since ramnesia is normally the order of the day?

For some reason the Ramseys must have decided, in the process, to switch from one version to the other.

This appears to be the case, and most likely, a last minute decision one that probably saved them from a court appearance!

OR - also a possibility - they just threw everything they could think of into the mix, hoping it would be swallowed. Such procedure too would result in a staged scene where several elements contradict each other.

No, because that assumes they were reasonably rational. How would they know that something they tossed in might not come back to haunt them. Proof that it was not an irrational pot pourri designed to confuse the sharpest intellect lies in the cleaning of the flashlight. Someone knew that if the flashlight could be linked to the crime-scene and that their prints or dna was on the flashlight then all the staging in the world was of no value. Then there is the pineapple snack, which as per their version they have to deny.

One thing I am certain of is that someone reverted from a sexual assault scenario to a kidnap scenario. Now lets assume this is correct then under a sexual assault scenario the parents would become prime suspects, and likely be detained. Under a kidnap scenario the parents may avoid scrutiny and gain time to evade arrest and flee the crime-scene. As per the FBI corporate protocol for employee kidnap. Who knows what transpired in the early hours with calls being made to whichever agency?

Just what is a barbie doll doing underneath a bloodstained barbie-nightgown in a wine-cellar where an intruder is assumed to have sexually assaulted JonBenet, and where are her size-6 underwear?

.

 

[Toltec]

I was unaware the barbie nightgown was bloodstained! I have never heard of blood being anywhere but her panties...

Look at the above picture again...what is that black thing hanging down...it's right above the pink nightgown...?

 

[DeeDee249]

Except the tape we are looking at is grey on both sides.

I think you are mistaken about this tape and the tape on her mouth. They were different according to JR (who was there and removed the tape), because he commented on it when shown the grey tape. BPD were determined to find evidence against them, so they used their imagination to find the tape and the means by which the Rs obtained it, not unlike what happens here.

I can't be sure about that. I see only one side of the tape. I don't feel LE imagined finding the tape in the two stores. And as they had it tested against the tape taken from JB, I doubt that was imagined either. I realize you put a lot of credence into what JR and Patsy SAY. I don't, and i feel most RDI don't either.