Anybody see this National Enquirer?

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Karen, Oct 24, 2010.

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I don't think so. I think you'd have to deliberately wipe or wash the feet to remove dust and lint completely. Some might be brushed off as the clothes were taken off/put on, but not all, I wouldn't think.
  2. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    I believe the lint and dust was mentioned in the autopsy report or it was mentioned by Meyer on inspecting the body at the house that evening. I think it was the autopsy.

    At the least, it tells us that JBR did have her shoes and socks off at point of attack. I, also, watched a FORENSIC FILES episode and it is amazing what forensic examiners can tell with cloth fibers, dust, etc. I would have to assume that this dust and lint material was examined closely under high powered microscope and spectroscopy to see if they could determine where it came from....probably a long shot but, once in a while as shown in the particular FORENSIC FILES episode, they hit pay dirt.
  3. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    I guess my question is: Are we 100% certain a paintbrush was inserted that night? I remember hearing Wecht talk about talcum powder possibly being the source of that cellulose in the vagina. Feel free to correct me on this because I want to be certain that it is 100% proven that the paint brush was the object of penetration.
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Maybe you forgot this thread/discussion on the testing of the dust evidence, Learnin, as we only touched on it briefly. It's a seldom discussed topic, one that got completely ignored in the PERV Karr fiasco, I guess.

    This is one report I'd love to see.
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Many things have been discussed as the source of the cellulose, of course. No, there has been no testimony under oath by any expert claiming it was proven definitively the paintbrush was inserted, not to my knowledge, at any rate. I would hope that this could be proven forensically, but it's another loose end we'll probably never get tied up conclusively.

    All I can tell you is that the tip of the paintbrush was removed deliberately from the crime scene for a reason, and since I don't believe it was an intruder who took a "trophy" I have inferred other motives: I believe the use of the paintbrush was to hide prior molestation. I believe that after it was used there was blood on the tip, and in an effort to make the injuries look like an intruder sexually assaulted the child, that tip was hidden because it would have given away the use of the paintbrush, rather than use of a body part, for example, which a sexual abuser/kidnapper/killer would have been more likely to use, of course.

    Also, it has occurred to me that a parent would have a very difficult time doing this, even as a desperate measure, especially if the parent were not the original abuser. So using a paintbrush, as opposed to a hand, might have "distanced" the parent from the act mentally.

    It seems that gloves were used in the commission of this crime, as the ransom note had no fingerprints on it. What type of gloves were used is anyone's guess: garden gloves; latex gloves that come with a hair dye kit; latex gloves Patsy might have had left after all her chemo treatments and recovery at home; cloth gloves a pageant contestant would use in formal dress? Since there were wood slivers on the carpet where the paintbrush had been broken by the paint tray, a particle could have remained on a finger used, as well, if the paintbrush were broken first, before the sexual assault was committed.

    If Dr. Wecht says it could have been powder from latex gloves, he should know. I've looked up the terms used to describe the material and it appears it is microscopically an issue of matter and structure, if memory serves. So at that level, all I got is what I read. I'm no scientist, unfortunately.

    But the paintbrush itself was well used, with chipped paint and varnish on it. The birefringement could have been from the varnish, I think I once read in a list of materials that fall under that cellular description. So having a splinter dislocate from the brush while it was inserted and rotated to cause damage seems a possibility, as well, to me.

    The injuries to the vagina were consistent with the paintbrush being used, and I don't see why the tip would have been spirited away other than blood on it. The brush end was left behind in the paint tray, after all. It has even occurred to me that the "handle" portion of the paintbrush came from "necessity" as the mother of invention here, rather than an actuall need for a "handle": maybe once the perp saw the blood on the end of the paintbrush, he/she realized it would be harder to remove a long paintbrush than just a small part of it. So it was broken and tied to the cord in an attempt to distract from the fact that the tip was missing. But it's just something I consider when trying to put together the insanely complex elements of this murder. Who knows?

    So no, there is no answer to this question that I would take to the bank at this point. Same as with so much in this case. If it is certain what this material is, no one has leaked that to us in the general public.
  6. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    The talc was suggested as a source for the birefringent material, not the cellulose. Talc is chemically different from cellulose. What we don't know is whether the cellulose and birefringent material are one and the same (in which case it couldn't be talc) or if they are separate findings (in which case it could be talc). Birefringent simply means "reflective", and both the talc particles and tiny paint chips from the paintbrush would both fall into that category.

    I agree that the missing piece of the paintbrush is missing for a reason. Blood could be one reason, if it was inserted.
  7. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Ah, yes! I do remember this thread. Wow, would I like to see that report.
  8. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    I certainly agree that if someone was covering up previous abuse, and that someone was a parent, that someone would be more prone to use an object instead of a finger, etc.
  9. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Well, if the perp was trying to make it look like a sexual attack and they used the paintbrush, they would definitely want to get rid of that.
  10. Shadow

    Shadow FFJ Senior Content Moderator

    Fascinating!!! I had actually forgotten just how knowledgable most of the ladies at FFJ (and Bad BobC) are on the JBR case. I read Steve Thomas' book and Perfect Murder, Perfect Town but most of my education on the case came from reading at the JW Forum and then FFJ. All of this brings back memories of why I could never believe an "intruder" had anything to do with JonBenet's death -- even the dumbest intruder would never leave the evidence this guy is suposed to have left, and the actions of the Ramsey family (from inviting the entire town of Boulder to their house before the police arrived to "lawyering-up" before JBR's body was found) does not give one a "warm-and-fuzzy-feeling" that one or more of them was not involved.

    For what it's worth, my FBI sources believed Burke was not involved at all. IMHO, if he was involved then the rest of the family was surely involved in a cover-up. But, as I've said many times, I have never been able to develop a scenario that isn't full of holes.

    Anyway -- I'm enjoying this stimulating re-evaluation of events...
  11. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    " But, as I've said many times, I have never been able to develop a scenario that isn't full of holes."

    You know, Shadow, that's the real problem with this crime. Every theory you can come up with, you run into things which seem to not fit. I remember reading a short story in the FATHER BROWN series written by G.K. Chesterton which was about a priest detective who was very wise in solving crimes.

    There was this one short story about a murder where a person was found dead sitting in the den of his home. He had been shot with an arrow and the window, of his den , was wide open. The police detectives figured that someone had shot the poor chap through the window from a tree that was near. Father Brown did some investigating and came up with the theory that things are not what they seem. An, arrow, Father Brown stated, can be jabbed into a person as well as being shot. He posited that it was an inside job and the victim had been stabbed with the arrow instead of it being shot.

    I think there's something, in this JBR crime scene, that is like this misleads....something other than the obvious things we know that were meant to the ransom note.

    I have often thought that the ligature and head wound might lead us into false assumptions. Was JBR, for instance, dead when that thing was tied? Were the petechiae caused by convulsions after the girl struck her head?
    Probably not but I've always had this feeling that something, in this scene, leads us into thinking something which is not quite true....just a gut instinct.
  12. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Learning you have touched a long ago memory in my poor brain from back in the JW early days of this crime. There was a poster named DocG that wrote to me in a private message after I had posted something. I've long forgotten what I wrote but I remember clearly what he wrote to me. It was that no matter what anything looks like in this case don't forget that John was the master of misdirection. Dr.G was a John did it theory person and he was big on telling how JR was the stager of the scenes. FWIW I've never forgotten that phrase of his. And just now you brought it back to my mind.

    I think that JBR's parents couldn't face the fact that an accident had caused such a bad head blow and they thought she was dead. How on earth could they explain that if they called 911 for help. So let it look like murder or kidnapping and then stage it that way and misdirect. They would loose everything if it got investigated as an accident and they did nothing to help her. OMG what to do, what to do! However they didn't invent the intruder Loosemits did and they went along with it 10fold! A perfect out for them. Just my opinion!
  13. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    We know JB was alive when the ligature was tied for two reasons. One, the petechiae on her eye lids (petechia form only when alive) are always found in strangulation victims. Also, there were also petechiae above and below the ligature furrow, also indicating she was alive when it was applied.
    Two, the deep ligature furrow was RED in color. Had she been dead when it was applied, it would have been white, with no petechiae.
  14. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    I wish I would have become interested in this case years ago. I missed a lot of insights from many, like this Dr. G poster you speak of. Oh, how I wish we had access to all of the real evidence in this case. It would also be nice to have a model house with the crime scene set up just exactly as it was with the clothes lying exactly where they were found, etc. The more minds that are able to see the the real facts, as many as were known, the more chance of someone having that "aha!" moment. I realize they couldn't release everything as they'd have the usual kooks coming out of the woodwork making a confession just to become famous.
  15. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Thanks, DeeDee. I'm just thinking out loud.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice