The Ramsey case in general

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
I read somewhere that the medical examiner said that JonBenet fought the strangulation. Was this accurate?
No, not accurate. The majority of the medical experts agree that the head blow came first, knocking her into deep unconsciousness. The marks noted on her neck around the cord are petechia, not scratch marks.
 
I am new to this case. I looked at the Autopsy report. I have also looked at the autopsy photos. It could have been better. I want to bring your attention to the wrist ligatures and the lack of abrasion or injury.

Does anyone else think the wrist ligatures were applied well after death? I say this because of the lack of injury to the wrists. Looking at a photo there appears to be indentation of the skin with evidence of livedo (Livor Mortis) in the rope marks. The two are inconsistent with being tied up while alive. Livedo is gravitational settling of blood to dependent areas. Before it is set, it will blanch at points of pressure.

In this photo below you can see the livedo in the skin. What's noticeable is the rope mark. It has not blanched the skin of the livedo. (the area should be pale). Livedo does not collect in rope marks because the tissue pressure exerted by the rope prevents the red cells settling. You should see a paler mark surrounded by a darker area where the blood pools, like railway lines. If the rope is put on well after death and livedo has set then the mark you would see is like the image below purported to be JonBenot Ramsey photo. Has anyone else got experience with this aspect of the case or professional knowledge of ligatures related to the time of death who can comment. This suggests the ligatures to the wrists could have been placed about 8 hours after death.

The problem is knowing whether these are really JonBenot Ramsey photos.

 
The Autopsy should be re-visited.

Jonbenoit Ramsey's autopsy report has a number of issues that require review.

1) When people are Garrotted or hung, there are a number of features that are prominent. Features of petechiae are on the conjuctiva and eye lids on the left side was used to confirm the death via garrotte in addition to the ligature around her neck. If anyone has ever seen a corpse of someone who dies by this method, the features are quite prominent.

The autopsy clearly states the tongue was normal. This finding is unexpected in a case in which death by garrotte is suspected. Normally when someone dies by hanging or garrotte the tongue becomes bloated and dis-coloured.

The positive features of petechiae on the conjunctiva and eyelids identified by the medical examiner are also relatively mild. So why is it relatively normal? It's known that petechiae on the conjunctiva and eyelids can also occur in natural deaths. In her autopsy, the lungs also contained scattered petechiae raising the possibility that these were also post mortem changes.

I wonder whether she was actually killed by the head blow. People can suffer sudden arrhythmia when hit like this in the head. I am unaware whether anyone has investigated the effect of a Garrotte applied after death soon after death to see what happens to a corpse.

2) Yesterday I identified that the wrist ligatures were not consistent of being tied up while alive. It looks to me she was tied up a long time after she died. The autopsy report is conspicuous by a lack of expected findings regarding the wrist ligatures. The reason being that the ligature marks show no evidence of surrounding bruising, abrasions and appear to show liver mortis within the area of the ligature mark. I will explain this in more detail.

When you die, the circulation fails and stops moving. The blood within vessels then gravitates to dependent areas (under gravity) until all the blood vessels and capillaries are engorged. It is evident within half an hour of death. It is blanchable but gradually becomes fixed with time. It is usually considered fixed by about 8 hours. If there is a pressure point which collapses the vessels then no blood pooling occurs at this site.

A ligature applied before death causes the blood vessels to collapse and stops blood pooling at that site. Essentially no liver mortis should occur in the ligature mark. A ligature that is not tight enough to cause this should not leave an indentation or mark. If you look carefully at the image you will see evidence of liver mortis within a ligature mark.

This points to the proposition that the wrist ligatures were applied a long time after she died. Probably in the 6- 8 hour range. The reason for this is there no characteristic increase in liver mortis around the edges of the ligature if the liver mortis is properly blanch able. If applied while alive the mark should look pale with a darker cuff each side.

So my concern is whether the ligatures and garrotte were applied after death.

3) The last issue is urine. People micturate after death as the result of loss of bladder control. Her autopsy shows urine staining of her underwear. Urine should be present at the site of her death. Was urine detected in the basement where she was found?

The issues I have is knowing whether the crime scene photos on line and the autopsy photos online are credible.

I really think these issues require high level review by a senior pathologist/coroner where they can review the original photos and determine whether the autopsy report requires review.
 
So is the general consensus here that Burke knocked JonBenet unconscious and one or both parents strangled and sexually assaulted their unconscious daughter, implying an intruder did it, and in effect, saving their son, Burke, from going to a juvenile home (he wouldn't go to jail or prison at 9 years old) instead of seeking treatment for their injured daughter? Essentially killing their daughter to save their son from being taken from them for what, 5-10 years?
 
For the sake of rounding out the arguments, John could be the author of the RN. (This assumes JDI) He took Patsy's previous writings in the notebook, and traced over the letters. The final RN offers a heroic role for him. He is to rescue his daughter without his wife.

John thought that PR would obey the terms of the RN, and not call the police. He planned to remove JonBenet in the suitcase; but Patsy jumped the gun. The RN was his ploy to make Patsy look guilty. That is why he handed LE the notebook with the practice note inside. John made sure that he could explain why his fingerprints were not on the RN, as he only read it off the floor. (That's a favorite bit of mine.) Of course JR would know about the 188k. Some of the movie references come from male oriented films. The suitcase disposal was essential for his plan. The RN specified a large attache. However, the amount of bills asked for in the 188k is not bulky.

The above is not my view; but, it is a theory which has been proposed by some. One problem is that the author of the RN knew that the ransom call would not occur.
 
Last edited:
So is the general consensus here that Burke knocked JonBenet unconscious and one or both parents strangled and sexually assaulted their unconscious daughter, implying an intruder did it, and in effect, saving their son, Burke, from going to a juvenile home (he wouldn't go to jail or prison at 9 years old) instead of seeking treatment for their injured daughter? Essentially killing their daughter to save their son from being taken from them for what, 5-10 years?
I actually do not think either parent killed JonBenet. I am pretty sure they did not sexually assault her either.

I have written about the Autopsy because I am yet to see a valid timeline that explains the evidence in this case. Knowing when she died its easier to come up with a valid scenario.
 
It's a good idea to go over a few things about the Ramsey forum/case every so often.
Law enforcement has not cleared anyone in the Ramsey house. Law enforcement has not identified any suspects outside of the Ramsey house.
Therefore, in accordance with Websleuths rules, we do not allow accusations of random people outside the house. That is why if someone brings up anyone outside of the house that night and accuses them of being the killer, their post is removed.
As a reminder the DNA in the Ramsey case has been called a red herring by many. Here is a great article about the DNA
The ransome note is the key in my opinion.
I will be posting a few more links in the next couple of days.
It is very frustrating when an organization like CrimeCon gives John Ramsey a platform. Everything he says about an intruder I can disprove with the truth. The problem is no one is allowed to challenge Ramsey when he is given a huge platform.
Don't let the recent John Ramsey comments that have been covered by mainstream media fool you.
There was no intruder. Patsy wrote the note.
All in my opinion of course.
Take care,
Tricia
Dear Tricia.
I am new to this case and I am unsure what has already been debated. I have looked at the Autopsy report and there seems to be some major issues regarding this. Have you any knowledge whether my concerns have been addressed previously? You see if my observations are correct then it has an enormous effect on the time line and what actually happened. I would be grateful for any feedback.
 
The Autopsy should be re-visited.

Jonbenoit Ramsey's autopsy report has a number of issues that require review.

1) When people are Garrotted or hung, there are a number of features that are prominent. Features of petechiae are on the conjuctiva and eye lids on the left side was used to confirm the death via garrotte in addition to the ligature around her neck. If anyone has ever seen a corpse of someone who dies by this method, the features are quite prominent.

The autopsy clearly states the tongue was normal. This finding is unexpected in a case in which death by garrotte is suspected. Normally when someone dies by hanging or garrotte the tongue becomes bloated and dis-coloured.

The positive features of petechiae on the conjunctiva and eyelids identified by the medical examiner are also relatively mild. So why is it relatively normal? It's known that petechiae on the conjunctiva and eyelids can also occur in natural deaths. In her autopsy, the lungs also contained scattered petechiae raising the possibility that these were also post mortem changes.

I wonder whether she was actually killed by the head blow. People can suffer sudden arrhythmia when hit like this in the head. I am unaware whether anyone has investigated the effect of a Garrotte applied after death soon after death to see what happens to a corpse.

2) Yesterday I identified that the wrist ligatures were not consistent of being tied up while alive. It looks to me she was tied up a long time after she died. The autopsy report is conspicuous by a lack of expected findings regarding the wrist ligatures. The reason being that the ligature marks show no evidence of surrounding bruising, abrasions and appear to show liver mortis within the area of the ligature mark. I will explain this in more detail.

When you die, the circulation fails and stops moving. The blood within vessels then gravitates to dependent areas (under gravity) until all the blood vessels and capillaries are engorged. It is evident within half an hour of death. It is blanchable but gradually becomes fixed with time. It is usually considered fixed by about 8 hours. If there is a pressure point which collapses the vessels then no blood pooling occurs at this site.

A ligature applied before death causes the blood vessels to collapse and stops blood pooling at that site. Essentially no liver mortis should occur in the ligature mark. A ligature that is not tight enough to cause this should not leave an indentation or mark. If you look carefully at the image you will see evidence of liver mortis within a ligature mark.

This points to the proposition that the wrist ligatures were applied a long time after she died. Probably in the 6- 8 hour range. The reason for this is there no characteristic increase in liver mortis around the edges of the ligature if the liver mortis is properly blanch able. If applied while alive the mark should look pale with a darker cuff each side.

So my concern is whether the ligatures and garrotte were applied after death.

3) The last issue is urine. People micturate after death as the result of loss of bladder control. Her autopsy shows urine staining of her underwear. Urine should be present at the site of her death. Was urine detected in the basement where she was found?

The issues I have is knowing whether the crime scene photos on line and the autopsy photos online are credible.

I really think these issues require high level review by a senior pathologist/coroner where they can review the original photos and determine whether the autopsy report requires review.
The vast majority of the experts agree that the blow to the head came first. This is an important finding as I believe (with my limited knowledge of such things) that it does explain her respective injuries, etc. The coroner estimated that the strangulation occurred anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours after the blow to the head. During this time she was unconscious and internal bleeding in the brain was causing swelling / edema and she was experiencing brain death. When the ligature around the neck was then applied and tightened, it would not have taken much to cause actual death, as she was already severely compromised by the head injury.

As medical assistance was not immediately called after the blow to the head, as time went on that injury very likely would have resulted in her death. Medical experts have even noted that it's possible the perpetrator thought she was dead from the blow. As time went on, it became evident that there were still signs of life, however weak. Who knows how long it would have taken for death to occur from the head blow alone, but it was happening slowly.

The wrist ligatures were very likely applied after death had occurred and as part of the staging. They were very loose, no marks from them on the wrists as you have noted, an indication that they were not used to restrain her.

There was a urine stain found just outside the door to the wine cellar where her body was found, indicating that was likely where her death occurred. Then her body was moved to the wine cellar and the door was closed.
 
The vast majority of the experts agree that the blow to the head came first. This is an important finding as I believe (with my limited knowledge of such things) that it does explain her respective injuries, etc. The coroner estimated that the strangulation occurred anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 hours after the blow to the head. When the ligature around the neck was then applied and tightened, it would not have taken much to cause actual death, as she was already severely compromised by the head injury.

As medical assistance was not immediately called after the blow to the head, as time went on that injury very likely would have resulted in her death. Medical experts have even noted that it's possible the perpetrator thought she was dead from the blow.


There was a urine stain found just outside the door to the wine cellar where her body was found, indicating that was likely where her death occurred. Then her body was moved to the wine cellar and the door was closed.

Cloudedtruth. I am trying to get some clarity into the Autopsy report. What you have written is the 'popular' version or narrative of the events. I already knew this. It is just the autopsy may not really support this version of events.

I will go through the Autopsy with you.
This is what you said;
'During this time she was unconscious and internal bleeding in the brain was causing swelling / edema and she was experiencing brain death.'

The brain. There was a very large Haematoma within the Pariental/Temporal lobe. It showed no organisation at all. There was no oedema reported on the Autopsy at all. There was no evidence of coning of the brain stem. There was no acute inflammation. Halo around both Glial cells and Neurones was seen (Early Oedema).

you said;
'As time went on, it became evident that there were still signs of life, however weak. Who knows how long it would have taken for death to occur from the head blow alone, but it was happening slowly.'

My interpretation is that there was only a very short period between the head injury and death. Maybe minutes. She did not have enough oedema or inflammatory changes to be 45 minutes to two hours. This is one of the reasons I think it needs high level forensic pathology review. Can you a provide a link to where the coroner makes this official statement of 45 minutes to two hours. I can't find it anywhere. I have looked for it. It just maybe Chinese whispers.

You said;
'The wrist ligatures were very likely applied after death had occurred and as part of the staging. They were very loose, no marks from them on the wrists as you have noted, an indication that they were not used to restrain her.'

This is not what I am saying at all. I am saying wrist ligatures were applied tight enough to leave a mark on the skin. Did you look at the autopsy photo I posted. The problem I see is that it looks like they were tied 6-8 hours after she was already dead. Would an intruder wait 6-8 hours after she died to apply a ligature?

I will post the image again.http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenethandleft.jpg

The deep tissues of the neck show no bruising at all. The tongue is not swollen. The petechiae are mild and are only on the anterior part of the neck. There is none reported posteriorly on her neck.

You should see bruising if she was alive when the ligature was applied. Force enough to strangle her and leave a deep furrow in her neck that does not cause bruising! Really do you believe that.

My concern is that the Autopsy report is inadequate and has not interpreted the findings correctly. I think he has performed a superficial report based on his initial physical findings without thinking critically about the negative aspects of the autopsy and what they indicate. That's why I think there needs to be a high level pathology review to review the autopsy. A senior highly experienced Coroner needs to review this case.

For Completeness. I have seen people say that JonBenot was sexually abused. This is not true. The vaginal findings in this case are not unusual in pre-pubescent girls. The birefringent material is likely to be toilet paper. The chronic vaginitis (not uncommon) would be typical in girls who are not using toilet paper and wiping in the ideal manner. Note the hymen is intact.
 
and Cloudedtruth. I am trying to get some clarity into the Autopsy report. What you have written is the 'popular' version or narrative of the events. I already knew this. It is just the autopsy may not really support this version of events.

I will go through the Autopsy with you.
This is what you said;
'During this time she was unconscious and internal bleeding in the brain was causing swelling / edema and she was experiencing brain death.'

The brain. There was a very large Haematoma within the Pariental/Temporal lobe. It showed no organisation at all. There was no oedema reported on the Autopsy at all. There was no evidence of coning of the brain stem. There was no acute inflammation. Halo around both Glial cells and Neurones was seen (Early Oedema).

you said;
'As time went on, it became evident that there were still signs of life, however weak. Who knows how long it would have taken for death to occur from the head blow alone, but it was happening slowly.'

My interpretation is that there was only a very short period between the head injury and death. Maybe minutes. She did not have enough oedema or inflammatory changes to be 45 minutes to two hours. This is one of the reasons I think it needs high level forensic pathology review. Can you a provide a link to where the coroner makes this official statement of 45 minutes to two hours. I can't find it anywhere. I have looked for it. It just maybe Chinese whispers.

You said;
'The wrist ligatures were very likely applied after death had occurred and as part of the staging. They were very loose, no marks from them on the wrists as you have noted, an indication that they were not used to restrain her.'

This is not what I am saying at all. I am saying wrist ligatures were applied tight enough to leave a mark on the skin. Did you look at the autopsy photo I posted. The problem I see is that it looks like they were tied 6-8 hours after she was already dead. Would an intruder wait 6-8 hours after she died to apply a ligature?

I will post the image again.http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenethandleft.jpg

The deep tissues of the neck show no bruising at all. The tongue is not swollen. The petechiae are mild and are only on the anterior part of the neck. There is none reported posteriorly on her neck.

You should see bruising if she was alive when the ligature was applied. Force enough to strangle her and leave a deep furrow in her neck that does not cause bruising! Really do you believe that.

My concern is that the Autopsy report is inadequate and has not interpreted the findings correctly. I think he has performed a superficial report based on his initial physical findings without thinking critically about the negative aspects of the autopsy and what they indicate. That's why I think there needs to be a high level pathology review to review the autopsy. A senior highly experienced Coroner needs to review this case.

For Completeness. I have seen people say that JonBenot was sexually abused. This is not true. The vaginal findings in this case are not unusual in pre-pubescent girls. The birefringent material is likely to be toilet paper. The chronic vaginitis (not uncommon) would be typical in girls who are not using toilet paper and wiping in the ideal manner. Note the hymen is intact.
Here's some information after the full autopsy report was released, which wasn't until August of 1997, and after the coroner had enlisted experts from all over the country to examine all the materials and weigh in with their findings.

With regard to the head wound, experts who were consulted are as follows:
Dr. Lucy Rorke, neuropathologist with the Philadelphia Children's Hospital
Dr. Kerry Brega, Chief Neurologist with Denver Health Medical Center
Dr. Ronald Wright, Director of Forensic Pathology, University of Miami
Dr. Werner Spitz, pathologist
Dr. Robert Kirschner, pathologist
Dr. Vincent Di Maio, pathologist
"The vast majority of pathologists agree the head blow came first, followed by the strangulation". Among the experts listed above, the only disagreement is with regard to to time. They opined that between 45 - 120 minutes of time elapsed between the head injury and asphyxiation. They also concluded that the reason there was not much bleeding in the brain was likely due to neurogenic shock, but there was significant swelling which would have taken some time to develop. Petechial hemorrhaging on JonBenet's neck, face, and eyelids. This means strangulation would have almost certainly occurred while she was still alive and blood was circulating through the capillaries. Therefore the sequence of head injury followed by asphyxiation.

Ex- Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner: Beckner: “We know from the evidence she was hit in the head very hard with an unknown object, possibly a flashlight or similar type item. The blow knocked her into unconsciousness, which could have led someone to believe she was dead. The strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike, based on the swelling on the brain. While the head wound would have eventually killed her, the strangulation actually did kill her. The rest of the scene we believe was staged, including the vaginal trauma, to make it look like a kidnapping/assault gone bad.”

"A triangular shaped bruise was observed on the front of JonBenet's throat and below the line of the imbedded cord. It was approximately the size of a quarter and located left of the midline of her throat". Foreign Faction by James Solar.

John Ramsey had very easily removed the ligature from the left wrist, he did not untie it he slipped it off her wrist.That would not have been possible if it was tight. Also noted on the left hand, was a heart drawn with red ink. The ligature from the right wrist was removed by the coroner, who noted that the cord was tied loosely around the right wrist and over the sleeve on the long sleeved shirt she was wearing. The ligature did not have direct contact with her skin and he was able to put his finger under the ligature before he removed it. The wrist ligatures were loose, not tight.
I am unaware of any source that states that the ligatures were applied 6-8 hours after her death.

With regard to the question of sexual assault and her internal vaginal injuries, the following pediatric experts were consulted and examined all the autopsy materials:
Dr. David Jones, Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Dr. John McCann, a Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California at Davis
Dr. James Monteleone, Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine and Director of Child Protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital
Dr. Virginia Rao of Dade County, Florida
Dr. Ronald Wright, formerly the Medical Examiner for Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Their findings:
"The upper one third of Jon-Benet's hymen was missing, but an absence of acute trauma to the area means that it was not torn off immediately before she died. Instead, the medical experts consulted stated that the hymen appeared to have been retracted and eroded because of repeated exposure, and it was thickened in the bottom two-thirds of the perimeter where a part of it remained. The tissue which is normally covered by an intact hymen also showed signs of sexual contact. The normal size of the hymen orifice for a six year old female who has not been sexually abused is about 5 millimeters. There are 10 millimeters in one centimeter. Jon-Benet's hymen orifice was measured by Dr. Meyer at 1 centimeter x 1 centimeter, or about twice the size typically found in other girls her age. The microscopic tissue examination confirmed indications from the external examination that Jon-Benet had suffered prior, and possibly multiple incidents of sexual abuse, as well as a very recent sexual assault preceding her death". One of the major conclusions of the panel of experts, as reported by Steve Thomas was that Jon-Benet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There is no way the evidence found could be caused by poor wiping habits.
Further, "there were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation". There are signed affidavits in very clear language that there were injuries "consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse.....there was chronic abuse.....past violation of the vagina.....evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse".

Dr. McCann concluded that evidence of prior abuse on the remaining portion of the hymen was indicated by "a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim", "irregularity of the edge of the hymen", and visible "exposure of the vaginal rugae", (small pleats which are normally covered by an intact hymen). Dr. McCann felt that these changes in the hymen were the result of healing from prior incidents that could have happened more than 10 days earlier.

Here's a bio for Dr. McCann, he is a well respected pioneer in the field of child abuse and neglect, and child and adolescent sexual abuse, and was instrumental in the development of the child and adolescent sexual abuse reporting forms used throughout the State of California.

 
I forgot to add……I believe that the lack of some of the evidence you have cited that is usually seen with hanging or garroting such as swollen tongue for example, further goes to support that the head blow came first. Garroting is an extremely efficient and fast way to strangle someone. Given that JonBenet was in an extremely compromised state and already most likely near death, it would not have taken much time for strangulation to have caused her actual death. Releasing pressure on the garrote meant the cord around her neck did not remain as tight as during the strangulation.
 
Here's some information after the full autopsy report was released, which wasn't until August of 1997, and after the coroner had enlisted experts from all over the country to examine all the materials and weigh in with their findings.

With regard to the head wound, experts who were consulted are as follows:
Dr. Lucy Rorke, neuropathologist with the Philadelphia Children's Hospital
Dr. Kerry Brega, Chief Neurologist with Denver Health Medical Center
Dr. Ronald Wright, Director of Forensic Pathology, University of Miami
Dr. Werner Spitz, pathologist
Dr. Robert Kirschner, pathologist
Dr. Vincent Di Maio, pathologist
"The vast majority of pathologists agree the head blow came first, followed by the strangulation". Among the experts listed above, the only disagreement is with regard to to time. They opined that between 45 - 120 minutes of time elapsed between the head injury and asphyxiation. They also concluded that the reason there was not much bleeding in the brain was likely due to neurogenic shock, but there was significant swelling which would have taken some time to develop. Petechial hemorrhaging on JonBenet's neck, face, and eyelids. This means strangulation would have almost certainly occurred while she was still alive and blood was circulating through the capillaries. Therefore the sequence of head injury followed by asphyxiation.

Ex- Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner: Beckner: “We know from the evidence she was hit in the head very hard with an unknown object, possibly a flashlight or similar type item. The blow knocked her into unconsciousness, which could have led someone to believe she was dead. The strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike, based on the swelling on the brain. While the head wound would have eventually killed her, the strangulation actually did kill her. The rest of the scene we believe was staged, including the vaginal trauma, to make it look like a kidnapping/assault gone bad.”

"A triangular shaped bruise was observed on the front of JonBenet's throat and below the line of the imbedded cord. It was approximately the size of a quarter and located left of the midline of her throat". Foreign Faction by James Solar.

John Ramsey had very easily removed the ligature from the left wrist, he did not untie it he slipped it off her wrist.That would not have been possible if it was tight. Also noted on the left hand, was a heart drawn with red ink. The ligature from the right wrist was removed by the coroner, who noted that the cord was tied loosely around the right wrist and over the sleeve on the long sleeved shirt she was wearing. The ligature did not have direct contact with her skin and he was able to put his finger under the ligature before he removed it. The wrist ligatures were loose, not tight.
I am unaware of any source that states that the ligatures were applied 6-8 hours after her death.

With regard to the question of sexual assault and her internal vaginal injuries, the following pediatric experts were consulted and examined all the autopsy materials:
Dr. David Jones, Professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center
Dr. John McCann, a Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California at Davis
Dr. James Monteleone, Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University School of Medicine and Director of Child Protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital
Dr. Virginia Rao of Dade County, Florida
Dr. Ronald Wright, formerly the Medical Examiner for Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Their findings:
"The upper one third of Jon-Benet's hymen was missing, but an absence of acute trauma to the area means that it was not torn off immediately before she died. Instead, the medical experts consulted stated that the hymen appeared to have been retracted and eroded because of repeated exposure, and it was thickened in the bottom two-thirds of the perimeter where a part of it remained. The tissue which is normally covered by an intact hymen also showed signs of sexual contact. The normal size of the hymen orifice for a six year old female who has not been sexually abused is about 5 millimeters. There are 10 millimeters in one centimeter. Jon-Benet's hymen orifice was measured by Dr. Meyer at 1 centimeter x 1 centimeter, or about twice the size typically found in other girls her age. The microscopic tissue examination confirmed indications from the external examination that Jon-Benet had suffered prior, and possibly multiple incidents of sexual abuse, as well as a very recent sexual assault preceding her death". One of the major conclusions of the panel of experts, as reported by Steve Thomas was that Jon-Benet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There is no way the evidence found could be caused by poor wiping habits.
Further, "there were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation". There are signed affidavits in very clear language that there were injuries "consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse.....there was chronic abuse.....past violation of the vagina.....evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse".

Dr. McCann concluded that evidence of prior abuse on the remaining portion of the hymen was indicated by "a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim", "irregularity of the edge of the hymen", and visible "exposure of the vaginal rugae", (small pleats which are normally covered by an intact hymen). Dr. McCann felt that these changes in the hymen were the result of healing from prior incidents that could have happened more than 10 days earlier.

Here's a bio for Dr. McCann, he is a well respected pioneer in the field of child abuse and neglect, and child and adolescent sexual abuse, and was instrumental in the development of the child and adolescent sexual abuse reporting forms used throughout the State of California.

Have you got a link to the 1997 Autopsy report. Are you saying it was revised to include the opinions of other experts ? Where is it? I Can't find it anywhere.
You state;

"They also concluded that the reason there was not much bleeding in the brain was likely due to neurogenic shock, but there was significant swelling which would have taken some time to develop."
The original autopsy shows a very large Haematoma extending across multiple lobes of the brain and very little oedema. It shows no swelling as I have already pointed out. Was the report updated? Where is it? Please provide a link to the actual report so I can verify it.


The issue with the Garrotte is the lack of bruising from the trauma of the Garrotte. The Garrotte left a deep furrow. Histopathology of the furrow is the only reliable way to determine whether there is Haemorrhage. Haemorrhage = Alive when Garrotte applied.

From my reading of the autopsy, No Haemorrhage was seen at all in the deep tissue. The sclera were clear. This is what it should of looked like.


The autopsy talks about Petechial Haemorrhages in the eyelids which were (mild) and importantly also in the pericardium and lung. That finding alone raises the suspicion that the petechial Haemorrhage identified by the autopsy were really just post mortem changes.

An article discusses this.


Petechial Haemorhages due to strangulation are due to the engorgement of blood vessels. Yet there is nothing in the report that the blood vessels were even engorged.

Were specimens even taken? It's actually the only way you can determine with certainty that the garrotte was applied while alive. There also should be a bruise at the site of the knot which was applied from the back of her neck. Nothing in the report at all. This is the report I have looked at; Its the only one I can find.


I am being critical because the report does not provide enough evidence to be sure she was strangled while alive. I actually think the autopsy could have been a lot better. A simple biopsy of the ligature wound would have been enough to provide proof she was alive but does not appear to have been taken.

The photo of the wrist is the photo I posted. It clearly has a mark with evidence of discolouration. If it is so loose, it shouldn't leave a mark. No one has addressed this issue at all. That's the problem and the whole point of the post. Nothing in the autopsy report at all. There should be.

Have any of the experts addressed this in their reports? Where is the report?

This is the only review I can find. The experts who have read the autopsy report are arguing about the findings. They are not straight forward.


I am happy to discuss further if you can show evidence of an updated report.
 
I forgot to add……I believe that the lack of some of the evidence you have cited that is usually seen with hanging or garroting such as swollen tongue for example, further goes to support that the head blow came first. Garroting is an extremely efficient and fast way to strangle someone. Given that JonBenet was in an extremely compromised state and already most likely near death, it would not have taken much time for strangulation to have caused her actual death. Releasing pressure on the garrote meant the cord around her neck did not remain as tight as during the strangulation.

I am not challenging the order of events. It is whether she was actually alive when she was garrotted. I think she was already dead. The Garrott was part of the staging. I think she was found dead, moved and then staged. You know by reading the autopsy that she was turned over at some stage somewhere between 2 and 6 hours after she died. The findings do not make sense otherwise. She was face down (prone) before being moved onto her back. Have you worked that out? This can be easily proven by the autopsy report, read it carefully. I will be impressed if you can work it out. Was that discussed in your report? It is also why she has petechiae on her left eye lid but that's not how I worked it out.

Order
1) Came home.
2) Ate pineapple
3) Hit to head causing death. Assailant.
4) Moved and Staged (Probably some one else). Around 4 am in morning.
5) Police called in morning.

No one is going to be charged with the murder but I think there is enough evidence to be charged with interfering with a corpse.
 
I have had a bit of time to reflect on the Autopsy results. Did someone actually try to perform CPR on JBR after she died?. I am not talking about when her body was found at 1pm on the 26th of December by the way.

It would explain some of the autopsy findings. This is a link.


Importantly a re-examination of JBR body would give this answer and provide evidence she was staged if fractures were found.
 
Last edited:
Another good article looking at subconjuctival petechiae in people that were not strangled to death.

40% of children with blunt force trauma to the head get them.
 
I was looking at the ransom note yesterday, I noticed something for the first time.

After the representative of the small foreign faction demanded the amount necessary to pay the ransom, they graciously guided the victims on proper ransom payment etiquette. The note stated that the perpetrators would call the victims between 8 and 10 am tomorrow, to instruct the victim on delivery of the ransom. First off, use of the word "tomorrow" is confusing, given that the letter was left on the stairs either very late on December 25th or early on December 26th. Was "tomorrow" meant to reference December 26th or December 27th? Based on several Ramsey behaviors and statements, I believe they considered December 26th to be the "tomorrow" referenced in the ransom note.

If you assume "tomorrow" was in reference to December 26th, were there no plans to go to the bank and withdraw the money in the specified denominations? After all, the small foreign faction representative is going to call and they are going to give you instructions on where to deliver the money; the money you haven't retrieved yet. Shouldn't you get the money ASAP?

3 Caveats
- My questions may very well have been answered previously. My knowledge of the case is far from complete.
- Maybe John already had the money, in the specific denominations, under his pillow to help him sleep better.
- Most banks don't open until 9 am.

Bonus Insight
Every once in a while, I come across an IDI response that plants a seed of doubt in my otherwise strong RDI believing mind. One of the things that leads me back into the light (RDI), is the lack of reaction from the Ramseys when the representative of the small foregin faction failed to call between the 8-10 am as stated in the ransom letter. Nobody will ever convince me that parents of a missing child wouldn't be hyper-aware of the clock when your child's kidnapper stated they would call between 8 am - 10 am.
 
I was looking at the ransom note yesterday, I noticed something for the first time.

After the representative of the small foreign faction demanded the amount necessary to pay the ransom, they graciously guided the victims on proper ransom payment etiquette. The note stated that the perpetrators would call the victims between 8 and 10 am tomorrow, to instruct the victim on delivery of the ransom. First off, use of the word "tomorrow" is confusing, given that the letter was left on the stairs either very late on December 25th or early on December 26th. Was "tomorrow" meant to reference December 26th or December 27th? Based on several Ramsey behaviors and statements, I believe they considered December 26th to be the "tomorrow" referenced in the ransom note.

If you assume "tomorrow" was in reference to December 26th, were there no plans to go to the bank and withdraw the money in the specified denominations? After all, the small foreign faction representative is going to call and they are going to give you instructions on where to deliver the money; the money you haven't retrieved yet. Shouldn't you get the money ASAP?

3 Caveats
- My questions may very well have been answered previously. My knowledge of the case is far from complete.
- Maybe John already had the money, in the specific denominations, under his pillow to help him sleep better.
- Most banks don't open until 9 am.

Bonus Insight
Every once in a while, I come across an IDI response that plants a seed of doubt in my otherwise strong RDI believing mind. One of the things that leads me back into the light (RDI), is the lack of reaction from the Ramseys when the representative of the small foregin faction failed to call between the 8-10 am as stated in the ransom letter. Nobody will ever convince me that parents of a missing child wouldn't be hyper-aware of the clock when your child's kidnapper stated they would call between 8 am - 10 am.
This part of the letter drives me the most crazy. It says "you must follow our instructions to the letter" and then the instructions are kind of nonchalant. Call between 8 and 10? Wouldn't a kidnapper want to have a tighter, specific schedule? There's the "tomorrow" issue and also "I advise you to be well rested" which almost suggests the following day (the 27th) but why would a kidnapper want to wait another entire day? So, the only sense I can make, is that it's written as if she was kidnapped before midnight and the parents would presumably find the note right away (Maybe if she were an infant, checked on often, this would make more sense?) but they didn't find the note until the morning. On the stairs Patsy was known to come down in the morning. I think it's confusing because we know for a fact the note was written, by the R's or a kidnapper, in the house, likely after midnight, but initially it was probably meant to look like someone wrote it elsewhere much earlier and brought it with them. So tomorrow would be the 26th.
As for the money, I think attempts were made, while everyone was at the R's house, to have it ready if needed.
 
This part of the letter drives me the most crazy. It says "you must follow our instructions to the letter" and then the instructions are kind of nonchalant. Call between 8 and 10? Wouldn't a kidnapper want to have a tighter, specific schedule? There's the "tomorrow" issue and also "I advise you to be well rested" which almost suggests the following day (the 27th) but why would a kidnapper want to wait another entire day? So, the only sense I can make, is that it's written as if she was kidnapped before midnight and the parents would presumably find the note right away (Maybe if she were an infant, checked on often, this would make more sense?) but they didn't find the note until the morning. On the stairs Patsy was known to come down in the morning. I think it's confusing because we know for a fact the note was written, by the R's or a kidnapper, in the house, likely after midnight, but initially it was probably meant to look like someone wrote it elsewhere much earlier and brought it with them. So tomorrow would be the 26th.
As for the money, I think attempts were made, while everyone was at the R's house, to have it ready if needed.
Well, IMO it all just underscores that it was written by the R's. They attempted to include things that they perceived a real ransom note would include. And I think one of the most important clues that it was the R's is the whole Christmas thing (the date of 12/25). Christmas was an important and significant day for them, especially Patsy. Note how they put JB's DOD as 12/25, when it's more likely it was in the early hours of the morning on 12/26. But, given the timeline of things that happened on the night of 12/25 to the best of knowledge, that's when things were started, put into motion. Of course, if the R's were all really in bed and asleep by 10:30PM on the 25th as they have alleged, and no one heard anything or woke up at any point, there is no way they could possibly know that anything actually took place on the 25th.

IMO it was not only to try and make police think that someone was already in the house when they got home that night and had already written the note, it also points to the significance that the date of 12/25, Christmas, the day of Christ's birth holds for Patsy in particular.

And yes, arrangements for the money were in play. John had called Rod Westmoreland in Atlanta, who was friends with the R's and a big wig (fat cat?) financial advisor with his own Merrill Lynch branch office. He arranged for a cash advance on JR's Visa card. John Fernie then went to the bank to get the cash, but police would not let him take the cash to the house. He was instead instructed to bring it to the police station where they were supposedly trying to make copies of the bills so that they'd have a record of all the serial numbers.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
172
Total visitors
231

Forum statistics

Threads
609,001
Messages
18,248,412
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top