Dna

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Other than her size-12's. Has it been stated where the touch-dna was found on the longjohns, inside, outside, or both?

Assuming Patsy was telling the truth about the longjohns, these are clean on JonBenet, even if they were placed on her down in the basement and not in her bedroom? I'll make the same assumption about the size-12's. So either the touch-dna was transferred by the same person who redressed her in the size-12's and longjohns, or it arrived during the autopsy procedure?

If JonBenet had transferred the touch-dna, then it would have been found elsewhere on her body, e.g. her fingers?

Did Coroner Meyer not say something about the stains on the size-12's not matching up with what you might expect, if JonBenet had actually been wearing those size-12's?

Do you reckon the bloodstain on the size-12's was the result of blood-pooling, or from an acute injury?



.

This is what has been stated: The Male DNA was found on the waistband of BOTH the longjohns and panties (in the form of skin cells) as well as inside the panty crotch in the same area of a spot of JB's blood. The form of this DNA was never stated- that tells me that it is also skin cells and came to be deposited in the same way as the other two places. I would have LOVED to see them test the other (Male) dead bodies that Mayer autopsied using the same dirty nail clippers he used on JB. I think then we will have the source of the male DNA. I believe the DNA was transferred by either the person who dressed her, or at the morgue by whoever undressed her.
As for the longjohns being "clean"- actually, they were found to have urine stains on them on the front, as did the panties. So they weren't truly "clean". They did not have blood on them.
As for the blood in the panties- the coroner did state that the location of the blood droplets in the panties did NOT correspond to the area on her body (her thighs and pubic area) where he found evidence of her own blood and dark fibers which he noted indicated that this area had been wiped down with a cloth.
To me, this means that the JB was not wearing panties nor the longjohns when she suffered the assault that caused her to bleed (and scream). I assume she was nude, at least from the waist down, because if her clothing had simply been pulled down there would be some evidence of blood splatters, no matter how small. She was likely then redressed at some point after having been wiped down and the NEW size 12 panties put on her, followed by the longjohns. There was blood found IN the vagina in a few places, and some of it was semi-liquid, which means it had already begun to congeal. The small drops of blood in her panty crotch probably occurred as the result of some oozing of blood from the vagina- just a tiny amount before the natural process of death caused the blood to gel. I do not see this very tiny amount of blood being the result of pooling or directly from an acute injury. It was INdirectly from whatever acute injury caused her to bleed in the first place- enough blood to run down her thighs and require wiping.

 

[UKGuy]

This is what has been stated: The Male DNA was found on the waistband of BOTH the longjohns and panties (in the form of skin cells) as well as inside the panty crotch in the same area of a spot of JB's blood. The form of this DNA was never stated- that tells me that it is also skin cells and came to be deposited in the same way as the other two places. I would have LOVED to see them test the other (Male) dead bodies that Mayer autopsied using the same dirty nail clippers he used on JB. I think then we will have the source of the male DNA. I believe the DNA was transferred by either the person who dressed her, or at the morgue by whoever undressed her.
As for the longjohns being "clean"- actually, they were found to have urine stains on them on the front, as did the panties. So they weren't truly "clean". They did not have blood on them.
As for the blood in the panties- the coroner did state that the location of the blood droplets in the panties did NOT correspond to the area on her body (her thighs and pubic area) where he found evidence of her own blood and dark fibers which he noted indicated that this area had been wiped down with a cloth.
To me, this means that the JB was not wearing panties nor the longjohns when she suffered the assault that caused her to bleed (and scream). I assume she was nude, at least from the waist down, because if her clothing had simply been pulled down there would be some evidence of blood splatters, no matter how small. She was likely then redressed at some point after having been wiped down and the NEW size 12 panties put on her, followed by the longjohns. There was blood found IN the vagina in a few places, and some of it was semi-liquid, which means it had already begun to congeal. The small drops of blood in her panty crotch probably occurred as the result of some oozing of blood from the vagina- just a tiny amount before the natural process of death caused the blood to gel. I do not see this very tiny amount of blood being the result of pooling or directly from an acute injury. It was INdirectly from whatever acute injury caused her to bleed in the first place- enough blood to run down her thighs and require wiping.

DeeDee249,

This is what has been stated: The Male DNA was found on the waistband of BOTH the longjohns and panties (in the form of skin cells) as well as inside the panty crotch in the same area of a spot of JB's blood. The form of this DNA was never stated- that tells me that it is also skin cells and came to be deposited in the same way as the other two places. I would have LOVED to see them test the other (Male) dead bodies that Mayer autopsied using the same dirty nail clippers he used on JB. I think then we will have the source of the male DNA. I believe the DNA was transferred by either the person who dressed her, or at the morgue by whoever undressed her.

It has to be skin cells, anything else would place someone other than a Ramsey at the crime-scene, and Team Ramsey would not allow us to forget it.

As for the longjohns being "clean"- actually, they were found to have urine stains on them on the front, as did the panties. So they weren't truly "clean". They did not have blood on them.

Did Patsy not say the longjohns were clean on JonBenet, could the urine staining not have been arrived at by osmosis?

As for the blood in the panties- the coroner did state that the location of the blood droplets in the panties did NOT correspond to the area on her body (her thighs and pubic area) where he found evidence of her own blood and dark fibers which he noted indicated that this area had been wiped down with a cloth.

Not certain what this means. Which is the reason I asked. I am speculating that originally the size-12's may have been inverted, or back to front, then once she was wiped down, they were placed back on her, but differently, thus allowing Coroner Meyer to make his remarks?

If the blood droplets originated from a specific geographical location then surely there will be evidence to support this?

It was INdirectly from whatever acute injury caused her to bleed in the first place- enough blood to run down her thighs and require wiping.

So why would Coroner Meyer opine about the blood droplets is they are residue from a one off acute injury?



.

 

[cynic]

Is it not standard practise to film autopsies, or have I been watching too much CSI?

The requirements vary by State and video is not presently mandated in Colorado.
The following is the requirement in Colorado:
The postmortem examination of each decedent includes the preservation of various body fluids and tissues for microscopic and toxicological analyses. Photographs are taken of the external and internal portions of the examination, which are available for review at a later date if needed. Photographic documentation is also an essential item in those cases where the pathologist must provide Court testimony.

This is consistent with the account in PMPT and the description also seems to indicate that Meyer conducted an examination of a fully clothed JonBenet, followed by an examination of an unclothed JonBenet. The possibility exists that he may have looked beneath the long johns to check for matching stains but perhaps did not remove them entirely. This all assumes that what follows is an accurate depiction of what Meyer did.

Shortly after 8:15 A.M. on December 27, Dr. John Meyer entered the autopsy room at Boulder Community Hospital, accompanied by his medical investigators, Tom Faure and Patricia Dunn. Dunn had been at the Ramsey house the previous day and was Meyer’s primary investigator on the case. For the autopsy, Detectives Linda Arndt and Tom Trujillo were on hand for the Boulder police; senior trial deputies Trip DeMuth and John Pickering were there for the DA’s office.
Attendants unsealed a heavy white plastic bag, revealing JonBenét’s body wrapped in a sterile white sheet. The child was placed on the steel autopsy table, whose slightly inclined subtray permitted fluids to drain into a sink-type apparatus. The sheet was removed and set aside as part of the evidence.
Meyer knew that in nine out of ten cases of a child’s suspicious death, the perpetrator or an accomplice says that a bike fell on the victim or the child slipped in the bathtub—some accident is concocted to explain the victim’s injuries. Meyer also knew, however, that good forensic pathology usually reveals the real cause of death.
JonBenét’s body was just as Meyer had observed it twelve hours earlier in the Ramsey living room. Every stitch of her clothing, plus the ligatures on her right wrist and around her neck, remained in place. Paper bags had been sealed around her hands and feet to preserve any possible trace evidence.
Patricia Dunn took color slides for the coroner’s office, while Detective Trujillo shot photos for the police department. Dunn shot 113 frames, documenting each stage of the procedure. Meyer dictated his observations into a tape recorder.
“The decedent is clothed in a long-sleeved white knit collarless shirt, the mid-anterior chest area of which contains an embroidered silver star decorated with silver sequins,” Meyer began. “Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt, is a white cord.”
On the child’s right sleeve, the coroner saw a brownish-tan stain about 2½ by 1½ inches in area, which seemed consistent with mucus from her mouth or nose.
“There are long white underwear with an elastic waistband containing a red-and-blue stripe.” Meyer also noted urine stains on the underwear, in the crotch area, and at the front.
“Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rosebuds and the word Wednesday on the elastic waistband.” The panties were also stained with urine. At the crotch, the coroner spotted several red spots that were each up to ½ inch in diameter.
Meyer then recorded the injuries that were visible with the body clothed. Beneath her right ear, at the point where the jawbone forms roughly a right angle, was a rust-colored abrasion about 3/8 by ¼ inch. There was pinpoint hemorrhaging on the upper and lower eyelids.
Meyer described the cord around the child’s neck: “Wrapped around the neck with a double knot in the midline of the posterior neck is a length of white cord similar to that described as being tied around the right wrist.” He cut through the cord on the right side of her neck and slipped it off.
“A single black mark is placed on the left side of the cut and a double black ink mark on the right side of the cut.” Meyer stated these specifics in case it would be necessary to reconstruct the cord as evidence. He knew the police would want the knot left intact, to study the technique used to secure the ligature.
There were two tails of cord trailing from the knot. One was 4 inches long and frayed. The other was 17 inches long and had multiple loops secured around a wooden stick that was about 4½ inches long.
“This wooden stick,” Meyer said, “is irregularly broken at both ends, and there are several colors of paint and apparent glistening varnish on the surface. Printed in gold letters on one end of the wood [stick] is the word Korea.”
Fine blond hair, Meyer noted, was tangled in the knot of the cord around the child’s neck as well as in the knot of the cord tied around the stick.
“The white cord is flattened and measures approximately ¼ inch in width. It appears to be made of a white synthetic material. Also secured around the neck is a gold chain with a single charm in the form of a cross.”
Meyer then recorded a series of observations about a groove left in JonBenét’s neck by the cord. In front, it was just below the prominence of her larynx. The coroner noted that the groove circled her neck almost completely horizontally, deviating only slightly upward near the back. At some points, the furrow was close to half an inch wide, and hemorrhaging and abrasions could be seen both above and below it. The groove included a roughly triangular abrasion, about the size of a 25-cent piece on the left side of the neck, that Meyer had seen when he first viewed the body at the Ramseys’ house.
Continuing with the external examination, Meyer noticed—and Detective Arndt also observed—a number of dark fibers and hairs on the outside of JonBenét’s nightshirt. Using forceps, Meyer lifted these for later microscopic analysis. Everyone in the room could also see strands of a green substance tangled in the child’s hair. Arndt believed she’d seen the same thing the day before; it was probably some of the holiday garland decorating the spiral staircase that led downstairs from JonBenét’s bedroom.
Meyer then removed her clothes and set the garments aside to be placed into evidence.
“The unembalmed, well-developed, and well-nourished Caucasian female body measures 47 inches in length and weighs an estimated 45 pounds,” Meyer dictated. “The scalp is covered by long blond hair, which is fixed in two ponytails, one on top of the head secured by a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band and one in the lower back of the head secured by a blue elastic band. No scalp trauma is identified.”
Meyer began an internal examination of the body.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 38 - 43

 

[wonderllama]

As the father of a 6 year old, it's always pretty disturbing reading these things.

 

[cynic]

Careless coroner + DNA from a previous decedent = "Intruder"

I've mentioned this previously on two Websleuths Radio shows and over at FFJ but I believe it goes a long way toward explaining the the "unexplained" DNA in the JonBenet case so I'll metion it again.

What follows is from a trial that at the time of this writing is still in progress. The defendant, Steven DeMocker, is accused of killing his former wife, Carol Kennedy, by bludgeoning her to death at her home on July 2, 2008
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...519issues.html

Overview:



DNA from 3 unidentified men found in 3 locations:

• Under the fingernails of the victim’s left hand.
• On the victim’s left hand
• On a cell phone held by the victim.

(The man on trial, DeMocker, was excluded as a possible donor of the DNA.)
(What would Mary Lacy do in a case like this? (I think we know.))

September 1, 2010
A scientist who works at a private laboratory testified Wednesday that Carol Kennedy had DNA from three unknown men underneath the fingernails of her left hand.
Alexis Brown, a supervisor at the Sorenson Forensic laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah, told a jury in the murder trial for Kennedy's ex-husband, Steven DeMocker, that Kennedy also had DNA from three unknown males on her left hand itself.
In addition, Brown said, a cordless phone that her laboratory tested showed the DNA from three unidentified males. Tests found that the DNA had not come from DeMocker, she said. Kennedy was talking to her mother on the phone in the evening of July 2, 2008, when she suddenly exclaimed, "Oh, no," and the call ended. Her mother, Ruth Kennedy, became alarmed when she could not then reach her daughter and eventually called the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office. A deputy looked into a window of Carol Kennedy's Williamson Valley home and saw her body on the floor of a room she used as an office. A cordless phone lay nearby.
Brown said tests excluded DeMocker's DNA from the samples taken from Kennedy's hand, nails and the cell phone.
…
Previously, Dr. Philip Keene, who performed the autopsy on Kennedy, said the nail clippers he used to clip her nails were pulled from a drawer and might not have been sterile.
DeMocker, who voluntarily gave a statement to detectives the night of his former wife's death, said that he had been riding his mountain bike on trails near Granite Mountain at the time of her death. He offered to give them blood and DNA samples.
Det. Luis Huante, one of the initial investigators, testified that DeMocker aroused his suspicions when he came to Kennedy's Bridal Path house that evening after his younger daughter told him that her mother died. DeMocker asked Huante if he was a suspect. Also, Huante noted scratches on DeMocker's arms and legs that DeMocker said came from bushes along the trail.
…
http://www.prescottaz.com/main.asp?S...rticleID=84882

During the exam, Keene said he clipped all of Kennedy's fingernails with a large clipper "from a drawer" in the morgue, which was not sterile. When Deputy County Attorney Joseph C. Butner III asked why the clippers were not sterilized, Keene didn't seem to have a clear answer, other than to say that the medical examiner's office now uses prepackaged nail clippers during autopsies.
"I don't know when the clippers (for trimming Kennedy's nails) were last used," Keene said. "They were kept in an unlocked drawer. I don't know if others (in the morgue) used the clippers."
http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&subsectionID=1086&articleID=84278

In September of 2010, the prosecution was pretty sure that the unidentified DNA that the defense was touting as DNA from the “real killer(s)” was the result of contamination. They were right.
6 months later the owner of the major DNA profile in the case was identified

March 21, 2011
DeMocker trial: Mystery DNA identified
Results support prosecution's nail clipper contamination theory

PRESCOTT - The DNA found on fingernail clippings of the victim in the murder trial of Steven C. DeMocker has been identified as being that of a man who may have died prior to or shortly after Carol Kennedy, according to documents obtained by the Courier.
The results may substantiate claims by the prosecution that the nail clippers used by the medical examiner were contaminated.
The prosecution in the DeMocker trial on Monday asked Judge Warren R. Darrow to order the Chino Valley Medical Center and the Yavapai Regional Medical Center to release the medical records of Ronald Lloyd Birman, who, the document said, "has been identified as the major donor of the DNA profile, previously unknown" by the Department of Public Safety's crime lab.
…
The Yavapai County Medical Examiner, Dr. Philip Keene, did an autopsy and determined Birman bled to death after an arterial graft failed.
DeMocker is accused of beating to death Kennedy, his ex-wife, on July 2, 2008.
…
The timing of the Birman's death will play a crucial role in DeMocker's retrial, as will the existence of DNA on Kennedy's body from what appears to be a totally unrelated person, which may point to contamination at Keene's office, as previously reported in the Courier.
Kennedy's fingernail contained DNA from three people, one "major" profile and two "minor" profiles. The DNA test results are believed to refer to the "major" profile, according to testimony quoted in the Courier.
On Aug. 24, 2010, Dr. Keene testified under examination by Deputy County Attorney Joseph C. Butner III that the clippers used to trim Kennedy's nails for evidence had not been sterilized.
The prosecution says in the motion that it wants to "corroborate the findings of the DPS crime lab."
Because a gag order has been imposed on the trial, neither side was able to speak about the motion or the identification made by DPS.
Scott Orr, The Daily Courier
http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1086&ArticleID=91964

Now read what the coroner did in the JonBenet case:
The coroner in the JonBenet case admitted that he did not sterilize nail clippers between autopsies.
"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."
Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" – Pg. 41

 

[cynic]

As the father of a 6 year old, it's always pretty disturbing reading these things.

Yes, and it can be so easy to forget that we are talking about a real little girl that died tragically some 15 years ago.

 

[megsy]

Can I ask a slightly OT question?

I recently read Thomas's book and PMPT. Neither of these mentioned size 12s. Can anyone give me info on that?

 

[cynic]

Can I ask a slightly OT question?

I recently read Thomas's book and PMPT. Neither of these mentioned size 12s. Can anyone give me info on that?

Read through the first post in the following thread and all will be clear:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124291"]The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties. - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

It has to be skin cells, anything else would place someone other than a Ramsey at the crime-scene, and Team Ramsey would not allow us to forget it.


Did Patsy not say the longjohns were clean on JonBenet, could the urine staining not have been arrived at by osmosis?


Not certain what this means. Which is the reason I asked. I am speculating that originally the size-12's may have been inverted, or back to front, then once she was wiped down, they were placed back on her, but differently, thus allowing Coroner Meyer to make his remarks?

If the blood droplets originated from a specific geographical location then surely there will be evidence to support this?


So why would Coroner Meyer opine about the blood droplets is they are residue from a one off acute injury?



.

The urine was likely released at death. I assume the longjohns were clean when Patsy put them on JB that night. What we don't know is whether she was also wearing the panties when she died or were they put on later, after cleaning her up. If she died not wearing them, the panties may have been wet with urine by being in contact with the wet longjohns (osmosis).

I do not think the panties were ever on her backwards. That wasn't what Mayer meant, IMO. I think he meant that the blood drops in her panties were not consistent with blood that SHOULD have been on the panties if they had been on her while she was bleeding (when alive). If she had worn them right after her acute injury and bled, there would be more blood and it would be a larger stain or smear rather than a few drops that seemed to be postmortem ooze. In this aspect, they DID originate from her vagina and there WAS small amounts of blood and semi-liquid blood found there, including the forchette and vestibule of the vagina and the vestibule is closer to the labia and external pubic area. THAT is the evidence, so not sure what you mean when you imply there would have been evidence. There WAS.
As coroner, it is Mayer's job to opine about blood droplets found on a corpse's clothing. It doesn't matter whether he thought they were from one acute injury or not. Blood does not belong on the clothing of a child and especially does not belong in the vagina of a child, so finding blood in either place certainly deserves notation by a coroner.

 

[megsy]

Interesting. Thank you, cynic!

 

[UKGuy]

Careless coroner + DNA from a previous decedent = "Intruder"

I've mentioned this previously on two Websleuths Radio shows and over at FFJ but I believe it goes a long way toward explaining the the "unexplained" DNA in the JonBenet case so I'll metion it again.

What follows is from a trial that at the time of this writing is still in progress. The defendant, Steven DeMocker, is accused of killing his former wife, Carol Kennedy, by bludgeoning her to death at her home on July 2, 2008
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...519issues.html

Overview:



DNA from 3 unidentified men found in 3 locations:

• Under the fingernails of the victim’s left hand.
• On the victim’s left hand
• On a cell phone held by the victim.

(The man on trial, DeMocker, was excluded as a possible donor of the DNA.)
(What would Mary Lacy do in a case like this? (I think we know.))

September 1, 2010
A scientist who works at a private laboratory testified Wednesday that Carol Kennedy had DNA from three unknown men underneath the fingernails of her left hand.
Alexis Brown, a supervisor at the Sorenson Forensic laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah, told a jury in the murder trial for Kennedy's ex-husband, Steven DeMocker, that Kennedy also had DNA from three unknown males on her left hand itself.
In addition, Brown said, a cordless phone that her laboratory tested showed the DNA from three unidentified males. Tests found that the DNA had not come from DeMocker, she said. Kennedy was talking to her mother on the phone in the evening of July 2, 2008, when she suddenly exclaimed, "Oh, no," and the call ended. Her mother, Ruth Kennedy, became alarmed when she could not then reach her daughter and eventually called the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office. A deputy looked into a window of Carol Kennedy's Williamson Valley home and saw her body on the floor of a room she used as an office. A cordless phone lay nearby.
Brown said tests excluded DeMocker's DNA from the samples taken from Kennedy's hand, nails and the cell phone.
…
Previously, Dr. Philip Keene, who performed the autopsy on Kennedy, said the nail clippers he used to clip her nails were pulled from a drawer and might not have been sterile.
DeMocker, who voluntarily gave a statement to detectives the night of his former wife's death, said that he had been riding his mountain bike on trails near Granite Mountain at the time of her death. He offered to give them blood and DNA samples.
Det. Luis Huante, one of the initial investigators, testified that DeMocker aroused his suspicions when he came to Kennedy's Bridal Path house that evening after his younger daughter told him that her mother died. DeMocker asked Huante if he was a suspect. Also, Huante noted scratches on DeMocker's arms and legs that DeMocker said came from bushes along the trail.
…
http://www.prescottaz.com/main.asp?S...rticleID=84882

During the exam, Keene said he clipped all of Kennedy's fingernails with a large clipper "from a drawer" in the morgue, which was not sterile. When Deputy County Attorney Joseph C. Butner III asked why the clippers were not sterilized, Keene didn't seem to have a clear answer, other than to say that the medical examiner's office now uses prepackaged nail clippers during autopsies.
"I don't know when the clippers (for trimming Kennedy's nails) were last used," Keene said. "They were kept in an unlocked drawer. I don't know if others (in the morgue) used the clippers."
http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&subsectionID=1086&articleID=84278

In September of 2010, the prosecution was pretty sure that the unidentified DNA that the defense was touting as DNA from the “real killer(s)” was the result of contamination. They were right.
6 months later the owner of the major DNA profile in the case was identified

March 21, 2011
DeMocker trial: Mystery DNA identified
Results support prosecution's nail clipper contamination theory

PRESCOTT - The DNA found on fingernail clippings of the victim in the murder trial of Steven C. DeMocker has been identified as being that of a man who may have died prior to or shortly after Carol Kennedy, according to documents obtained by the Courier.
The results may substantiate claims by the prosecution that the nail clippers used by the medical examiner were contaminated.
The prosecution in the DeMocker trial on Monday asked Judge Warren R. Darrow to order the Chino Valley Medical Center and the Yavapai Regional Medical Center to release the medical records of Ronald Lloyd Birman, who, the document said, "has been identified as the major donor of the DNA profile, previously unknown" by the Department of Public Safety's crime lab.
…
The Yavapai County Medical Examiner, Dr. Philip Keene, did an autopsy and determined Birman bled to death after an arterial graft failed.
DeMocker is accused of beating to death Kennedy, his ex-wife, on July 2, 2008.
…
The timing of the Birman's death will play a crucial role in DeMocker's retrial, as will the existence of DNA on Kennedy's body from what appears to be a totally unrelated person, which may point to contamination at Keene's office, as previously reported in the Courier.
Kennedy's fingernail contained DNA from three people, one "major" profile and two "minor" profiles. The DNA test results are believed to refer to the "major" profile, according to testimony quoted in the Courier.
On Aug. 24, 2010, Dr. Keene testified under examination by Deputy County Attorney Joseph C. Butner III that the clippers used to trim Kennedy's nails for evidence had not been sterilized.
The prosecution says in the motion that it wants to "corroborate the findings of the DPS crime lab."
Because a gag order has been imposed on the trial, neither side was able to speak about the motion or the identification made by DPS.
Scott Orr, The Daily Courier
http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1086&ArticleID=91964

Now read what the coroner did in the JonBenet case:
The coroner in the JonBenet case admitted that he did not sterilize nail clippers between autopsies.
"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers should have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."
Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation" – Pg. 41

cynic,
Nice example, looks like you have, more or less, nailed the potential source of the touch-dna!

.

 

[UKGuy]

The requirements vary by State and video is not presently mandated in Colorado.
The following is the requirement in Colorado:
The postmortem examination of each decedent includes the preservation of various body fluids and tissues for microscopic and toxicological analyses. Photographs are taken of the external and internal portions of the examination, which are available for review at a later date if needed. Photographic documentation is also an essential item in those cases where the pathologist must provide Court testimony.

This is consistent with the account in PMPT and the description also seems to indicate that Meyer conducted an examination of a fully clothed JonBenet, followed by an examination of an unclothed JonBenet. The possibility exists that he may have looked beneath the long johns to check for matching stains but perhaps did not remove them entirely. This all assumes that what follows is an accurate depiction of what Meyer did.

Shortly after 8:15 A.M. on December 27, Dr. John Meyer entered the autopsy room at Boulder Community Hospital, accompanied by his medical investigators, Tom Faure and Patricia Dunn. Dunn had been at the Ramsey house the previous day and was Meyer’s primary investigator on the case. For the autopsy, Detectives Linda Arndt and Tom Trujillo were on hand for the Boulder police; senior trial deputies Trip DeMuth and John Pickering were there for the DA’s office.
Attendants unsealed a heavy white plastic bag, revealing JonBenét’s body wrapped in a sterile white sheet. The child was placed on the steel autopsy table, whose slightly inclined subtray permitted fluids to drain into a sink-type apparatus. The sheet was removed and set aside as part of the evidence.
Meyer knew that in nine out of ten cases of a child’s suspicious death, the perpetrator or an accomplice says that a bike fell on the victim or the child slipped in the bathtub—some accident is concocted to explain the victim’s injuries. Meyer also knew, however, that good forensic pathology usually reveals the real cause of death.
JonBenét’s body was just as Meyer had observed it twelve hours earlier in the Ramsey living room. Every stitch of her clothing, plus the ligatures on her right wrist and around her neck, remained in place. Paper bags had been sealed around her hands and feet to preserve any possible trace evidence.
Patricia Dunn took color slides for the coroner’s office, while Detective Trujillo shot photos for the police department. Dunn shot 113 frames, documenting each stage of the procedure. Meyer dictated his observations into a tape recorder.
“The decedent is clothed in a long-sleeved white knit collarless shirt, the mid-anterior chest area of which contains an embroidered silver star decorated with silver sequins,” Meyer began. “Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt, is a white cord.”
On the child’s right sleeve, the coroner saw a brownish-tan stain about 2½ by 1½ inches in area, which seemed consistent with mucus from her mouth or nose.
“There are long white underwear with an elastic waistband containing a red-and-blue stripe.” Meyer also noted urine stains on the underwear, in the crotch area, and at the front.
“Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rosebuds and the word Wednesday on the elastic waistband.” The panties were also stained with urine. At the crotch, the coroner spotted several red spots that were each up to ½ inch in diameter.
Meyer then recorded the injuries that were visible with the body clothed. Beneath her right ear, at the point where the jawbone forms roughly a right angle, was a rust-colored abrasion about 3/8 by ¼ inch. There was pinpoint hemorrhaging on the upper and lower eyelids.
Meyer described the cord around the child’s neck: “Wrapped around the neck with a double knot in the midline of the posterior neck is a length of white cord similar to that described as being tied around the right wrist.” He cut through the cord on the right side of her neck and slipped it off.
“A single black mark is placed on the left side of the cut and a double black ink mark on the right side of the cut.” Meyer stated these specifics in case it would be necessary to reconstruct the cord as evidence. He knew the police would want the knot left intact, to study the technique used to secure the ligature.
There were two tails of cord trailing from the knot. One was 4 inches long and frayed. The other was 17 inches long and had multiple loops secured around a wooden stick that was about 4½ inches long.
“This wooden stick,” Meyer said, “is irregularly broken at both ends, and there are several colors of paint and apparent glistening varnish on the surface. Printed in gold letters on one end of the wood [stick] is the word Korea.”
Fine blond hair, Meyer noted, was tangled in the knot of the cord around the child’s neck as well as in the knot of the cord tied around the stick.
“The white cord is flattened and measures approximately ¼ inch in width. It appears to be made of a white synthetic material. Also secured around the neck is a gold chain with a single charm in the form of a cross.”
Meyer then recorded a series of observations about a groove left in JonBenét’s neck by the cord. In front, it was just below the prominence of her larynx. The coroner noted that the groove circled her neck almost completely horizontally, deviating only slightly upward near the back. At some points, the furrow was close to half an inch wide, and hemorrhaging and abrasions could be seen both above and below it. The groove included a roughly triangular abrasion, about the size of a 25-cent piece on the left side of the neck, that Meyer had seen when he first viewed the body at the Ramseys’ house.
Continuing with the external examination, Meyer noticed—and Detective Arndt also observed—a number of dark fibers and hairs on the outside of JonBenét’s nightshirt. Using forceps, Meyer lifted these for later microscopic analysis. Everyone in the room could also see strands of a green substance tangled in the child’s hair. Arndt believed she’d seen the same thing the day before; it was probably some of the holiday garland decorating the spiral staircase that led downstairs from JonBenét’s bedroom.
Meyer then removed her clothes and set the garments aside to be placed into evidence.
“The unembalmed, well-developed, and well-nourished Caucasian female body measures 47 inches in length and weighs an estimated 45 pounds,” Meyer dictated. “The scalp is covered by long blond hair, which is fixed in two ponytails, one on top of the head secured by a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band and one in the lower back of the head secured by a blue elastic band. No scalp trauma is identified.”
Meyer began an internal examination of the body.
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 38 - 43

cynic,
Thanks for the information. Pity it is not videotaped. Would like to have Coroner Meyer on tape as he removed the longjohns and size-12's, or some lab technician, just to see what forensic procedures were actually followed, e.g. sterile hand gloves?

At the crotch, the coroner spotted several red spots that were each up to ½ inch in diameter.

½ inch in diameter, seems quite large for droplets of blood, there seems to be something else going on here.

Well if I lived in the USofA I think I might check out the names of those who had undergone an autopsy in the previous 5-days, surely this would be a matter of public record. Then I would approach the relatives so to eliminate their deceased family member from being the source of the touch-dna found in JonBenet's underwear?

I wonder is the CODIS sample available for inspection, by that I mean its digital representation?


.

 

[UKGuy]

The urine was likely released at death. I assume the longjohns were clean when Patsy put them on JB that night. What we don't know is whether she was also wearing the panties when she died or were they put on later, after cleaning her up. If she died not wearing them, the panties may have been wet with urine by being in contact with the wet longjohns (osmosis).

I do not think the panties were ever on her backwards. That wasn't what Mayer meant, IMO. I think he meant that the blood drops in her panties were not consistent with blood that SHOULD have been on the panties if they had been on her while she was bleeding (when alive). If she had worn them right after her acute injury and bled, there would be more blood and it would be a larger stain or smear rather than a few drops that seemed to be postmortem ooze. In this aspect, they DID originate from her vagina and there WAS small amounts of blood and semi-liquid blood found there, including the forchette and vestibule of the vagina and the vestibule is closer to the labia and external pubic area. THAT is the evidence, so not sure what you mean when you imply there would have been evidence. There WAS.
As coroner, it is Mayer's job to opine about blood droplets found on a corpse's clothing. It doesn't matter whether he thought they were from one acute injury or not. Blood does not belong on the clothing of a child and especially does not belong in the vagina of a child, so finding blood in either place certainly deserves notation by a coroner.

DeeDee249,

The urine was likely released at death. I assume the longjohns were clean when Patsy put them on JB that night. What we don't know is whether she was also wearing the panties when she died or were they put on later, after cleaning her up. If she died not wearing them, the panties may have been wet with urine by being in contact with the wet longjohns (osmosis).

Urine released at death, seems like an accepted fact. Osmosis is not normally unidirectional, so its entirely possible that JonBenet was wearing the size-12's when killed. I like to think of JonBenet as being staged in the basement, so she was wiped down, redressed in size-12's, and subject to garroting, with the latter intended as bizarre staging or her deliberate death?

]
I do not think the panties were ever on her backwards. That wasn't what Mayer meant, IMO. I think he meant that the blood drops in her panties were not consistent with blood that SHOULD have been on the panties if they had been on her while she was bleeding (when alive). If she had worn them right after her acute injury and bled, there would be more blood and it would be a larger stain or smear rather than a few drops that seemed to be postmortem ooze. In this aspect, they DID originate from her vagina and there WAS small amounts of blood and semi-liquid blood found there, including the forchette and vestibule of the vagina and the vestibule is closer to the labia and external pubic area. THAT is the evidence, so not sure what you mean when you imply there would have been evidence. There WAS.

I am not sure about all this. I accept what you are saying and assume its my lack of understanding regarding the evidence that makes me think I am missing something.

As coroner, it is Mayer's job to opine about blood droplets found on a corpse's clothing. It doesn't matter whether he thought they were from one acute injury or not. Blood does not belong on the clothing of a child and especially does not belong in the vagina of a child, so finding blood in either place certainly deserves notation by a coroner.

Sure, but he was not opining regarding any discrepancy regarding the blood droplets origin, he was confident about that?

At the crotch, the coroner spotted several red spots that were each up to ½ inch in diameter.
I am interpreting Coroner Meyers remarks as specifically suggesting that the location of the blood-stains is not consistent with what he might expect given JonBenet's anatomy which you outlined.

If those blood droplets arose after JonBenet had been redressed in the size-12's then surely there should be physical evidence, albeit trace, e.g. blood residue on her skin reflecting the path taken by those specific droplets, note we are discussing plural droplets.


.

 

[cynic]

cynic,
Thanks for the information. Pity it is not videotaped. Would like to have Coroner Meyer on tape as he removed the longjohns and size-12's, or some lab technician, just to see what forensic procedures were actually followed, e.g. sterile hand gloves?

Meyer was wearing surgical gloves but sterile gloves are only sterile until they come into contact with a non-sterile object.
Undoubtedly the coroner in the DeMocker case was wearing surgical gloves as well but contaminated instruments were his downfall.
Here is a photo from the autopsy where Meyer’s gloved hand is in contact with JonBenet’s fingernails:
(Koldkase mentioned this some time ago over at FFJ: [ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=185458&postcount=14"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA results & DNA tutorials[/ame])

 

[UKGuy]

Meyer was wearing surgical gloves but sterile gloves are only sterile until they come into contact with a non-sterile object.
Undoubtedly the coroner in the DeMocker case was wearing surgical gloves as well but contaminated instruments were his downfall.
Here is a photo from the autopsy where Meyer’s gloved hand is in contact with JonBenet’s fingernails:
(Koldkase mentioned this some time ago over at FFJ: Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA results & DNA tutorials)

cynic,
Thanks for the link. It seems gloves or no gloves Coroner Meyer is being fingered, pardon the pun.

1996-12-27: Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado, Det. Arndt stated:

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed the Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

Now this is not what DeeDee249 suggested e.g.

IMO. I think he meant that the blood drops in her panties were not consistent with blood that SHOULD have been on the panties if they had been on her while she was bleeding (when alive).

I interpret DeeDee249 to be saying blood is absent from her size-12's whereas Coroner Meyer seems to be saying there was an absence of blood on her pubic area, or external genitalia?

Which confirms my suspicions, that there is slightly more to this than meets the eye.

So Coroner Meyer interprets the droplets of blood as direct evidence that JonBenet was wiped down. So this must have happened after she was redressed in the size-12's.

So someone deliberately pulled JonBenet's size-12's down, wiped her clean then pulled them up again, why, since they are leaving bloodstains behind?

Or were the bloodstains the result of an internal injury caused by the paintbrush, so to mask any prior abuse?

Is it safe to assume that JonBenet was still alive when she was wiped down, since the blood-stains, according to conventional RDI theories, had such a small timeframe in which to be deposited?

So it looks like JonBenet was bleeding internally after someone redressed her in the size-12's. So either they noticed the bloodstains externally, or someone decided to look by removing them and wiping her down. Just demonstrates how important those Wednesday size-12's must have been, since they never swapped them for another clean pair of size-12's?

So amending the assumed sequence of events, it now looks like this:

1. Redressed in size-12's.

2. Wiped down

3. Subject to garroting.

So it looks to me as if JonBenet had been wearing the Barbie Nightgown, which also had bloodstains on it, which there should not be since we know JonBenet had been wiped down and redressed. That is the bloodstains arrived prior to JonBenet being redressed. Which confirms my original assumption that the longjohns were placed on JonBenet to hide the sexual abuse.

So just imagine what state her original size-6 underwear must have been in?


.

 

[KoldKase]

cynic,
Thanks for the link. It seems gloves or no gloves Coroner Meyer is being fingered, pardon the pun.

1996-12-27: Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado, Det. Arndt stated:


Now this is not what DeeDee249 suggested e.g.

I interpret DeeDee249 to be saying blood is absent from her size-12's whereas Coroner Meyer seems to be saying there was an absence of blood on her pubic area, or external genitalia?

Which confirms my suspicions, that there is slightly more to this than meets the eye.

So Coroner Meyer interprets the droplets of blood as direct evidence that JonBenet was wiped down. So this must have happened after she was redressed in the size-12's.

So someone deliberately pulled JonBenet's size-12's down, wiped her clean then pulled them up again, why, since they are leaving bloodstains behind?

Or were the bloodstains the result of an internal injury caused by the paintbrush, so to mask any prior abuse?

Is it safe to assume that JonBenet was still alive when she was wiped down, since the blood-stains, according to conventional RDI theories, had such a small timeframe in which to be deposited?

So it looks like JonBenet was bleeding internally after someone redressed her in the size-12's. So either they noticed the bloodstains externally, or someone decided to look by removing them and wiping her down. Just demonstrates how important those Wednesday size-12's must have been, since they never swapped them for another clean pair of size-12's?

So amending the assumed sequence of events, it now looks like this:

1. Redressed in size-12's.

2. Wiped down

3. Subject to garroting.

So it looks to me as if JonBenet had been wearing the Barbie Nightgown, which also had bloodstains on it, which there should not be since we know JonBenet had been wiped down and redressed. That is the bloodstains arrived prior to JonBenet being redressed. Which confirms my original assumption that the longjohns were placed on JonBenet to hide the sexual abuse.

So just imagine what state her original size-6 underwear must have been in?


.

As you can see, the problem is that we have some question marks in the mix, as well.

For example: we don't actually know that she wore the gown that night. There has been some speculation that it accidently clung to the blanket when it was removed from the dryer and that's how it got downstairs.

Consider that the bloodstain on the gown, as well as any bloodstains on the blanket, etc., IF there were any, may have gotten there the same way JB's blood got on her thigh--simply by someone touching them when he/she had bloody hands.

DeeDee is much better at explaining these things than I am, but I'll give you a quick response about the blood drops found in the size 12-14 Bloomies: the cells in the body were breaking down at the location of the injuries after the child died. Blood was already in the vaginal vault, minimal though as most bleeding from the injury had already drained out, which is why she was wiped down and the underwear which had been on her changed, I speculate.

The cells of blood drops left behind began to break down, as well, separating into a watery liquid which leaked out later, after the wipe down and change of clothing. She lay in that cellar for hours, after all.

Since the urine was on the front of the longjohns, and if anything Lou Smit ever said could be believed (I have my doubts), it would appear she was on her stomach when she was strangled and died; Smit said JB's urine was on the carpet outside the cellar door, by the paint tray. At that point, she had the long johns and large Bloomies on, it would appear.

What I want to know is where are the bottoms to the pink pj top we see on her bed in the crime scene photos. It's not the same top she had on in the Christmas morning photos, which is a white top with no structured bra in it.

At any rate, she could have been wearing the gown, as well. We don't know, and unless someone who does tells us, we never will.

 

[UKGuy]

As you can see, the problem is that we have some question marks in the mix, as well.

For example: we don't actually know that she wore the gown that night. There has been some speculation that it accidently clung to the blanket when it was removed from the dryer and that's how it got downstairs.

Consider that the bloodstain on the gown, as well as any bloodstains on the blanket, etc., IF there were any, may have gotten there the same way JB's blood got on her thigh--simply by someone touching them when he/she had bloody hands.

DeeDee is much better at explaining these things than I am, but I'll give you a quick response about the blood drops found in the size 12-14 Bloomies: the cells in the body were breaking down at the location of the injuries after the child died. Blood was already in the vaginal vault, minimal though as most bleeding from the injury had already drained out, which is why she was wiped down and the underwear which had been on her changed, I speculate.

The cells of blood drops left behind began to break down, as well, separating into a watery liquid which leaked out later, after the wipe down and change of clothing. She lay in that cellar for hours, after all.

Since the urine was on the front of the longjohns, and if anything Lou Smit ever said could be believed (I have my doubts), it would appear she was on her stomach when she was strangled and died; Smit said JB's urine was on the carpet outside the cellar door, by the paint tray. At that point, she had the long johns and large Bloomies on, it would appear.

What I want to know is where are the bottoms to the pink pj top we see on her bed in the crime scene photos. It's not the same top she had on in the Christmas morning photos, which is a white top with no structured bra in it.

At any rate, she could have been wearing the gown, as well. We don't know, and unless someone who does tells us, we never will.

KoldKase,

For example: we don't actually know that she wore the gown that night. There has been some speculation that it accidently clung to the blanket when it was removed from the dryer and that's how it got downstairs.

When the forensic evidence conflicts with peoples cherished theories they always invent a special case, a reason as to why a particular event happened. This is I reckon a prime example.

The Barbie Gown is in the wine-cellar, not by accident, but like JonBenet deliberately. It represents evidence just as the partially opened Christmas gifts have been placed into the wine-cellar, out of eyesight. I would also include the Barbie Doll, but cannot connect it with JonBenet, other than Patsy claiming ownership!

The bloodstains on the Barbie-Nightgown may have arrived there by numerous paths, but certainly not by accident, since this means an R handled the Barbie-Nightgown directly, contrary to a belief in a chance happening.

Its possible that someone had already staged JonBenet in the Barbie-Nightgown, then for whatever reason they decided to restage, or alternatively JonBenet was assaulted as she wore the Barbie-Nightgown.

The bloodstains on both the size-12's and the Barbie-Nightgown corroborate each other, which is a higher standard of inference than assuming blind chance intervened, and nobody noticed, as they went about constructing a crime-scene they hoped would allow them to evade justice!

Its the touch-dna argument in the form of bloodstains, e.g. they arrived by accident, or formed part of a crime-scene, the latter is the IDI case of course.

which is why she was wiped down and the underwear which had been on her changed, I speculate.

Entirely possible, but she was still wiped down after being redressed in the size-12's. Coroner Meyer's remarks confirm this.

If JonBenet had been wiped down first then had the size-12's placed on her, followed by some event that allowed droplets of blood to appear on her size-12's, then Coroner Meyer should have some physical evidence, e.g. blood on her external genitalia, to correspond with the path taken by the droplets of blood. If there had only been one droplet, then there is room for debate, with more than one e.g. several, this increase expectations of corroborating evidence. Which Coroner Meyer stated was absent, so he concluded she had been wiped down.

What I want to know is where are the bottoms to the pink pj top we see on her bed in the crime scene photos. It's not the same top she had on in the Christmas morning photos, which is a white top with no structured bra in it.

You are correct and Patsy wishes to agree with you:

1997-04-30: Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Steve Thomas, Tom Trujillo, Excerpt

11 THOMAS HANEY: Okay. And you're
12 pointing in number 2 to this pink clothing item?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
14 THOMAS HANEY: Can you identify
15 that?
16 TRIP DeMUTH: You can see it better
17 on photo 3.
18 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, okay. That's
19 the -- looks like a little pink pajama top, with
20 long underwear.
21 THOMAS HANEY: Was that part of a
22 set of --
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Yes.
24 THOMAS HANEY: -- tops and bottoms?
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Top and bottom,

0244
1 yeah.
2 THOMAS HANEY: And that, does that
3 appear to be one or the other?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: It looks sort of
5 like the top, because there is a little tag,
6 might be at the neck, you know. It may be
7 inside-out.
8 THOMAS HANEY: And if you can, do
9 you know when JonBenet would have last worn
10 that?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: I know she wore it,
12 she had this on Christmas Day.

(SNIP)

0244
19 PATSY RAMSEY: She did not wear it
20 Christmas night, you know.
21 THOMAS HANEY: So when you put her
22 to bed, on Christmas night, do you recall, would
23 that or could that have been in the bed?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: It could have been
25 under the pillow or something, you know.

I wonder why Patsy is so eager to tell Haney JonBenet never wore them Christmas Night? I'm assuming since Haney is asking he is aware the bottoms might exist, so gets Patsy to lock this as fact into her interview answers.

I'll speculate that the pink bottoms went the same route as JonBenet's size-6 underwear?



.

 

[Whaleshark]

Which confirms my original assumption that the longjohns were placed on JonBenet to hide the sexual abuse.

So just imagine what state her original size-6 underwear must have been in?

Cover up of abuse of some kind(s) by someone(s) definitely seems to be motive for this crime....

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence%20of%20Prior%20Sexual%20Abuse

Expert Panel. "In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. 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. We gathered affidavits stating in 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.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."

Interesting tidbit here --

Michael Doberson, MD. On the question of whether the autopsy findings indicated chronic abuse, "Arapahoe County Coroner Dr. Michael Doberson says you would need more information before you could come to any conclusion. That was part of Smith's job. But then she was abruptly pulled off the investigation and told police were handling everything." [Editor's Note: **Holly Smith** was head of Boulder Country Sexual Abuse Team].

...Would be something if it really is Holly Smith that is the person who will soon speak, wouldn't it?.....

Also of note:
"Grab marks on the arms and inner thighs are also strongly suggestive of sex abuse, especially thumb marks on the inner aspect of the thigh, placed there when the child's legs were forced apart."
___

Yes, Barbie nightgown has blood on it....Blanket has blood on it.... they are both in the wine cellar for a reason...or at least, due to being part of the crime, that is....

There's definitely some missing bloody clothes somewhere...
It's curious the bloody barbie nightgown is left behind in the wine cellar, though, and the other bloody clothes are not....

And is probably what is meant by them 'accidentally' being there, just like John's curious statement of 'that's not supposed to be there'.... (Because what - everything else IS supposed to be there? JonBenet is perfectly normal murdered in the wine cellar, as you expect, but no, not the Barbie nightgown - that's just.. just, too strange)? I think that tells us a lot...And if it was from the laundry with the blanket, how'd it get blood on it then? If it was the item used to wipe her down, does it match any of the fibers found on her/in her 'area', and/or is the blood on the nightgown consistent with wiping/smearing of blood, and not just drops....For that matter, how'd the blanket get blood on it? If there is no blood on her outer area, and the only blood we find out about on her is hidden close to her body in that underwear, then blood had to get on the blanket somehow too...
There is another set of bloody items somewhere....

So, part of the speculation on that particular item, is, it still could have been 'overloooked' and left behind in the wine cellar 'accidentally' in, or rather, on the blanket (but NOT as part of the clean laundry, per se), but maybe as part of the crime, and was supposed to have been disposed of along with the other bloody clothes, but was not... and is why that 'is not supposed to be there'? ....

 

[wonderllama]

I know we've discussed this before elsewhere, but if we're not saying that there must be at least one, probably two or three items of clothing to be removed from the scene and apparently the house, are we still looking at the golf bag?

I find it hard to believe that any Ramsey involved in this would simply hide bloody clothing. I can only imagine they would try to clean it and then dispose of it.

If nobody left the house until after the body was found, this leaves a fair bit of time to be in possession of a pretty damning piece/s of evidence.

 

[DeeDee249]

cynic,
Thanks for the link. It seems gloves or no gloves Coroner Meyer is being fingered, pardon the pun.

1996-12-27: Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado, Det. Arndt stated:


Now this is not what DeeDee249 suggested e.g.

I interpret DeeDee249 to be saying blood is absent from her size-12's whereas Coroner Meyer seems to be saying there was an absence of blood on her pubic area, or external genitalia?

Which confirms my suspicions, that there is slightly more to this than meets the eye.

So Coroner Meyer interprets the droplets of blood as direct evidence that JonBenet was wiped down. So this must have happened after she was redressed in the size-12's.

So someone deliberately pulled JonBenet's size-12's down, wiped her clean then pulled them up again, why, since they are leaving bloodstains behind?

Or were the bloodstains the result of an internal injury caused by the paintbrush, so to mask any prior abuse?

Is it safe to assume that JonBenet was still alive when she was wiped down, since the blood-stains, according to conventional RDI theories, had such a small timeframe in which to be deposited?

So it looks like JonBenet was bleeding internally after someone redressed her in the size-12's. So either they noticed the bloodstains externally, or someone decided to look by removing them and wiping her down. Just demonstrates how important those Wednesday size-12's must have been, since they never swapped them for another clean pair of size-12's?

So amending the assumed sequence of events, it now looks like this:

1. Redressed in size-12's.

2. Wiped down

3. Subject to garroting.

So it looks to me as if JonBenet had been wearing the Barbie Nightgown, which also had bloodstains on it, which there should not be since we know JonBenet had been wiped down and redressed. That is the bloodstains arrived prior to JonBenet being redressed. Which confirms my original assumption that the longjohns were placed on JonBenet to hide the sexual abuse.

So just imagine what state her original size-6 underwear must have been in?


.

I think you are misunderstanding me. What I am saying is that Mayer felt the small drops of blood in her panties are LESS BLOOD than would be expected to be there considering the FACT that there had been enough blood on her pubic are and thighs to require wiping with a cloth. He is NOT saying the blood shouldn't be there- simply that the blood on the panties is not enough blood for her to have been wearing them as she was assaulted before she died. While he does not spell it out this way, I interpret his statements as saying the blood drops on the panties were the result of the small amount of blood he found in the vagina rather than the larger amount if blood that had already been wiped from her thighs and pubic area.
So if she had been wearing "original" panties when she was assaulted or shortly after, yes, they would have been much more bloodied, which is one reason why they needed to put on a fresh pair, even if they were not hers. I believe whoever put the size 12 on her had NO idea the blood droplets were there. As there was NO blood on the lonhjogns, just by looking at her you wouldn't have known about the blood on the panties. Also because there was no blood on the longjohns, it tells me that the blood drops on the panties were very likely postmortem ooze rather than directly from the injury. A dead person does not bleed (which is why there was such a small amount of blood inside her- much more flowed while she was still alive or she wouldn't have had to be wiped down), but blood can ooze.
Your timeline is incorrect, IMO. She was wiped down BEFORE the size 12s were put on her. Had she been wiped AFTER- there would be much more blood on the size 12s. which is exactly what Mayer was saying when he said the blood in the panties did not correspond to the blood that had been wiped from her body.
After she was wiped down (and any panties she was wearing destroyed (fireplace?) or otherwise disposed of or hidden, then the size 12s were put on her and the longjohns after that.