GUILTY GA - Jorelys Rivera, 7, Canton, 2 Dec 2011 - #5

[oceanblueeyes]

Taping a rag into her mouth tells me he intended for her to be alive through at least some of it. A hammer like object - are they saying it wasn't a hammer?

The ME may not have known the type of object used at the time he did the autopsy. I sure hope LE was able to recover it even if it was after Joreyls' autopsy.

But it really sounds like typical ME speakism to me. Imo he looked at her wounds/injuries and found the patterns consistent with being hit by a hammer like object. The injuries were probably round shaped crushing type patterns to the face and head area. The injuries must have been about the same shape and size as a hammer head would be and most likely would have fractures radiating out from the main injuries.

Sometimes even some MEs will say knife like type injuries or stabbed with a sharp edged instrument about so many inches wide...etc.

I guess they leave it up to DA to produce the actual weapon(s) used during trial and that is when they will ask the ME if those weapons are consistent with the injuries and wounds found.

He may have stuffed the rag in her mouth quickly when she entered the room so she couldnt cry out and then once he had her restrained he duct taped her mouth and left the rag. Whatever time elapsed during Jorelys' life that day it had to be the most agonizing minutes or an hour of her little life. I really think she was probably dead within a hour and a half, tops...maybe even less than that.

IMO

 

[Hickory Born]

I think the ME is playing it safe by calling it a hammer like object and saying whatever he said about a knife (I forgot the exact description). If he said it was a hammer and a knife and LE found a box cutter and another object, this could throw the jurors off base.

With all this blood talk....I am beginning to think RB might have had a tarp or piece of plastic on the bed. I keep reverting back to Keenan's words:


We do know from what was determined through the autopsy and other evidence this was a very calculated and planned crime," Keenan said.
Dec. 6, ABC News... before arrest


"We believe that this horrendous crime was planned and calculated," Vernon Keenan, the director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, told reporters.
Dec. 7 CNN News...after RB's arrest

So...what are the consequences/punishment for "premediated" murder? Got to look up Georgia laws again.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

In some cases, of course....cases where the ME knew the time of the deceased's last meal, how much they had to drink after, whether there was shock involved, whether or not the body continued to digest the food after death...etc., it would be a good indicator, but absent these variables, other findings would have to be considered A snack would take about an hour to empty from the stomach. She was last seen at 5:00 - I am going to assume, prior to dinner and at least 5 hours since she'd eaten a light lunch at school. RB was just off work at 5:00, and while he may have had food in that apartment to entice her with, there doesn't seem to be much of a window of opportunity for him to have had a snack, kill her, hide her body, and the assist in the search. *IMO

A punch biopsy of her liver, which is what I think you mean, wouldn't have been done because she was autopsied. Unfortunately, I am familiar with liver punch biopsy - my dear friend has ovarian cancer that has shown back up in her liver - they aspirated her at least 3 times and were still unable to get a sample from the tumors. It was horrible. The point is, if the body will undergo an autopsy, there's no reason for the liver punch biopsy - as I understand it.



Actually, she was missing less than 72 hours. She was last seen at 5:00 pm, reported missing at 7:00 pm on 12/2, and her body was discovered at 12:30 PM on Monday 12/5. In my estimation, this would be a time lapse of between 65 & 67 hours. They' could have taken her temperature rectally at the scene, but because sexual assault was suspected, they shouldn't have. They may have taken her temperature with a special thermometer in her stomach cavity, but I doubt this would have been done at the scene. Either way, given the amount of time she was missing, and the mild temperature outside, body temp, IMO, combined (if present), with stomach contents, would get them close to a good time.

Normal body temperature during life is 98.6 degrees F. After death, heat loss is approximately 1.5 degrees per hour until the ambient temperature is reached. At this rate, given the time she was missing, and in the conditions where she was placed, the body temperature scenario would be within the realm of accuracy. Obviously, considerations have to be made where temperature, humidity, and other outside factors exist. The ambient temperature of where she was found would not have been excessively hot or cold, so TOD by body temperature is a possibility - the outside temp range was a average of 45 degrees between 12/2 and 12/5.

I sort of think the garbage might hold the key to the timeline. Someone may have thrown a certain item away at a certain time, and it is on or close to her body, with other trash thrown after. A receipt with a time stamp. The time of death was pretty precise, and even stomach contents would not be that precise, IMO.

You could very well be right - just like to explore the possibilities So many times information (not saying your info is, just making an observation), is taken straight from crime drama shows like CSI, whose facts are often skewed or greatly lacking in informational details, for dramatic effect -thus the need (excuse ),for further research. Much of forensics is case specific and almost every case is different - being privy to the details would sure 'nuff help!

Thanks, I would think they would have released his car if there is no evidence in it. Did someone see him at the dumpster after she went missing? I can't help but think he intended to take her off the property in his car, but police presence prevented him from doing it (likely too scared), Friday, and then he just ran out of time, IMO. This would have happened prior to the missing child call went in though.
IMO

By now my post is way too long and makes little sense, but I have to eat and walk my dogs! This TOD subject is fascinating to me and has been since the JonBenet Ramsey case in 1996. Her parents disputed the time of death, and it was determined, largely, by the contents of her stomach....which they also disputed. Anyone have a timeline of exactly what JR ate the day she was killed?

I am so sorry about your friend, Vipate.

I cant speak for others but the information I see being put out on this site is not from a CSI show. Many posters I see post are very knowledgable and have a wealth of valid information. This can come from a person's profession (especially in the medical field-criminology) or it can come from years (decades) of researching true crimes and the various subjects that go along with forensic murder investigations. I for one do not even watch CSI type shows. I have always been much more interested in true crime instead of fiction so I am not aware of what they do on those shows. Make it all happen in an hour I suppose which is the total opposite of how real crimes are solved.

Imo, the liver punch (biopsy) would have been useless in this case under the circumstances due to the time that had lapsed before the body was discovered, imo. They can be taken at the scene by the ME or criminalist before the body is taken into the morgue for autopsy should he/she think it is valuable information or even at time of autopsy. I have never read or seen a case where they did that unless the ME thought the victim had died shortly before found. Doing one after 72 hours had elapsed would not help them with TOD and it certainly wouldnt be able to narrow it down to 'two hour' window, imo. MEs have done liver biopsies before and even taking the body temp with a thermometer inserted into the rectum. I dont want to get extremely graphic but they have their ways that does not disturb any DNA that may present there.

I still believe the stomach contents led them to the TOD and is supported by other CE. It is logical that when Jorelys came in from school her mother probably had snacks for her there. The babysitter would know if Jorelys ate anything and what she ate or drank. Most kids I know go straight to the kitchen looking for a snack once they get home from school. If she had just eaten a snack around 4 it would not have time to digest fully before she was murdered. .Even if it was just a snack it would take four hours to process out of the stomach and up to 6 hours if it was a meal. 2 hours is not an exact time..it is a two hour window. No ME anywhere can determine exact TOD unless there were witnesses that saw the victim take their last breath.

Stomach Contents:
The ME can often use the contents of the victims stomach to help determine time of death. After a meal, the stomach empties itself in approximately 4 to 6 hours, depending on the type and amount of food ingested. If a victim stomach contains largely undigested food material, then the death likely occurred within an hour or two of the meal. If the stomach is empty, the death likely occurred more than six hours after eating. Additionally, if the small intestine is also empty, death probably occurred some 12 hours or more after the last meal.

http://www.dplylemd.com/Articles/timelydeath.html

To me receipts found in the dumpster would not help them define TOD. Maybe the day she was murdered but not the time of death. The garbage was not taken to the dumpster by the renters. They probably had certain days to leave their garbage out for Brunn to pick up and take to the compactor.

I do think he did want to take her away from the property but couldnt because the place was covered up with cops. Or he could just be so dumb he thought he could get away with all of this thinking they would never discover her in the compactor or if the garbage made it to the landfill where it would be dump with tons of other garbage.


IMO

 

[vlpate]

I am so sorry about your friend, Vipate.

Thank you...it's been going on since 2003 - she's a fighter.

I cant speak for others but the information I see being put out on this site is not from a CSI show. Many posters I see post are very knowledgable and have a wealth of valid information. This can come from a person's profession (especially in the medical field-criminology) or it can come from years (decades) of researching true crimes and the various subjects that go along with forensic murder investigations. I for one do not even watch CSI type shows. I have always been much more interested in true crime instead of fiction so I am not aware of what they do on those shows. Make it all happen in an hour I suppose which is the total opposite of how real crimes are solved.

Oh heavens NO, I never meant to imply anything about the majority of the posters here - they run circles around some of the experts - I was more referring (you didn't read my mind), to individuals like the jury in the Casey A. trial. I meant no aspersions whatsoever to anyone here - just an observation. I don't watch those shows either - true crime all the way

Imo, the liver punch (biopsy) would have been useless in this case under the circumstances due to the time that had lapsed before the body was discovered, imo. They can be taken at the scene by the ME or criminalist before the body is taken into the morgue for autopsy should he/she think it is valuable information or even at time of autopsy. I have never read or seen a case where they did that unless the ME thought the victim had died shortly before found. Doing one after 72 hours had elapsed would not help them with TOD and it certainly wouldnt be able to narrow it down to 'two hour' window, imo. MEs have done liver biopsies before and even taking the body temp with a thermometer inserted into the rectum. I dont want to get extremely graphic but they have their ways that does not disturb any DNA that may present there.

Yeah, they have their ways, but again, they are not to insert anything rectally if there is a suspicion of sexual abuse. I won't belabor the point of the liver biopsy - we will have to agree to disagree

I still believe the stomach contents led them to the TOD and is supported by other CE. It is logical that when Jorelys came in from school her mother probably had snacks for her there. The babysitter would know if Jorelys ate anything and what she ate or drank. Most kids I know go straight to the kitchen looking for a snack once they get home from school. If she had just eaten a snack around 4 it would not have time to digest fully before she was murdered. .Even if it was just a snack it would take four hours to process out of the stomach and up to 6 hours if it was a meal. 2 hours is not an exact time..it is a two hour window. No ME anywhere can determine exact TOD unless there were witnesses that saw the victim take their last breath.

They said between 60 and 90 minutes....not exact. As for Jorely's mother leaving a snack out for her - I'm not so sure she put that much thought into Jorely's after school activities.

Stomach Contents:
The ME can often use the contents of the victims stomach to help determine time of death. After a meal, the stomach empties itself in approximately 4 to 6 hours, depending on the type and amount of food ingested. If a victim stomach contains largely undigested food material, then the death likely occurred within an hour or two of the meal. If the stomach is empty, the death likely occurred more than six hours after eating. Additionally, if the small intestine is also empty, death probably occurred some 12 hours or more after the last meal.

http://www.dplylemd.com/Articles/timelydeath.html

To me receipts found in the dumpster would not help them define TOD. Maybe the day she was murdered but not the time of death. The garbage was not taken to the dumpster by the renters. They probably had certain days to leave their garbage out for Brunn to pick up and take to the compactor.

If a bag of fast food or a bag of trash was found after Jorelys body had been put into the dumpster, with a date and time stamp - say, 7:30 p.m., 12/02/2011, then they would pretty much know the trash had been thrown after Jorelys body was disposed of.

Are you saying this community had a trash valet service? If so, were they contracted or in-house? I hadn't heard this before.

I do think he did want to take her away from the property but couldnt because the place was covered up with cops. Or he could just be so dumb he thought he could get away with all of this thinking they would never discover her in the compactor or if the garbage made it to the landfill where it would be dump with tons of other garbage.

Agrreed.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Thank you...it's been going on since 2003 - she's a fighter.

Oh heavens NO, I never meant to imply anything about the majority of the posters here - they run circles around some of the experts - I was more referring (you didn't read my mind), to individuals like the jury in the Casey A. trial. I meant no aspersions whatsoever to anyone here - just an observation. I don't watch those shows either - true crime all the way

Yeah, they have their ways, but again, they are not to insert anything rectally if there is a suspicion of sexual abuse. I won't belabor the point of the liver biopsy - we will have to agree to disagree

They said between 60 and 90 minutes....not exact. As for Jorely's mother leaving a snack out for her - I'm not so sure she put that much thought into Jorely's after school activities.

If a bag of fast food or a bag of trash was found after Jorelys body had been put into the dumpster, with a date and time stamp - say, 7:30 p.m., 12/02/2011, then they would pretty much know the trash had been thrown after Jorelys body was disposed of.

Are you saying this community had a trash valet service? If so, were they contracted or in-house? I hadn't heard this before.

Agrreed.

OMG! LOL! I would like to believe the Anthony jurors are as scarce as hen's teeth. I tend to believe jurors like them are very few and far between.

From what I understand the compacter could not be opened without a key and the maintenance man (Brunn) had the key to the compactor. I may have that information wrong. I read so much about this case and others that sometimes I need to go back and read something again.

imo

 

[vlpate]

OMG! LOL! I would like to believe the Anthony jurors are as scarce as hen's teeth. I tend to believe jurors like them are very few and far between.

From what I understand the compacter could not be opened without a key and the maintenance man (Brunn) had the key to the compactor. I may have that information wrong. I read so much about this case and others that sometimes I need to go back and read something again.

imo

Oh, ok. The key doesn't open the compactor (in my experience), it only turns on the mechanism that compacts the trash. It's not likely they had a valet trash service, so everyone probably took out their own trash. They throw it as near to the opening as they have the gumption to, and the maintenance will usually push it further in with a long pole and then compact it. In that case, the trash is going to end up in the order that it was thrown. Like a regular dumpster, but sideways.

Just so you know, because of you I am still in my sweats and haven't gone to the grocery store!

 

[milagoddess]

Just so you know, because of you I am still in my sweats and haven't gone to the grocery store!

Haha!! I hadn't gone except in spurts since this case happened. Tonight was the first night I've gone full grocery shopping...the family is like "There's FOOD in the fridge!!":great:

 

[cat thief]

Haha!! I hadn't gone except in spurts since this case happened. Tonight was the first night I've gone full grocery shopping...the family is like "There's FOOD in the fridge!!":great:

I have Chinese food containers and pizza boxes, stacked to the celing. The pizza delivery man has invited me to his wedding and the neighborhood Chinese place has awarded me a best customer plaque.

 

[vlpate]

I have Chinese food containers and pizza boxes, stacked to the celing. The pizza delivery man has invited me to his wedding and the neighborhood Chinese place has awarded me a best customer plaque.

Y'all are funny - and it doesn't help that there are so many cases to keep up with. I was so busy last week with work I didn't get a chance to read about the indictment. Is it here or online somewhere? I've looked around but can't find it... TIA!

 

[Bearcat109]

Y'all are funny - and it doesn't help that there are so many cases to keep up with. I was so busy last week with work I didn't get a chance to read about the indictment. Is it here or online somewhere? I've looked around but can't find it... TIA!

http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/archive/01222/Cherokee_internal__1222434a.pdf

 

[Magdalyn]

Y'all are funny - and it doesn't help that there are so many cases to keep up with. I was so busy last week with work I didn't get a chance to read about the indictment. Is it here or online somewhere? I've looked around but can't find it... TIA!

Warning: Graphic

http://canton-ga.patch.com/articles/after-brunn-indictment-new-details-emerge

 

[vlpate]

http://www.ajc.com/multimedia/archive/01222/Cherokee_internal__1222434a.pdf

Thank you....I'd seen this, I was looking for the indictment. Maybe it hasn't been published? Again, thank you

 

[Magdalyn]

Thank you....I'd seen this, I was looking for the indictment. Maybe it hasn't been published? Again, thank you

Nope. Not released yet. Sorry. :seeya:

 

[vlpate]

Warning: Graphic

http://canton-ga.patch.com/articles/after-brunn-indictment-new-details-emerge

How absolutely horrific. How can anyone do that to a sweet child.

Any idea what this is about - "The latter charge, court documents show, stems from an allegation that Brunn "knowingly" possessed material "depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct" between Nov. 27 and Dec. 6."

The date range is odd - they're not saying he was in possession of the material during those dates, they're saying, if I understand correctly, the explicit conduct occurred and was "depicted" during this time period. Would this be JR?

 

[marazul]

How absolutely horrific. How can anyone do that to a sweet child.

Any idea what this is about - "The latter charge, court documents show, stems from an allegation that Brunn "knowingly" possessed material "depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct" between Nov. 27 and Dec. 6."

The date range is odd - they're not saying he was in possession of the material during those dates, they're saying, if I understand correctly, the explicit conduct occurred and was "depicted" during this time period. Would this be JR?

I read this as "during those dates, he was in possession of material depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct". as someone mentioned before, this seems to me to be something downloaded on the first date and removed/confiscated by LE on the last date. It seems if it had been JR on the date she was abducted, they could narrow the dates, so personally I do not think it was JR. In a way, if it WAS JR, at least the victim has been identified and we know it took place during this one time and she is now at rest and he is indicted. If it is an unidentified victim of his, that would be horrible. My gut feeling is that it is child *advertiser censored* from the internet of a victim that he has never met or seen in person.

 

[Magdalyn]

How absolutely horrific. How can anyone do that to a sweet child.

Any idea what this is about - "The latter charge, court documents show, stems from an allegation that Brunn "knowingly" possessed material "depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct" between Nov. 27 and Dec. 6."

The date range is odd - they're not saying he was in possession of the material during those dates, they're saying, if I understand correctly, the explicit conduct occurred and was "depicted" during this time period. Would this be JR?

Huh. I hadn't read it that way, but it could be interpreted that way. That being said, and I'm sure you know this well, newspaper journalists are famous for the poorly spliced/unclear/multiple interpretation sentence, and dangling modifiers. Also, that the quotes are only around a section of that sentence show journalistic crunching---only the quoted part was lifted verbatim from the indictment. Removing the quoted section---the quoted specifics the journalist inserted, possibly not in the worded order as written on the indictment-- the sentence would state, 'Brunn knowingly possessed material between Nov 27th and Dec 6.' And none of THAT sentence is in quotes, lol.

Not saying the way you're reading it isn't the way it was intended, just being a, uh .... newspaper sentence whisperer? :crazy:

Also, IMO, if the picture/pictures, whatever the matierial was is/was JR, it would be worded "of the victim" and not "of a minor." And he'd have another count against him for producing the material and not just possessing it.

IDK. My gut tells me he had <blegh> generic kiddie *advertiser censored* on his computer or phone on those dates, and though he deleted on the 6th, the computer/phone says otherwise.

 

[Hickory Born]

Do we know the date of the warrants? This Dec. 6 date could have been when LE took possession of his computer/phone, etc. Therefore, they were no longer in RB's possession. He might not have deleted this at all.

When is media going to publish the warrants?

 

[milagoddess]

I read this as "during those dates, he was in possession of material depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct". as someone mentioned before, this seems to me to be something downloaded on the first date and removed/confiscated by LE on the last date. It seems if it had been JR on the date she was abducted, they could narrow the dates, so personally I do not think it was JR. In a way, if it WAS JR, at least the victim has been identified and we know it took place during this one time and she is now at rest and he is indicted. If it is an unidentified victim of his, that would be horrible. My gut feeling is that it is child *advertiser censored* from the internet of a victim that he has never met or seen in person.

Do you think it's possible RB had molested her once before during that time frame?

But again, as someone has said previously, it said "a minor", not "the victim".

 

[milagoddess]

When is media going to publish the warrants?

What additional information is usually in a warrant? This is the first case I have followed so closely, so I'm a novice.

Also, does it seem that the child abduction/rape/murders are getting more and more violent to you? I have not heard of one so graphic and brutal, but again, this is the first one I have followed this close.

 

[vlpate]

Huh. I hadn't read it that way, but it could be interpreted that way. That being said, and I'm sure you know this well, newspaper journalists are famous for the poorly spliced/unclear/multiple interpretation sentence, and dangling modifiers. Also, that the quotes are only around a section of that sentence show journalistic crunching---only the quoted part was lifted verbatim from the indictment. Removing the quoted section---the quoted specifics the journalist inserted, possibly not in the worded order as written on the indictment-- the sentence would state, 'Brunn knowingly possessed material between Nov 27th and Dec 6.' And none of THAT sentence is in quotes, lol.

Not saying the way you're reading it isn't the way it was intended, just being a, uh .... newspaper sentence whisperer? :crazy:

Also, IMO, if the picture/pictures, whatever the matierial was is/was JR, it would be worded "of the victim" and not "of a minor." And he'd have another count against him for producing the material and not just possessing it.

IDK. My gut tells me he had <blegh> generic kiddie *advertiser censored* on his computer or phone on those dates, and though he deleted on the 6th, the computer/phone says otherwise.

I think it would say "minor" because the charge would be specific to a minor as opposed to an adult. It's an actual crime, so the wording has to be specific, IMO.

Here's more on the charge:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.68A.050

I still think the dates are an odd detail. I do know what you mean about wording by reporters - which is why I'd love to see the indictment.