Head blow vs strangulation

[rashomon]

But, here's the stumbling block part. Why? If only one parent is responsible for the death of JBR, why are both covering up?

My theory is that Patsy surprised John as he was abusing JonBenet, but directed her rage against her daughter instead of her husband (not an uncommon reaction). When realizing that fatal damage had been done, they both agreed to cover up for each other. Patsy did not want to be exposed as the mother who had killed her daughter in a rage, and John did not want to be exposed as the father who had been abusing his daughter. So they both had a motive for covering up for their spouse.
They also wanted to save what was left of the family for Burke's sake, and spare him this horrible trauma of his parents' public exposal.
Both John and Patsy were involved in the cover-up. This is corroborated by the forensic fiber evidence found in locations associated with JB's death.

Their common guilt tied them together in all the following years. Jmpo.

Stumbling block #3 was that there didn't seem to be a strong enough motive for PR to kill JBR in the way that the crime actually happened. Had JBR been found outside below the balcony of her room, for instance, or at the bottom of the main staircase, I could believe in a sudden rage killing. A worn out, exhausted mother dealing with a recalcitrant child loses it, and the child dies. We've seen such things before. But this child was hit over the head with the proverbial blunt instrument, and strangled, and beaten, and sexually assulted. As a mere 'rage killing' this seems, if you'll forgive the word, like overkill.

I think one has to separate the rage attack element (head blow) from the staging elements (garroting and sexual assault).

 

[Toltec]

I just noticed my replies to DRU's quotes are mixed in with my answers.

This is my theory of what happened to JonBenet:

Bedwetting:According to Linda Hoffman Pugh, JonBenet began wetting the bed one month before her death. What was happening during that month?

Visits to the school nurse: Usually occured after weekends. The question is who JonBenet came into contact with on those weekends?

23 December...911 call/JonBenet's tears: The Ramseys impromptu Christmas Party....Fleet was on the phone dialing out of the country. JonBenet was found weeping and saying she does not feel pretty. Fleet accidently dials 911 instead of 611. Did someone molest JonBenet that evening? Who came in contact with JonBenet that night?

25 December...

Burke and JonBenet wake their parents around 6am. They go downstairs, open their gifts and John and Patsy prepare breakfast.

According to DOI: Burke takes a bite out of his meal...then leaves the table. No mention of JonBenet eating breakfast.

Kids get dressed and go out to play with friends. John leaves for the airport. Patsy cleans the kitchen, starts preparing for the family trips.

Kids come back into the house....Burke brings his male friends to his room to play Nintendo. JonBenet sits on the floor outside Burkes room plays with her jewelry maker. Patsy comes along and joins JonBenet for awhile.

Patsy colors her hair....who's shower does she use?

Patsy tells Burke and JonBenet to get dressed for the White's dinner.

JonBenet takes her playclothes off in her bathroom. She removes her soiled pants and leaves them on the bathroom floor. She does not change her soiled panties. She puts her black velvet pants, her white gap top and black vest. Patsy hands JonBenet the red turtleneck and JonBenet refuses to wear it...grabbing the red turtleneck and balling it up and throwing it on the bathroom counter.

The Ramseys leave the White's around 8:30-9pm. They stop at the Fernies and Stines. They arrive home around 9:30pm.

Burke and John are in the living room putting a toy of Burkes together. JonBenet tells Patsy she is hungry and Patsy serves her pineapple.

Patsy puts JonBenet to bed....putting longjohns on her. Patsy then goes down to the basement to finish wrapping gifts. She is also packing for the trips.

It is midnight so Patsy wakes JonBenet to use the toilet. She pulls JonBenets panties down and discovers she had soiled them. She might or might have not scolded JonBenet but then proceeds to clean her up. It is at this time that a scuffle ensues which causes Patsy to become enraged. She picks up the first thing she sees...the flashlight and hits JonBenet over the head.

Patsy hears a loud crack! Patsy knows she is doomed....

 

[UKGuy]

I just noticed my replies to DRU's quotes are mixed in with my answers.

This is my theory of what happened to JonBenet:

Bedwetting:According to Linda Hoffman Pugh, JonBenet began wetting the bed one month before her death. What was happening during that month?

Visits to the school nurse: Usually occured after weekends. The question is who JonBenet came into contact with on those weekends?

23 December...911 call/JonBenet's tears: The Ramseys impromptu Christmas Party....Fleet was on the phone dialing out of the country. JonBenet was found weeping and saying she does not feel pretty. Fleet accidently dials 911 instead of 611. Did someone molest JonBenet that evening? Who came in contact with JonBenet that night?

25 December...

Burke and JonBenet wake their parents around 6am. They go downstairs, open their gifts and John and Patsy prepare breakfast.

According to DOI: Burke takes a bite out of his meal...then leaves the table. No mention of JonBenet eating breakfast.

Kids get dressed and go out to play with friends. John leaves for the airport. Patsy cleans the kitchen, starts preparing for the family trips.

Kids come back into the house....Burke brings his male friends to his room to play Nintendo. JonBenet sits on the floor outside Burkes room plays with her jewelry maker. Patsy comes along and joins JonBenet for awhile.

Patsy colors her hair....who's shower does she use?

Patsy tells Burke and JonBenet to get dressed for the White's dinner.

JonBenet takes her playclothes off in her bathroom. She removes her soiled pants and leaves them on the bathroom floor. She does not change her soiled panties. She puts her black velvet pants, her white gap top and black vest. Patsy hands JonBenet the red turtleneck and JonBenet refuses to wear it...grabbing the red turtleneck and balling it up and throwing it on the bathroom counter.

The Ramseys leave the White's around 8:30-9pm. They stop at the Fernies and Stines. They arrive home around 9:30pm.

Burke and John are in the living room putting a toy of Burkes together. JonBenet tells Patsy she is hungry and Patsy serves her pineapple.

Patsy puts JonBenet to bed....putting longjohns on her. Patsy then goes down to the basement to finish wrapping gifts. She is also packing for the trips.

It is midnight so Patsy wakes JonBenet to use the toilet. She pulls JonBenets panties down and discovers she had soiled them. She might or might have not scolded JonBenet but then proceeds to clean her up. It is at this time that a scuffle ensues which causes Patsy to become enraged. She picks up the first thing she sees...the flashlight and hits JonBenet over the head.

Patsy hears a loud crack! Patsy knows she is doomed....

Toltec,

Lots of good salient points, particularly relating to JonBenet prior to her death.

Now,

JonBenet takes her playclothes off in her bathroom. She removes her soiled pants and leaves them on the bathroom floor. She does not change her soiled panties. She puts her black velvet pants, her white gap top and black vest. Patsy hands JonBenet the red turtleneck and JonBenet refuses to wear it...grabbing the red turtleneck and balling it up and throwing it on the bathroom counter.

If Patsy is supervising why does she not ask JonBenet to change her underwear, never mind wear a red turtleneck, if I was JonBenet's mother I would want my daughter wearing a fresh change of clothes, never mind any pageant protocol, I reckon Patsy's version of events is inconsistent.


.

 

[UKGuy]

But what kind of staging do you think it is when they put that garrote contraption around her neck?

What exactly do you mean by the term sexual rage?

rashomon,

Your are a sweety, we are discussing a sexual assault not a ligature staging.

By sexual rage I mean the anger resulting from being denied whatever was the perverted sexual desires of JonBenet's killer.

imo JonBenet was being regularly sexually molested, this was not an event of chance e.g. circumstancial, it was unfortunately something JonBenet was accustomed too, her self image was damaged by being required to perform both in public and in private, her sense of violation would have prompted her to decline to participate any further in what must have been emotionally, never mind painful acts of abuse, to gratify her assailant.

In anger her assailant simply whacked her, or JonBenet voiced her disgust at being treated as a sexual object, whereon her assailant realized her silence was neccessary for his survival, not uncommon in cases of sexual abuse, so her death followed.

That is JonBenet's death may not be a lust murder?


.

 

[rashomon]

JonBenet takes her playclothes off in her bathroom. She removes her soiled pants and leaves them on the bathroom floor. She does not change her soiled panties.

But soiled underwear was found inside the pair of pants which was found on the bathroom floor. (Source: interview with Patsy Ramsey).

And virtually every pair of (laundered) underwear which was found in JB's drawer showed signs of prior soiling. I can't remember the name of the expert who visited the Ramsey home for profiling puposes, bur she pointed out that this struck her as odd.

According to Linda Hoffman Pugh, JonBenet began wetting the bed one month before her death. What was happening during that month?

Where did LHP state that and in what context?
I think that JB's wetting/soiling issues started a long time before her death, and not only a month before.
JB was still wearing pull-ups, which points to the wetting/soiling probelm having existed for years. At the age of six, JB was not yet able to wipe herself properly (Patsy in the interview), so again the wetting/soiling issues seem to have been of chronic nature.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
Your are a sweety, we are discussing a sexual assault not a ligature staging.

UkGuy,
the discussion was about the staged sexual assault scene, and the garrote contraption possibly being part of that staged scene:

[UkGuy]If you analyze the forensic evidence and read over Dr. McCann's remarks, it may be possible to consider that it is not a sex crime staging we are talking about?

[rashomon]But what kind of staging do you think it is when they put that garrote contraption around her neck?

From your input on this board I infer that you don't think that the clumsy garrote contraption was a real garrote - why do you think the stager of the scene fashioned this bizarre-looking instrument?

By sexual rage I mean the anger resulting from being denied whatever was the perverted sexual desires of JonBenet's killer.

I don't think the acute injury on JB meshes with a sexual rage theory.
For in order to inflict the injury on JB, the perp would have had to manually separate the labia before. In addition, the wound was small - not consistent with a sexual rage attack at all.

 

[BBB167893]

Or with a pedophilic lust either.

However, IMO the main injuries were not primarily from the wooden stick, but were from either repeated finger or repeated penis penetrations over a long period of time, beginning at least several days prior to the murder and perhaps beginning weeks or even months prior the the murder.

IOW, the hymen is virtually gone, the hymenal orifice is twice the size it should be, and the entire vagina contains acute and chronic injuries, especially on the right side and at the 7 o'clock position. Since the acute (night of the murder) and the chronic (2 or 3 days prior to the murder) erosion injuries are both at the same 7 o'clock position, it's doubtful the wooden stick caused them. I think a male's penis caused almost all of the injuries to the vagina.

Thank you!

Is it at all possible that Patsy is overcome with remorse and John feels for her because the child is dead and there is no purpose served by subjecting her to jail. He knows she will die soon also. This is possible my friend.

It may be simpler than that. Don't forget: he messed up his first marriage. He would have to admit to the world and to himself that he messed up his first marriage to marry a monster. That's hard to take.

 

[Dru]

BlueCrab, thanks for finding my theory interesting! Just want to clarify something: I don't think I refer to the vaginal wound as having been inflicted by the paintbrush; I just call it the 'sexual wound' and refer to its having been 'inflicted,' that is, it's obviously not something that happened by accident There's still some lack of clarity as to how/with what the wound was inflicted, IMO.

Also, since I think chronic abuse, and the abuser's fear of exposure, were the motive for this crime I definitely do think that chronic abuse had taken place at some time before the night of Dec. 25.

Reading the story of Marilyn Van Derbur made me realize how many of my assumptions about child abuse victims weren't true. Marilyn Van Derbur Atler was crowned Miss America 1958, a bright, talented, poised young woman. She was also sexually abused by her father from the age of five until she was eighteen. Here's one link about her:

http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/hope_van_derbur.asp

Interestingly, this 1997 CNN article says Marilyn Van Derbur Atler was consulted in the Jonbenet Ramsey case:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/27/ramsey.murder/#form

I found this quote from Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter particularly interesting:

"Ritter said that Atler was consulted because she is respected for her insight "in cases where children are in some way abused, and this is certainly an abuse case with respect to JonBenet. I mean, she was murdered.""

Toltec, I find your theory interesting as well. One question, though. Did PR and JR know that JBR was still alive when the sexual wound was inflicted?

And Rashomon, I want to make sure I understand your theory. You believe that the wound was inflicted by JR as part of an actual sexual assault, and that PR then surprised him 'in the act' and killed JBR at that moment? Because that doesn't seem to gel with the physical evidence re: labia separation etc. Can you clear this up for me?

 

[rashomon]

And Rashomon, I want to make sure I understand your theory. You believe that the wound was inflicted by JR as part of an actual sexual assault, and that PR then surprised him 'in the act' and killed JBR at that moment? Because that doesn't seem to gel with the physical evidence re: labia separation etc. Can you clear this up for me?

Dru,
I don't think the acute injury was inflicted as part of a sexaul assault, but was done for pure staging purposes after the child was already in a deep coma from the head blow.
I believe John had been abusing JB for a while, and on that fatal night Patsy caught him. But she directed her rage against JB instead of John. When realizing that irreparable damage had been done by the head blow, both Ramseys tried to save heir hide. They staged a sexual predator scene (garrote, stick injury) intended to direct the attention away from the chronic abuse. They also staged a kidnapping, and in their panic didn't realize that a kidnapping for ransom does not jibe with a sexual predator crime. They just threw everything into the mix, hoping it would be swallowed.
They may even have considered dumping JB's body somewhere outside but didn't dare to do it after all, for the risk of being seen was too big.

Dru, I have read your posts with great interest. You have put a lot of interesting thoughts into the various theories.

Toltec, I find your theory interesting as well. One question, though. Did PR and JR know that JBR was still alive when the sexual wound was inflicted?

Toltec and Dru, I have been ruminating over this too.
When the Ramseys saw that the inflicted sexual wound bled, wouldn't they have had to realize JB was not yet dead? For even laypeople know that dead bodies don't bleed.
Therefore I'm not so sure anymore that the Ramseys thought JB was already dead when they staged the scene.

 

[UKGuy]

UkGuy,
the discussion was about the staged sexual assault scene, and the garrote contraption possibly being part of that staged scene:
From your input on this board I infer that you don't think that the clumsy garrote contraption was a real garrote - why do you think the stager of the scene fashioned this bizarre-looking instrument?

I don't think the acute injury on JB meshes with a sexual rage theory.
For in order to inflict the injury on JB, the perp would have had to manually separate the labia before. In addition, the wound was small - not consistent with a sexual rage attack at all.

rashomon,

the discussion was about the staged sexual assault scene, and the garrote contraption possibly being part of that staged scene:

I thought we were discussing forensic evidence e.g. birefringent foreign material?

why do you think the stager of the scene fashioned this bizarre-looking instrument?

Quite simply to mask the fact that JonBenet had been manually strangled!

bold is my emphasis

the discussion was about the staged sexual assault scene

imo there is no staged sexual assault scene, but there is evidence of an attempt to hide or mask a prior sexual assault e.g.

excerpt:Coroner Meyer's autopsy report

On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of
closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A
similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on
the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule.

Excerpts: Ramsey warrant dated January 30, 1997

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.
...

...
Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.
...

...
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 childs 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 Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the childs body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the childs public area having been wiped by a cloth.

Using only the evidence as presented in the autopsy JonBenet was the victim of both an acute and chronic sexual assault, also it appears she was wiped down. Additionally post autopsy opinion holds that JonBenet was redressed in the size-12 underwear she was discovered wearing.

This allows me to conclude that rather than a sexual assault scene being staged, there was a organized attempt to hide a prior sexual assault!

Furthermore:
bold is my emphasis

in Dr. McCann's opinion, the acute injury was not caused by penile penetration (Dr.McCann is a renowned medical expert on child abuse and was on the panel of top-flight experts who almost unaninmously agreed that the child had been the victim of chronic sexual abuse.
From his report (Source: Bonita Papers):

The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. A generalized increase in redness of the tissues of the vestibule was apparent, and small red flecks of blood were visible around the perineum and the external surface of the genitalia.
...

...
McCann was not able to see any fresh tears of the hymen which he thought might be due to the lack of detail in the photographs. It was unclear where the blood on the perineum originated,
...

...
The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area.

Employing photographs only Dr. McCann makes similar observations.

I don't think the acute injury on JB meshes with a sexual rage theory.
For in order to inflict the injury on JB, the perp would have had to manually separate the labia before. In addition, the wound was small - not consistent with a sexual rage attack at all.

You misinterpret what I already explained, e.g. sexual rage does not imply sexual assault, but it may engender a homicide!

Your characterisation of the garrote as a garrote contraption and bizarre-looking instrument along with your interpretation of the wine-cellar crime-scene as a staged sexual assault scene parallels that of Lou Smit's Intruder theory.

imo Coroner Meyer and Dr. McCann both indicate that JonBenet was sexually assaulted whilst she was still alive!



.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
I thought we were discussing forensic evidence e.g. birefringent foreign material?

That and other forensic evidence. Where do you think the birefringent foreign material came from?

Quite simply to mask the fact that JonBenet had been manually strangled!

You did not mention any manual strangulation in your post:

[UKGuy]In anger her assailant simply whacked her, or JonBenet voiced her disgust at being treated as a sexual object, whereon her assailant realized her silence was neccessary for his survival, not uncommon in cases of sexual abuse, so her death followed.

You misinterpret what I already explained, e.g. sexual rage does not imply sexual assault, but it may engender a homicide!

I see what you mean now. But what is your sequence of events? You wrote that her abuser whacked JB on the head because she was going to spill the beans, but when do you think the acute stick injury in her vaginal area was inflicted? You also wrote that she was manually strangled.
What happened when in your time line?

imo Coroner Meyer and Dr. McCann both indicate that JonBenet was sexually assaulted whilst she was still alive!

She had to have been still alive, since the wound bled. But 'alive' doesn't have to mean that she was conscious.

Your characterisation of the garrote as a garrote contraption and bizarre-looking instrument along with your interpretation of the wine-cellar crime-scene as a staged sexual assault scene parallels that of Lou Smit's Intruder theory.

Not to be misunderstood: I think the stager of the scene fashioned the 'garrote' the way (s)he did because he wanted to create the impression of bizarreness. The stager wanted the investigaors to look at the garrote and think "no way could parents have done this to their child".

Re the wine cellar: I don't think that the wine cellar scene was elaborately staged in any way. Imo what was finally found in the wine cellar was the result of several clumsy and failed attempts at staging a scene.

 

[Solace]

My theory is that Patsy surprised John as he was abusing JonBenet, but directed her rage against her daughter instead of her husband (not an uncommon reaction). When realizing that fatal damage had been done, they both agreed to cover up for each other. Patsy did not want to be exposed as the mother who had killed her daughter in a rage, and John did not want to be exposed as the father who had been abusing his daughter. So they both had a motive for covering up for their spouse.
They also wanted to save what was left of the family for Burke's sake, and spare him this horrible trauma of his parents' public exposal.
Both John and Patsy were involved in the cover-up. This is corroborated by the forensic fiber evidence found in locations associated with JB's death.

Their common guilt tied them together in all the following years. Jmpo.
I think one has to separate the rage attack element (head blow) from the staging elements (garroting and sexual assault).

The reason I disagree with this is because I saw a video of John and Patsy after Jon Benet had died, several years later, and she was squirting him with one of those huge waterguns. They were truly having a great time. This would not be happening if she had caught him in the throes of fornication with her six year old daughter. Just would not be happening.

 

[rashomon]

[Dru]Toltec, I find your theory interesting as well. One question, though. Did PR and JR know that JBR was still alive when the sexual wound was inflicted?

[rashomon]Toltec and Dru, I have been ruminating over this too.
When the Ramseys saw that the inflicted sexual wound bled, wouldn't they have had to realize JB was not yet dead? For even laypeople know that dead bodies don't bleed.
Therefore I'm not so sure anymore that the Ramseys thought JB was already dead when they staged the scene.

I also sent Delmar England an email with this question. His reply which I just read points to things being more complicated here.
(D.E.'s answers in in italics):

JB obviously was still alive when the paintbrush injury was inflicted, for
if not, the wound would not have bled.<

This is but one of the many misconceptions that have plagued the
investigative scene without challenge. The rationale is that in death, the
heart stops pumping, hence, no blood flow. False. Gravity is no respecter of
life or death. I personally have seen many gallons of blood flow after
death. However, your repeat of this myth sent me looking for a verified
human example.

"Q. Now is there such a thing, Doctor, as bleeding after death?
A. For the first few moments there is a gravitation of blood from vessels,
but after – it takes about three minutes to four minutes for the blood
stream, for the blood that had flowed out to become more or less of a jelly
type. Then after that, as the serum flows out, and then eventually in the
course of an hour or two, you will begin to get the strict clotting of the
blood. But the blood will flow just for a few moments as it gets into the
jelly shape and then is not able to flow. It can be shaken out, but it will
not flow. (From another case with the coroner responding in cross examination.)

In other words, when the heart stops pumping, there is no pumping pressure,
but gravity is a factor as long as the blood is in fluid state. Also,
although not found in medical journals, I know from experience that HOW an
animal dies drastically affects blood flow.


>But wouldn't the fact that the wound bled have made it clear to the Ramseys
that JB was not yet dead? Wouldn't even laypeople know that a dead body does
not bleed, and that therefore she had to still be alive?<

See above. I have no doubt that the Ramseys were in something of a "zombie"
mental state. When a loop large enough to go over the head was left as wrist
binding, the perpetrator definitely was not have much of a view of reality.

Interesting point also by D. England about the Ramseys possibly being in something like a "zombie" mental state when staging the scene.

 

[UKGuy]

That and other forensic evidence. Where do you think the birefringent foreign material came from?

Not to be misunderstood: I think the stager of the scene fashioned the 'garrote' the way (s)he did because he wanted to create the impression of bizarreness. The stager wanted the investigaors to look at the garrote and think "no way could parents have done this to their child".

Re the wine cellar: I don't think that the wine cellar scene was elaborately staged in any way. Imo what was finally found in the wine cellar was the result of several clumsy and failed attempts at staging a scene.

rashomon,

That and other forensic evidence. Where do you think the birefringent foreign material came from?

A finger, piece of a paintbrush, paper debri from authoring a ransom note, there could be many possible sources.

The stager wanted the investigaors to look at the garrote and think "no way could parents have done this to their child".

Or visually assume that this was how she had been asphyxiated?


.

 

[UKGuy]

I also sent Delmar England an email with this question. His reply which I just read points to things being more complicated here.
(D.E.'s answers in in italics):

Interesting point also by D. England about the Ramseys possibly being in something like a "zombie" mental state when staging the scene.

rashomon,

Why not assume she had been sexually assaulted prior to death, which caused the bleeding, which caused the wipe down, which caused her to be redressed?

Is this not simpler than inventing other reasons as to why it occurred such as zombie or accident?

If the former assumption becomes inconsistent with the forensic evidence it can easily be dropped as was Lou Smit's Intruder Theory.


.

 

[BlueCrab]

There are two important points re' information from the autopsy report that can be used to reach the following conclusions:

1. JonBenet was alive when she was strangled. There were petechial hemorrhages above and below the circumferential abrasion on the neck and on the eyelids. Petechial hemorrhages cannot form if the heart isn't pumping.

2. JonBenet was not alive when she was struck on the head. The head wound did not bleed. The only blood was a thin film consisting of 7 to 8 cc's of residual blood on the brain; and no inflammatory infiltrate (white blood cells) had rushed to the location to help repair the injury and prevent infection. When the body dies, the immune system dies with it.

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

There are two important points re' information from the autopsy report that can be used to reach the following conclusions:

1. JonBenet was alive when she was strangled. There were petechial hemorrhages above and below the circumferential abrasion on the neck and on the eyelids. Petechial hemorrhages cannot form if the heart isn't pumping.

2. JonBenet was not alive when she was struck on the head. The head wound did not bleed. The only blood was a thin film consisting of 7 to 8 cc's of residual blood on the brain; and no inflammatory infiltrate (white blood cells) had rushed to the location to help repair the injury and prevent infection. When the body dies, the immune system dies with it.

BlueCrab

Replying to No. 2. Cyrill Wecht says what you say. But, Steve Thomas says there was hemmorhaging and lots of blood. I wonder what Rashomon says about this. I think she posted something a while back about there being quite a bit of blood under a layer of skin.

 

[Toltec]

But soiled underwear was found inside the pair of pants which was found on the bathroom floor. (Source: interview with Patsy Ramsey).

No panties were found inside the pants....

And virtually every pair of (laundered) underwear which was found in JB's drawer showed signs of prior soiling. I can't remember the name of the expert who visited the Ramsey home for profiling puposes, bur she pointed out that this struck her as odd.

Where did LHP state that and in what context?

I believe I read that in Steve Thomas book...will try to find it.

I think that JB's wetting/soiling issues started a long time before her death, and not only a month before.

She did have bedwetting issues all her life but she did not have them one month prior to her death.


JB was still wearing pull-ups, which points to the wetting/soiling probelm having existed for years. At the age of six, JB was not yet able to wipe herself properly (Patsy in the interview), so again the wetting/soiling issues seem to have been of chronic nature.

See above. What six-year-old can properly wipe herself? I still have to wipe my 5yo nephew.

 

[rashomon]

No panties were found inside the pants....

Toltec,
could you give a link to the source for that? TIA.
I remember the interview transcript with Patsy where she was shown a picture with JB's pants lying on the floor, but imo it does not become clear if panties were inside the pants or not.

See above. What six-year-old can properly wipe herself? I still have to wipe my 5yo nephew.

I don't think the issue was about being able to wipe herself properly in the sense of 'perfectly'. No one would expect that from a six-year-old. But since virtually every pair of laundered underpants in JB's drawer still showed signs of prior soiling, this indicates imo that JB had massive problems with wiping and also had had soiling incidents.

 

[Toltec]

Toltec,
could you give a link to the source for that? TIA.
I remember the interview transcript with Patsy where she was shown a picture with JB's pants lying on the floor, but imo it doesn't not become clear if panties were inside the pants or not.
I don't think the issue was about being able to wipe herself properly in the sense of 'perfectly'. No one would expect that from a six-year-old. But since virtually every pair of laundered underpants in JB's drawer still showed signs of prior soiling, this indicates imo that JB had massive problems with wiping and also had had soiling incidents.

SOURCES???