John Ramsey's Role

[Nom de plume]

In checking the autopsy report, it said the toxicology came from a blood test. It reported the bladder was empty of urine, so I assume that is why there was no reference to also using urine for testing. The autopsy report is dated as 12/27/96, signed off by Meyer.

Here are some things from a couple of website reports that I find interesting with regard as to the possibility of Klonopin not being detected by Meyer's blood toxicology test:
------------------------------------------------------------
(for info only):Common street names of benzodiazepines include “Benzos” and
“Downers”. The five most encountered benzodiazepines on the illicit
market are alprazolam (Xanax®), lorazepam (Ativan®), clonazepam (Klonopin®), diazepam (Valium®), and temazepam (Restori®). The method of abuse is typically oral or snorted in crushed form. The DEA notes a particularly high rate of abuse among heroin and cocaine abusers.In 2009, benzodiazepines ranked only second (312,931) behind narcotic pain relievers (342,983) in the number of emergency
department visits involving nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals
(DAWN). In 2010, the American Association of Poison Control Centers
reported a total of 81,427 benzodiazepine single-substance exposures.
In the United States, benzodiazepines are schedule IV controlled drugs
of the Controlled Substance Act.
-----------------------------------------------------
Benzodiazepines are sometimes used for criminal purposes; they serve to incapacitate a victim in cases of drug assisted rape or robbery.[145]
-----------------------------------------------------
The use of a drug to modify a person’s behavior for criminal gain is not a recent phenomenon. However, the recent increase in reports of drug-facilitated crimes (sexual assault, robbery) has caused alarm in the general public. The drugs involved can be pharmaceuticals, such as benzodiazepines (flunitrazepam, lorazepam, etc.), hypnotics (zopiclone, zolpidem), sedatives (neuroleptics, some anti-H1) or anaesthetics (γ-hydroxybutyrate, ketamine), drugs of abuse, such as cannabis, ecstasy or LSD, or more often ethanol. To perform successful toxicological examinations, the analyst must follow some important rules: (1) obtain as soon as possible the corresponding biological specimens (blood and urine); (2) collect hair about 1 month after the alleged event; (3) use sophisticated analytical techniques (gas or liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry, MS/MS, headspace gas chromatography); and (4) take care in the interpretation of the findings. Drugs used to facilitate sexual assaults can be difficult to detect (active products at low doses, chemical instability), possess amnesic properties and can be rapidly cleared from the body (short half-life). In these situations, blood or even urine can be of low interest. This is the reason why some laboratories have developed an original approach based on hair testing.
----------------------------------------------------------
Who interprets forensic toxicology tests, and how? Toxicologists, chemists, and pathologists all need to be involved to correctly interpret results.

''The first thing we would do is a basic screen for drugs in the urine and in the blood," Magnani says. The search would be for drugs such as opiates, amphetamines, marijuana, alcohol, and barbiturates, she says. (5 classes underlined)

The basic toxicology screen typically uses an immunoassay, Robin says. This type of test looks for drugs in the blood using specific antibodies that detect various classes of drugs.

Getting a complete and accurate forensic toxicology test result can be a lengthy process for a variety of reasons, according to the College of American Pathologists and experts interviewed by WebMD.

There may be a lot of specimens that need to be tested, which means more testing time. And as an investigation proceeds, information about the possibility of another drug being involved may surface, so even more testing may be needed.

"Four to six weeks is pretty standard," Magnani says of the time line for forensic toxicology testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, this from a website devoted to forums discussing actual results:

It appears that most benzo's, except clonazepam come back +benzo's on an initial screen. I think you are right about the metabolite of clonazepam not being picked up on the general benzodiazepine screen.

---------------------------------------------------
From: https://www.labcorp.com
Seven Drug Class Panel Screen C/O Confirm C/O Method
Amphetamines 50 ng/mL IA, GC/MS
* Amphetamine 20 ng/mL
* Methamphetamine 20 ng/mL

Barbiturates 100 ng/mL IA, GC/MS
* Amobarbital 100 ng/mL
* Butalbital 100 ng/mL
* Pentobarbital 100 ng/mL
* Phenobarbital 1000 ng/mL
* Secobarbital 100 ng/mL

Benzodiazepines 50 ng/mL IA, GC/MS
* Desalkylflurazepam 20 ng/mL
* Diazepam 20 ng/mL
* Flurazepam 20 ng/mL
* Nordiazepam 20 ng/mL
* Oxazepam 20 ng/mL
* Temazepam 20 ng/mL

Cannabinoids 10 ng/mL IA, GC/MS
* THC 1 ng/mL
* Carboxy THC 5 ng/mL

Cocaine 20 ng/mL IA, GC/MS
* Cocaine 10 ng/mL
* Benzoylecgonine 10 ng/mL

Opiates 50 ng/mL IA, GC/MS
* Codeine 20 ng/mL
* Morphine 20 ng/mL

Phencyclidine 2.5 ng/mL 2.5 ng/mL IA, GC/MS

From what I can tell from the info I read, it takes at least a 7 panel screen to get to the class of drugs that clonazepam would fall under, and then the other types of benzo's show, but not clonazepam.

After reading through this information, it appears that Meyer may have used the standard 5 panel screen, which DOES NOT detect for benzo's. If he used a 7 panel, it would not show clonazepam. And most confusing is why he signed off on conclusive findings on the same day of the autopsy that he found a blood toxicology negative. According to information about forensic screening when there's been a crime, it takes several weeks to get clear results.

There would need to be a period of time to pass before hair could be used to provide answers. Hair is the ultimate test for conclusive testing, but it cannot be done from hair collected until much later after the crime. (Because of the time the chemicals need to pass into the hair, I understand). So, yes, not exhuming the body would shut down any possibility of getting the most accurate, conclusive results for that class of drugs.

OK you scientific whizzes - help me out here. Am I interpreting that Klonopin might have slipped through Meyer's forensic test cracks?

Thanks for doing all that research MM!

So it sounds like Meyer was as incompetant as just about everyone else in Boulder at that time. Unbelievable! Makes me suspicious of the rest of his findings in the AR too. What other evidence did he miss, or possibly miss?

Yes, I believe you are correct about the hair. Drugs will show up but it takes time for the hair to grow out with the drug evidence present.

 

[otg]

For gosh sakes, before someone gets hurt, please don't anyone be experimenting with something tied around their neck! If you want to test a ligature, tie it around your thigh just above the knee. It's usually about the same diameter as your neck and has close to the same amount of pliability. It also has the advantage of your being able to watch how it responds to tightening.

 

[otg]

AWESOME - thanks, Chrishope!

Question: Did you do this a right-hander or left-hander. IIRC, England said to pass the ligature under the front of the neck from behind starting on the left and up to the right??

Question: If you had to pick one or the other as a judgement for the use of the ligature after your experiment (and I think your choice of a 1/4: nylon was appropriate), would you say:
a) the ligature was most likely used just as a strangulation device, or b) the ligature could have been used as an EA device, but
malfunctioned

If this case would ever go to court, I am sure the prosecution would want to demonstrate both of the points above, and "handed-ness" and the complicity of sexual activity would need to be demonstrated.

We're just giving our opinions here, so no worries about what your answers are, OK???

From Page-6, of an RCMP online mag, in an interview with John Van Tassel, he says that the handedness of the tier of a knot cannot be determined:

What element of forensic knot analysis is the most misunderstood?
Probably the most misunderstood is the correlation between knot chirality (“handedness”or asymmetry in knot-tying) and human handedness. Although we are very habitual in our tying and tend to tie the same every time, there are individuals of like handedness whose propensities for knot-tying are opposite. Although knot identification and chirality can be associated with an individual, most people believe that this chirality is a direct correlation to their handedness. This assumption is wrong: one cannot determine the handedness of a tier from the knots they tie.
​

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/gazette/archiv/vol69n2-eng.pdf

 

[midwest mama]

As usual, Chrishope and otg - YOU ROCK!! Your info on the ligature and knot now make me think this:

Whether the weight of JB's body falling against the encircling ligature, or her being face down on the floor next to the paint tray (urine stains which correspond to the "anterior" stains on her underwear and lj's), the knot could have been loosened back up by, as Chrishope states:

It's not that hard to release the tension, just take two fingers, put them under the knot, and pull the knot in the direction that loosens the noose. (e.g. pull the knot up the standing end) But loosening doesn't happen automatically when one stops pulling.

No attempt to loosen the knot = IMO, intent. No matter who was the one to put the ligature on JB, he/she should have been able to "untighten" it with little effort once strangulation was becoming evident if it was happening as an "accident". Even if the head blow WAS dealt within seconds of tightening the ligature, or just after she was strangled, as some experts would ask us to think, there is no way we should ever think the ligature strangulation should be accepted as accidental, IMO. It would have been easy enough to rectify, especially if she had been conscious.

Lack of fingernail marks by JB to claw the ligature loose combined with ease of getting the ligature released leaves a pretty clear answer: she was most likely unconscious from the head blow (or some other cause), and the killer intended to end her life by way of the ligature strangulation.

 

[otg]

As usual, Chrishope and otg - YOU ROCK!! Your info on the ligature and knot now make me think this:

Whether the weight of JB's body falling against the encircling ligature, or her being face down on the floor next to the paint tray (urine stains which correspond to the "anterior" stains on her underwear and lj's), the knot could have been loosened back up by, as Chrishope states:

It's not that hard to release the tension, just take two fingers, put them under the knot, and pull the knot in the direction that loosens the noose. (e.g. pull the knot up the standing end) But loosening doesn't happen automatically when one stops pulling.

No attempt to loosen the knot = IMO, intent. No matter who was the one to put the ligature on JB, he/she should have been able to "untighten" it with little effort once strangulation was becoming evident if it was happening as an "accident". Even if the head blow WAS dealt within seconds of tightening the ligature, or just after she was strangled, as some experts would ask us to think, there is no way we should ever think the ligature strangulation should be accepted as accidental, IMO. It would have been easy enough to rectify, especially if she had been conscious.

Lack of fingernail marks by JB to claw the ligature loose combined with ease of getting the ligature released leaves a pretty clear answer: she was most likely unconscious from the head blow (or some other cause), and the killer intended to end her life by way of the ligature strangulation.

(bbm)

No one would be able to loosen the ligature if it was still being pulled on by the weight of JonBenet's body. Neck tied overhead, strike on the head, collapse from unconsciousness, cord tightens from partial weight of body, unable to loosen or remove ligature because of cord tension, then she's cut down allowing the ligature to settle circumferentially around her neck. Then the end of the cord is tied to the paintbrush, other portion of the cord is tied between her wrists. Simple.

 

[midwest mama]

(bbm)

No one would be able to loosen the ligature if it was still being pulled on by the weight of JonBenet's body. Neck tied overhead, strike on the head, collapse from unconsciousness, cord tightens from partial weight of body, unable to loosen or remove ligature because of cord tension, then she's cut down allowing the ligature to settle circumferentially around her neck. Then the end of the cord is tied to the paintbrush, other portion of the cord is tied between her wrists. Simple.

Yes, agree - as long as one would be incapable of providing the support necessary to "lift" her body enough to provide slack. If she was in a chair or in a position where her body could be propped against something for relief of the pull from overhead, it could still be loosened, especially if it was an accidental happening and there was every move to try to remedy the situation. But no fingernail abrasions of any type make me think there was no attempt, not just by JB, but by anyone.

In your scenario, if her neck is tied overhead, AND there is a strike to her head which causes her to collapse, which puts her in a position of being strangled by her body weight, it still appears to me that all of of this activity was with heinous intent. That head blow was dealt with enough force to crack her skull. And if she was tied to something in a position which would have caused a hanging that could not be circumvented, it seems to me that the perpetrator was thinking in a heinous manner about that too.

And I also have to wonder, if she was in any sort of even semi-upright position at this time, if urine released due to death, how would it end up on the front of her lj's? I would think urine release would more or less wind up wetting the inner crotch and more or less down the inside of her legs, rather than predominantly on the front?

If it was BR making that attack against his sister, I think he would have to have been successful at coaxing his sister into a very unusual position, and then if he had no actual intent to harm her, he had to flip into a mindset that would lead him to bash her very viciously before proceeding further. That would indeed have been a very, very sick child. Sadly, those children have committed crimes against siblings.

My biggest problem with the BDI theory is not his capability, but the time of the crime. Those kids were up early Christmas morning, played hard all day, partied again over dinner and were up until at least 9 pm by the evidence. I could see them maybe goofing around until 10:30 or so, but to still be awake and playing to that degree of activity well after midnite, I can't see how they would be able to do it. My own kids at that age were konked out by 10 pm on Christmas night, and old Santa and I had time for a nightcap in the Christmas afterglow!

 

[Chrishope]

MWM/otg

A couple points.

First, the knot will not loosen by itself, but just as important, it will not tighten to the point of touching the neck unless the knot is held with one hand while pulling on the rope. IOWs this "slip knot" doesn't slip all that well, in either direction.

So, in a situation such as otg contemplates, where she is suspended and falls, I really doubt we'd see the completely circumferential furrow. Nor would it settle circumferentially unless someone subsequently pulled while holding the knot in place. This would have to be done after she was cut down.

Of course, it's not a given that the "garrotte" we see in the autopsy photos is what killed her. She may have been strangled with a different arrangement of the cord, (possibly in the manner otg suggests) and the final arrangement we see in the pics is just staging. My only claim is that what we see in the picks is completely consistent with the deep circumferential furrow.

(I think I said earlier it's consistent with the marks, using Mr. England's language. That's probably too broad. It may not be consistent with all the marks on her neck. I'm just saying it's consistent with the furrow)

One thing we can be sure of is that a furrow that deep, and completely circumferential, was not caused by an accident. Someone pulled very hard, while pushing/holding the knot with the other hand.

I think the fact that the children would be sleepy is quite important. I know from my experience as a father the 9 year old would be getting sleepy. No question the 6 year old would be zonked, or very nearly so. Someone got her up, or kept her up, but not likely her 9 year old brother who was probably about ready to hit the hay himself.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, agree - as long as one would be incapable of providing the support necessary to "lift" her body enough to provide slack. If she was in a chair or in a position where her body could be propped against something for relief of the pull from overhead, it could still be loosened, especially if it was an accidental happening and there was every move to try to remedy the situation. But no fingernail abrasions of any type make me think there was no attempt, not just by JB, but by anyone.

In your scenario, if her neck is tied overhead, AND there is a strike to her head which causes her to collapse, which puts her in a position of being strangled by her body weight, it still appears to me that all of of this activity was with heinous intent. That head blow was dealt with enough force to crack her skull. And if she was tied to something in a position which would have caused a hanging that could not be circumvented, it seems to me that the perpetrator was thinking in a heinous manner about that too.

And I also have to wonder, if she was in any sort of even semi-upright position at this time, if urine released due to death, how would it end up on the front of her lj's? I would think urine release would more or less wind up wetting the inner crotch and more or less down the inside of her legs, rather than predominantly on the front?

If it was BR making that attack against his sister, I think he would have to have been successful at coaxing his sister into a very unusual position, and then if he had no actual intent to harm her, he had to flip into a mindset that would lead him to bash her very viciously before proceeding further. That would indeed have been a very, very sick child. Sadly, those children have committed crimes against siblings.

My biggest problem with the BDI theory is not his capability, but the time of the crime. Those kids were up early Christmas morning, played hard all day, partied again over dinner and were up until at least 9 pm by the evidence. I could see them maybe goofing around until 10:30 or so, but to still be awake and playing to that degree of activity well after midnite, I can't see how they would be able to do it. My own kids at that age were konked out by 10 pm on Christmas night, and old Santa and I had time for a nightcap in the Christmas afterglow!

midwest mama,
Good points. Also with the R's due to rise early the following morning, you might think PR would have kids in bed ASAP. Maybe thats what the pineapple was, a sweetner, so JonBenet went to bed early? If BR drank tea in the breakfast bar, then he could have been stimulated and kept awake?

I've always thought the kids did go to bed and that whoever abused JonBenet probably did it in her bedroom, or another bedroom? That scenario, for me, seems to represent what any unknown staging might have sought to mask. Whereas Kolar's version of events, where JonBenet moves from the breakfast bar to the basement, seems quite a leap, suggesting Kolar knows something we do not?

And I also have to wonder, if she was in any sort of even semi-upright position at this time, if urine released due to death,

Just as likely if she was lying on a bed or some object that raised her lower torso, ever so slightly, with respect to her upper torso?

It might simply result from the killer positioning JonBenet so that the process of ligature asphyxiation could be accomplished?

Also if you assume JonBenet was asphyxiated with the front of her body facing down, does this suggest her killer did not want to look at her face, or could there another reason for the asymmetry in the urine staing?

.

 

[otg]

One point is relating to the urine stain in a general sense. I wonder if we are making too much of the urine stain being on the front. The only reference to this is from the AR which simply says, "The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs." I shouldn't have to point this out, but if a female pees her pants while she is standing, it's going to be wet mostly in the front and down the front of her legs.

We know nothing more about the stain than this. We don't know how large an area it covered, and we don't know the exact pattern it formed. There are four things which would determine where the stain would be:

1. The point of origin (in this case because of anatomy)
2. Amount of fluid (which we don't know)
3. Gravity
4. Capillary action (wicking) of the material of the long johns

I think we may be assuming too much when we try to fit our theories to what we imagine the stain to be. Also, the same thing when we try to tie the stain in the long johns to the urine stain on the carpet in the basement. After death, body fluids are not expelled -- they are simply released over a period of time. The two stains don't have to be from the same moment in time.

The other point is about the ligature furrow. The depth of the furrow is not all from the tightness of the ligature. Postmortem swelling accounts for at least a portion of the depth.

 

[Chrishope]

One point is relating to the urine stain in a general sense. I wonder if we are making too much of the urine stain being on the front. The only reference to this is from the AR which simply says, "The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs." I shouldn't have to point this out, but if a female pees her pants while she is standing, it's going to be wet mostly in the front and down the front of her legs.

We know nothing more about the stain than this. We don't know how large an area it covered, and we don't know the exact pattern it formed. There are four things which would determine where the stain would be:

1. The point of origin (in this case because of anatomy)
2. Amount of fluid (which we don't know)
3. Gravity
4. Capillary action (wicking) of the material of the long johns

I think we may be assuming too much when we try to fit our theories to what we imagine the stain to be. Also, the same thing when we try to tie the stain in the long johns to the urine stain on the carpet in the basement. After death, body fluids are not expelled -- they are simply released over a period of time. The two stains don't have to be from the same moment in time.

The other point is about the ligature furrow. The depth of the furrow is not all from the tightness of the ligature. Postmortem swelling accounts for at least a portion of the depth.

Good points.

 

[midwest mama]

otg;9578362

One point is relating to the urine stain in a general sense. I wonder if we are making too much of the urine stain being on the front. The only reference to this is from the AR which simply says, "The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs."

Respectfully, there has been quite a bit of discourse about this very fact over the years. It has routinely been referenced as indicating that JB very well may have been facing the floor when she died because of the specific remark of the coroner that the urine stains were anterior. Not posterior, which might have occurred if she had been laying on her back, or on the middle portion of the crotch and down between the legs of the lj's if she were more in a standing position, but anterior = the front.

I've changed diapers on both little boys and little girls, and training pants that didn't hold it all. The little boys, usually had the frontal wetness and some front pant leg wetness. The little girls usually were either very wet primarily in the middle or it went right down between the legs - maybe towards the back if they were found awakening on their back.

We know nothing more about the stain than this. We don't know how large an area it covered, and we don't know the exact pattern it formed. There are four things which would determine where the stain would be:

1. The point of origin (in this case because of anatomy)
2. Amount of fluid (which we don't know)
3. Gravity
4. Capillary action (wicking) of the material of the long johns

We do know the urine stain passed through the crotch of her underwear, onto the lj's and then additionally to the front of the legs. The average 6 years old bladder holds approximately 6-7 oz. Of course we have no idea how much JB's bladder held for sure, or how much was in it at the time, but my guestimate for the urine to have been reported on the front of the lj legs would be minimum 2 - 3 oz. Not that it matters that much, but there had to be enough to seep through and also either get wicked to the front of the legs or to simply travel there.

I think we may be assuming too much when we try to fit our theories to what we imagine the stain to be. Also, the same thing when we try to tie the stain in the long johns to the urine stain on the carpet in the basement. After death, body fluids are not expelled -- they are simply released over a period of time. The two stains don't have to be from the same moment in time.

I will agree this might not be the case. They did have a dog which was said to piddle in the house, and as much as it seems suspicious that there was a urine stain right next to the paint tote to which the paintbrush has been tied, it cannot absolutely be said JB was laid right there and the whole deed was done.

But I do not think we have to reach very far to "fit our theories to what we imagine the stain to be", either. It's been reasoned that with hair tied into the wrapping around the handle at the cord connection, it's possible the handle was laid against the back of the neck and over the cord while the additional cord was wrapped onto the piece of paintbrush stick, after the knot was in place on the back of the neck. JB's head was turned to the right also. It makes it even easier to picture her laying front down on the floor, facing predominantly away from the perpetrator while the cord was tightened and wrapped. The natural release of urine then would have flowed to match the clothing stains, and also wicked into the carpet, IMO.

Perhaps, we'll have to agree to disagree on this "anterior" coroner remark, otg. If the coroner did not intend for us to know the urine had seeped to the front of JB's clothing, he simply could have said the panties and longjohns were urine stained.

The other point is about the ligature furrow. The depth of the furrow is not all from the tightness of the ligature. Postmortem swelling accounts for at least a portion of the depth.

Agree.

 

[DeeDee249]

Actually, at the moment of death a condition known as "Primary Flaccidity" occurs, where all the muscles in the body relax at once. This includes the badder and sphincter. In a person where the kidneys had been functioning and healthy, there is always SOME urine in the bladder. This will be released immediately at death. For feces, ONLY fecal matter about to be excreted will be released immediately at death. In cases (like JB) where fecal matter is still in the intestines or colon, it will remain. It doesn't move through the excretory system after death. It remains in place, where it will hasten wet decomposition, which usually begins in the intestines. In bodies like JB, that have not begun wet decomp yet, it can be seen as a greenish area on the abdomen. In the autopsy, the coroner noted "soft green fecal material) in the intestines.
Other body fluids, like blood, lymphatic fluid etc may seep out as the body decomposes- this can occur from any orifice, but also from blisters that form on the extremities.
If anyone has ever been with a person who has died, or with a pet that has been put down, urine release is immediate at death. JB's urine release happened at the moment of her death. Because I believe the size 12 panties were put on her after she was wiped down (the coroner believed this too) there is the possibility that they were put on her after death, but because the urine-stained longjohns that she was probably wearing when she died, were wet, the new panties got wet from them and not from being worn as the urine was released. There is also a possibility that the new panties were put on her before she died and were wet as the urine was released at death. There is no way to tell which way it happened.

 

[midwest mama]

Actually, at the moment of death a condition known as "Primary Flaccidity" occurs, where all the muscles in the body relax at once. This includes the badder and sphincter. In a person where the kidneys had been functioning and healthy, there is always SOME urine in the bladder. This will be released immediately at death. For feces, ONLY fecal matter about to be excreted will be released immediately at death. In cases (like JB) where fecal matter is still in the intestines or colon, it will remain. It doesn't move through the excretory system after death. It remains in place, where it will hasten wet decomposition, which usually begins in the intestines. In bodies like JB, that have not begun wet decomp yet, it can be seen as a greenish area on the abdomen. In the autopsy, the coroner noted "soft green fecal material) in the intestines.
Other body fluids, like blood, lymphatic fluid etc may seep out as the body decomposes- this can occur from any orifice, but also from blisters that form on the extremities.
If anyone has ever been with a person who has died, or with a pet that has been put down, urine release is immediate at death. JB's urine release happened at the moment of her death. Because I believe the size 12 panties were put on her after she was wiped down (the coroner believed this too) there is the possibility that they were put on her after death, but because the urine-stained longjohns that she was probably wearing when she died, were wet, the new panties got wet from them and not from being worn as the urine was released. There is also a possibility that the new panties were put on her before she died and were wet as the urine was released at death. There is no way to tell which way it happened.

BBM

If you think she had on the longjohns when she was killed, but possibly not the size 12's, do you think there was another garment under them? Such as a different pair of panties or a pull-up?

Then the reason they came off was......??????

And then her body was wiped down, and the new size 12 panties were put on - fresh and dry and clean, but the wet longjohns were put over them?
They were wet enough in the anterior crotch that the new panties became urine stained from them? And the blood stains that were found in the crotch of the size 12's happened as a result of blood seepage from her vagina perhaps from her body being moved around?

If blood flow stops at death, would the blood in her vagina have happened then, before she was killed, or is there any way some blood could have been drawn from a vaginal assault after she was dead - as in the killer waiting until after she was dead before jabbing her in an attempt to conceal the chronic molestation that they were afraid of being revealed?

I have been equating the presence of the blood spots in the crotch of the size 12's with the fact that she was alive when the assault that caused the bleeding happened, but she was cleaned up to remove all visible signs of blood, then the 12's put on, with dry longjohns following. I envisioned her unconscious at the time of redressing, a victim of the head blow. I considered the blood from inside "survived" the clean up , but seeped out as a result of her being carried from one location to another.

Help, DeeDee, I'm confused!

 

[UKGuy]

Actually, at the moment of death a condition known as "Primary Flaccidity" occurs, where all the muscles in the body relax at once. This includes the badder and sphincter. In a person where the kidneys had been functioning and healthy, there is always SOME urine in the bladder. This will be released immediately at death. For feces, ONLY fecal matter about to be excreted will be released immediately at death. In cases (like JB) where fecal matter is still in the intestines or colon, it will remain. It doesn't move through the excretory system after death. It remains in place, where it will hasten wet decomposition, which usually begins in the intestines. In bodies like JB, that have not begun wet decomp yet, it can be seen as a greenish area on the abdomen. In the autopsy, the coroner noted "soft green fecal material) in the intestines.
Other body fluids, like blood, lymphatic fluid etc may seep out as the body decomposes- this can occur from any orifice, but also from blisters that form on the extremities.
If anyone has ever been with a person who has died, or with a pet that has been put down, urine release is immediate at death. JB's urine release happened at the moment of her death. Because I believe the size 12 panties were put on her after she was wiped down (the coroner believed this too) there is the possibility that they were put on her after death, but because the urine-stained longjohns that she was probably wearing when she died, were wet, the new panties got wet from them and not from being worn as the urine was released. There is also a possibility that the new panties were put on her before she died and were wet as the urine was released at death. There is no way to tell which way it happened.

DeeDee249,
Ah, the timing or what sequence? If the head blow precedes the ligature asphyxiation, then its possible JonBenet was redressed in the size-12's and longjohns, before the ligature was applied? Kolars book cites a time gap between the head blow and death.

If you are the person redressing JonBenet in nice clean size-12's, why leave on the dirty, urine-stained longjohns, which must represent another scenario, why not fetch something clean to go with the size-12's?

Also if JonBenet was not wearing the size-12's when she was killed, what was she wearing: size-6 underwear? Again why remove these but not the longjohns?

.

 

[questfortrue]

DeeDee249,
Ah, the timing or what sequence? If the head blow precedes the ligature asphyxiation, then its possible JonBenet was redressed in the size-12's and longjohns, before the ligature was applied? Kolars book cites a time gap between the head blow and death.

If you are the person redressing JonBenet in nice clean size-12's, why leave on the dirty, urine-stained longjohns, which must represent another scenario, why not fetch something clean to go with the size-12's?

Also if JonBenet was not wearing the size-12's when she was killed, what was she wearing: size-6 underwear? Again why remove these but not the longjohns?

.

Unless she was dressed in the pink pajama bottoms. It seems to me they found the pink pajama top, but not the bottoms. Likely they removed the size 6 panties and perhaps the pink pajama bottoms from the house (in the trash, in the golf bag, etc.??) Makes the sequence seem like clean up, redress, then strangulation, whereupon her bladder releases where she is killed.

 

[UKGuy]

Unless she was dressed in the pink pajama bottoms. It seems to me they found the pink pajama top, but not the bottoms. Likely they removed the size 6 panties and perhaps the pink pajama bottoms from the house (in the trash, in the golf bag, etc.??) Makes the sequence seem like clean up, redress, then strangulation, whereupon her bladder releases where she is killed.

questfortrue,
Yes, it could be the pajama bottoms and size-6 underwear were removed. Interestingly BPD have never commented on either of those items, or even the sizes of JonBenet's underwear taken from her underwear drawer, except that they were not size-12.

What I find curious is that is there is some master plan, why do some items vanish but other items are simply discarded into the wine-cellar?

I tend to interpret that as the behaviour of two different people engaged in two different stagings?

Given that there was feces found in JonBenet's bedroom. I wonder if this is why her pink pajama bottoms and size-6 underwear vanished?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

BBM

If you think she had on the longjohns when she was killed, but possibly not the size 12's, do you think there was another garment under them? Such as a different pair of panties or a pull-up?

Then the reason they came off was......??????

And then her body was wiped down, and the new size 12 panties were put on - fresh and dry and clean, but the wet longjohns were put over them?
They were wet enough in the anterior crotch that the new panties became urine stained from them? And the blood stains that were found in the crotch of the size 12's happened as a result of blood seepage from her vagina perhaps from her body being moved around?

If blood flow stops at death, would the blood in her vagina have happened then, before she was killed, or is there any way some blood could have been drawn from a vaginal assault after she was dead - as in the killer waiting until after she was dead before jabbing her in an attempt to conceal the chronic molestation that they were afraid of being revealed?

I have been equating the presence of the blood spots in the crotch of the size 12's with the fact that she was alive when the assault that caused the bleeding happened, but she was cleaned up to remove all visible signs of blood, then the 12's put on, with dry longjohns following. I envisioned her unconscious at the time of redressing, a victim of the head blow. I considered the blood from inside "survived" the clean up , but seeped out as a result of her being carried from one location to another.

Help, DeeDee, I'm confused!

I'll try...

There may have been a different pair of panties originally, and they would have been in her proper size. In fact, it explains why whoever staged the body had to open a NEW package of panties that were intended as a gift for another child, and pulled a pair from the MIDDLE of the package. (those panty gift sets are packed in order of the days of the week- the Wednesday pair in in the middle of the package. Had the original pair been soiled with feces, blood or both, Patsy would NEVER want her found that way. This also is something an intruder wouldn't care about-An intruder would never bother to put clean panties on a victim. The original panties would have come off because they possibly had been soiled with blood or feces. I'd say that feces would not be unexpected- ALL her panties showed fecal staining according to police. But the blood would be very incriminating. The stagers WIPED visible blood from her pelvic area and thighs. But they couldn't see the microscopic blood that showed up under the fluoroscope testing. They never knew that would show up. The blood was NOT found on the crotch of the longjohns. I believe that they were removed for the sexual assault. Maybe the original panties, too, maybe not. They could have just been pulled DOWN, and become stained with blood when she was assaulted and the blood ran down her thighs. I do not think whoever redressed her and put her in the winecellar knew that there were blood drops in the panties. There was no visible blood on the longjohns.

The new panties could certainly have become wet from the longjohns being put on over them. The coroner said that the tiny amount of blood on the panties (just a few drops) did NOT coincide with the amount of blood that was found to have been wiped off, or with the blood found INSIDE her vagina. The drops that stained the panties were not in the same place on the crotch that they should have been if they had been the original pair, plus there should have been more blood. The blood in the panties could have resulted from seepage and from being moved around. Blood can seep from a dead body.
The blood in and on her vagina could have resulted from postmortem assault, but NOT the blood that was found to have been wiped from her thighs and pubic area, so for that reason alone I have to say that the blood IN the vagina had to have come from the primary assault when she was alive. It would never happen that the blood inside came ONLY from a postmortem assault and no blood the assault that made her bleed in the first place. Does this make it clearer? I know it is confusing.
Your last paragraph is pretty much what I believe, so you do have a good grasp of the matter. She could have been unconscious, not dead, when she was wiped, and redressed in the longjohns and new panties. We just can't prove whether she was dead or alive when the new ones were put on her.
There is still a missing piece of this puzzle...liquid mixes molecules and blends with what it touches if that material is permeable (like fabric). If the urine on the longjohns wet the panties, the blood drops should have been transferred to the longjohns too. But they weren't, or as least we have not been told they were. So this is something that I have been unable to work out at this point.

 

[midwest mama]

Something to consider: If JB was wiped clean of all visible signs of blood from a sexual assault, either unconscious at the time, or soon becoming unconscious, then placed into a horizontal position in order to have the size 12's and the longjohns put on her, is it possible that she remained enough in a horizontal position until her death occurred in order to have the urine release and then dry out completely between the time she was killed and the time she was brought up from the WC?

In a horizontal position from the time dry, clean panties and lj's are put on, and remaining in a horizontal position during the strangulation, and also throughout the next 10 or so hours -- those items having dried completely, when she was picked upright to remove her from the WC, a couple of small drops of interior vaginal blood could have then seeped out into the crotch of the DRIED OUT, urine-stained panties, which probably would have prevented it from going through to the DRIED OUT, urine stained longjohns?

If it was a sexual assault, which caused the scream, prompting the head blow, it could follow she was injured enough to have bloodied up any clothing articles that might have been either on her, whether pulled up or down, or even under her. That could account for cleaning her up while she was unconscious, and then redressing her. She may have been only managed in a horizontal position, even if that included carrying her somewhere else and again placing her in a horizontal position thinking she might awaken, or until the perp figured out what to do next.

A period of time might have passed before there could have been another purposeful jab made into her vagina with the paintbrush handle in an attempt to mask the assault, but no other redressing need occur this time, since there would be no exterior fluids visible and as yet no release of urine.

After it became obvious JB was not going to rally, the killer decided to use the ligature. If she needed to be moved again, she would still most likely be picked up in a horizontal position, carried and placed horizontally down with her face to the floor, (or head turned right, facing downward?). Once the ligature was completed, the urine released, and the brush handle may have also been tied into the ligature. Again, her body could have been picked up horizontally, and then taken and placed onto the white blanket for a while before she was "carefully wrapped", as JR said. Still no good way for a small amount of blood to leave her interior vagina.

Then all those hours later, after the urine had time to dry, when JR lifted her and carried her "like a mannequin" upstairs, a few drops of blood seeped out, but since she was laid back down immediately, the blood would have stopped the outward flow again. Tiny amount of blood drops into a dry garment.