Members' Theories

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just throwing this out there because it's been on the news blips lately. There was DNA found on JB and it was not from ANY member of the family. How does this news fare in these forums if it is a fact?

Baznme, here is the link to the dna thread: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90999"]DNA Revisited - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

There is so much useful info on the dna to be found here!
Also, special thanks to Cynic for sharing his knowledge of dna.
 
Just throwing this out there because it's been on the news blips lately. There was DNA found on JB and it was not from ANY member of the family. How does this news fare in these forums if it is a fact?




To answer your question, its been the topic of many a heated debate on these forums for quite some time, as it is not new news. You really should take a peak through the forums to see what Im talking about, its very interesting information and given by posters that I greatly admire.

Though I am not an expert on this area of the case, I can share what I know with you. The DNA found on her PJ pants, is touch DNA and could have been placed there at any time before, during or after her murder. The thing to remember is that the DNA though not belonging to a family member, does not mean it belongs to the killer either. Touch DNA could have been secondary transfer or placed there by someone at the morgue. Might have even been a curious police officer, or maybe the pants had been worn prior and someone had helped her in the bathroom, by pulling her pants up and down. Touch DNA only places some persons hands on her pants, it doesnt place a murder weapon in that persons hands. Or at least thats the basic RDI theory, it however is not the IDI theory.

Im sure those that know more than I will fill you in on the gaps that Ive left and those that represent the opposition will be along shortly to share their opinions on the DNA, that to them is the golden compass that leads to the Intruder. Keep in mind its the only DNA ( and the speck in her panties) that cant be traced back too the R's, at the scene or on Jonbenet.
 
Was a news channel reporting about the DNA recently? That news came out in July 2008. I'm just wondering if this case has been on one of the news channels in the past week or so, and I don't see any recent articles....
 
Was a news channel reporting about the DNA recently? That news came out in July 2008. I'm just wondering if this case has been on one of the news channels in the past week or so, and I don't see any recent articles....

According to this, it's the spot on the nightgown (a 3rd marker) that is of interest at this point with a new spot of DNA. No new leads but they hope at some point it will match someone in the national database.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/42293392#42293392
 
Though I am not an expert on this area of the case, I can share what I know with you. The DNA found on her PJ pants, is touch DNA and could have been placed there at any time before, during or after her murder. The thing to remember is that the DNA though not belonging to a family member, does not mean it belongs to the killer either. Touch DNA could have been secondary transfer or placed there by someone at the morgue. Might have even been a curious police officer, or maybe the pants had been worn prior and someone had helped her in the bathroom, by pulling her pants up and down. Touch DNA only places some persons hands on her pants, it doesnt place a murder weapon in that persons hands.

Snipped for space, I understand your explanation however, if all of these are possibilities as to who the touch DNA may belong to, then they need to test all involved and use the process of elimination to verify no individual that came into contact with JB either before or after could be linked to the latest DNA (3rd marker) found on JB's nightgown. From there, you continue to work on finding who owns that DNA. Does that make sense?
 
Snipped for space, I understand your explanation however, if all of these are possibilities as to who the touch DNA may belong to, then they need to test all involved and use the process of elimination to verify no individual that came into contact with JB either before or after could be linked to the latest DNA (3rd marker) found on JB's nightgown. From there, you continue to work on finding who owns that DNA. Does that make sense?



This is me inserting foot in mouth...LOL... I misunderstood your original question and I apologize. I gave an answer to a question you didnt even ask...LOL.. I thought you meant the PJ pants not the nightie.

You are so right about them needing to test everyone and retest everyone. They, LE and the DA need to do a lot of things. Again, I apologize for my blunder. And Beck gave you good information so Im off to follow her lead...LOL
 
DNA found on a nightgown that JonBenet wasn't wearing? I would have to wonder why it wasn't found on the Gap top or black velvet jeans if it actually belonged to an intruder. Any person or persons who went to such great lengths to leave no clue of their presence in that house but removes gloves in order to touch her clothing? The mysterious DNA begs more questions than it answers, IMO. This opens up the possibility that there may have been someone else in the home that night. Someone the Ramseys are well aware of and that probably was not DNA tested. Maybe another youngster having a sleepover with BR? I could name one family who had a son and were as protective of the R's as their own lawyers.
 
DNA found on a nightgown that JonBenet wasn't wearing? I would have to wonder why it wasn't found on the Gap top or black velvet jeans if it actually belonged to an intruder. Any person or persons who went to such great lengths to leave no clue of their presence in that house but removes gloves in order to touch her clothing? The mysterious DNA begs more questions than it answers, IMO. This opens up the possibility that there may have been someone else in the home that night. Someone the Ramseys are well aware of and that probably was not DNA tested. Maybe another youngster having a sleepover with BR? I could name one family who had a son and were as protective of the R's as their own lawyers.




Beck, its possible the DNA on the nightie is secondary transfer from the long johns or even the blanket. Maybe the same lab tech handled the nightie, the long johns and the panties.

That show had so many things wrong that its even possible theY said the nightie instead of PJ pants or long johns. Which is personally what I think. I could be wrong, I wouldnt be the only one...LoL!
 
I was right. The three samples of DNA were sourced to the fingernails, the panties, and the nightgown. No mention of the longjohns.

Heres a link to the source....

http://buzzonair.com/new-dna-clue-found-in-jo...

(snip)

Aphrodite Jones hosts a crime show on the Discovery Channel. She explains that touch DNA is a new form of DNA available for solving crimes. This touch DNA was found under JonBenet Ramsey’s fingernails, in her underwear and now a new sample has been found on the little girl’s nightgown. It is hoped that eventually a match to this DNA will surface.
 
Your'e right, agatha. Just another fact that AJ got wrong and presented to a gullible public. I can say that as I was once a part of that gullible public! Over the last 14 1/2 years I've learned to question every piece of evidence as well as the source.
 
(My Bold)


Amen brother!!!!!! Thats exactly what the problem is, "Nobody wants to notice." The worst kind of liars are those that can lie to themselves and pretend that they never saw it coming.

We used to have a thread around here that talked about that Agatha. Before it got hijacked...
 
My theory:

Several facts need accounting for:

1. JonBenet is dead.
2. JonBenet was chronically and acutely molested.
3.JonBenet has an 8 1/2 inch skull fracture
4.JonBenet had MILD brain swelling.
5.JonBenet had little brain blood -- only 7ccs or so.
6.JonBenet was found with garrotte on neck.
7. JonBenet had petechial hemorrhages near garrotte.
8 Cause of death was identified as both asphyxiation and head-blow.
9. Ransom note wrote with paper/pens from the house where JonBenet was killed.

The one thing which predates the death but is actually evident at the time of death, is the chronic sexual abuse. This means, JonBenet was molested, at least one time before she died at 48-72 hours beforehand.

Thus, the sexual abuse is one constant in this case -- it existed before death and during/afterwards.This case was highly sexual.

The garrotte found on her neck, alongside petechial hemorrhages indicate she was asphyxiated in a 'sex-game gone wrong'.Petechial hemorrhages form when alive. Thus, she was asphyxiated when alive.

The lack of blood and swelling in the brain indicates that the 8 1/2 skull fracture was inflicted after she was near dead. That's why the brain swelled so little. That's why so little blood was uncovered.If she was hit first on the head, you'd expect more brain swelling and blood.

I think the garrotte was an Erotic-Asphyxiation device which accidentally pressed on JonBenet's vagal reflex. This caused her heart to stop. Once she was 'dying', the perpetrator tried to resuscitate her. But they failed.They were left with a dead body or what appeared dead to them. They then hit JonBenet over the head (used a bat, flashlight?) and caused the 8 1/2 inch skull fracture in order to simulate an intruder attack.

JonBenet's body was wiped down to remove traces of evidence of the abuser.The tools used in the case, such as the flashlight, were also wipe down.

The garrotte was left on the body in order to make it appear like a sexual predator had killed JonBenet. The ransom note was wrote to develop this angle. The sexual abuse could not be undone. The perpetrator knew they had molested a kid and knew they had killed her in a sex-game gone wrong. Thus, the only thing they could do was to try and blame someone else for it.To remove the garrotte to try and make it look less obvious would be problematic -- during the dark of night, snowed in and fearful of going out incase you wake neighbours/leave evidence, where could one put the rope used to make the garrotte aswell as the paintbrush used to tighten the garrotte? It was actually safer to leave it on the body.


I postulate that the one constant in this case, both before and during and after, was the sexual element. It was the 'sex-game' gone wrong which killed JonBenet.The sexual molestation was linked to the death in that it was performed before she died on her body alongside a kinky EA device. After she died and couldn't be resuscitated, everything else was reactionary to protecting the perpetrator's identity.JonBneet was meant to live. It was an accidental death.
 
My theory:

Several facts need accounting for:

1. JonBenet is dead.
2. JonBenet was chronically and acutely molested.
3.JonBenet has an 8 1/2 inch skull fracture
4.JonBenet had MILD brain swelling.
5.JonBenet had little brain blood -- only 7ccs or so.
6.JonBenet was found with garrotte on neck.
7. JonBenet had petechial hemorrhages near garrotte.
8 Cause of death was identified as both asphyxiation and head-blow.
9. Ransom note wrote with paper/pens from the house where JonBenet was killed.

The one thing which predates the death but is actually evident at the time of death, is the chronic sexual abuse. This means, JonBenet was molested, at least one time before she died at 48-72 hours beforehand.

Thus, the sexual abuse is one constant in this case -- it existed before death and during/afterwards.This case was highly sexual.

The garrotte found on her neck, alongside petechial hemorrhages indicate she was asphyxiated in a 'sex-game gone wrong'.Petechial hemorrhages form when alive. Thus, she was asphyxiated when alive.

The lack of blood and swelling in the brain indicates that the 8 1/2 skull fracture was inflicted after she was near dead. That's why the brain swelled so little. That's why so little blood was uncovered.If she was hit first on the head, you'd expect more brain swelling and blood.

I think the garrotte was an Erotic-Asphyxiation device which accidentally pressed on JonBenet's vagal reflex. This caused her heart to stop. Once she was 'dying', the perpetrator tried to resuscitate her. But they failed.They were left with a dead body or what appeared dead to them. They then hit JonBenet over the head (used a bat, flashlight?) and caused the 8 1/2 inch skull fracture in order to simulate an intruder attack.

JonBenet's body was wiped down to remove traces of evidence of the abuser.The tools used in the case, such as the flashlight, were also wipe down.

The garrotte was left on the body in order to make it appear like a sexual predator had killed JonBenet. The ransom note was wrote to develop this angle. The sexual abuse could not be undone. The perpetrator knew they had molested a kid and knew they had killed her in a sex-game gone wrong. Thus, the only thing they could do was to try and blame someone else for it.To remove the garrotte to try and make it look less obvious would be problematic -- during the dark of night, snowed in and fearful of going out incase you wake neighbours/leave evidence, where could one put the rope used to make the garrotte aswell as the paintbrush used to tighten the garrotte? It was actually safer to leave it on the body.


I postulate that the one constant in this case, both before and during and after, was the sexual element. It was the 'sex-game' gone wrong which killed JonBenet.The sexual molestation was linked to the death in that it was performed before she died on her body alongside a kinky EA device. After she died and couldn't be resuscitated, everything else was reactionary to protecting the perpetrator's identity.JonBneet was meant to live. It was an accidental death.

Im sorry to correct you, but Autopsy findings indicate NO prior evidence of abuse/ trauma to jonbenet.
No Evidence of Chronic Abuse. "No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF P 50; PSMF P 50.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).
The garotte was embedded in the childs neck almost to the point that her neck was compressed to within a couple of inches in diameter, this was not intended as autoerotic "game" this was someone who wanted to kill not play.
Taking into consideration your theory of sexual abuse gone wrong, as a flegling sex attack this is pretty much overkill.
Whoever did this had been doing it quite a while, and i believe this is where we may see a breakthrough. Victims of abuse from when JB was killed will be old enough now to perhaps come foward to speak things that happened to them.
We have to work with the reported evidence and as so much of this is hearsay, i believe the most conclusive proof is in the autopsy, and if we are to believe the findings, previous sexual abuse is unequivocably ruled out.
 
Im sorry to correct you, but Autopsy findings indicate NO prior evidence of abuse/ trauma to jonbenet.
No Evidence of Chronic Abuse. "No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF P 50; PSMF P 50.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).
The garotte was embedded in the childs neck almost to the point that her neck was compressed to within a couple of inches in diameter, this was not intended as autoerotic "game" this was someone who wanted to kill not play.
Taking into consideration your theory of sexual abuse gone wrong, as a flegling sex attack this is pretty much overkill.
Whoever did this had been doing it quite a while, and i believe this is where we may see a breakthrough. Victims of abuse from when JB was killed will be old enough now to perhaps come foward to speak things that happened to them.
We have to work with the reported evidence and as so much of this is hearsay, i believe the most conclusive proof is in the autopsy, and if we are to believe the findings, previous sexual abuse is unequivocably ruled out.

I never said the autopsy said explicitly there was prior abuse signs -- it certainly didn't say there was none either. I'm saying what most experts, on interpreting the autopsy say (Cyril Wecht,,Dr. David Jones, Dr. James Monteleone,Dr. John McCann,Dr. Ronald Wright,Robert Kirschner etc).The autopsy also doesn't commit to what came first -- the asphyxiation or the head-blow. Does that preclude other experts from making an informed opinion on that too because clearly something must have preceded the other.The autopsy merely presents the findings but does not present opinions necessarily -- especially on the aforementioned events.But other experts, namely doctors and criminal pathologists, do indeed state explicitly what happened.

The coroner Meyer was reluctant to commit to much and perhaps a better coroner would have provided more succinct and more specific report. Who knows.

The garotte was embedded in the childs neck almost to the point that her neck was compressed to within a couple of inches in diameter, this was not intended as autoerotic "game" this was someone who wanted to kill not play.

That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree.And actually, your have misconstrued the autopsy. The ligature matched the penpoint heamorrages which can only occur when a person is alive and thus testify to the fact that asphyxiation occurred. Considering that most experts agree JonBenet was both chronically and acutely molested as her damaged hymen etc indicates, it seems very much possible that the ligature found was intended to act as some sort of EA device.The ligature (EA device) did not break JonBenet's hyoid bone -- is embedded in her neck as per a sex-game gone wrong in my opinion.

We have to work with the reported evidence and as so much of this is hearsay, i believe the most conclusive proof is in the autopsy, and if we are to believe the findings, previous sexual abuse is unequivocably ruled out.

Em, you've just stated something which is absolutely incorrect. The autopsy DOES NOT say NO PRIOR molestation occurred. It merely does not commit to saying it did.Just like it does not commit to what killed JonBenet first -- the head-blow or the asphyxiation.All the conclusions made by the various experts are all taken from the findings of the autopsy thus your claim that the autopsy ruled out chronic sexual abuse is manifestly wrong.

The autopsy report took no position on the issue of whether there was prior sexual abuse -- that means it neither endorses of rejects such a view. It doesn't mean it did not happen. Infact, most experts, when viewing the autopsy findings, think that one fact which indeed did occur was that there was acute and chronic sexual abuse.

JonBenet's genitals displayed evidence of prior molestation. Further, her 'opening' was twice the size of other 6year old girls her age. Further, blood was found wiped away from the injury she sustained at the time of her death, again in her genital region.

Robert Kirschner: "The genital injuries indicate penetration,but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation." > the birefringement material found in JonBnet's genitals also supports the notion that her genitals were being molested.

I'm sorry, but you have not disproven in any way, shape or form, that sexual abuse did not occur.
 
DR. MCCANN

In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos. According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.

DR. MCCANN (cont. from "The Bonita Papers)

There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. 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. It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. 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, since there were no lacerations visible in these photos. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted. 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.
 
Im sorry to correct you, but Autopsy findings indicate NO prior evidence of abuse/ trauma to jonbenet.
No Evidence of Chronic Abuse. "No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF P 50; PSMF P 50.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).
The garotte was embedded in the childs neck almost to the point that her neck was compressed to within a couple of inches in diameter, this was not intended as autoerotic "game" this was someone who wanted to kill not play.
Taking into consideration your theory of sexual abuse gone wrong, as a flegling sex attack this is pretty much overkill.
Whoever did this had been doing it quite a while, and i believe this is where we may see a breakthrough. Victims of abuse from when JB was killed will be old enough now to perhaps come foward to speak things that happened to them.
We have to work with the reported evidence and as so much of this is hearsay, i believe the most conclusive proof is in the autopsy, and if we are to believe the findings, previous sexual abuse is unequivocably ruled out.

The autopsy:

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. the smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginalwall/hymen, contain epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen.

What caused the erosion to the hymen in the 7 o'clock position, aswell as the blood also present in the genital area?

The autopsy as performed by Meyer does not explicitly say abuse occured. It does however present evidence which, as experts testify, indicates quite clearly that both chronic and acute abuse occurred.

A coroner's role is first and foremost to record the conditions of the body as presented before him in a concise, scientific and factual manner.

If there is one thing I am most certainly sure of in this case is that JonBenet was chronically abused aswell as acutely abused.
 
Im sorry to correct you, but Autopsy findings indicate NO prior evidence of abuse/ trauma to jonbenet.
No Evidence of Chronic Abuse. "No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF P 50; PSMF P 50.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).

None of that evidence was PRESENTED in that case, a common failing of the Carnes ruling. Sadly, Cyril Wecht backed out of testifying.

i believe the most conclusive proof is in the autopsy, and if we are to believe the findings, previous sexual abuse is unequivocably ruled out.

Isn't it funny how most people would say that the autopsu report rules it IN.
 
I never said the autopsy said explicitly there was prior abuse signs -- it certainly didn't say there was none either. I'm saying what most experts, on interpreting the autopsy say (Cyril Wecht,,Dr. David Jones, Dr. James Monteleone,Dr. John McCann,Dr. Ronald Wright,Robert Kirschner etc).The autopsy also doesn't commit to what came first -- the asphyxiation or the head-blow. Does that preclude other experts from making an informed opinion on that too because clearly something must have preceded the other.The autopsy merely presents the findings but does not present opinions necessarily -- especially on the aforementioned events.But other experts, namely doctors and criminal pathologists, do indeed state explicitly what happened.

The coroner Meyer was reluctant to commit to much and perhaps a better coroner would have provided more succinct and more specific report. Who knows.

So because a medical expert will not commit to saying she was sexually abused prior to her murder, he must be wrong?
The word chronic is used in the autopsy but not in the sexual abuse context see: Vaginal Area
Autopsy: External Exam
•Genitalia. "The external genitalia are that of a prepubescent female. No pubic hair is present."
•Dried Blood.
1.Perineum. "On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood."
2.Fourchette and Vestibule. "A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present in the skin of the fourchette and the vestibule."
•Hyperemia
1.Definition. "An increased amount of blood in a body part due to such things as inflammation or obstruction preventing the blood from flowing out."
2.Location. "Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice."
•Abrasion
1.General Location. "A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 X 1 cm hymenal orifice."
2.Hymen. "The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions."
3.Specific Location. "The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen."
•Other Findings
1.Discoloration on Labia Majora.] "On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violet discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch."
•No Hemorrhage. "Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage."
1.Red Fluid in Vaginal Vault. "A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault."
•Condition of Anus and Perineum
1.No Trauma. "No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified." Perineum="The area between the anus and the scrotum in the male and between the anus and the vulva (the labial opening to the vagina) in the female."]
2.Anus Patent. "The anus is patent." (Patent=Open, unobstructed, affording free passage.)


Autopsy: Microscopic Examination of Vaginal Mucosa
•Note. For the analyses that follow, all sections stained with H&E.
1.Chronic Inflammation. "All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation."
2.Epithelial Erosion. "The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion."
3.Birefringent Material. "A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material." (Definition and examples of birefringent materials are here).
4."Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen." (Infiltrate="An abnormal substance that accumulates gradually in cells or body tissues.")


Non-Autopsy Sources
•Injuries Consistent with Sexual Assault. "both parties agree the autopsy report reveals injury to JonBenet's genitalia consistent with a sexual assault shortly before her death. (SMF P 48; PSMF P 48.)" (Carnes 2003:21).
•Bleeding in Genital Area. "The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF P 48; PSMF P 48.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).
•Wooden Shards Found in Vagina. "Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF P 48-49; PMSF P 48-49.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).
•No Evidence of Chronic Abuse. "No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF P 50; PSMF P 50.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).
•Pubic Area "Wiped Down." "Boulder County Coroner John Meyer, who conducted the autopsy on 6-year-old JonBenet, said the child's pubic area showed evidence consistent with having been wiped by a cloth" RMN 11/7/98.

Now has anybody conducted a second Autopsy???????????????
Because if they didnt, we have to rely on this one. This was the report, if someone no matter how expert they think they are disagrees, that is opinion, NOT fact.

The problem with reading too much significance into the presence of the hymen is that a woman may still be a virgin even if she does not have an intact hymen. A woman may not have a hymen for a variety of different reasons. First and foremost, she may have been born without a hymen, or without much of a hymen. In addition, many women tear their hymen, enlarging the hole, through nonsexual activities-- such as engaging in sports, horseback riding ect.


That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree.And actually, your have misconstrued the autopsy. The ligature matched the penpoint heamorrages which can only occur when a person is alive and thus testify to the fact that asphyxiation occurred. Considering that most experts agree JonBenet was both chronically and acutely molested as her damaged hymen etc indicates, it seems very much possible that the ligature found was intended to act as some sort of EA device.The ligature (EA device) did not break JonBenet's hyoid bone -- is embedded in her neck as per a sex-game gone wrong in my opinion.



Em, you've just stated something which is absolutely incorrect. The autopsy DOES NOT say NO PRIOR molestation occurred. It merely does not commit to saying it did.Just like it does not commit to what killed JonBenet first -- the head-blow or the asphyxiation.All the conclusions made by the various experts are all taken from the findings of the autopsy thus your claim that the autopsy ruled out chronic sexual abuse is manifestly wrong.

The autopsy report took no position on the issue of whether there was prior sexual abuse -- that means it neither endorses of rejects such a view. It doesn't mean it did not happen. Infact, most experts, when viewing the autopsy findings, think that one fact which indeed did occur was that there was acute and chronic sexual abuse.
Again look at :Vaginal Area
Autopsy: External Exam
•Genitalia. "The external genitalia are that of a prepubescent female. No pubic hair is present."
•Dried Blood.
1.Perineum. "On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood."
2.Fourchette and Vestibule. "A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present in the skin of the fourchette and the vestibule."
•Hyperemia
1.Definition. "An increased amount of blood in a body part due to such things as inflammation or obstruction preventing the blood from flowing out."
2.Location. "Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice."
•Abrasion
1.General Location. "A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 X 1 cm hymenal orifice."
2.Hymen. "The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions."
3.Specific Location. "The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen."
•Other Findings
1.Discoloration on Labia Majora.] "On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violet discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch."
•No Hemorrhage. "Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage."
1.Red Fluid in Vaginal Vault. "A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault."
•Condition of Anus and Perineum
1.No Trauma. "No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified." Perineum="The area between the anus and the scrotum in the male and between the anus and the vulva (the labial opening to the vagina) in the female."]
2.Anus Patent. "The anus is patent." (Patent=Open, unobstructed, affording free passage.)


Autopsy: Microscopic Examination of Vaginal Mucosa
•Note. For the analyses that follow, all sections stained with H&E.
1.Chronic Inflammation. "All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation."
2.Epithelial Erosion. "The smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion."
3.Birefringent Material. "A small number of red blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is birefringent foreign material." (Definition and examples of birefringent materials are here).
4."Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen." (Infiltrate="An abnormal substance that accumulates gradually in cells or body tissues.")


Non-Autopsy Sources
•Injuries Consistent with Sexual Assault. "both parties agree the autopsy report reveals injury to JonBenet's genitalia consistent with a sexual assault shortly before her death. (SMF P 48; PSMF P 48.)" (Carnes 2003:21).
•Bleeding in Genital Area. "The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF P 48; PSMF P 48.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).
•Wooden Shards Found in Vagina. "Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF P 48-49; PMSF P 48-49.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).
•No Evidence of Chronic Abuse. "No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF P 50; PSMF P 50.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 12).
•Pubic Area "Wiped Down." "Boulder County Coroner John Meyer, who conducted the autopsy on 6-year-old JonBenet, said the child's pubic area showed evidence consistent with having been wiped by a cloth" RMN 11/7/98.



JonBenet's genitals displayed evidence of prior molestation. Further, her 'opening' was twice the size of other 6year old girls her age. Further, blood was found wiped away from the injury she sustained at the time of her death, again in her genital region.

This is Bull, there are only averáge size guides to body parts, its not a one size thing,

Robert Kirschner:
So robert kirschner''s opinion is viewed as better thán meyer who was actually performing the Autopsy. Why?
"The genital injuries indicate penetration,but probably not by a penis, and are evidence of molestation that night as well as previous molestation." > the birefringement material found in JonBnet's genitals also supports the notion that her genitals were being molested.

I'm sorry, but you have not disproven in any way, shape or form, that sexual abuse did not occur.

And you have not proven it did, so again the argument goes on.
 
And you have not proven it did, so again the argument goes on.

Em, the findings in the autopsy clearly show that JonBenet suffered molestation both of the acute and chronic kind.How does a 6year old have all those injuries?

The coroner did not express an opinion of the facts he presented.But the many experts who have analysed the findings have. And most of those experts agree that JonBenet was acutely and chronically molested.

The argument does not go on. Perhaps in your mind it does. But it's an objective fact JonBenet was molested immediately both before she died aswell as at least 48-72 hours prior.

Further, your 'proof' that the autopsy supposedly said that no chronic abuse existed is absolutely frivolous --your quote was from the Carnes ruling and NOT the autopsy. It's a well noted fact that Cyril Wecht didn't testify in that particular case aswell as the fact that Judge Carnes did not have access to all the case evidence.

Remember, Carnes made the statement that she felt the evidence supported the intruder theory (the joke of course was that she was saying this stuff whilst not having ALL the facts). Yep, in Carnes's mind, a ransom note most experts said a Ramsey wrote, no sign of intruder entry, parental fibres on the duct tape covering JonBenet's mouth etc = intruder theory. I say no more.

Although the Carnes ruling was based on a particular law-suit against Patsy Ramsey by Chris Wolf, Carnes's ruling is by no means the default and most respected ruling on this case with regards to the topic of the molestation issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
52
Guests online
1,966
Total visitors
2,018

Forum statistics

Threads
600,248
Messages
18,105,848
Members
230,993
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top