JMO8778 said:
indeed.
I think so,too.What I find odd is that,in the autopsy pics,you can see that even though tape was applied to her lips,her face wasn't wiped off,even though we know the rest of her body was,(due to the fiber evidence).
Any opinion on that? Why not take the time to wipe her off b/f applying the tape? in staging the crime,why wouldn't this matter?(aside from,other than the fact she wasn't fighting against the tape anyway,from being unconcious).
JMO8778,
Because I suspect that either there was a prior staging, which included a post-mortem assault focusing on her face and head, where the majority of her injuries are itemised, or this occurred outwith the wine-cellar.
So not wiping her face clean was intended to focus whomever discovered JonBenet upon the upper half of her body and away from the wiped down lower half.
Without reciting what we all know, I do not reckon JonBenet was assaulted with a paintbrush handle to cover up prior abuse, simply because, it would serve no purpose e.g. JonBenet is now dead, and cannot talk, also it draws unwanted attention to that topic?
So it helps to view the wine-cellar crime-scene as wholly staged, one intended to hide the real reason as to why JonBenet was killed.
Confirmation of this will be realised if its ever found that the missing piece of the paintbrush was left inside JonBenet and this was redacted from the autopsy report?
I thought that the fluid on JonBenet's face had resulted from her severe fracture, e.g through her nose or mouth, Coroner Meyer states:
There are no defects noted in the shirt but the upper
anterior right sleeve contains a dried brown-tan stain measuring
2.5x1.5 inches, consistent with mucous from the nose or mouth.
So its an open question on the origin of the mucous on her face?
If you rewind the staging backwards, and imagine JonBenet elsewhere in the house, just prior to her death, then a kiss asummption is that she was wearing what she returned from the White's in, e.g. white gap top, black velvet pants?
When discovered in the wine-cellar she is minus her black velvet pants and size-6 underwear, but is now wearing those longjohns, and size-12 underwear.
So the conclusion I draw from the available evidence is this, that JonBenet was not wearing the black velvet pants when she was killed, otherwise they would have the same forensic status her size-6 underwear has. Now there is a further possibility which is that JonBenet was entirely naked from the waist down when she was killed e.g. she wore no size-6 underwear to the White's, which is simply an alternative explanation for her being redressed in size-12 underwear. The police will have answers to this since they will have access to any fiber forensics done on her black pants?
If JonBenet was killed out of
Toilet Tage then why is she left wearing urine soaked clothing, and soiled pants are left in full view upstairs in her bathroom, these latter features do not fit in with the effort put into the basement staging?
So putting the
Toilet Tage theory to one side, since it is inconsistent with the current evidence, lets concentrate upon the period prior to JonBenet's death: now we know she was sexually assaulted just before being killed, if the masking of a sexual motive, is what lies behind her death, then would her killer undress JonBenet her down to her underwear, or would she have been fully undressed? I suspect the latter and that the size-6 underwear was used to clean her up, either blood or/and semen?
The likelyhood that a male committed a sexual asault upon JonBenet is pretty high, if you then factor in probable chronic sexual abuse, and also note that one male Ramsey resident is prepubescent, then a possible profile of her killer becomes clearer, not unless you consider that JonBenet's mother was routinely sexually assaulting her?
So although the fibers are important they may be a red herring, a product of the staging, in court they may not prove who killed JonBenet, simply who may have been there when the staging occurred.
.