Questions you'd like answers to...

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for trying to answer my question, Userid. You’re the only poster who took on the challenge. I hope people don’t allow their theory about who is responsible to influence what they think happened. That’s kind of along the lines of the proverbial cart and horse, isn’t it? Unfortunately, that’s what I think too many investigators and “experts” might be doing at times.

Other than those who just blindly accept it and try to explain how it might have happened, the thing about the two strangulations (I think) is that they are trying to explain what is obvious in some of the leaked autopsy photos and what Dr. Meyer described in the AR. Just for reference, here is exactly what the AR says about the neck injuries:

A deep ligature furrow encircles the entire neck. The width of the furrow varies from one-eighth of an inch to five/sixteenths of an inch and is horizontal in orientation, with little upward deviation. The skin of the anterior neck above and below the ligature furrow contains areas of petechial hemorrhage and abrasion encompassing an area measuring approximately 3x2 inches. The ligature furrow crosses the anterior midline of the neck just below the laryngeal prominence, approximately at the level of the cricoid cartilage. It is almost completely horizontal with slight upward deviation from the horizontal towards the back of the neck. The midline of the furrow mark on the anterior neck is 8 inches below the top of the head. The midline of the furrow mark on the posterior neck is 6.75 inches below the top of the head.


The area of abrasion and petechial hemorrhage of the skin of the anterior neck includes on the lower left neck, just to the left of the midline, a roughly triangular, parchment-like rust colored abrasion which measures 1.5 inches in length with a maximum width of 0.75 inches. This roughly triangular shaped abrasion is obliquely oriented with the apex superior and lateral. The remainder of the abrasions and petechial hemorrhages of the skin above and below the anterior projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the anterior neck. The skin just above the ligature furrow along the right side of the neck contains petechial hemorrhage composed of multiple confluent very small petechial hemorrhages as well as several larger petechial hemorrhages measuring up to one-sixteenth and one-eighth of an inch in maximum dimension. Similar smaller petechial hemorrhages are present on the skin below the ligature furrow on the left lateral aspect of the neck.

Notice he describes an area of “abrasions and petechial hemorrhages of the skin above and below the anterior projection of the ligature furrow.” Petechial hemorrhages can be caused from several different abnormal processes. Without going into each way they can form, what caused the ones on JonBenet’s neck is restricted blood flow (from the ligature) which caused the capillaries to over-pressure and then rupture, creating tiny little bloodspots just under the surface of the skin. In ligature strangulation, these are very common. But here’s the thing: they usually form above the ligature from restricted venous return (and continued arterial input) or from applied physical disruption.

In addition to the ME’s remarks, the leaked autopsy photos show a very prominent white line below the laryngeal prominence (the “Adam’s apple”). It’s a shame Meyer didn’t mention it in the AR, but it is very obvious in the photos. Its width is about the same as the width of the furrow, so I suspect it is from the cord or at least from something the same diameter as the cord. I think what the “experts” are attempting to do is account for this area of petechiae and the white line on her neck below the ligature furrow and below the congested area on her neck.

Dr. Wecht tried to account for it as repeated tightening and loosening of the cord before she was strangled, leading him to his theory that it was some sort of “vicarious autoerotic asphyxiation.” But the problem with that is the fact that a white line wouldn’t remain if it was done antemortem. Blood circulation would cause it to return to its normal color if it was done while she was still alive.

The scene shown in the movie version of PMPT and Det. Arndt’s statement about the cord being “wrapped twice” doesn’t hold up because the autopsy photo showing the cord after it was cut free from her neck by the ME disputes the diameter of the loop were it wrapped twice.

While it’s possible her shirt collar might have been twisted before she died, there is no evidence of it (that I know of) other than speculation about the balled-up shirt found in the bathroom, and it wouldn’t account for the injuries that we know happened because of the AR and the photos. The twisted shirt collar wouldn’t cause the thin, white line. It might fit nicely into some theories about what might have happened, but (TMK) there is no evidence supporting it.

I’ve quoted this before, but I think the following quote perfectly describes JonBenet’s neck injuries so it’s worth repeating. It comes from a book written entirely about neck injuries. The book is Pathology of Neck Injury, by Peter Vanezis:

It is not unusual in homicidal ligature strangulation to find that there is more than one ligature mark, each of varying intensity and crossing each other, in parallel or at an angle to each other. Together with such an appearance, one quite commonly sees abrasions caused by movement of a ligature across the neck.




If anyone cares to read more about petechial hemorrhaging, here’s a long post with a lot of info and references from a few years ago:

No problem -- it's the least I could do, considering all the incredibly useful information and all the questions you've answered for me since I started posting about the case! Really, I love your posts, so thank you.
 
Bit of a silly question sorry, but what are Petechial hemorrhages?
 
Bit of a silly question sorry, but what are Petechial hemorrhages?
"*advertiser censored*petechial hemorrhage*is a tiny pinpoint red mark that is an important sign of asphyxia caused by some external means of obstructing the airways. They are sometimes also called*petechiae. Their presence often indicates a death by manual strangulation, hanging, or smothering."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/petechial-hemorrhage

I get them sometimes from violently vomiting (I have a vestibular disorder I'm not a drunk).
 
(rs&bbm)
otg,
Everything you suggest is consistent with a ligature asphyxiation, including an explanation why there might be additional abrasions and partial ligature marks.

Knowing all this does not rule out antemortem constriction of the neck, whether manually or via clothing, etc.
No, it doesn't rule anything out that might have been done antemortem. But again, my question only asked why so many believe or assume there was more than one strangulation -- be that by cord, by rope, by shirt collar, by hands -- it doesn't matter the means. Why two or more?
 
(rs&bbm)No, it doesn't rule anything out that might have been done antemortem. But again, my question only asked why so many believe or assume there was more than one strangulation -- be that by cord, by rope, by shirt collar, by hands -- it doesn't matter the means. Why two or more?


otg,
BBM: because in the mind of the person who attached the ligature/paintbrush they are staging away the prior strangulation.

IMO, the wine-cellar represents a staged crime-scene, with the paintbrush also being used to mask any prior acute sexual assault.

Why else bother with the staging, why apply a paintbrush, possibly use it to assault JonBenet internally?

The staged crime-scene was presented as part of kidnapping scenario, yet the abducted JonBenet had been sexually assaulted and ligature asphyxiated, not to mention whacked on the head.

Patently someone revised a prior staging as a kidnapping scenario, but could not undo the violent aspects.

.
 
(rs&bbm)No, it doesn't rule anything out that might have been done antemortem. But again, my question only asked why so many believe or assume there was more than one strangulation -- be that by cord, by rope, by shirt collar, by hands -- it doesn't matter the means. Why two or more?

Personally this suspicion (I don't know if I could call it a belief) comes from that white line on her neck. Knowing what we do about livor mortis, that white line means there was some sort of pressure on the skin in that place. Why? From what? I have no idea, but it's one of the pieces of evidence that really make me pause and ask what else happened to her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
otg,
BBM: because in the mind of the person who attached the ligature/paintbrush they are staging away the prior strangulation.
What "prior strangulation?" Why are you assuming there is a prior strangulation? That is my question. Don't get me wrong... I think there was. But the evidence that exists of another strangulation does not indicate manual strangulation or strangulation with anything other than the cord that was found around her neck. Were she manually strangled, the cord would not hide the evidence of it.


IMO, the wine-cellar represents a staged crime-scene, with the paintbrush also being used to mask any prior acute sexual assault.
I agree that the WC (I know that might be confusing to you -- I'm not talking about a "water closet") was a staged crime scene, but how did that "masking" work out for them. Did it hide any other prior sexual assaults?


Why else bother with the staging, why apply a paintbrush, possibly use it to assault JonBenet internally?
The answer to each of those is the same: To obscure what really happened, how she really died, and how the paintbrush had actually been used by the person who caused her death. It really was a semi-brilliant plan -- brilliant enough, at least, to fool nearly everyone and always leave that lingering doubt about what actually happened.


The staged crime-scene was presented as part of kidnapping scenario, yet the abducted JonBenet had been sexually assaulted and ligature asphyxiated, not to mention whacked on the head.

Patently someone revised a prior staging as a kidnapping scenario, but could not undo the violent aspects.
Perhaps. But a sexually assaulted child found dead in her own home isn't typical of a "kidnapping scenario."

The violent aspects couldn't be undone or hidden completely. How does one hide a ligature furrow or petechial hemorrhages? They attempted to hide the sexual assault (it seems to me) by wiping away the blood, hiding or removing the bloody clothing, and possibly even cleaning her internally. Perhaps on that they didn't know just how much would be examined during an autopsy procedure. The stagers didn't use the paintbrush to hide something internally that they were trying to remove all external evidence of. Instead they used a portion of the paintbrush to make it look like it was only used to pull the cord. They just didn't know that the microscopic splinters would be found by the ME.
 
Personally this suspicion (I don't know if I could call it a belief) comes from that white line on her neck. Knowing what we do about livor mortis, that white line means there was some sort of pressure on the skin in that place. Why? From what? I have no idea, but it's one of the pieces of evidence that really make me pause and ask what else happened to her.
Bingo, Anna! It's that white line that tells us something was there after she was dead. But what was it?

Look closely at the pictures showing it. The fact that it is white tells us something was there until after her blood circulation had stopped (blanching phase of death -- not really the same as livor mortis). Look at the width of the line (it's the same as the furrow). Notice that it's continuous from the front to the back and it's not broken as would be expected from something like the braids of a rope or a wrinkled shirt collar. Neither does it have bruises as there would be if it had been caused by someone's hand or hands. Look at the angle around the neck compared to the location and angle of the furrow. Look also at the heavy petechial hemorrhaging between the two lines and consider why they would be in the location they are.

All the "experts" who have tried to explain it (without saying what they were trying to account for) have come up short for one reason or another. I believe it proves what happened, but no one else seems to see it.
 
Do you think it's logical to think that the reason why the 911 call was made on 23 Dec 96 was because Burke and his friends were sexually molesting JonBenet up on the second floor while the party was going on?
 
Do you think it's logical to think that the reason why the 911 call was made on 23 Dec 96 was because Burke and his friends were sexually molesting JonBenet up on the second floor while the party was going on?

Yes, or something similar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
What "prior strangulation?" Why are you assuming there is a prior strangulation? That is my question. Don't get me wrong... I think there was. But the evidence that exists of another strangulation does not indicate manual strangulation or strangulation with anything other than the cord that was found around her neck. Were she manually strangled, the cord would not hide the evidence of it.


I agree that the WC (I know that might be confusing to you -- I'm not talking about a "water closet") was a staged crime scene, but how did that "masking" work out for them. Did it hide any other prior sexual assaults?


The answer to each of those is the same: To obscure what really happened, how she really died, and how the paintbrush had actually been used by the person who caused her death. It really was a semi-brilliant plan -- brilliant enough, at least, to fool nearly everyone and always leave that lingering doubt about what actually happened.


Perhaps. But a sexually assaulted child found dead in her own home isn't typical of a "kidnapping scenario."

The violent aspects couldn't be undone or hidden completely. How does one hide a ligature furrow or petechial hemorrhages? They attempted to hide the sexual assault (it seems to me) by wiping away the blood, hiding or removing the bloody clothing, and possibly even cleaning her internally. Perhaps on that they didn't know just how much would be examined during an autopsy procedure. The stagers didn't use the paintbrush to hide something internally that they were trying to remove all external evidence of. Instead they used a portion of the paintbrush to make it look like it was only used to pull the cord. They just didn't know that the microscopic splinters would be found by the ME.

otg,


Minimally:
1. JonBenet has her neck compressed antemortem.

2. JonBenet suffered antemortem blunt force trauma to her head.

3. JonBenet was subject to a perimortem internal assault via the paintbrush.

4. JonBenet was perimortem ligature asphyxiated.


What "prior strangulation?" Why are you assuming there is a prior strangulation?
I'm assuming the stager was aware of a prior antemortem sexual assault so applied 3 so to obscure it?


I'm assuming the stager was aware JonBenet had already been antemortem strangled, by whatever means, so applied 4 to obscure it?


It might be that 1. and 2. are interchangable.

Note: The stager never left a hammer next to JonBenet, so to offer a cause of her antemortem blunt force trauma, thereby suggesting ignorance on the stagers part?


Have you ever considered why the stager selected a paintbrush then chose to break it?


IMO, both breaking the paintbrush and ligature asphyxiating JonBenet are redundant acts in a Kidnapping Crime-Scene.

but how did that "masking" work out for them. Did it hide any other prior sexual assaults?
It could only mask any acute, antemortem assault, any prior partially healed assaults would yield evidence of chronic abuse.

Perhaps. But a sexually assaulted child found dead in her own home isn't typical of a "kidnapping scenario."
That's precisely my point. So the Kidnapping Scenario postdates all her other injuries.

They just didn't know that the microscopic splinters would be found by the ME.
So was the paintbrush broken prior to it being used to assault JonBenet?

If it was broken afterwards, how come there are splinters inside JonBenet?


.
 
Do you think it's logical to think that the reason why the 911 call was made on 23 Dec 96 was because Burke and his friends were sexually molesting JonBenet up on the second floor while the party was going on?


icedtea4me,
That logic must mean someone outside of Team Ramsey knows JonBenet was sexually assaulted and to date have remained silent.

Why would that be?

IMO, Susan Stine answering the millionare's door tells you everything you need to know.

.
 
Bit of an odd question but-
Was there any fibers or DNA found under JB's knees? I find this a common & way to carry a sleeping child with one hand under the back and one hand under the knees?

I've heard there was brown fibers found on JB that looked familiar to brown work gloves- were any brown work gloves found in the house at all?
 
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I don't believe the brown fibers were ever sourced. The brown gloves was a theory floated by Lou Smit.

Some internet poster however believes they came from the doll.

[/FONT]
  • Fibers from American Girl Doll? Internet poster Jahazafat claims she used to work for Pleasant Company, which sells American Girl dolls. Jahazafat believes that the dark blue and tan fibers may have come from a "Molly" version of that doll since it had a skirt that sheds dark blue wool fibers and a tan cotton torso. Nedra purchased such a Molly doll in September 1996 and may have given it to JonBenet at Thanksgiving.
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]



[/FONT]
 
icedtea4me,
That logic must mean someone outside of Team Ramsey knows JonBenet was sexually assaulted and to date have remained silent.

Why would that be?*snip*

No, I think it just means that you prefer to think that the 911 call was made due to Burke and his friends sexually molesting JonBenet as opposed to it being from a misdial.
 
otg,

Minimally:
1. JonBenet has her neck compressed antemortem.
Since the strangulation caused her death, this is obvious. But the argent line (white line) and the furrow are both evidence that the (or “a”) ligature was on her neck postmortem in both locations. There is no evidence that there was any other type of “neck compression” besides the ligature -- again, not proof in itself that it did not occur -- just that it’s unlikely since there is no expected evidence of it.


2. JonBenet suffered antemortem blunt force trauma to her head.
Correct.


3. JonBenet was subject to a perimortem internal assault via the paintbrush.
Most likely, but that’s evidence-based theory (which I tend to agree with, BTW). I theorize even more specifically that the sexual assault took place prior to any of the other insults.


4. JonBenet was perimortem ligature asphyxiated.
That’s essentially what Dr. Meyer wrote in the AR.


I'm assuming the stager was aware of a prior antemortem sexual assault so applied 3 so to obscure it?
What does that response have to do with a “prior strangulation?”


I'm assuming the stager was aware JonBenet had already been antemortem strangled, by whatever means, so applied 4 to obscure it?
Okay. If you wish to assume that, just realize that that’s all it is: an assumption.


It might be that 1. and 2. are interchangable.

Note: The stager never left a hammer next to JonBenet, so to offer a cause of her antemortem blunt force trauma, thereby suggesting ignorance on the stagers part?
EXACTLY! I don’t think (and this is JMO) the parents (that’s right -- I’ll name the “stagers” -- John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey) even knew about the head blow. But that’s just my opinion. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence that proves or disproves it. But if they did know, why would they not have left some object to be found next to the body that would have suggested the “intruder” used it?


Have you ever considered why the stager selected a paintbrush then chose to break it?
I think the stager(s) selected the paintbrush to use in the ligature so investigators wouldn’t realize it had been used to sexually assault JonBenet. They did everything they could to hide the fact that she had been sexually assaulted. That’s why the end of the paintbrush was never found -- it had evidence on it of what had happened. The Ramseys didn’t want the sexual aspects to be found -- just in case the person who caused her death was ever found out. Fraticide wouldn’t be anywhere near as humiliating as the public knowing about the incest. But this is all JMO.


IMO, both breaking the paintbrush and ligature asphyxiating JonBenet are redundant acts in a Kidnapping Crime-Scene.
Okay.


It could only mask any acute, antemortem assault, any prior partially healed assaults would yield evidence of chronic abuse.
...and that’s assuming they were aware of any prior assaults or molestations. If, as many believe, it was John responsible for the prior molestations, then that might be more in line with that possibility.


That's precisely my point. So the Kidnapping Scenario postdates all her other injuries.
Okay, maybe I’m getting lost here. I thought you were saying they tried to make it look like a "kidnapping scenario." Why find the body in their home?


So was the paintbrush broken prior to it being used to assault JonBenet?
Nope. There would have been much more internal damage were that the case.


If it was broken afterwards, how come there are splinters inside JonBenet?
The splinters (as I understand) are microscopic. That’s also what was indicated by (and I hate to give him credit for anything because he’s done so much to damage this case) Werner Spitz in the CBS docu-series. Look at the condition of the paintbrush. It’s old and the varnish is flaking off, possibly accounting for the “birefringent foreign material” which was found in the Microscopic Section of the AR. The exposed wood surface could very easily account for the microscopic wood fibers that some have referred to as “splinters.”
 
Where was the foreign DNA found? On the waistband of the longjohns or the waistband of the underwear?
 
Since the strangulation caused her death, this is obvious. But the argent line (white line) and the furrow are both evidence that the (or “a”) ligature was on her neck postmortem in both locations. There is no evidence that there was any other type of “neck compression” besides the ligature -- again, not proof in itself that it did not occur -- just that it’s unlikely since there is no expected evidence of it.


Correct.


Most likely, but that’s evidence-based theory (which I tend to agree with, BTW). I theorize even more specifically that the sexual assault took place prior to any of the other insults.


That’s essentially what Dr. Meyer wrote in the AR.


What does that response have to do with a “prior strangulation?”


Okay. If you wish to assume that, just realize that that’s all it is: an assumption.


EXACTLY! I don’t think (and this is JMO) the parents (that’s right -- I’ll name the “stagers” -- John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey) even knew about the head blow. But that’s just my opinion. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence that proves or disproves it. But if they did know, why would they not have left some object to be found next to the body that would have suggested the “intruder” used it?


I think the stager(s) selected the paintbrush to use in the ligature so investigators wouldn’t realize it had been used to sexually assault JonBenet. They did everything they could to hide the fact that she had been sexually assaulted. That’s why the end of the paintbrush was never found -- it had evidence on it of what had happened. The Ramseys didn’t want the sexual aspects to be found -- just in case the person who caused her death was ever found out. Fraticide wouldn’t be anywhere near as humiliating as the public knowing about the incest. But this is all JMO.


Okay.


...and that’s assuming they were aware of any prior assaults or molestations. If, as many believe, it was John responsible for the prior molestations, then that might be more in line with that possibility.


Okay, maybe I’m getting lost here. I thought you were saying they tried to make it look like a "kidnapping scenario." Why find the body in their home?


Nope. There would have been much more internal damage were that the case.


The splinters (as I understand) are microscopic. That’s also what was indicated by (and I hate to give him credit for anything because he’s done so much to damage this case) Werner Spitz in the CBS docu-series. Look at the condition of the paintbrush. It’s old and the varnish is flaking off, possibly accounting for the “birefringent foreign material” which was found in the Microscopic Section of the AR. The exposed wood surface could very easily account for the microscopic wood fibers that some have referred to as “splinters.”

otg,
There is no evidence that there was any other type of “neck compression” besides the ligature -- again, not proof in itself that it did not occur -- just that it’s unlikely since there is no expected evidence of it.
I agree there is no apparent evidence of antemortem compression, but this is not sufficient to rule it out.

Most likely, but that’s evidence-based theory (which I tend to agree with, BTW). I theorize even more specifically that the sexual assault took place prior to any of the other insults.
ITA. For the record I'm suggesting the assault with the paintbrush came after a prior acute sexual assault, for which it was intended to mask or obfuscate. Otherwise all you have is a staged sexual assault.

I'm assuming the stager was aware of a prior antemortem sexual assault so applied 3 so to obscure it?
What does that response have to do with a “prior strangulation?”
q.v. below.

I'm assuming the stager was aware JonBenet had already been antemortem strangled, by whatever means, so applied 4 to obscure it?
Okay. If you wish to assume that, just realize that that’s all it is: an assumption.
Its an inference based on two facts:

1. The application of the paintbrush internally was intended as staging to mask a prior event.

2. No staging was enacted for the antemortem blunt force trauma.

i.e. if there were no prior antemortem compression of the neck then there would be nothing needing masked, alike the unknown antemortem blunt force trauma.

EXACTLY! I don’t think (and this is JMO) the parents (that’s right -- I’ll name the “stagers” -- John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey) even knew about the head blow. But that’s just my opinion. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence that proves or disproves it. But if they did know, why would they not have left some object to be found next to the body that would have suggested the “intruder” used it?
ITA, JR and PR are the stagers. q.v. above.

I think the stager(s) selected the paintbrush to use in the ligature so investigators wouldn’t realize it had been used to sexually assault JonBenet. They did everything they could to hide the fact that she had been sexually assaulted. That’s why the end of the paintbrush was never found -- it had evidence on it of what had happened. The Ramseys didn’t want the sexual aspects to be found -- just in case the person who caused her death was ever found out. Fraticide wouldn’t be anywhere near as humiliating as the public knowing about the incest. But this is all JMO.
mmm, but why bother breaking the paintbrush, why not simply remove it alike other missing items?

How did the parents know the paintbrush was used to assault JonBenet?

Okay, maybe I’m getting lost here. I thought you were saying they tried to make it look like a "kidnapping scenario." Why find the body in their home?
I'm agreeing with you but for emphasis underlining all her injuries have nothing to do with an abduction for ransom, so cannot form part of the abduction scenario.

The splinters (as I understand) are microscopic. That’s also what was indicated by (and I hate to give him credit for anything because he’s done so much to damage this case) Werner Spitz in the CBS docu-series. Look at the condition of the paintbrush. It’s old and the varnish is flaking off, possibly accounting for the “birefringent foreign material” which was found in the Microscopic Section of the AR. The exposed wood surface could very easily account for the microscopic wood fibers that some have referred to as “splinters.”
I'm assuming you consider the splinters found inside JonBenet to be artifact originating from the paintbrush? Particularly since you consider that the paintbrush was not broken prior to its use, hence no loose splinters available?

Was JonBenet internally assaulted only once by the paintbrush, i.e. by the person who initially assaulted her resulting in the end of the paintbrush revealing evidence of a sexual assault?

Since Patsy put the remaining piece of paintbrush back into the paint-tote, forensic discovery appears to be the last thing on her mind?

She could have elected to run the paintbrush under the tap, to wash it clean of any evidential residue?

Presumably, by elimination, you assume Burke Ramsey sexually assaulted JonBenet with the paintbrush?

.
 
Where was the foreign DNA found? On the waistband of the longjohns or the waistband of the underwear?

AlGx,
From memory it was on the underwear waistband and the crotch of the underwear mingled with her blood.

There is nothing to discount the dna simply being touch-dna, and arriving on the crotch of the size-12's via gravity.


.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
2,734
Total visitors
2,869

Forum statistics

Threads
602,555
Messages
18,142,473
Members
231,435
Latest member
jessicawilliams0
Back
Top