I do not believe anyone put the cord around her neck with the intent of harm to her. I believe it was placed there as a faux restraint. If you would want to go so far as to call it a game, thats fine, but I dont see it as a game in the sense that Dr. Wecht implies where it was used to tighten and loosen to heighten sexual pleasure. Thats pure bunk. The knot does not allow easy tightening and loosening. If a person wanted to accomplish that, there would be no knot at all -- simply wrapping the cord once around the neck and pulling the ends would work much better for that purpose.
I dont think well ever know the answer to that. Im open to any speculation as the reason, and there is plenty of it all over the forums.
From the AR:
On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule.
The only drops or droplets of blood I am aware of are the ones that are reported to have been in the crotch of her panties. I dont recall where it was reported, but I seem to remember hearing/reading that Meyer could not match the blood pattern in the panties with the actual injuries. But pay attention to what he
does note in the AR, because it is not what most people visualize when they think of droplets of blood:
The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.
Notice he doesnt mention the word blood, and he doesnt use the word droplets. So you have to ask yourself, why not? And this goes to what was done in the staging of her body (IMO). In the process of cleaning her body of vaginal blood, she was wiped down. Evidence of that "wiping" is in the fiber evidence we have heard about and the smearing of blood on her legs. Small amounts of blood remained within the wrinkles and creases of her genitalia (as described more graphically in the earlier AR quote above). With the wet panties pressed against her crotch by the tight longjohns, most likely some of the small amounts of remaining blood was soaked up, mixed and diluted with the urine, and dispersed within the adjacent area of her panties. Meyer doesnt go into that kind of detail explaining what he suspects it is, so he refers to it instead as red areas of staining. As we now know, those areas were tested, confirmed to be her blood by DNA, and mixed with unknown partial DNA from someone else. Also, if Im not mistaken, the unknown partial DNA was found at that time intermixed with her own DNA -- not later when the tDNA was processed. But that is how (IMO) the blood got there and mixed with whatever the other DNA material was that was already in the Bloomies.
As to the blood on her pillow, all we have about it is that Patsy was questioned about whether or not JonBenet had nosebleeds when the interviewers were trying to establish a possible cause for what they referred to as staining on her pillow (see with
Patsys 1998 interview with BPD).
Im not sure about the kind of blood stain (amount, size, shape) that was found on her nightgown, but we know from the DNA results simply that it was established as belonging to JonBenet. It was later when the tDNA was developed that we learned about Patsy's and BR's tDNA being on it, but that
could have an innocent explanation.
There was no blood in her ear. Again, from the AR:
The external auditory canals are patent and free of blood.
Exactly. Why (if that was their purpose in doing it)? I wont repeat my answer unless its not obvious to you.
I would have to disagree with that conclusion. But again, I would be repeating what Ive already said (too many times already).
There was a shower in the basement, a lavatory, and a commode. The unflushed commode was disassembled and the contents were analyzed (but not DNA tested). We dont know the results of whatever testing was done. Investigators
should have also tested all drains for blood (not just in the basement), but I dont know that they did.
Yeah, right. Needless to say, other people dont act like the Ramseys. And it might very well have not been simply a lack of training that was the cause of it all.
To anyone who walked into the Ramsey hellhole, it must have been noticeable unless (as Ive speculated before) there were air fresheners everywhere, especially on the first floor. The door going to the basement was usually closed, but the second floor must have reeked. But to the regular inhabitants, it probably wasnt even noticed since it was the norm. There are many terms for the phenomenon of not noticing a constant smell (sensory adaptation, olfactory fatigue, olfactory adaptation, neural adaptation, habituation, smell saturation) and the cause can be searched if you care to understand it. There is a simple explanation of why our sense of smell is more apt to be affected by this than our other senses
here, as well as an explanation about how a rabbit is able to avoid being affected by it.
