I can't find a hole in this theory...

[redheadedgal]

... The reason I mention it here is that the flashlight must have been wiped down for some reason, so could it be the flashlight was inserted in her vagina?

what would be the point of wiping down the batteries too in this scenario?

 

[DeeDee249]

Dodie, as I understand it JBR's vaginal tissues showed signs of chronic inflammation, i.e. something irritating them on a regular basis in addition to the acute injury from the paintbrush handle on the night of her death. Her vagina was assessed by some doctors reviewing the ME's findings as being much larger than the typical 6-year-old's.

The ME who performed the autopsy thought that JBR had been penetrated by one or more fingers, but not subjected to full-on penile intercourse, since her hymen was pushed aside but intact. However, if her vagina was indeed much larger than others in her age group - which was not a finding of the original ME - then she might have been penetrated by a penis, even though her hymen was not actually torn. (Although the ME does not explicitly say so, it makes sense that she might have been penetrated by objects, in addition to - or instead of - fingers or penises.)

At autopsy, there appeared to be an acute injury, with bleeding, from the broken paintbrush on the night of her death - a laceration, in all likelihood - with a small fragment of the wooden handle left behind. This was in addition to the chronic inflammation (i.e., moderate engorgement) of her vaginal wall.

If I am wrong on any of these points, I hope others will correct me.

The original ME (Mayer) may very well have found that she may have been penetrated by an object- and simply chose not to put it in the report. After all, he found a partial FINGERPRINT on the body and "decided NOT to put it in he report". He also chose NOT to put in the report that he told the police preset at the autopsy that she had been likely penetrated by a finger. The wood fragments (or even whole missing paintbrush piece" are simply noted as "cellulose".

 

[Chrishope]

what would be the point of wiping down the batteries too in this scenario?

I don't know. Seems excessive. Just wondering why, if it was the golf club that was used to crack her skull, why the flashlight was wiped, inside or outside. Ramsey prints on a Ramsey flashlight wouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Maybe if the cap on the end, where you put the batteries was loose something got inside the flashlight? Maybe it was wiped not to remove fingerprints, but to remove something else?

 

[DeeDee249]

what would be the point of wiping down the batteries too in this scenario?

That's easy. So they could day the flashlight wasn't THEIRS. If R prints are on the batteries, doesn't really matter whether the light itself has been wiped- it's THEIRS.

 

[Bonnette]

The original ME (Mayer) may very well have found that she may have been penetrated by an object- and simply chose not to put it in the report. After all, he found a partial FINGERPRINT on the body and "decided NOT to put it in he report". He also chose NOT to put in the report that he told the police preset at the autopsy that she had been likely penetrated by a finger. The wood fragments (or even whole missing paintbrush piece" are simply noted as "cellulose".

Right, DeeDee. Good points. Wonder what else he might have left out...

 

[otg]

On another thread there has been quite a discussion of the maglite vs a golf club as the instrument that was used on her skull. The golf club seems the more likely implement. The reason I mention it here is that the flashlight must have been wiped down for some reason, so could it be the flashlight was inserted in her vagina?

No.

http://www.maglite.com/anatomy_spare_D.asp
.

 

[InstantProof]

I don't know. Seems excessive. Just wondering why, if it was the golf club that was used to crack her skull, why the flashlight was wiped, inside or outside. Ramsey prints on a Ramsey flashlight wouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

IMO it was wiped down because it was used to see around the house without turning lights on the neighbors might see, and they couldn't be sure if a neighbor would report seeing a flashlight being used in the house, although in reality it would still be logical for there to be a flashlight with their prints. But then the intruder would have to have come and gone with his own.

 

[Chrishope]

No.

http://www.maglite.com/anatomy_spare_D.asp
.

I'm sorry, I'm not following your reasoning. Why not?

 

[OpenMind4U]

I'm sorry, I'm not following your reasoning. Why not?

O God!....You made me cry...laughing....sorry...please see dimensions of the 'MegLite Anatomy' in attached by otg link....Please, o please 'Don't you dare go there!', Patsy said

 

[sandover]

No, it doesn't hinge on him being afraid, but it does hinge on him killing JB. We're just speculating on what the reason might be.

Well, if he wasn't afraid, then it was pure sadism, which seems unlikely. But if you have a motive that doesn't have to do with anxiety/fear/guilt/shame etc, please share.

 

[otg]

Not wrong, but buying into the prevailing interpretation which may be, in part, wrong. She may have been jabbed with the paint brush handle, but that is not certain. The reason people think that is their interpretation of the autopsy report where it says "birefringent material". People think that means cellulose, which is birefringent, and they think it comes from the wooden handle, which is a possibility. But many things are birefringent, including cotton fibers -because of the cellulose in the cell walls. So it may be nothing more than a cotton fiber from her day of the week panties, which were 100% cotton.

That said, I do not have as many books on the case as some others, and maybe so and so said such and such and it was determined that "birefringent material" is from the wood handle of the paintbrush. So maybe someone else will weigh in.

Birefringent by the way means double refraction of light. (I've oversimplified, for my sake).

I saw something about penile penetration too, but can't find it now.

No one (not even the medical examiner) can say with certainty that the vaginal penetration was from a finger, or a paintbrush, or anything else. Dr. Meyer is reported to have said that the injuries to her vagina were "consistent with digital penetration". That's it. That's all he said about it. "Consistent with" simply means that based on his experience, it did not look like the type of injuries that would ordinarily be seen in a rape case.

The "birefringent foreign material" is what was noted in the autopsy report. Dr. Meyer didn't know exactly what it was before testing results came back -- so he didn't speculate about it in the AR. Many things are birefringent. I believe it was Dr. Wecht who was just certain that it was the talcum powder from rubber gloves.

The "cellulose" was identified from other sources. I think PMPT was first:

On November 5, Detective Weinheimer arrived in St. Clair Shores, Michigan, to meet Dr. Werner Spitz, one of the world’s foremost forensic pathologists. Weinheimer took with him a stack of black-and-white photographs of the cellulose that coroner John Meyer had found in JonBenét’s vagina.

Finally, the detectives turned to the microscopic splinter of cellulose found in JonBenet’s vagina, which looked like wood. The broken paintbrush that had been tied to the stick was splintered into shards. Logic suggested that a splinter of wood might have stuck to the perpetrator’s finger before he or she penetrated JonBenét vaginally. It could also have broken off the end of the paintbrush if the stick, rather than a finger, was used to penetrate her.

Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller

But the most complete description yet to come out is from James Kolar. The following is from the hard work of KoldKase transcribing from his book at FFJ:

Dr. Meyer conducted an external examination of JonBenét’s
genitalia. [snip]

He observed that there was fresh trauma located at the 7:00
o’clock position at the hymeneal opening. The area was inflamed

Page 57

and had been bleeding, and it appeared to Dr. Meyer that a foreign
object had been inserted into JonBenét’s genitalia at or near the
time of her death.

The site of the damaged tissue was excised and prepared for
a pathology slide. Later examination would reveal the presence of
‘cellulose material’ in the membrane of the hymeneal opening that
was consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle
in the cord of the garrote.

He noted that he didn’t consider this injury the result of
a particularly vicious assault with a foreign object. A very small
splinter of material was discovered during microscopic examination,
and more trauma to the site would have been expected if the
perpetrator had been intent on physically torturing the child.
Dr. Meyer also observed signs of chronic inflammation around
the vaginal orifice and believed that these injuries had been
inflicted in the days or weeks before the acute injury that was
responsible for causing the bleeding at the time of her death.
This irritation appeared consistent with prior sexual contact.

[snip]

Dr. Meyer called together the Boulder County Child Fatality
Advisory Review Team that afternoon, a protocol established by
the coroner’s office that called for the review of all child fatalities
that took place in the county. Members who served on the team
were comprised of people from the Boulder Police Department,
Boulder County Coroner’s Office, the Boulder County Sheriff’s
Department, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, and the
Boulder County Department of Social Services.

The team was provided with a briefing on what had taken
place at the Ramsey home following the report of the kidnapping,
and Dr. Meyer gave an overview of the autopsy findings. A number
of things were discussed during the meeting, and the group
determined that there were a number of questions that needed to
be researched.

They were interested in the family history and wanted to know
if there had been any signs of previous sexual abuse with members
of the family. There was an interest in determining if there had
been any recent behavioral changes with the children at their
schools. It was suggested that the teachers and classmates of
JonBenét and Burke be interviewed.

[snip]

Page 60

[snip].

Following the meeting, Dr. Meyer returned to the morgue
with Dr. Andy Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital
Child Protection Team, so that a second opinion could be
rendered on the injuries observed to the vaginal area of JonBenét.
He would observe the same injuries that Dr. Meyer had noted
during the autopsy protocol and concurred that a foreign object
had been inserted into the opening of JonBenét’s vaginal orifice
and was responsible for the acute injury witnessed at the 7:00
o’clock position.

Further inspection revealed that the hymen was shriveled and
retracted, a sign that JonBenét had been subjected to some type of
sexual contact prior to the date of her death.

Dr. Sirontak could not provide an opinion as to how old
those injuries were or how many times JonBenét may have been
assaulted and would defer to the expert opinions of other medical
examiners.

Dr. Meyer was concerned about JonBenét’s
vaginal injuries, and he, along with Boulder
investigators, sought the opinions of a variety of other physicians
in the days following her autopsy. Dr. Sirontak, a pediatrician
with Denver Children’s Hospital, had recognized signs of prior
sexual trauma but neither he nor Dr. Meyer were able to say with
any degree of certainty what period of time may have been
involved in the abuse.

Experts in their field, physicians and forensic pathologists
were consulted from St. Louis, Missouri; Dade County, Florida;
Wayne County, Michigan, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to name
just a few. They examined the series of photographs that depicted
the injuries and came to the opinion that JonBenet had been
subjected to sexual intrusion prior to the insertion of the foreign
object that had created the injury at the time of her death.

Page 63

It was their opinion that the type of injury present with the
hymen suggested that several different contacts had been made in
the past and that digital penetration was consistent with this type
of injury. The physicians were unable to date the previous injury
or specifically quantify the number of times JonBenét had been
assaulted, but were confident in their opinions that she had
been subjected to sexual contact prior to the day of her murder.

This particular information suggested that someone close to
JonBenét had been responsible for abusing her in the weeks or
months preceding her murder. As is often the case involving this
type of childhood abuse, investigators had to consider the possibility
that a family member, relative, or someone close to the inner
circle of the family was responsible for the prior acts and possibly
the murder of JonBenét. Someone had to have had access to
JonBenét on repeated occasions to have perpetrated these injuries.

Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?, James Kolar

Oneirate:to another.
.

 

[Chrishope]

O God!....You made me cry...laughing....sorry...please see dimensions of the 'MegLite Anatomy' in attached by otg link....Please, o please 'Don't you dare go there!', Patsy said

So you're saying a barrel diameter of less than 2" could not be inserted?

 

[otg]

I'm sorry, I'm not following your reasoning. Why not?

I'm sorry, CH. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was short and to the point. The flashlight was a Maglight brand with three size-D batteries. That would not be "consistent with digital penetration".
.

 

[otg]

So you're saying a barrel diameter of less than 2" could not be inserted?

Come on, CH. Get real. We're talking about a six-year-old girl.
.

 

[Chrishope]

Well, if he wasn't afraid, then it was pure sadism, which seems unlikely. But if you have a motive that doesn't have to do with anxiety/fear/guilt/shame etc, please share.

In your post 337 you said "DocG's theory does NOT hinge on anything to do with JR being afraid that JB was going to tell on him. Not a thing."

I agreed that it does not hinge on JR being afraid. Perhaps I should have added "of JB telling on him".

I said it hinges on JR killing JBR, which I think you and I agree on.

Some of us were speculating on why JR killed her - what his motive might be.

So you seem to agree JR is the killer, and you state that doc's theory doesn't hinge on JR being afraid of JB telling on him, so why are you asking me for a motive that doesn't include fear?

What is your theory?

 

[Bonnette]

Chrishope, my take on it is that since JBR's hymen was present but pushed aside, it is very unlikely that full penetration could have occurred with the flashlight - but it's certainly possible that attempts were made.

There was a case where I live of a little girl close to JBR's age who was repeatedly abused with a microphone whose diameter wasn't much smaller than the flashlight barrel. Her abuse didn't start with the microphone, however - the abuser "worked up" to it by penetrating her with smaller objects first. JBR's hymen could have been gradually pushed aside in a similar manner. But I think that full penetration with the flashlight would have caused quite pronounced and distinctive genital damage.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Years ago, I used my kids fingerprinting kit to test for fingerprints on our household mag light and it's batteries. I was unable to lift anything discernable. Everything just looked like smudges. I did it again a few days later when I visited my parents and did theirs, with the same result.

I do not believe it was wiped down.

I'm curious, has anyone else conducted similar tests?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chrishope]

Come on, CH. Get real. We're talking about a six-year-old girl.
.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume5/j5_1_2.htm

"...[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]the transverse diameter of the average adult erect penis is approximately 3.5 cm (35 mm)..." The maglite isn't that much bigger at 39.67mm

I understand that the injuries didn't look like rape, to Dr. Meyer, but rather digital penetration, but are you saying that insertion of an average size penis would not be possible?
[/FONT]

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope, my take on it is that since JBR's hymen was present but pushed aside, it is very unlikely that full penetration could have occurred with the flashlight - but it's certainly possible that attempts were made.

There was a case where I live of a little girl close to JBR's age who was repeatedly abused with a microphone whose diameter wasn't much smaller than the flashlight barrel. Her abuse didn't start with the microphone, however - the abuser "worked up" to it by penetrating her with smaller objects first. JBR's hymen could have been gradually pushed aside in a similar manner. But I think that full penetration with the flashlight would have caused quite pronounced and distinctive genital damage.

I wasn't thinking full penetration in the sense of inserting it the full length, sorry if I was not clear on that. I was just thinking that the smaller end of the light could have been inserted. The abuse had apparently gone on for some time, so I think it could have been a situation similar to what you describe with the microphone.

 

[Chrishope]

Years ago, I used my kids fingerprinting kit to test for fingerprints on our household mag light and it's batteries. I was unable to lift anything discernable. Everything just looked like smudges. I did it again a few days later when I visited my parents and did theirs, with the same result.

I do not believe it was wiped down.

I'm curious, has anyone else conducted similar tests?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It makes sense as far as batteries go. The batteries tend to be "dropped" sliding through the fingers. Seems odd you can't get prints off the outside though.