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

[txsvicki]

The chronic irritation didn't seem to extend up into the vagina. I'm still wondering if some crazed cleaning at dress up time wasn't responsible.

 

[UKGuy]

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:
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:
Oneirate:to another.
.

otg,
Coroner Meyer verbatim remarks are:

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

Along with Kolar's summary, it seems Meyer and other pathologists were of the opinion that JonBenet, had been molested, abused, or sexually assaulted.

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.

Once its known as birefringent then what it is composed will also be known, courtesy of spectral analysis. Cellulose is birefringent.


It looks to me as if JonBenet had an acute episode of molestation, followed up later by possible staging, e.g. insertion of the paintbrush?

Or was the use of the paintbrush part of the acute episode?



.

 

[rashomon]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? They were suspects in the murder of their own daughter. Why should we believe anything they say?

That's not the point.
For according to your theory, Patsy was clueless about what had really happened; your theory hinges on Patsy having unintentionally spoiled John's plans by calling the police.

But then she would have had no reason to lie and state that it was JOHN who told her to call the police.

If you have a different interpretation of those facts, please share.

Ask and you shall receive:

Fact: Patsy is the one who made the call, not John. No amount of testimony by either of them can change that FACT.

That Patsy made the call was never in dispute.
What is rejected as not being supported by evidence is the explanation you have offered why it was not John who made the call.

Fact: The call was made prior to 6 AM, with the body still in the house.

They were stuck with a dead body in the house, yes. Their daughter's dead body, which they either could not bring themselves to dump outisde, or which they did not dare to transport in the car and dump outside, fearing the risk to be seen.

Hence their attempt to invent 'outsiders' - the 'SFF' who had allegedly intruded into the home and done this to JonBenet.

Fact: The note contained dire warnings NOT to call the police.

Logical inference: the person who wrote the note would not have wanted the police called at that time.

But Doc, you forget that it was a faked ransom note. A faked RN that was a jumbled cocoction mixed with phrases from gangster flicks.
Logical inference: The writer of the RN therefore knew that the threats in the RN had no basis in reality.

Keep it simple, Doc!

 

[otg]

otg,
Coroner Meyer verbatim remarks are:

Along with Kolar's summary, it seems Meyer and other pathologists were of the opinion that JonBenet, had been molested, abused, or sexually assaulted.


Once its known as birefringent then what it is composed will also be known, courtesy of spectral analysis. Cellulose is birefringent.


It looks to me as if JonBenet had an acute episode of molestation, followed up later by possible staging, e.g. insertion of the paintbrush?

Or was the use of the paintbrush part of the acute episode?
.

Uhhhhh....... You know that the "cellulose" is a reference to wood, don't you?

From Wikipedia:

Cellulose is the structural component of the primary cell wall of green plants, many forms of algae and the oomycetes. Some species of bacteria secrete it to form biofilms. Cellulose is the most common organic compound on Earth. About 33% of all plant matter is cellulose (the cellulose content of cotton is 90% and that of wood is 40–50%).

Many things are birefringent that are not cellulose.
Many things are cellulose that are not wood.
Many things are wood that did not come from a paintbrush.
Many paintbrush woods are not the same as this particular paintbrush.
It can't get any more clear than saying the splinter found embedded in JonBenet's vaginal wall was "consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote."
You won't hear them state, "It came from this paintbrush."
You won't hear the coroner say, "It was digital penetration."
Since they were not there, they did not witness the act, the closest we will get is "consistent with" statements.

I don't see what's hard to understand here.

Did the splinter come directly from the paintbrush, or was it transferred by a finger which had picked it up while breaking the paintbrush? We will probably never know the answer to that. But that is why we have different opinions on what happened. Too many variables -- too many ways to interpret them.
.

 

[redheadedgal]

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.

i was thread challenged earlier when i asked this... i thought i was responding to a comment about why an intruder would wipe down the batteries after he assaulted jonbenet with a flashlight he used from the home... that scenario did not make any sense to me lol

 

[UKGuy]

Uhhhhh....... You know that the "cellulose" is a reference to wood, don't you?

From Wikipedia:Many things are birefringent that are not cellulose.
Many things are cellulose that are not wood.
Many things are wood that did not come from a paintbrush.
Many paintbrush woods are not the same as this particular paintbrush.
It can't get any more clear than saying the splinter found embedded in JonBenet's vaginal wall was "consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote."
You won't hear them state, "It came from this paintbrush."
You won't hear the coroner say, "It was digital penetration."
Since they were not there, they did not witness the act, the closest we will get is "consistent with" statements.

I don't see what's hard to understand here.

Did the splinter come directly from the paintbrush, or was it transferred by a finger which had picked it up while breaking the paintbrush? We will probably never know the answer to that. But that is why we have different opinions on what happened. Too many variables -- too many ways to interpret them.
.

otg,
I found your original post ambiguous and partial in its content, also there was a reference to talcum powder.

From Wikipedia:Many things are birefringent that are not cellulose.
Many things are cellulose that are not wood.
Many things are wood that did not come from a paintbrush.
Many paintbrush woods are not the same as

Is that a dummies guide to cellulose or what. I'll say it again, if the autopsy report says it was birefringent, then they will know precisely what its made of.

Did the splinter come directly from the paintbrush, or was it transferred by a finger which had picked it up while breaking the paintbrush?

Unless the acute sexual activity also involved the paintbrush, its seems likely the former is the case.

It looks increasingly probable that the paintbrush was used both to stage a sexual assault and fabricate the garrote.

The use of the paintbrush is linked directly to Patsy.



.

 

[UKGuy]

But Doc, you forget that it was a fakedransom note. A faked RN that was a jumbled cocoction mixed with phrases from gangster flicks.
Logical inference: The writer of the RN therefore knew that the threats in the RN had no basis in reality.

Keep it simple, Doc!

rashomon,
Thats the mistake amatuer sleuthers make all the time, conflating staged forensic evidence with whats genuine.

If you know the ransom note is fake, then you cannot draw any valid inferences from it.

Patsy's fibers place her at the crime-scene, her version of events is inconsistent with the evidence, e.g. size-12's and the pineapple. Her recurring amnesia during interviews, all points to her colluding with John!


.

 

[SyraKelly]

I don't know about the secret santa stuff, but I agree that JBR telling on JR, and therefore JR needing to kill her is a less likely scenario. If she did threaten to tell, I think he'd talk her out of it. And I suspect you are probably right that she didn't threaten to tell.

But there is another reason for her death that still fits doc's theory. As Cyril Wecht theorized, the garrotte may have been part of an asphyxiation sex game. Possible.

It doesn't make sense, to me, that JR/PR conspired to have the police find a body and a note. It strikes me as a very unlikely plan. So I'm sticking with the doc theory, even though I can't guess exactly why JB was killed.

I do agree with you though, killing JB over a threat to tell seems unlikely. I'm sure JR figured he could talk his way out of that situation, if it even happened.

I have a question about the above-I am 47 yrs old & I had never heard of this until a couple of yrs ago when David Carradine killed him self doing this
Was this game well known in 1996-I mean-how likely is it that John Ramsey would even know such a game existed back then,with no internet in those days?Do people really think he would do such a horrible thing to his own daughter?

 

[blefuscu]

If both PR and JR are complicit in the crime why the need to lie about JBR eating pineapple? Is pineapple illegal in Colorado? :floorlaugh:

PR definitely made the 911 call. We know that. However after that she was doped up to the eyeballs on some serious medication. Her recollection of events is going to be cloudy at best. JR is a very powerful businessman, and he didn't get there by accident. He obviously has a hold over people. So surely it's not beyond comprehension that he suggests to PR what happened that morning. I'm sure after the amount of sedatives he would be able to convince PR of just about anything.

PR doted on JBR. She wanted to make her into a miniture version of herself, which is pretty creepy in my opinion, but doesn't fit in with a mother who doesnt care about her child. I have a daughter who wet the bed until she was 10. Of course it was annoying but I never found myself in a position where I felt that I needed to fracture her skull because of it. I can't see how PR getting angry with JBR for wetting the bed would bring her to kill her beloved child.

If BR was abusing his sister and he whacked her over the head injuring her why did the parents feel the need to garrott JBR? If he is under the age of prosecution in Colorado then surely a course of therapy would be administered to BR and that's that. No need to garrott JBR, attempt to cover it up (badly) and write a RN.

The window thing is ludicrous. So JR can't remember when or how he broke in? He stripped off, slithered through an opening and never got it fixed, despite average winter temperatures of 20.6F , or -7C for us in the UK. Why the heck would BR be playing, sat still, with trains with a breeze of that temp coming in the room. Surely he'd be complaining of feeling the cold.

The RN is odd. Why would PR use notepaper, pens and idioms that could be traced back to her if she was staging a kidnapping? Having looked at the comparisons between the note, JR's handwriting and PR's handwriting I have to say that JR's looks more like the note than PR's does. Even so, the person who wrote it is going to try and disguise their writing.

Why would PR ring 911 if she knew JBR was in the WC? She's not stupid, she would know that the police are going to respond pretty damn quickly to a frantic mother, claiming that her young child has gone missing and a ransom note has been left. This isn't a child wandering away in a mall and getting lost. It's supposed to be a wealthy family having their child snatched away and a note being left demanding a ransom.

For me the FACTS point towards JR. Chronic abuse was suspected by the medical examiner. The note was very factual and specific, very logical. The window obviously hadn't been used by an intruder. The body was left at the scene.

Docg's theory seems pretty damn good to me.

 

[OpenMind4U]

I have a question about the above-I am 47 yrs old & I had never heard of this until a couple of yrs ago when David Carradine killed him self doing this
Was this game well known in 1996-I mean-how likely is it that John Ramsey would even know such a game existed back then,with no internet in those days?Do people really think he would do such a horrible thing to his own daughter?

SK, I don't know if such a 'game' was known or practiced in 1996. Very possible it was. However, you have to ask yourself if this so called sexual game is even applicable in reference to JBR murder. Kolar talks about a lot in his book. And we should think logically here as well. JBR head injury was catastropfic/lethal injury that placed her in comotose stage immidietly. And it was suggested that the time between this head injury and strangulation is almost 90 min. So, what would be the purpose to play this kind of sexual game with a child who's hardly breathing and not responsive?!!! And I'm sure that this kind of game wasn't played BEFORE the head blow either. Otherwise, we would see much different pattern of her neck injury on autopsy pictures. JMO.

 

[Whaleshark]

I have a question about the above-I am 47 yrs old & I had never heard of this until a couple of yrs ago when David Carradine killed him self doing this
Was this game well known in 1996-I mean-how likely is it that John Ramsey would even know such a game existed back then,with no internet in those days?Do people really think he would do such a horrible thing to his own daughter?

Yes it was known and being practiced in 1996. You can find info and articles about it.... Including school kids talking about it in Colorado.

Well, the game existed long before the Internet did...

John was a grown man with a history of his own experiences and knowledge.

Abuse, sex games, molestation, pedophiles, incest, and all kinds of horrible things have always occurred and existed before the Internet made them mainstream knowledge.

All kinds of fathers, families, and people abuse, molest, rape, and kill children.

Nobody wants to imagine it - but she's violated and dead in the house either way.

A significant amount of children are abused and killed by their own parents.

You may be more exposed to stuff now due to the Internet, but I'm afraid it's always been going on.

Sad as it is, anything is possible.

 

[Bonnette]

I am 47 yrs old & I had never heard of this until a couple of yrs ago when David Carradine killed him self doing this
Was this game well known in 1996-I mean-how likely is it that John Ramsey would even know such a game existed back then,with no internet in those days?Do people really think he would do such a horrible thing to his own daughter?

Autoerotic asphyxiation has been practiced for a long, long time and anyone who was into certain kinds of stimulation games would have been aware of it in 1996. Experimentation along these lines is not limited to adults, either.

David Carradine really put autoerotic asphyxiation on the map, but I remember reading about it long before the singer Michael Hutchence (of INXS) was suspected of killing himself in this manner in 1997 (his death was eventually ruled a suicide). I am 62.

As to someone's capacity to do this to a family member, I think history has proven that to some people, no barriers of any kind exist. I have no idea whether or not this was true of anyone in the Ramsey family.

 

[otg]

otg,
I found your original post ambiguous and partial in its content, also there was a reference to talcum powder.

I'm sorry you found it so, UKG. I keep trying to get it on a simpler level to make it understandable. The reference to the talc was to point out that even an "expert" doesn't know what the birefringent material might be with nothing more to go on than that. Too many things are birefringent.

My understanding (and maybe DD or someone else can help me here) is that different types of lights are used during an autopsy to look for trace evidence that might be too small to be noticed otherwise. One is a Wood's lamp (a specialized type of black light), which is what illuminated the smears on her legs that were "consistent with" semen (but which of course testing found to be wiped blood). Another type of light assists in looking for anything "foreign", as it will illuminate small trace evidence. If something is found and it cannot be identified, the coroner simply describes it for the purpose of identification (in this case as birefringent) and marks it for testing (bagging and tagging).

Is that a dummies guide to cellulose or what. I'll say it again, if the autopsy report says it was birefringent, then they will know precisely what its made of.

Call it a dummy's guide if you want, but you still don't seem to get it. I'll try one more time to explain it.

Birefringent does NOT tell anyone precisely what it is made of. It only tells you ONE of the properties of what was found. But many other things have that same property. I won't try to list them here, but you can look up the word on Wikipedia and go to "Examples of uniaxial birefringent materials" if you are truly interested in knowing.

Unless the acute sexual activity also involved the paintbrush, its seems likely the former is the case.

It looks increasingly probable that the paintbrush was used both to stage a sexual assault and fabricate the garrote.

I thought at first you had it, but then you said it was probable that it was used to "stage a sexual assault".

:banghead:

The use of the paintbrush is linked directly to Patsy.

How so?
.

 

[sandover]

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?

I took your post to mean you thought there was a motive that didn't involve a variant of fear. I agree JR needn't think JB was going to "tell" on him. But it seems likely to me that JR had some anxiety or guilt that led him to the act. (I'd consider guilt a close cousin to fear.)

So I was just asking you if you have a theory of motive outside of the "family" of fear emotions.

 

[otg]

I have a question about the above-I am 47 yrs old & I had never heard of this until a couple of yrs ago when David Carradine killed him self doing this
Was this game well known in 1996-I mean-how likely is it that John Ramsey would even know such a game existed back then,with no internet in those days?Do people really think he would do such a horrible thing to his own daughter?

Long before David Carradine, there was Albert Dekker:

​

He was found naked, kneeling ("partial hanging", DD) in his bathtub with a noose wrapped around his neck that was looped around the shower's curtain rod. He was also handcuffed, blindfolded, gagged and had sexually explicit words scrawled on his body in red lipstick. The coroner's ruling was accidental death by autoerotic asphyxiation.

But it goes back much further than that, SK. It is believed that it started when criminals were hung in public executions, and it was noticed that sometimes men would die with... ahhhem... (author lowers voice to whisper) noticeable erections.

(Edited to answer the last part of your question):
No, I do not believe that.
.

 

[UKGuy]

I'm sorry you found it so, UKG. I keep trying to get it on a simpler level to make it understandable. The reference to the talc was to point out that even an "expert" doesn't know what the birefringent material might be with nothing more to go on than that. Too many things are birefringent.

My understanding (and maybe DD or someone else can help me here) is that different types of lights are used during an autopsy to look for trace evidence that might be too small to be noticed otherwise. One is a Wood's lamp (a specialized type of black light), which is what illuminated the smears on her legs that were "consistent with" semen (but which of course testing found to be wiped blood). Another type of light assists in looking for anything "foreign", as it will illuminate small trace evidence. If something is found and it cannot be identified, the coroner simply describes it for the purpose of identification (in this case as birefringent) and marks it for testing (bagging and tagging).

Call it a dummy's guide if you want, but you still don't seem to get it. I'll try one more time to explain it.

Birefringent does NOT tell anyone precisely what it is made of. It only tells you ONE of the properties of what was found. But many other things have that same property. I won't try to list them here, but you can look up the word on Wikipedia and go to "Examples of uniaxial birefringent materials" if you are truly interested in knowing.

I thought at first you had it, but then you said it was probable that it was used to "stage a sexual assault".

:banghead:

How so?
.

otg,

Call it a dummy's guide if you want, but you still don't seem to get it. I'll try one more time to explain it.

Birefringent does NOT tell anyone precisely what it is made of. It only tells you ONE of the properties of what was found. But many other things have that same property. I won't try to list them here, but you can look up the word on Wikipedia and go to "Examples of uniaxial birefringent materials" if you are truly interested in knowing.

With all due respect. If you test some material using spectral analysis and you find out it has the property of being birefringent, then its two indexes, e.g. ordinary-ray and extra-ordinary ray, alone should allow you to identify it from a table of indices, but I guess they use computers to do that too these days. Cellulose is optically biaxial and is highly birefringent.

It could be argued that Coroner Meyer was being economical in his use of words. Rather than state a splinter of wood had been found inside JonBenet, he chose to describe it as birefringent material.

Originally you asked:

Did the splinter come directly from the paintbrush, or was it transferred by a finger which had picked it up while breaking the paintbrush?

That is:

1. Did the splinter come directly from the paintbrush?

2. Transferred by a finger which had picked it up while breaking the paintbrush?

OK unless the episode of acute sexual assault incorporates the paintbrush as part of the sex play, then at this stage no splinter of wood will be on the perpetrators finger, because the paintbrush has not been snapped in two, so far.

When the paintbrush is used as staging it is snapped in two. Now assuming the stager did not digitally assault JonBenet, e.g. why bother with a paintbrush, then the splinter probably originated from the paintbrush being inserted into JonBenet?

The use of the paintbrush is linked directly to Patsy, because her fibers are embedded into the knotting of the ligature/paintbrush garrote.

No doubt you can suggest some other scenario?



.

 

[Britt]

... often times making the call yourself is key to the subterfuge because not calling will be extremely suspicious. That's the big hole in this theory as far as I am concerned, Patsy calling 911 doesn't offer her any protection from suspicion of involvement. If she wrote the note, she knows the threat is not real and worse so, already come to pass...

But Doc, you forget that it was a faked ransom note. A faked RN that was a jumbled cocoction mixed with phrases from gangster flicks.
Logical inference: The writer of the RN therefore knew that the threats in the RN had no basis in reality.

I agree, ozazure and rashomon.

IMO the stagers had to provide an explanation for why JBR would be found dead. The death threats + calling the police = dead kidnap victim. Then Patsy denied having read the whole note, so she could claim ignorance of the "threats."

ETA: I do think the original plan, or one of the plans, was to get JBR's body out of the house to be found elsewhere. I agree with docg that the note attempted to set up that scenario with JR handling it, but he wasn't able to make it happen.

 

[Chrishope]

I have a question about the above-I am 47 yrs old & I had never heard of this until a couple of yrs ago when David Carradine killed him self doing this
Was this game well known in 1996-I mean-how likely is it that John Ramsey would even know such a game existed back then,with no internet in those days?Do people really think he would do such a horrible thing to his own daughter?

I didn't know about it in '96, but I've led a sheltered life I don't know how well known it was.

It's not a theory that has a lot of appeal to me, but I can't rule it out.

 

[Chrishope]

I took your post to mean you thought there was a motive that didn't involve a variant of fear. I agree JR needn't think JB was going to "tell" on him. But it seems likely to me that JR had some anxiety or guilt that led him to the act. (I'd consider guilt a close cousin to fear.)

So I was just asking you if you have a theory of motive outside of the "family" of fear emotions.

I've never had a theory as to motive, under any scenario. I've always thought this was a case where we weren't going to know the motive until we proved who the killer was - and maybe not even then.

I was just agreeing with another poster who did not think it likely JR killed her because she was going to blab. I think he could talk/bribe his way out of that w/o resorting to murder.

Wecht's theory is the only one I can come up with outside of fear.

 

[redheadedgal]

And what do the behavioral experts have to say about a mother who covers for her son by constructing a garotte and strangling her daughter with it? Any precedent for THAT behavior in the books?

you will have to ask the experts if you want their opinion