JonBenét Ramsey Case: My Theory & Key Questions

[australianwebsleuth]

The simplicity of this explanation is appealing. The evidence I can't get around is the discovery during autopsy that JBR had blood on her thighs that had been wiped off. Since corpses don't bleed, the blood would have been on her thighs prior to the head blow. This prompts the questions of how it got there, when it was cleaned up, by whom, and so on. Similarly, JBR wouldn't have bled from a paintbrush injury post mortem, although her body might have oozed blood from an earlier injury. The blood found and the blood wiped away are better accounted for by SA prior to the head blow.

I can't make out what you're suggesting about the discovery of the body. The person who turned the body over didn't know JBR was dead until that moment but then applied the garrote and the ligatures? Hunh. That doesn't make sense to me.

I will just add. The vaginal abrasion contained no inflammatory cells. This indicates post mortem wounds. Again suggests staging.

 

[Meara]

Have you heard of staging a corpse? Why do you stage a corpse? Think about it. It makes perfect sense.

I've got the concept of staging. What I'm still wondering is where, in your theory, the (wiped away) blood on JBR's thighs came from. Can you help me understand your thinking on this?

 

[australianwebsleuth]

Not sure how you tell blood had been wiped away tbh. Was it there or was it wiped away? Have you got a photo.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I am trying to tell you the report is actually wrong. His interpretation lacks the required evidence to make his conclusion. As I have said the pattern he describes in the report would no longer be considered adequate for the cause of death being garrotte.

I have looked at the autopsy photos online. I don’t know whether they are real. What he describes as petechiae are not petechiae. They are in the wrong distribution and are almost certainly post mortem abrasions in someone who had livor mortis develop while face down.

In terms of the petechiae on her eye lids. It has been shown these can occur from coughing or even being struck in the head. Was JBR struck in the head?

The case is very simple and requires modern review of the autopsy. It is easily solvable.

I understand you believe the autopsy report is wrong. Are there any qualified forensic pathologists whom you can source who have said the same after examining the evidence?

Your comment about petechia possibly being caused by coughing or a blow to the head followed by the question was JB struck on the head is confusing.

 

[Meara]

Not sure how you tell blood had been wiped away tbh. Was it there or was it wiped away? Have you got a photo.

First, let me make a correction. The traces of wiped away blood were found on one thigh, not on both.

During the autopsy, the ultraviolet light scan revealed traces of a bodily fluid on the upper portion of one thigh. A sample was taken and sent to the CBI lab for testing. The testing identified the fluid as blood.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

First, let me make a correction. The traces of wiped away blood were found on one thigh, not on both.

During the autopsy, the ultraviolet light scan revealed traces of a bodily fluid on the upper portion of one thigh. A sample was taken and sent to the CBI lab for testing. The testing identified the fluid as blood.

So it was not visible with the naked eye. It possibly leaked from a small abrasion. I don’t think it’s important.

I thought about this more. As JBR was face down initially, there is evidence of Livor mortis occurring in this position at the sight of an abrasion.

If you are interested, it’s worth understanding what the features of strangulation look like in the neck. There is usually petechiae above but not below the rope mark. There photos are showing purpuric blobs on both sides of the ligature mark. This is not post strangulation petechiae.

They do NOT show a typical pattern. They are more in keeping with a post mortem rope burn or abrasion, in an area in which livor mortis has begun.

The posterior skin of the neck has no changes at all, the knot shows no bruising. This is where it is most expected. As I have said there is no deep tissue bruising or Haemorrhage. Her conjunctivor do not look like someone who has been strangled. There is evidence of livor spots, again because she was face down.

This is why I think she was dead when garotted as part of staging.

I don’t know whether these photos have been faked by someone. They certainly look real, but there are some real cuckoos on the internet.

 

[CloudedTruth]

The simplicity of this explanation is appealing. The evidence I can't get around is the discovery during autopsy that JBR had blood on her thighs that had been wiped off. Since corpses don't bleed, the blood would have been on her thighs prior to the head blow. This prompts the questions of how it got there, when it was cleaned up, by whom, and so on. Similarly, JBR wouldn't have bled from a paintbrush injury post mortem, although her body might have oozed blood from an earlier injury. The blood found and the blood wiped away are better accounted for by SA prior to the head blow.

I can't make out what you're suggesting about the discovery of the body. The person who turned the body over didn't know JBR was dead until that moment but then applied the garrote and the ligatures? Hunh. That doesn't make sense to me.

IMO, what makes the most sense is what several of the experts indicated, most notably Dr. Lucy Rorke who concluded that the head blow knocked her into a deep unconsciousness. She noted that she may have appeared dead to those without medical knowledge. Her brain and body were in the process of dying, organs would be starting to shut down. The assault with the paint brush happened during this period, so as she was technically still alive, she bled. The garrote came after, and applied while she was lying on her stomach. Given the extremely compromised condition of her body by that point, it would not have taken much for the strangulation to be effective, done from behind as she lay on her stomach. We know that her body voided at the point of death, evidenced by the urine stains on the front of the clothing.

I think it’s also worth noting that the majority of the experts who advised on this case (17 out of 20 IIRC) were in agreement with the conclusion that the head blow came first as put forth by Dr. Rorke, followed by the garroting for which she was still alive, barely, but alive. There have been more than a few forensic pathologists / MEs who have weighed in on the autopsy findings over the years and to my knowledge none have challenged Dr. Meyer’s conclusions. He performed with due diligence by consulting various notable experts in the areas in which his background had not been a focus in his medical education.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

Lucy Rorke has to go through mental gymnastics of her “body shutting down” to explain the lack of expected findings for the garrotte. Basically she recognises there is a problem with the evidence for her to even say this. A simpler explanation is that she was already dead.

Please show one article or reference for petechiae below the ligature in a case of strangulation as the pathologist describes. I will be waiting a long time. This is another red flag.

You keep defending the pathologist and his findings. You ignore the elephant in the room, despite his inexperience, he releases the body too early and fails to take the necessary specimen to conclude that she was alive while garrotted. That is a fact. No amount of expert opinion can compensate for that Snafu. That biopsy is considered the only reliable way to determine whether a garrotte is applied pre or post mortem. The only way.

A more important question is why did he release the body so quickly?

Was pressure brought to bear by an external individual? Was it just incompetence? The answer to this question will explain why there has been no justice for JBR. It becomes a really simple case with the correct autopsy findings.

 

[CloudedTruth]

In the interest of maintaining respectful conversation, a line which you have already crossed, I do not wish to continue this pointless back and forth with you. We have different opinions on this subject, let’s just leave it there, shall we?

My comment was directed to Meara’s post.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

In the interest of maintaining respectful conversation, a line which you have already crossed, I do not wish to continue this pointless back and forth with you. We have different opinions on this subject, let’s just leave it there, shall we?

My comment was directed to Meara’s post.

I will not be silenced on a topic that I know a lot about.

 

[CloudedTruth]

I will not be silenced on a topic that I know a lot about

You can share your opinion as much as you like, no one is silencing you. I simply said I no longer wish to discuss it with you.

 

[proust20]

Has it been confirmed that the paintbrush was used in the final assault? I thought that was just an inference which was made because of a unspecified material found on JonBenet.

Assuming that the head blow occurred first, there was a considerable gap in time between it and the application of the ligature. As this provided time to consider how to proceed, I do not grasp the choice of Patsy's brush for both the assault and the ligature. The staging is meant to deflect and not to distinguish a member of the family. Since the brush had to be broken, something else should have been more utile.

Whoever struck JB could have done it again. That seems a neater solution. If it were presumed that JB were dead from the blow, how did strangulation seem the logical next step? One could aver that the killer was not thinking logically. OK; but the gap in time did offer a chane to simmer down. The amount of staging indicates an active mind(s).

It is not my "idea" that the vast majority (85%) of murder victims know their killer. Given this, it is probable, but not certain, that JonBenet knew hers. The release of the body is a topic mentioned in the RN.

Frankly, I am squeamish about the autopsy photos. Anyway, coroners cannot establish the motive for the murder.

Someone here suggested that the R case was simple to solve!? And the answer is...

 

[australianwebsleuth]

The answer is correct interpretation of the autopsy against the known time line. The autopsy needs review with correct interpretation of the autopsy photos by a brand new committee of experts.

What is obvious to me is moot. It does not carry any value.

In terms of the sexual assault allegations, there is nothing disclosed that would meet modern criteria in the autopsy. I wish people would stop making claims that JBR was assaulted by her parents. We know experts got it wrong in the 1990's. There are criteria now for examining vulvas of pre pubescent girls. Posterior notching of the Hymen is what is considered relevant. JBR had no notching.

In terms paintbrush I was pointing out that the vaginal abrasion detected at autopsy contained no inflammatory cells. That's the point I am making. If she was assaulted by a paint brush, it happened while she was dead. The birefringent material could be talc or cellulose from talcum powder or even toilet paper. I agree there is no evidence at all that it was due to a paintbrush.

 

[CloudedTruth]

in child SAHas it been confirmed that the paintbrush was used in the final assault? I thought that was just an inference which was made because of an unspecified material found on JonBenet.

Assuming that the head blow occurred first, there was a considerable gap in time between it and the application of the ligature. As this provided time to consider how to proceed, I do not grasp the choice of Patsy's brush for both the assault and the ligature. The staging is meant to deflect and not to distinguish a member of the family. Since the brush had to be broken, something else should have been more utile.

Whoever struck JB could have done it again. That seems a neater solution. If it were presumed that JB were dead from the blow, how did strangulation seem the logical next step? One could aver that the killer was not thinking logically. OK; but the gap in time did offer a chane to simmer down. The amount of staging indicates an active mind(s).

It is not my "idea" that the vast majority (85%) of murder victims know their killer. Given this, it is probable, but not certain, that JonBenet knew hers. The release of the body is a topic mentioned in the RN.

Frankly, I am squeamish about the autopsy photos. Anyway, coroners cannot establish the motive for the murder.

Someone here suggested that the R case was simple to solve!? And the answer is...

An answer to your question about the paintbrush, I don't think we can say with 100% certainty that it was used in the final assault and penetration. However, police had reason to believe that based upon certain physical evidence.

There was wood in the tissue at the injury that was consistent with the paintbrush handle and also with the pattern of the injury. They consulted with Dr. John McCann, who was / is a leading expert and pioneer in the field of child SA medical evaluations. In particular with prepubertal children. He did not think the injury was caused by a finger.

It was his opinion that the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger.

Here's some information on Dr. McCann:

Evidentia Learning from application.html.erb

Notably, he chaired the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, and was instrumental in developing the "Practice Guidelines: Descriptive Terminology in Child SA Medical Evaluations". He was also instrumental in in the development of the child and adolescent SA reporting forms used throughout the State of California to this day. He has won numerous awards for his work with regard to child abuse and neglect.

​

​

​

 

[australianwebsleuth]

The autopsy. These are issues that need clarification.

A) The autopsy was undertaken on the 27th December, 1996. She was buried in Atlanta on the 31st December, 1996. This is an extremely tight timeline for a coronial autopsy in a case of murder.

What normally happens is that a coronial autopsy is that samples are taken. It takes at a bare minimum 48 hours to process those samples and then review them microscopically. The sample has to be fixed, embedded in paraffin, sliced on a microtome, mounted, stained and dried.

It is usual that a body is kept until these slides are reviewed so that an opportunity for further review and collection of samples is possible. We know that the definitive specimen was not taken; a biopsy through the ligature mark on her neck. Considered standard practise even then.

It is not unusual for a body to be kept for a week or more. Do we know when and why the body was released and why the correct specimen was not taken.

B) Boulder is a relatively small city with a low murder rate. The experience of the staff performing the autopsy would be called into question. In these smaller locations, every professional knows each other, they attend the same lodges, clubs etc. Conflicts of interest everywhere. This death was big news all over the world including in Australia and raises a few questions. The autopsy is not something that would normally of been left to an inexperienced pathologist.

Why was JBR autopsy performed here instead of Denver where these issues are not as great and the experience of the pathologists are greater. In Australia that autopsy would not have been performed in a place like Boulder, It would of been transferred to the most experienced site in the state.

C) When did the pathologist seek clarification from the senior experts? Is it when he had custody of the body or is was it at a time when the body had been buried. Did he realise later that he had screwed up not taking the correct sample when it was too late to be sure she was alive when the garrotte was applied.

D) Why did the pathologist not seek clarification from the local experts in Denver? It is usual practise to involve others early in the process and from the same Jurisdiction (Colorado)

These questions need clarification and they arise because the autopsy was not performed as well as it should of been.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

Chronic Sexual abuse evidence in pre pubescent girls.

Back in the 1990's there were multiple problems in expert evidence regarding evidence of chronic sexual assault in pre-pubescent girls. The evidence was around variations in the vulva and hymen. The problem at the time was there was no understanding of natural anatomical variation. They made assumptions that changes were due to sexual assault compared to an idealised vulva.

Subsequently scientific research was done into anatomical variation in the vulva and was later shown that most of the expert opinions were in fact incorrect. Chronic sexual assault in reality cannot be diagnosed by examination of the vulva in most girls. A set criteria has been established in the guidelines for diagnosis of previous sexual assault that take into account what we know as natural variation. I have posted these guidelines before.

The problem is that the expert report that is quoted on these threads was written close to 30 years ago. Even an amateur reading the report against current guidelines will see the glaring inaccuracies in that report. It has to be viewed as 'state of the art' at the time whose claims are now 'thoroughly discredited.'

No one is claiming that there was not instrumentation of JBR vulva. There clearly was. The question is when it happened. If one is to make a claim that it was done while she was alive and that there was bruising, then the features of bruising compatible with life need to be demonstrated. A biopsy of the vaginal laceration was performed in the autopsy. The features show none of the inflammatory features typical in an injury while alive. These features appear rapidly in the minutes after an injury. There is blood at this location. I think that the laceration is in an area where there has been livor mortis and the blood has simply leaked out. I think she had been dead long time when the vagina was interfered with.

 

[proust20]

The question of who is more relevant than when.

 

[australianwebsleuth]

The question of who is more relevant than when.

If you know when the body was moved and how long after actual death, then it narrows down who.

Is it plausible that an intruder would move and stage her 4 to 5 hours after death?

 

[proust20]

Whoever it was had to know about the size 12 Bloomis, and where to locate them in the huge house. This is a most puzzling aspect of the staging. How could the intruder(s) know?