Good post from DeeDee which would explain yet another element of the crime scene which I have been racking my brain about for a long time, and on which posters like e. g. UKGuy have challenged those of us who do NOT believe that sexual abuse played a role in this case. I myself 'm keep wavering back and and forth on this issue.
He asked the (valid imo) question why, if a sexual assault was to be staged, JonBenet had been wiped down at all? Why bother to wipe off blood if the stager of the scene wanted to make it look like a sexual assault? Why not leave the blood there after inflicting the genital injury?
Why wipe her and redress her in fresh underwear and longjohns? But DeeDee's scenario would explain it imo.
For if Patsy accidentally inflicted this injury by aggressively cleaning JonBenet's genital area, then wiping off the blood could have been done to hide Patsy's 'cleaning attack' on JonBenet in this area.
Smit's argument: The use of a garrote -- constructed precisely and expertly by someone who knew what he was doing -- says that the killer was a "sexual sadist." Evidence indicates the garrote was made in the basement, strongly suggesting the killing happened there.
Unlikely weapon: Smit says he and others who have studied the issue know of no other case "in the annals of crime" where a parent garroted his or her own child.
Knowledge needed: The knot-tying of the garrote used on JonBenet shows special knowledge. The paintbrush was broken to create a perfect handle. "It almost looks like a lawnmower starting (handle). . . . Somebody really knew what they were doing when they did it and somebody has done this before."
Made on site: The garrote's handle comes from the middle piece of a paintbrush broken in threes. On JonBenet's chin was a green paint strip and a fiber from the carpet outside the wine cellar. The green strip came from contents of a paint tray just outside the wine cellar. Strands of JonBenet's hair were caught in the nylon cord, showing the garrote was wound and tied near the back of her neck. "This garrote was constructed right there on the neck of JonBenet when she was lying there."
I think the only way a staged assault combined with her thighs being wiped clean of blood and changed underwear is if PR had been too vigorous with her douching that night (possibly done in anger after JBR had soiled herself yet again after refusing to go to the toilet after arriving home from the White's, too sleepy to be cooperative.
She screams, and to both their horror, PR has gone too far, JBR is bleeding profusely.
We know from the pineapple residue found in JonBenet's digestive tract that she was very much awake and walking about after arriving back from the White's! In fact we can conclude that after arriving back from the White's an average domestic family snacking session played itself out? Why so, because both parents regarded the evidence of the pineapple snack as of no consequence, e.g. it was forgotten. imo JonBenet was killed at least an hour or two after arriving back home.yet again after refusing to go to the toilet after arriving home from the White's,
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.
Does this suggest that JonBenet was wiped down after the size-12's had been placed upon her and subsequent to any alleged douching and cleaning had taken place?Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.
Again why bother removing any blood, since blood does not imply douching, it may suggest an abduction and sexual assault, then again as per Det. Arndt's statement JonBenet's size-12's are stained but not her outer genitals, so again as per the post-mortem urine release and any bedwetting theory, why not change either the size-12's or the longjohn's depending on your favorite theory?DeeDee said:For if Patsy accidentally inflicted this injury by aggressively cleaning JonBenet's genital area, then wiping off the blood could have been done to hide Patsy's 'cleaning attack' on JonBenet in this area.
Off the subject, but what does RST stand for? Thanks.
If JBR was naked from the waist down outside the wineceller door while she was being garrotted, blood would have been found on the carpet there, and I don't recall reading that. PR would have reason to want to remove all visible traces of blood if she wanted to hide the damage she did to her daughter. The drops of blood on the size-12 panties likely dripped out after she was redressed an was never seen by the stagers. There was no blood on the long johns, only urine.
I feel the Rs never thought an autopsy would discover vaginal trauma that had occurred previously. PR had no way of knowing what damage the douching had done. I don't think they were trying to stage a sexual assault nor trying to hide one. It was the garrotting that was meant to be "staged". In my mind, the sexual assault aspect was brought out by Smit and the Rs jumped on that bandwagon.
The Rs needed to clean up traces of what had likely caused the rage attack in the first place- JBR's frantic resistance to PR's "cleansing". That part wasn't staged and was never intended to be known. But the garrotting was needed to show an obvious cause of death. The skull fracture wasn't visible. There was no external wound or blood. Just an unconscious and dying little girl. They needed something that would point suspicion away from them. A child found dead in her own home with the parents home and NO external signs of how she died - even the Rs knew that wouldn't fly.
If JBR was naked from the waist down outside the wineceller door while she was being garrotted, blood would have been found on the carpet there, and I don't recall reading that. PR would have reason to want to remove all visible traces of blood if she wanted to hide the damage she did to her daughter. The drops of blood on the size-12 panties likely dripped out after she was redressed an was never seen by the stagers. There was no blood on the long johns, only urine.
I feel the Rs never thought an autopsy would discover vaginal trauma that had occurred previously. PR had no way of knowing what damage the douching had done. I don't think they were trying to stage a sexual assault nor trying to hide one. It was the garrotting that was meant to be "staged". In my mind, the sexual assault aspect was brought out by Smit and the Rs jumped on that bandwagon.
The Rs needed to clean up traces of what had likely caused the rage attack in the first place- JBR's frantic resistance to PR's "cleansing". That part wasn't staged and was never intended to be known. But the garrotting was needed to show an obvious cause of death. The skull fracture wasn't visible. There was no external wound or blood. Just an unconscious and dying little girl. They needed something that would point suspicion away from them. A child found dead in her own home with the parents home and NO external signs of how she died - even the Rs knew that wouldn't fly.
So does this suggest that JonBenet arrived in the basement already dressed in the size-12's, particularly as you state There was no blood on the long johns, only urine. ?If JBR was naked from the waist down outside the wineceller door while she was being garrotted, blood would have been found on the carpet there, and I don't recall reading that.
I think the Ramsey's knew exactly what any autopsy may discover hence the pre-arranged early morning flight out of Colorado state. JonBenet had an unnaturally enlarged hymen and suffered from chronic vaginal inflammation which were not related to any urination issues. Coroner Meyer thought JonBenet had been the victim of sexual contact, not douching, or physical punishment.I feel the Rs never thought an autopsy would discover vaginal trauma that had occurred previously. PR had no way of knowing what damage the douching had done.
It was the absence of blood that allowed Coroner Meyer to conclude that JonBenet had been wiped down, not any speculative drips.The drops of blood on the size-12 panties likely dripped out after she was redressed an was never seen by the stagers.
This suggests JonBenet was wiped down after being redressed in them contrary to your assumption that it was never seen by the stagers.Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.
absolutely.and she had the kind of down-to-earth charisma that Patsy didn't possess,IMO.very admirable.![]()
I think too much is made of the fact the cleaning of JonBenet doesn't make sense if a sexual assault was being staged.
There were three main areas of staging; the cord around the neck, the sexual assault, and the ransom note.
The "garrote" and ransom note were so poorly done it is obvious they weren't real. Why would the staging of the sexual assault then be an excellent job. Of the three it may have been the most difficult to stomach.
This is the point though. Was a sexual assault staged, or was one simply obscured and hidden by a cleanup?I think too much is made of the fact the cleaning of JonBenet doesn't make sense if a sexual assault was being staged.
And she possessed it from the cradle, so to speak...which is why I find SuperDave's Snow White theory credible (yet another phrase introduced here by SD.) I do not doubt for a second that Patsy was jealous of JonBenet on some level. There was no way for her not to be - JB outshined her in the place where it really mattered (at least to Patsy) - the pageant circuit. JonBenet had a more successful career in kiddie pageants by age 6 than Patsy had had in the pageants she was in during her adolescent and young adult years, and JonBenet was destined to be Miss America - a crown Patsy had reached for but could not catch. On top of that, Patsy was rolling up on 40, no denying middle age, and here's JonBenet dolled up to look like she's 26 instead of 6. If you're messed up in the head enough to sexualize your little girl ("sexy witch" for Halloween when she had just turned 4), you might very well be messed up enough to see her as some kind of rival and be jealous/feel threatened by her - even though you're the one that molded her into that rival. The dressing in matched outfits is rather curious, as is the choice of dressing as Marilyn Monroe for both of them. It's like she just didn't realize JonBenet was a child and not a sister or a best friend.
And then getting matching outfits made for the My Twinn doll so JB can carry on the tradition and dress her doll to match her clothes....why the need to be dressed alike, not just with Patsy and JB (mini Patsy), but with JB and her mini JB - dude, made to look exactly like her, with clothes just like hers, from pictures of her. That's creepy. No wonder she wasn't overwhelmed with glee and breaking down in joyous tears of gratitude when she opened it - she was smart enough to see how off it was.
I think Patsy should have been hospitalized when she couldn't function after her daughter was found dead in her home, and I think she should have been given a very detailed psychological evaluation. I bet that evaluation would have revealed that she had some serious issues that needed to be addressed, for her own well-being as well as that of her family members.
This is the point though. Was a sexual assault staged, or was one simply obscured and hidden by a cleanup?
I backed into my answer to this question.
The quality of the staging and other things tell me only one person was involved.
The physical evidence says that person was Patsy.
There is no reason to believe Patsy was molesting JonBenet.
I think this sexual angle just confuses the issue and I assume that is why Patsy staged the sexual assault. She knew what she was doing.
DeeDee249
So does this suggest that JonBenet arrived in the basement already dressed in the size-12's, particularly as you state There was no blood on the long johns, only urine. ?
I think the Ramsey's knew exactly what any autopsy may discover hence the pre-arranged early morning flight out of Colorado state. JonBenet had an unnaturally enlarged hymen and suffered from chronic vaginal inflammation which were not related to any urination issues. Coroner Meyer thought JonBenet had been the victim of sexual contact, not douching, or physical punishment.
It was the absence of blood that allowed Coroner Meyer to conclude that JonBenet had been wiped down, not any speculative drips.
e.g.
This suggests JonBenet was wiped down after being redressed in them contrary to your assumption that it was never seen by the stagers.
.
Sexual contact, in this context, means any type of injury to the child's anal/genital area. Bruising, cuts, scrapes, abrasions, etc. It could be with a finger, or some other object. If a someone were to, let's say, grab a child (or any unwilling person) in the crotch- that would be called "sexual contact". Not rape. Rape isn't limited to penetration by a penis- an object would also consist of rape. But in this case, though the hymen was eroded, the coroner felt that the injuries were not indicative of rape. It was clear something had been inserted, but the injuries fell short of rape. It isn't known exactly what caused the injuries...but it IS known the injuries are there. Because of the location of the injuries (a child's vaginal area) the conclusion would be sexual contact. The coroner had no way of knowing PR regularly douched her daughter.
As far as where the long johns and new panties were put on her- that part can only be guessed at. But it IS known that there was NO blood on the long johns. Only urine stains. On the panties, there were both blood drops and urine stains. The blood on the panties was described as drops of "red staining"- again- the coroner must describe what he SEES, not what tests MIGHT reveal. So- red "staining" as opposed to "blood stains" is first reported. Later, of course, the red stains are tested- and shown to be JBR's blood.
The coroner used a black light to check for semen on JBR's pubic area and thighs- it showed blood (her blood), no semen, and indicated the blood had been wiped down. The lack of blood on the pubic area that corresponded to the stains on the panties indicated to the coroner that the blood had been wiped from the child prior to the panties being put on.
Nothing I have said is contradictory as far as the stagers. Of course they saw the copious amount of blood that was on her thighs and pubic area- that's WHY they wiped her down. It was the few DROPS of blood in the new panties that they never saw- they were unaware of the fact that some blood had oozed out after she was wiped. The clean panties were put on, the long johns over them. She wasn't BLEEDING. It was a few drops that dripped out. IF there was even a tiny amount of blood in the vagina, it would have certainly mixed with the urine from urine release (post -mortem). But there wasn't enough to come through on the long johns.
I disagree, douching or an injury resulting from over zealous cleansing due to bedwetting etc, are patently non-sexual. Due to the vaginal bleeding Coroner Meyer would have tested any residual body fluids for foreign agents. None were reported, there is simply no evidence to support a douching theory.Sexual contact, in this context, means any type of injury to the child's anal/genital area. Bruising, cuts, scrapes, abrasions, etc.
This is pure speculation on your part, underlined by your use of "DROPS" to describe the stained underwear.It was the few DROPS of blood in the new panties that they never saw- they were unaware of the fact that some blood had oozed out after she was wiped.
EXTERNAL EXAM: The decedent is clothed in a long sleeved white knit
collarless shirt, the mid anterior chest area of which contains an
embroidered silver star decorated with silver sequins.
...
There are long white underwear with an elastic waist band containing a red
and blue stripe. The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over
the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath
the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the
words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. 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.
Coroner Meyer reached his opinion that JonBenet had been wiped down, not on the presence of any visible reddish stains on the size-12's but the absence of any matching red areas of staining on her outer pubic area.Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.
The autopsy report and Det. Arndt's statement do not imply that it happened like you said.[UKGuy]
So from the Autopsy Report and Det. Arndt's statement: someone removed the size-12's which then contained several red areas of staining wiped JonBenet down then placed the size-12's back on her, ignoring the blood stained crotch.
The autopsy report and Det. Arndt's statement do not imply that it happened like you said.
On the contrary, it is highly unlikely that parents who wiped blood off their daughter's body with the intent of concealing forensic evidence would NOT have seen to it that the bloodstained underwear was removed too.
Imo it is perfectly possible that after JonBenet had been wiped, some blood oozed from JonBenet's vagina into the fresh size 12 underwear
jmo
I think it does.The autopsy report and Det. Arndt's statement do not imply that it happened like you said.
I tend to agree with you here, but things may not have occurred as per your favorite theory, are you also a douching devotee these days?it is highly unlikely that parents who wiped blood off their daughter's body with the intent of concealing forensic evidence would NOT have seen to it that the bloodstained underwear was removed too.
The relevant part is : Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.
Of course this is possible but it does not preclude JonBenet from being wiped down does it, or is this possibility disallowed in your current theory?Imo it is perfectly possible that after JonBenet had been wiped, some blood oozed from JonBenet's vagina into the fresh size 12 underwear
UK, would it really matter whether or not she was wiped down *after the underwear was placed on her,or before? Because I think in a state of panic,blood that was on the underwear may not have even been noticed by the stager.Perhaps just blood on her body was the only thing on the stager's mind.It appears the stager was only concerned with that.
I reckon it should, since in some theories she was wiped down prior to being redressed in the size-12's, this is the assumed rational for the redressing, others think the stager was possibly indulging in a cleansing fetish that played itself out, even on the dead body of JonBenet?UK, would it really matter whether or not she was wiped down *after the underwear was placed on her,or before?
You may be entirely correct here, but at which stage did this state of panic and confusion arise? Why should the stager only be concerned with blood on the body and not blood on the size-12's.Because I think in a state of panic,blood that was on the underwear may not have even been noticed by the stager.Perhaps just blood on her body was the only thing on the stager's mind.It appears the stager was only concerned with that.
My own opinion is that it is not as straight-forward as portrayed in some theories, then again this was the purpose of the staging. I reckon Coroner Meyer was fully aware of this, but kept his remarks indirect?
.