Lawrence Smith Replies - If you can say that

[UKGuy]

the way she was wrapped is in keeping as if a parent did it.
when a mother kills her child,the child is usually found in water or wrapped in plastic (I don't know how many ppl know this,but I remember hearing it in Susan Smith's case)..a sort of subconscious denial,I suppose..sending them back to the 'womb' of sorts..
In this case,neither was appropriate to an intruder scenario,so being wrapped in the blankets as she was is one reason I think it was done,and yes,possibly to hide any further bleeding that might occur.
But yet another reason is I think JR didn't care to risk being arrested on the spot...so that was hidden..and is also a good reason he wanted to get out of town,asap..he knew what would be found shortly !!

JMO8778,
Sure all that parental stuff is relevant, but this is a staged crime-scene so you have to be careful about making conclusions from evidence that is deliberately bogus.

 

[UKGuy]

I think you are misunderstanding me about the blood. Let's try it this way:
The coroner found her thighs and pubic area had been WIPED DOWN. Black light tests showed that the substance that had been wiped was BLOOD. Her blood. Therefore, in order for her to have been wiped down, whoever did the wiping had to have SEEN the blood. There was signficant blood, for it to have been on her thighs.
This is NOT the same as the small drops of blood in her REDRESSED panties. In THAT case, the stagers did not know that a small anount of blood had oozed out after she had been redressed.
I can't explain it any better, so I hope this helps.

DeeDee249,
No that does not explain either the forensic evidence or make your remarks consistent with Coroner Meyers opinion.

The coroner found her thighs and pubic area had been WIPED DOWN. Black light tests showed that the substance that had been wiped was BLOOD. Her blood. Therefore, in order for her to have been wiped down, whoever did the wiping had to have SEEN the blood. There was signficant blood, for it to have been on her thighs.

Speculative Timeline
1. This is cleanup part 1, and the point at which, if any, her size-6's were removed.

2. JonBenet is then redressed in those size12's.

So her thighs and pubic area and size-12's are all clean, free of blood?

3. Someone , for whatever reason, notes blood on JonBenet's genitals, which is then wiped down.

It is event 3. that Coroner Meyer is referring to, because event 1. and 2. result in both blood free genitals and underwear.

This is NOT the same as the small drops of blood in her REDRESSED panties. In THAT case, the stagers did not know that a small anount of blood had oozed out after she had been redressed.

But there are no blood stains or smears matching these small drops of blood in her size-12's.

It is the absence of blood, not its presence that allows Coroner Meyer to conclude JonBenet had been wiped down?

Coroner Meyer referred both to JonBenet being wiped down, and being digitally penetrated, along with citing the cellulose fragment in the autopsy report.

Again to underline the point Coroner Meyer suggests JonBenet was wiped down precisely because there are no matching blood stains on JonBenet's pubic area!

The person who wiped her down did so after she had been redressed in those size-12's.

 

[UKGuy]

It wouldn't be fair of me not to say that I have one thing that bothers me in that theory.
It's JBR's bare feet.
Footprints, like fingerprints, cannot be dated, but they can still link suspects and victims to a crime under certain conditions.
There were two footprints, as I recall found in the wineceller. One was the well-known Hi-Tech shoe print. Now, that brand is often worn by workmen, LE, etc. But it is also known (though at first denied by his parents) that BR did have a pair of Hi-Tech sneakers. Many boys of that age (9-10) have feet as large as a grown man's.
The other print was a small bare footprint.
Here are my questions. Did LE ever determine the size of the shoe that left the print (OJ's Bruno Mali shoeprints ring a bell?) to see if it was consistant with the size that BR wore at the time? Did LE examine BR's Hi-Tech at the time to see if they had that certain kind of white mold and dirt from the wineceller?
Did the coroner test the soles of JBR's bare feet for traces of the same white mold and dirt from the wineceller? Was a mold taken of the print or her feet to determine if the tiny bare footprint was made by HER feet? Were her bare feet and hands bagged when she was removed from the house for her solo ride to the morgue? Meyer doesn't mention doing it in his 10 MINUTES he spent with her that night. Bagging is standard procedure, but so much that was also standard procedure was not done, it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't done.
If not, add that to the travesty of justice list for this crime.
It takes it in a whole 'nother direction if JBR was STANDING in that wineceller.

DeeDee249,
Well you cannot date the footprints. I think BR owned a pair of Hi-Tech shoes, sneakers whatever, and that may be his footprint, but from when?

From memory analysis was done of JonBenet's feet, and material described as lint was recorded as being present?

.

 

[rashomon]

DeeDee249,
Well you cannot date the footprints. I think BR owned a pair of Hi-Tech shoes, sneakers whatever, and that may be his footprint, but from when?

From memory analysis was done of JonBenet's feet, and material described as lint was recorded as being present?

That lint could have come from her own socks imo. Or maybe it was picked up from the basement floor.

 

[BBB167893]

I'll TRY to address these issues.
My theory suggests the original head wound and the twisting of the shirt around JBR's neck occurred in her bedroom/bathroom area.
Then she was carried to the basement. (garland on the staircase-garland fibers in her hair) to get her into the farthest regions of the house- away from BR. She was placed on her stomach on the carpet outside the wineceller, and that is where the garotte was placed on her. It is possible that is where the urine release happened- I seem to recall there was urine on that carpet, as well as carpet fibers found on JBR. Then she was placed on her back in the wine celler. She may have been placed right on the blanket, which was then pulled over her torso. Her feet and head were not covered. The nightgown- we'll never know. I base my opinion that it was there by mistake on JR's statment when shown the pictures- that is wasn't supposed to be there. That was a slip-up to me.
JBR was alive when garroted. That is indisputable forensic evidence. She died soon after, she was already IN the basement, so there was little time that elapsed. However, there could have been up to an hour between her head bash and her garotting. So it is possible she was moved downstairs n hour or so after the head bash; if she was unconscious and her breathing was so shallow as not to be noticed, they assumed she WAS dead. You don't feel ice cold right away. So, I don't necessarily feel there was NO time between the rage attack and her being brought to the basement.
Yes, the stagers knew she bled. They removed the original panties. They wiped her down. They did NOT see that a few drops of blood seeped onto the new panties. The coroner's statements say she was wiped down. The statement notes that she was wiped down BEFORE the panties were replaced, as there is no blood on the pubic area that matches the blood spots on the panties.
She was killed in the basement. She was bashed in her bathroom OR bedroom, garotted while alive in the basement, died there.

I agree with DeeDee in substance. But it seems I can never choose what started it. I change ideas on that almost daily. Why is that?

Doesn't help that everyone in the family has a different theory.

 

[UKGuy]

That lint could have come from her own socks imo. Or maybe it was picked up from the basement floor.

rashomon,

Sure, I agree, also could have originated from sheets, from any other Ramsey bed?

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

I totally disagree.

Here is the text verbatim:

Coroner Meyer is stating that the evidence suggests that JonBenet was wiped down after being redressed in the size-12's, because there were no matching blood-stains on her pubic area.

How the blood arrived on JonBenet's size-12's can be speculated upon, but Coroner Meyer is saying that her pubic area was wiped clean.

This may have occured as part of a staged sexual assault, or as an attempt to remove evidence of a prior sexual assault.

This is why I reckon she was wrapped in the blanket, just in case any blood seeped through to her longjohns, anyway, this is an example of forensic awareness, removing evidence.

Also with the cellulose found inside her and Coroner Meyer's remarks regarding JonBenet having been digitally penetrated, whatever the motive, this according to your theory must have taken place either prior to or shortly before she was garroted?


.

I guess we disagree as far as our interpretation of Meyer's words. The way I see it, she was wiped down and THEN redressed in the size 12s. Meyer's words do not indicate anything (IMO) that suggests otherwise. The clean size 12s were put on her after she was wiped down; after this, unknown to the stagers, a few drops of blood seeped out, which did not correspond to the pubic area because the pubic area had already been wiped down. There was only 1 clean-up in my theory. I am not including the original douching/rage event which started the whole sickening decent into horror for JBR.
Does anyone else understand what I am saying?

 

[JMO8778]

Yes, it makes sense

 

[rashomon]

I guess we disagree as far as our interpretation of Meyer's words. The way I see it, she was wiped down and THEN redressed in the size 12s. Meyer's words do not indicate anything (IMO) that suggests otherwise. The clean size 12s were put on her after she was wiped down; after this, unknown to the stagers, a few drops of blood seeped out, which did not correspond to the pubic area because the pubic area had already been wiped down. There was only 1 clean-up in my theory. I am not including the original douching/rage event which started the whole sickening decent into horror for JBR.
Does anyone else understand what I am saying?

No problem, you have been very clear. That's the way I see it too: blood cold have oozed out from her vaginal area onto the underwear after they had been put on her.

 

[UKGuy]

I guess we disagree as far as our interpretation of Meyer's words. The way I see it, she was wiped down and THEN redressed in the size 12s. Meyer's words do not indicate anything (IMO) that suggests otherwise. The clean size 12s were put on her after she was wiped down; after this, unknown to the stagers, a few drops of blood seeped out, which did not correspond to the pubic area because the pubic area had already been wiped down. There was only 1 clean-up in my theory. I am not including the original douching/rage event which started the whole sickening decent into horror for JBR.
Does anyone else understand what I am saying?

DeeDee249,
I understand what you are saying, but it conflicts directly with the evidence.

I'm not attempting to privilege any particular interpretation, since its your theory.

Lets take it in stages:

1.

The way I see it, she was wiped down and THEN redressed in the size 12s.

I do not disagree with you here.

2.

The clean size 12s were put on her after she was wiped down; after this, unknown to the stagers, a few drops of blood seeped out, which did not correspond to the pubic area because the pubic area had already been wiped down.

How do you know any blood seeped out? Assuming it did, how come there is no blood on JonBenet's gentitals, but there is on her size-12's. This appears to conflict with Locard's Exchange Principle, relating to the cross-tranfer of forensic evidence? Also how could it not correspond, what does that mean?

Now at this point I am going to quote verbatim, e.g. not interpret Coroner Meyer's opinion. The relevant parts highlighted in bold.

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.

Patently Coroner Meyer is invoking Locard's Exchange Principle to arrive at the conclusion JonBenet was wiped down.

So accepting Coroner Meyer's conclusion and assuming 1. is correct, then JonBenet must have been wiped down a 2nd time.

Also, Coroner Meyer stated in his autopsy report that birefringent foreign material was discovered inside JonBenet. Also he suggested that there had been digital penetration of her vagina., in addition he is alleged to say it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact. Now that goes beyond any accidental injury, he is the Coroner, and he was there, I was not.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
I understand what you are saying, but it conflicts directly with the evidence.

I'm not attempting to privilege any particular interpretation, since its your theory.

Lets take it in stages:

1.

I do not disagree with you here.

2.

How do you know any blood seeped out? Assuming it did, how come there is no blood on JonBenet's gentitals, but there is on her size-12's. This appears to conflict with Locard's Exchange Principle, relating to the cross-tranfer of forensic evidence? Also how could it not correspond, what does that mean?

Now at this point I am going to quote verbatim, e.g. not interpret Coroner Meyer's opinion. The relevant parts highlighted in bold.




Patently Coroner Meyer is invoking Locard's Exchange Principle to arrive at the conclusion JonBenet was wiped down.

So accepting Coroner Meyer's conclusion and assuming 1. is correct, then JonBenet must have been wiped down a 2nd time.

Also, Coroner Meyer stated in his autopsy report that birefringent foreign material was discovered inside JonBenet. Also he suggested that there had been digital penetration of her vagina., in addition he is alleged to say it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact. Now that goes beyond any accidental injury, he is the Coroner, and he was there, I was not.

There was still liquid and semi-liquid blood in the vagina - on the forchette and in the vaginal vault. While not enough to drip down her thighs, that small amount of blood could very well have been the cause of those small stains on the size 12 panties and not have the stagers aware of it.

 

[UKGuy]

There was still liquid and semi-liquid blood in the vagina - on the forchette and in the vaginal vault. While not enough to drip down her thighs, that small amount of blood could very well have been the cause of those small stains on the size 12 panties and not have the stagers aware of it.

DeeDee249,
We do not know this to be factually correct, also Coroner Meyer never mentioned this as a consideration in forming his opinion.


Also the stagers were aware of it, Coroner Meyer tells us so, he says JonBenet was wiped down, because there was no matching blood on her genitals e.g. he reckons it was wiped away.

We assume JonBenet was wiped down when she was redressed in the clean size-12's e.g. no blood-stains, so if Coroner Meyer then suggests she was wiped by a cloth, then it follows it was for a 2nd time?

If you are correct then Coroner Meyer's opinion that she was wiped by a cloth based on an absence of blood must be invalid.



.

 

[rashomon]

DeeDee249,
We do not know this to be factually correct, also Coroner Meyer never mentioned this as a consideration in forming his opinion.


Also the stagers were aware of it, Coroner Meyer tells us so, he says JonBenet was wiped down, because there was no matching blood on her genitals e.g. he reckons it was wiped away.

We assume JonBenet was wiped down when she was redressed in the clean size-12's e.g. no blood-stains, so if Coroner Meyer then suggests she was wiped by a cloth, then it follows it was for a 2nd time?

If you are correct then Coroner Meyer's opinion that she was wiped by a cloth based on an absence of blood must be invalid.

Suppose the stager wiped the blood away and then put fresh underwear on the victim and the longjohns over it. If then two small drops should have seeped into the underwear, the stager wouldn't have been aware of it.
(BTW, it is perfectly possible for blood to seep out from the vagina onto underwear without leaving traces on the outer genital area).

 

[DeeDee249]

I am sorry, UKGuy, I really don't follow you. Meyer can only state what he sees, and he did see blood in the vagina. He also saw evidence of blood wiped from her pubic area and thighs, so that would indicate significant bleeding, enough to run onto her thighs. If the size 12s were put on her BEFORE she was wiped, there would be a LOT more blood on them. That's why I feel it was the original panties that were stained with a lot of blood. That's why they were changed in the first place, and that's why they disappeared.
The small amount of blood still in the vagina could have been the source of the drips on the size 12s without there being blood ON the pubic area- it was INSIDE the vagina, but of course, Meyer wouldn't state this because he cannot say for sure, nor can he say whether the stagers saw this, because coroners do not deal with conjecture. They can say things like how a murder victim died, but will not say who did it, merely stating forensic evidence as it presents, and leaves it to LE to connect forensic evidence to suspect(s).
I guess we just see this matter from two different perspectives; that's a good thing because if we have different theories to put forth- one of us is right!

 

[DeeDee249]

Suppose the stager wiped the blood away and then put fresh underwear on the victim and the longjohns over it. If then two small drops should have seeped into the underwear, the stager wouldn't have been aware of it.
(BTW, it is perfectly possible for blood to seep out from the vagina onto underwear without leaving traces on the outer genital area).

This is exactly what I mean.

 

[UKGuy]

Suppose the stager wiped the blood away and then put fresh underwear on the victim and the longjohns over it. If then two small drops should have seeped into the underwear, the stager wouldn't have been aware of it.
(BTW, it is perfectly possible for blood to seep out from the vagina onto underwear without leaving traces on the outer genital area).

rashomon,

But Coroner Meyer never cited the seeping of blood as the cause of the blood-stains on her size-12's, thats is the point!

.

 

[DeeDee249]

rashomon,

But Coroner Meyer never cited the seeping of blood as the cause of the blood-stains on her size-12's, thats is the point!

.

Yes, because that would not be something he would do. It is not his job. His job is to state
Blood in the vagina
Blood wiped from the pubic area/thighs
Blood drops on the panties
In all cases, it is the decedent's blood.

That's it. It is left to LE to tie it all together.

 

[UKGuy]

I am sorry, UKGuy, I really don't follow you. Meyer can only state what he sees, and he did see blood in the vagina. He also saw evidence of blood wiped from her pubic area and thighs, so that would indicate significant bleeding, enough to run onto her thighs. If the size 12s were put on her BEFORE she was wiped, there would be a LOT more blood on them. That's why I feel it was the original panties that were stained with a lot of blood. That's why they were changed in the first place, and that's why they disappeared.
The small amount of blood still in the vagina could have been the source of the drips on the size 12s without there being blood ON the pubic area- it was INSIDE the vagina, but of course, Meyer wouldn't state this because he cannot say for sure, nor can he say whether the stagers saw this, because coroners do not deal with conjecture. They can say things like how a murder victim died, but will not say who did it, merely stating forensic evidence as it presents, and leaves it to LE to connect forensic evidence to suspect(s).
I guess we just see this matter from two different perspectives; that's a good thing because if we have different theories to put forth- one of us is right!

DeeDee249,

Coroner Meyer never cited the blood in the vagina as the cause of the blood-stains, he did state that it was the absence of blood that allowed him to conclude that Jonbenet was wiped down. What you are saying relies on the presence of blood, not its absence.

That is why there is two different perspectives.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, because that would not be something he would do. It is not his job. His job is to state
Blood in the vagina
Blood wiped from the pubic area/thighs
Blood drops on the panties
In all cases, it is the decedent's blood.

That's it. It is left to LE to tie it all together.

DeeDee249,
But he did though.

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.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

Coroner Meyer never cited the blood in the vagina as the cause of the blood-stains, he did state that it was the absence of blood that allowed him to conclude that Jonbenet was wiped down. What you are saying relies on the presence of blood, not its absence.

That is why there is two different perspectives.

.

There was blood present. In the vagina, not ON the vaginal area (it had been wiped off). All I am saying is that this small amount of blood that Meyer notes INSIDE the vagina COULD be the source of the small drops of blood on the size 12 panties.
Meyer wouldn't state this because it is a POSSIBLE source, not a definite source.

The ABSENCE of blood is what is missing from her thighs and pubic area, which also had dark fibers, indicating that dark-colored cloth was used for wiping. There is both an absence of blood (in areas where it had previously been) and a presence of blood (remaining in the vagina- the source for ALL the blood, both wiped away and still in the vagina.)