Lawrence Smith Replies - If you can say that
- Thread starter Solace
- Start date
rashomon,
The reason the question was posed was to suggest that the staging was NOT intended to be that of a sexual assault.
The sexual aspect to the wine-cellar staging arrives courtesy of Lou Smit's IDI theory, that is JonBenet was a "pedophiles dream" and the garrote is promoted as a sexual device e.g.
excerpted from Rocky Mountain News article, Clues in the case, May 4, 2001
From the evidence we can infer that the garrote was constructed on JonBenet as she lay face-down, outside the wine-cellar, and that it would not function as a bona-fide garrote as advertised by Lou Smit.
Conclusion: The garrote is staging.
The third piece of the paintbrush is still missing, and may have been used to assault JonBenet, with the intention of obscuring any prior sexual molestation, this could explain the discovery of the cellulose/wood splinter. That is the same evidence that may be interpreted as aggressive cleaning, is also consistent with an acute sexual molestation.
imo, DeeDee's interpretation appears to be slightly inconsistent:
e.g.
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.
Also even if JonBenet was bleeding from aggressive cleaning, if she is clean, why does she need the blood removed, this can be explained away as part of some sadistic sexual assault?
When JonBenet arrives in the basement and is placed face-down outside the wine-cellar door. We can assume she is wearing her white Gap Top, but what of below her waist, was she naked, bleeding, was she still wearing her size-6 underwear, which is now stained with blood, or was she wearing the longjohns and size-12's? So at which stage was she wiped down, and redressed, and why should her post-mortem urine release occur at so late a stage?
Coroner Meyer opines that JonBenet was subject to sexual contact e.g.
Then there is Steve Thomas' panel of assembled pediatric experts who concluded that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day that she was killed! There were no dissenting opinions, and they rejected any possibility that JonBenet's unnaturally enlarged hymen or her chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation see Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation chap 24. Steve Thomas
Conclusion: JonBenet was the victim of both chronic and acute vaginal abuse!
Also:
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?
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:
imo it would appear that the wine-cellar staging is constructed to hide a prior sexual assault, and suggest a bedtime abduction so to chime with the ransom note?
.
Solace,
Ramsey Spin Team e.g. those that interpret or ignore any evidence in favor of Ramsey innocence.
.
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.
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.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 42
good post.and it was also needed to account for the manual strangulation marks on her neck.
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.
.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 1,399
- Reaction score
- 26
absolutely.and she had the kind of down-to-earth charisma that Patsy didn't possess,IMO.very admirable.
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.
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.
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.
Albert18,
This is the point though. Was a sexual assault staged, or was one simply obscured and hidden by a cleanup?
The evidence suggests a sexual assault was hidden from view covered up by wiping JonBenet down, dressing her in the size-12's, adding the longjohns, e.g. no nitegown, then just to make certain, wrapped in blankets. That is who is going to make sure they wrap up their intended victim prior to leaving duh!
That is there is no staged sexual assault since this was a bedtime abduction executed by a foreign faction?
.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 42
absolutely,and I think JR knew it,too.I think he was afraid of what would be found out if that happened,so he hid her behind Dr Beuf goof instead.
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.
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.
DeeDee249,
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.
Consider the unanimous finding reached by Steve Thomas' panel of assembled pediatric experts who concluded that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day that she was killed! There were no dissenting opinions, and they rejected any possibility that JonBenet's unnaturally enlarged hymen or her chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation see Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation chap 24. Steve Thomas. Presumably urination issues includes douching or some variant?
So you not only have Coroner Meyer's autopsy opinion. He was there, we were not. You also have a panel of experts offering coroborating opinions that establish acute and chronic vaginal abuse.
This is pure speculation on your part, underlined by your use of "DROPS" to describe the stained underwear.
Consider what Coroner Meyer states in his Autopsy Report:
Det. Arndt present at the autopsy also reports:
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.
Note from the autopsy report that there are several red areas
of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension., so the Coroners opinion is not simply based on that of a single stain.
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.
Again: Coroner Meyer's opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth. Now if you wish to maintain that there is no contradiction in your position e.g. It was the few DROPS of blood in the new panties that they never saw, then you must demonstrate why Coroner Meyer's finding is flawed?
.
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
rashomon,
I think it does.
Anyway it is not wholly what I think occurred it is Coroner Meyer's conclusion, based on evidence presented to him at autopsy.
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?
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.
Which may be the first suggestion of staging in the case? So from Coroner Meyer's opinion it appears someone pulled down or removed JonBenet's size-12's and wiped her down, then replaced or pulled them back up, thereby creating an absence of evidence that Coroner Meyer used to form part of his wiped by a cloth opinion.
Now the implication you question actually arises when one states blood on the pants and no matching blood on the pubic area then someone wiped the pubic area.
Coroner Meyer considers the evidence he observed matched the first part so he concludes that someone wiped JonBenet's pubic area.
Implicit in his observation is that the person doing the wiping ignored the blood on the size-12's, how else could Coroner Meyer arrive at his conclusion?
Also note that Coroner Meyer's observation is not based on a single stain, but more than one, e.g. Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties and that ... 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.
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?
.
The wiping down of significant blood from JBR's pubic area and thighs AND the fact that some drops of blood oozed onto the clean panties (unknown to those whoever dressed her in those panties) are NOT mutually exclusive. They could certainly have happened independently of each other. Finding evidence of one does not exclude the possibilty of the other. Actually, the few drops of blood on the panties DO suggest that she had been wiped down in and of itself, IMHO. So little blood on the panties when there was still some liquid and semi-liquid blood inside the vagina suggest that there would have been much MORE blood on the panties if 1. they had been the original panties she was wearing when she got home from the White's and 2. if she had not been wiped down.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 42
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.
JMO8778,
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?
Also the "wiping down" opinion is Coroner Meyer's and is largely consistent with his autopsy report, it includes, I think, the first reference to staging in the case?
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.
Why remove some evidence and leave some on the size-12's?
In short the wiping down and the post-mortem urine-release may suggest something about the sequence of events that unfolded as the staging began.
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?
.
Similar threads
