Lawrence Smith Replies - If you can say that

[UKGuy]

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.)

DeeDee249,
That there was blood present in the vagina has never been in dispute, it is cited in the autopsy report along with epithelial erosion e.g.

Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular
congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The
smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the
vaginal wall/hymen, contains epithelial erosion with
underlying capillary congestion. A small number of red
blood cells is present on the eroded surface, as is
birefringent foreign material. Acute inflammatory infiltrate
is not seen.

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.

You may be correct, other members who rallied to your side to support your theory on this feature will also, no doubt, consider you to be correct. Whenever my theory conflicts with the forensic evidence I try to remove any speculative assumptions that cause these, in short I revise.

It appears that someone has placed their finger inside JonBenet, and that finger had some cellulose debri on it, alternately she was both digitally penetrated and vaginally assaulted with the paintbrush handle, or the paintbrush handle was employed on its own which is the weaker of all the interpretations.

These latter speculations appear to have occured during the wine-cellar staging which is after she was wiped down and redressed in those size-12's, offering the stagers the opportunity to note her urine-soaked longjohns and potentially bloodied genitals?

It could be that a fake sexual assault was carried out, resulting in a loss of blood which was then noted and wiped away, but leaving blood-stains on her size-12's?

Alternately there may have originally been a bona-fide sexual assault resulting in a loss of blood, which was wiped clean initially during the size-12 redressing, then at a later stage either to cover this up by staging a fake sexual assault by using the paintbrush, or simply from concern over evidence, she was wiped down again.

The evidence tends to suggest that the paintbrush was used to effect a sexual assault, that the missing third part has never been discovered, may mean it was found inside her and has been redacted from the autopsy report?

Summarising, someone rolled down or removed JonBenet's clean size-12's, digitally or instrumentally penetrated her vagina, and wiped her down?

Coroner Meyer is on record as saying it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact. Now in any language sexual contact is not the same as corporal cleansing, however you wish to define it.

 

[rashomon]

These latter speculations appear to have occured during the wine-cellar staging which is after she was wiped down and redressed in those size-12's, offering the stagers the opportunity to note her urine-soaked longjohns and potentially bloodied genitals?

It has been pointed out here countless times by various posters that the urine on the longjohns (and in the underwear) could have come from post-mortem release.

Coroner Meyer is on record as saying it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact. Now in any language sexual contact is not the same as corporal cleansing, however you wish to define it.

By "sexual contact", Dr. Meyer could simply have referred to the fact that an injury had been inflicted to the vagina.

 

[DeeDee249]

It has been pointed out here countless times by various posters that the urine on the longjohns (and in the underwear) could have come from post-mortem release.


By "sexual contact", Dr. Meyer could simply have referred to the fact that an injury had been inflicted to the vagina.

This is exactly right. Meyer would identify any unusual conditions in the vagina of a child (bruising, erosion, hyperemia, blood, etc.) as "sexual contact". NOTHING is supposed to be inserted into the vagina of a 6-year old girl for any reason except medical ones.

 

[UKGuy]

It has been pointed out here countless times by various posters that the urine on the longjohns (and in the underwear) could have come from post-mortem release.


By "sexual contact", Dr. Meyer could simply have referred to the fact that an injury had been inflicted to the vagina.

rashomon,

It has been pointed out here countless times by various posters that the urine on the longjohns (and in the underwear) could have come from post-mortem release.

mmm, you must grow weary from my persistance? I never suggested that the urine originated from other than a post-mortem release, what is of substance is that the stagers were aware of this, and Coroner Meyer's opinion informs you that this was the case, since they attempted to remove forensic evidence.

By "sexual contact", Dr. Meyer could simply have referred to the fact that an injury had been inflicted to the vagina.

No rashomon, no amount of rowing back or re-definition can suggest that an injury, which Coroner Meyer just alike you or me, was aware may have been inflicted with a paintbrush, with ulterior motives.

To suggest "sexual contact" moves beyond injury either accidental or intentional motivated by staging.

Steve Thomas adopted your position by referring, in his book, to her genital assault, as vaginal trauma, imo this was done to avoid litigation.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

It has been pointed out here countless times by various posters that the urine on the longjohns (and in the underwear) could have come from post-mortem release.


By "sexual contact", Dr. Meyer could simply have referred to the fact that an injury had been inflicted to the vagina.

This is exactly right. Meyer would identify any unusual conditions in the vagina of a child (bruising, erosion, hyperemia, blood, etc.) as "sexual contact". NOTHING is supposed to be inserted into the vagina of a 6-year old girl for any reason except medical ones. Meyer would also not have any way to tell whether the penetration was caused by a finger or the nozzle of a douche, they are similar in width and the nozzle is rounded, not sharp. He WAS able to tell that it was not penetration by a penis. Using the broken paintbrush to penetrate would probably have caused much more damage internally (lacerations, cuts, etc). But the "cellulose" could very well have been fragments of the broken bush, splinters on the finger of the person who snapped the brush into 3 sections and subsequently inserted that finger into JBR. The digital penetration could have occurred with or without douching.

 

[UKGuy]

This is exactly right. Meyer would identify any unusual conditions in the vagina of a child (bruising, erosion, hyperemia, blood, etc.) as "sexual contact". NOTHING is supposed to be inserted into the vagina of a 6-year old girl for any reason except medical ones.

DeeDee249,

"sexual contact".

Why must he do that, latterly you were suggesting he was simply a person reporting observations, now vaginal trauma has metaphormised into "sexual contact", why should that happen.

If the theory conflicts with the evidence, then its the theory that requires revisiting.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

Why must he do that, latterly you were suggesting he was simply a person reporting observations, now vaginal trauma[/i[ has metaphormised into "sexual contact", why should that happen.

If the theory conflicts with the evidence, then its the theory that requires revisiting.

He must state observations, but he also must report a conclusion, if possible, such as a cause of death. A coroner will not simply state:"person is dead". He will try to determine what killed them, and offer what are possible causes of death or injury. In many cases, the cause is obvious- heart attack, bullet, cancer, etc. But in other cases there are injuries that have no irrefutable cause. He may state conclusions about injuries to a body, and these are also opinions. If he observes deep slashes he'd note they "are consistant" with being stabbed with a knife. His words "are consistant with" digital penetration is his explanation for what could have caused the injuries to the vagina- because what he observed is NOT a natural state for a child's vagina, and not part of the death process either. He must offer an explanation if possible for injuries observed body he is dissecting. In certain circumstances (burning, drowning, advanced decomposition) these observations may be impossible, but if he is able, he will state what is LIKELY to have caused the injury IF he has an opinion on it. JBR's vagina demonstrated unjuries "consistant with" digital penetration. He noted the hole in the skull and fracture. He did not say what object caused it. He did not offer what he thought made the many "dried abrasions". But in the case of the vaginal injuries, they were of such a type that his opinion was that they could have been made by insertion of a finger.
I don't see where the evidence conflicts with the theory. It is a THEORY. That's why his wording is "consistant with".

 

[UKGuy]

He must state observations, but he also must report a conclusion, if possible, such as a cause of death. He may state conclusions about injuries to a body, and these are also opinions. If he observes deep slashes he'd note they "are consistant" with being stabbed with a knife. His words "are consistant with" digital penetration is his explanation for what could have caused the injuries to the vagina- because what he observed is NOT a natural state for a child's vagina, and not part of the death process either. He must offer an explanation if possible for injuries observed body he is dissecting. In certain circumstances (burning, drowning, advanced decomposition) these observations may be impossible, but if he is able, he will state what is LIKELY to have caused the injury.
I don't see where the evidence conflicts with the theory. It is a THEORY. That's why his wording is "consistant with".

DeeDee249,
Sure, and Coroner Meyer's explanation was that the digital penetration looked a lot like sexual contact, he is the pathologist, he was there, it was not his first autopsy.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Sure, and Coroner Meyer's explanation was that the digital penetration looked a lot like sexual contact, he is the pathologist, he was there, it was not his first autopsy.

Correct.
Any digital penetration into the vagina of a child could be classified as "sexual contact".

 

[UKGuy]

Correct.
Any digital penetration into the vagina of a child could be classified as "sexual contact".

DeeDee249,
Not quite, corporal punishment requiring digital penetration may not be defined as "sexual contact", but as vaginal trauma, alike the absence or presence of blood, what you consider to have occured will determine your preferred theory.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Not quite, corporal punishment requiring digital penetration may not be defined as "sexual contact", but as vaginal trauma, alike the absence or presence of blood, what you consider to have occured will determine your preferred theory.


.

Possibly- but Meyer did not know about any "corporal punishment". True that type of cleansing (douching) on a child might not have been done with a sexual intent, but the douching, while thought by many to have happened and mentioned by at least one person who knew PR, it has never been proven to have happened. It could certainly have caused the injuries, but has never been stated as fact.
If a washcloth had been inserted, I feel Meyer would have found fiber evidence of that in her vagina. So with the injuries seen and no fibers INSIDE, his conclusion was that it was consistant with digital penetration as far as his professional experience.

 

[UKGuy]

Possibly- but Meyer did not know about any "corporal punishment". True that type of cleansing (douching) on a child might not have been done with a sexual intent, but the douching, while thought by many to have happened and mentioned by at least one person who knew PR, it has never been proven to have happened. It could certainly have caused the injuries, but has never been stated as fact.
If a washcloth had been inserted, I feel Meyer would have found fiber evidence of that in her vagina. So with the injuries seen and no fibers INSIDE, his conclusion was that it was consistant with digital penetration as far as his professional experience.

DeeDee249,
I agree, and not having knowledge of "corporal punishment". surely does not debar Coroner Meyer from forming an opinion from the evidence before his eyes e.g. epithelial erosion affecting both JonBenet's vagina and her eroded hymen which was enlarged for that of a 6-year old girl, so he states that it appears to look like "sexual contact".

Also if there had been douching whatever was used to do this would have left some kind of residue, or changed the natural condition of JonBenet internally?

Surely Coroner Meyer would have been alert to other possible reasons as to why anyone would want to vaginally assault JonBenet, including staging?

Occam might suggest removing the douching, e.g. do not multiply objects beyond necessity, but retain the toilet rage, and the sexual contact?


.

 

[UKGuy]

The outline opinion of Jay Dix, MD
Medical Examiner
Boone County, Missouri
Associate Professor of Pathology
University of Missouri
is



A few links on brain swelling etc:
Intracranial Pressure
http://www.waiting.com/abouttbiicp.html

A Guide to Brain Anatomy
http://www.waiting.com/brainanatomy.html

Symptom: Bleeding in the brain
http://wrongdiagnosis.com/sym/bleeding_in_the_brain.htm

How Can The Brain Be Injured?
http://www.braininjury.com/injured.html

rashomon,

Also: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/03lrams.html

The coroner listed the official cause of death as strangulation associated with head trauma.

Adams County Coroner Mike Dobersen said he reviewed the autopsy photographs and thinks there would have been much more internal bleeding inside the brain if JonBenét had been struck first and strangled later.

But Kerry Brega, chief neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center, said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have any bleeding.

"We see a lot of people with skull fractures without bleeds in the brain, and they didn't all get strangled on the way in," she said. "So it is actually possible to get a skull fracture without getting an underlying bleed in the brain."

.

 

[DeeDee249]

A coroner wouldn't delve into WHY anyone would want to molest (or kill). They'd leave that to LE.
As far as the douching- yes, if a commercial preparation were used you would think there would be some residue. With a home-made solution like vinegar and water, maybe not. It could also have been rinsed away with plain water. Remember there was also the urine release, and ammonia associated with that. This could also have erased any residue, or rendered it undetectable. There is just so much that is variable with this case; what if PR attempted to douche but never got around to it because she inadvertantly caused the injury and bleeding?
We simply don't know how many pieces there are to the puzzle, let alone how they all fit together.

 

[UKGuy]

A coroner wouldn't delve into WHY anyone would want to molest (or kill). They'd leave that to LE.
As far as the douching- yes, if a commercial preparation were used you would think there would be some residue. With a home-made solution like vinegar and water, maybe not. It could also have been rinsed away with plain water. Remember there was also the urine release, and ammonia associated with that. This could also have erased any residue, or rendered it undetectable. There is just so much that is variable with this case; what if PR attempted to douche but never got around to it because she inadvertantly caused the injury and bleeding?
We simply don't know how many pieces there are to the puzzle, let alone how they all fit together.

DeeDee249,

A coroner wouldn't delve into WHY anyone would want to molest (or kill). They'd leave that to LE.

OK, but if you read Steve Thomas' book, towards the end of Gathering Storm you will find an account of a conference that included investigators, Dr. Henry Lee, and Coroner Meyer.

I'll let you read it, rather than quote it all, but Coroner Meyer said that chronic vaginal abuse was a possibility, this was in addition to the acute symptoms presented.

So Coroner Meyer did qualify and offer explanations for his autopsy findings.

The douching may be a red herring in the case, an alternative theory that offers another explanation for JonBenet's vaginal injuries.

Is douching that bad it requires a child to be killed?


.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

mmm, you must grow weary from my persistance? I never suggested that the urine originated from other than a post-mortem release, what is of substance is that the stagers were aware of this, and Coroner Meyer's opinion informs you that this was the case, since they attempted to remove forensic evidence.

UKGuy,
I'm not weary from your persistence (I'm persistent too ), but from your obvious inability to get the point - so here again for the umpteenth time: the stagers of the scene may NOT have been aware of JonBenet having shed urine post-mortem. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
I'm not weary from your persistence (I'm persistent too ), but from your obvious inability to get the point - so here again for the umpteenth time: the stagers of the scene may NOT have been aware of JonBenet having shed urine post-mortem. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

jmo

rashomon,
You offer no evidence to accompany your speculation. And accepting Coroners opinion regarding JonBenet having been wiped down, after the size-12's had been placed on her, implying this was a 2nd wipe-down, most likely occuring as a consequence of some vaginal assault using the paintbrush. Then the stagers must have been aware that JonBenet's longjohns were urine-soaked?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

OK, but if you read Steve Thomas' book, towards the end of Gathering Storm you will find an account of a conference that included investigators, Dr. Henry Lee, and Coroner Meyer.

I'll let you read it, rather than quote it all, but Coroner Meyer said that chronic vaginal abuse was a possibility, this was in addition to the acute symptoms presented.

So Coroner Meyer did qualify and offer explanations for his autopsy findings.

The douching may be a red herring in the case, an alternative theory that offers another explanation for JonBenet's vaginal injuries.

Is douching that bad it requires a child to be killed?


.

Yes, offer opinions and explanations, but officially they will not say WHY because they simply do not know WHY. Only the perp knows WHY. How would Meyer (or any other forensic specialst studying the case) know WHY she was killed?

I don't understand your comment about the douching "requiring" a child to be killed. Douching would be EXTREMELY uncomfortable for a 6-year old girl. It's uncomfortable for grown women. The vaginal canal is much shorter in a child, and the nozzle may push against or into the cervix or uterus, and THAT would HURT. A LOT. And bleed. A lot.
JBR wasn't killed BY the douching; but if you mean her REACTION to being douched was enough to cause PR to flip out and kill her- I doubt it. It was a whole lot more that put PR in that state.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
You offer no evidence to accompany your speculation. And accepting Coroners opinion regarding JonBenet having been wiped down, after the size-12's had been placed on her, implying this was a 2nd wipe-down, most likely occuring as a consequence of some vaginal assault using the paintbrush. Then the stagers must have been aware that JonBenet's longjohns were urine-soaked?

How could they be aware of a something which had not yet happened?
Imo JonBenet drew her last breath after all the staging was over, and the urine was from post-mortem release.

Therea are no indicators of a second wipe-down.
Cloth fibers led the coroner to believe JonBenet had been wiped down.
We don't even know if it was blood that was wiped down. The lack of corresponding stains on the underwear is no indicator of this, imo, since the big size 12s could have been put on JonBenet after she was wiped down, then the longjohns were put over her.
Due to the subsequent handling of JonBenet's body during the staging, a few drops of blood could then have seeped from the vagina onto the underwear.

[UkGuy]:
You offer no evidence to accompany your speculation.

Imo the boot is on the other foot, for the evidence contradicts your theory.
Just think about your scenario from the point of logic and you will see the flaw in your argumentation:
What sense would it make make for the stager of the scene to bother wiping blood off the victim's body but not removing the bloodstainend underwear also?

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, offer opinions and explanations, but officially they will not say WHY because they simply do not know WHY. Only the perp knows WHY. How would Meyer (or any other forensic specialst studying the case) know WHY she was killed?

I don't understand your comment about the douching "requiring" a child to be killed. Douching would be EXTREMELY uncomfortable for a 6-year old girl. It's uncomfortable for grown women. The vaginal canal is much shorter in a child, and the nozzle may push against or into the cervix or uterus, and THAT would HURT. A LOT. And bleed. A lot.
JBR wasn't killed BY the douching; but if you mean her REACTION to being douched was enough to cause PR to flip out and kill her- I doubt it. It was a whole lot more that put PR in that state.

DeeDee249,
Lets put it this way then, if Patsy had simply been douching JonBenet, and JonBenet had accidentally hit her head on some object rendering her unconcious. Then why, following your theory was she so quickly murdered?

Douching is not sexual abuse, it may be unnecessary for a 6-year, and distasteful to many, also JonBenet had a recorded history of toileting issues, so why deny your daughter medical assistance, then murder her with a garrote, when dialling 911, or even placing her in the car and driving over fast, would allow her to recieve medical treatment?

Coroner Meyer is implying in his analysis of the evidence that sexual abuse was a factor contributing towards the death of JonBenet, if not the major one.

The prevailing assumption among investigators was that JonBenet had been molested, that it was chronic was open to debate?

.