LIfe as a fence sitter

[rashomon]

rashomon,

I'm not trying to knock it down.
But you should, that is the point about the first phrase.

UKGuy,
Sorry about my no native-speaker language goof - I had misunderstood the meaning of "knock it down". :doh:

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
Sorry about my no native-speaker language goof - I had misunderstood the meaning of "knock it down". :doh:

rashomon,

Absolutely no problem.



.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,


No its a logical inference, some might say a conclusion based upon the forensic evidence.

AFAIK only one foreign item was discovered inside JonBenet, itemized in the Autopsy Report by Coroner Meyer as birefringent material.

Steve Thomas in his book Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, tells us that

So we know it is a splinter, we know it is cellulose, and likely originates from the paintbrush, Coroner Meyer describes it as as birefringent material.

Beacause it is birefringent Coroner Meyer knows exactly what it is composed of but at the point in time of the release of the autopsy, there was an embargo on releasing particular information, birefringent material nicely hides the potential source of the material.

So since there is only one item inside JonBenet and we have two separate references, the conclusion follows.

To demonstrate I have it all wrong all you need to do is show that cellulose is not birefringent ?


.

I think you are probably correct, except I would add that it doesn't prove with certainty the paintbrush was inserted vaginally. It could suggest that, or it could suggest the possibility the splinter was transferred by a finger (which is consistent with the digital penetration theory of most of physicians whose statements have been made public). I would assume based on you saying it was "likely" it came from the paintbrush would leave room for doubt but wouldn't you think they compared the splinter to the paintbrush????

I assume Dr. Meyer had to examine this "splinter" using instruments that measure birefringence in order to call it "birefringent." Would that be a correct assumption?

I think you've resolved most of that problem and I thank you! It doesn't prove the paintbrush was used as a sexual abuse instrument but:

"Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The small 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." [autopsy report]

​

The damage is both chronic and acute. It doesn't represent damage usually seen when an adult sexually abuses a child for personal gratification (based on empirical evidence and personal study). She was still alive when the acute assault occurred based on the presence of red blood cells on the eroded surface. Based on other reports, no semen was found on the body.

Next step, what part does this evidence play in the crime? Just thinking out loud again, still trying to figure out the sexual abuse angle.

 

[BOESP]

I agree,JR had already lost one daughter,if he truly didn't know what was going on,FORGET calling 911...I think he would have had both hands around Patsy's throat yelling "Where's JonBenet???!!! ..I KNOW YOU WROTE THAT NOTE!"
His further lies and behavior indicate he was not the anxious father of a KN'd daughter (or even one of whom suspected his wife being in on whatever was going on).He would have been flipping that house upside down and throwing things right and left looking for JB or for clues...and it sure wouldn't have taken him 7 hours to find her ! He would have found her within an hour or so,stopping only long enough to get some help (silently) and using the friends FOR help,IF he bothered to call them at all,out of fear of JB being 'beheaded'.
He didn't even warn LE that JB would be in danger if they were seen or heard talking to anyone.BIG red flag there.

JMO, I play the above version over in my head too. I just can't get a grip on John Ramsey's part in this. Here is my major stumbling block. Would Patsy uphold John if John killed JonBenet. Was she that money-grubbing that she would side with her husband over the one human she said she loved more than life itself? Many wives do, in fact, take that attitude even when a lot less money and prestige are involved.

Something just does not fit in all this unless Patsy and John were both involved or unless they are protecting Burke. Another possibility I dwell on is that any possible sexual abuse, if not from Patsy as a corporal punishment, was an unrelated event to JonBenet's death.

I just think Steve Thomas's theory is the only one that fits all the evidence except he doesn't think John was involved. Maybe I need to read that chapter again. I've already read it twice this week and keep interpreting it that Thomas doesn't think John was involved. What am I missing here????

 

[BOESP]

The problem is that this forensic evidence seems to allow for more than one interpretation. Not even the pediatric medical experts were of the same opinon regarding the cause of JonBenet's genital injuries.

I'm glad someone else is thinking along the lines I am and isn't afraid to admit it.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,

After arriving back from the White's JonBenet consumed some pineapple, and on the same table was a tea-glass holding a teabag, Burke was the resident tea drinker.

John's account on returning from the White's is that he spent some time with Burke.

OK fine, Burke is the independent witness to all these alleged events, he alone can confirm, which are correct, bear in mind he stated that JonBenet walked into the house that night, his account is consistent with the pineapple residue, the parents is not, since they allege they placed a sleeping JonBenet to bed.

So Burke has colluded to maintain a particular version of events.


.

If Burke is telling the truth as he knew and remembered it, he isn't in collusion. Also, how can he be in collusion if he gave a statement that conflicted with his parents' statements? Or, are you saying that now that he is grown he should figure things out and come and make a full statement as an adult?

 

[trixie]

If the staging was to direct attention away from the real reason JonBenet died, and a sexual assault was part of the staging, how can sexual abuse be a part of the real reason JonBenet died?

Sexual ASSAULT to cover up sexual ABUSE.

 

[UKGuy]

If Burke is telling the truth as he knew and remembered it, he isn't in collusion. Also, how can he be in collusion if he gave a statement that conflicted with his parents' statements? Or, are you saying that now that he is grown he should figure things out and come and make a full statement as an adult?

BOESP

Because he remains silent.



.

 

[rashomon]

Something just does not fit in all this unless Patsy and John were both involved or unless they are protecting Burke.
I just think Steve Thomas's theory is the only one that fits all the evidence except he doesn't think John was involved. Maybe I need to read that chapter again. I've already read it twice this week and keep interpreting it that Thomas doesn't think John was involved. What am I missing here????

In Steve Thomas' opinion, John Ramsey was neither JonBenet's sexual abuser nor was he involved in her killing or in the staging of the scene (garrote and ransom note). But ST thinks that John discovered the body in the wine cellar at the time he vanished from Linda Arndt's sight (at around 10 am), put two and two together and it became clear to him that it must have been Patsy. John then decided to cover-up for Patsy.
I personally believe John got involved earlier, helping Patsy to stage the scene.

Another possibility I dwell on is that any possible sexual abuse, if not from Patsy as a corporal punishment, was an unrelated event to JonBenet's death.

I have had this scenario in mind too. If there was in fact chronic sexual abuse, it must not necessarily have had anything to do with JonBenet's violent death. The two issues could be unrelated. Imo no stone should be left unturned in discussing this case, and every possibility explored.

 

[UKGuy]

I think you are probably correct, except I would add that it doesn't prove with certainty the paintbrush was inserted vaginally. It could suggest that, or it could suggest the possibility the splinter was transferred by a finger (which is consistent with the digital penetration theory of most of physicians whose statements have been made public). I would assume based on you saying it was "likely" it came from the paintbrush would leave room for doubt but wouldn't you think they compared the splinter to the paintbrush????

I assume Dr. Meyer had to examine this "splinter" using instruments that measure birefringence in order to call it "birefringent." Would that be a correct assumption?

I think you've resolved most of that problem and I thank you! It doesn't prove the paintbrush was used as a sexual abuse instrument but:

"Vaginal Mucosa: All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation. The small 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." [autopsy report]

​

The damage is both chronic and acute. It doesn't represent damage usually seen when an adult sexually abuses a child for personal gratification (based on empirical evidence and personal study). She was still alive when the acute assault occurred based on the presence of red blood cells on the eroded surface. Based on other reports, no semen was found on the body.

Next step, what part does this evidence play in the crime? Just thinking out loud again, still trying to figure out the sexual abuse angle.

BOESP,

I assume Dr. Meyer had to examine this "splinter" using instruments that measure birefringence in order to call it "birefringent." Would that be a correct assumption?

Yes, an instrument capable of measuring the different angles of polarized light.

I would assume based on you saying it was "likely" it came from the paintbrush would leave room for doubt but wouldn't you think they compared the splinter to the paintbrush????

They did, and Steve Thomas states the experts matched it to the splinter.

It could suggest that, or it could suggest the possibility the splinter was transferred by a finger (which is consistent with the digital penetration theory of most of physicians whose statements have been made public).

Possibly, or by the paintbrush handle, after JonBenet was sexually assaulted. It is Coroner Meyer's opinion that she was digitally penetrated, this may or may not be distinct from the splinter?

e.g. sexual activity or digital penetration are not quite the same as a sexual assault using a paintbrush.

Coroner Meyer explicitly states verbally that in his opinion JonBenet had been sexually molested at the time of her death. Also her enlarged hymen and its eroded appearance is consistent with past sexual molestation.

So until evidence is presented that conflicts with this assumption, JonBenet's death is one involving sexual abuse.


.

 

[UKGuy]

In Steve Thomas' opinion, John Ramsey was neither JonBenet's sexual abuser nor was he involved in her killing or in the staging of the scene (garrote and ransom note). But ST thinks that John discovered the body in the wine cellar at the time he vanished from Linda Arndt's sight (at around 10 am), put two and two together and it became clear to him that it must have been Patsy. John then decided to cover-up for Patsy.
I personally believe John got involved earlier, helping Patsy to stage the scene.
I have had this scenario in mind too. If there was in fact chronic sexual abuse, it must not necessarily have had anything to do with JonBenet's violent death. The two issues could be unrelated. Imo no stone should be left unturned in discussing this case, and every possibility explored.

rashomon,

Coroner Meyer did not say JonBenet's digital penetration was unrelated to her death.


.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Coroner Meyer did not say JonBenet's digital penetration was unrelated to her death.

But he did not say it was related to her death either.

The problem here is that we don't have any direct written official source where Meyer says JB had been digitally penetrated.

So who said this? Linda Arndt who was present at the autopsy? But how reliable is she? Arndt was convinced John had killed his daughter, judging from "the look in his eyes". And later this same Linda Arndt happily showed Thomas a bunch of flowers she had received "from Patsy and John". Priceless.
I'm not trying to downplay what the coroner said in the autopsy report about the circumferential reddish hyperemia. But in terms of his personal conclusion on it, I'd prefer other testimonies than Arndt's to back it up.

Coroner Meyer explicitly states verbally that in his opinion JonBenet had been sexually molested at the time of her death. Also her enlarged hymen and its eroded appearance is consistent with past sexual molestation.

We don't have coroner Meyer's written statement about JonBenet having been sexually molested at the time of her death.
Nor did he note in his autopy report that her hymen was 'eroded'. He said it was represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise from the 2 to 10 o'clock position. This is no abnormal finding.

 

[DeeDee249]

The paintbrush splinter inside her vagina could have been transferred by a finger if it was the same finger that broke the paintbrush. I feel this was the case, as I think if she were really jabbed with that broken paintbrush, there would be more damage to the internal vaginal tissue than is seen. Even if after death (when bruising or bleeding does not occur) there would be tearing or more than a single splinter seen.

 

[rashomon]

The paintbrush splinter inside her vagina could have been transferred by a finger if it was the same finger that broke the paintbrush. I feel this was the case, as I think if she were really jabbed with that broken paintbrush, there would be more damage to the internal vaginal tissue than is seen. Even if after death (when bruising or bleeding does not occur) there would be tearing or more than a single splinter seen.

The vaginal wound is described as a mere abrasion in the autopsy report. But wouldn't a broken paintbrush which was jabbed in do more damage than a mere abrasion?

 

[UKGuy]

The vaginal wound is described as a mere abrasion in the autopsy report. But wouldn't a broken paintbrush which was jabbed in do more damage than a mere abrasion?

rashomon,

I agree which strengthens the case that her sexual assault preceded her death.

.

 

[UKGuy]

The paintbrush splinter inside her vagina could have been transferred by a finger if it was the same finger that broke the paintbrush. I feel this was the case, as I think if she were really jabbed with that broken paintbrush, there would be more damage to the internal vaginal tissue than is seen. Even if after death (when bruising or bleeding does not occur) there would be tearing or more than a single splinter seen.

DeeDee249,

I agree, or it is residue from the missing piece which has been redacted.

If there was no missing piece discovered inside JonBenet, then its safe to assume we have a direct attempt at staging.


.

 

[UKGuy]

But he did not say it was related to her death either.

The problem here is that we don't have any direct written official source where Meyer says JB had been digitally penetrated.

So who said this? Linda Arndt who was present at the autopsy? But how reliable is she? Arndt was convinced John had killed his daughter, judging from "the look in his eyes". And later this same Linda Arndt happily showed Thomas a bunch of flowers she had received "from Patsy and John". Priceless.
I'm not trying to downplay what the coroner said in the autopsy report about the circumferential reddish hyperemia. But in terms of his personal conclusion on it, I'd prefer other testimonies than Arndt's to back it up.


We don't have coroner Meyer's written statement about JonBenet having been sexually molested at the time of her death.
Nor did he note in his autopy report that her hymen was 'eroded'. He said it was represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise from the 2 to 10 o'clock position. This is no abnormal finding.

rashomon,
What Linda Arndt stated in the affidivat is legal testimony, it does not represent hearsay, also I assume there were other witness's present?

If what Linda Arndt stated was false then she is misrepresenting Coroner Meyer, who is a public representative. Do you not think he may have corrected this by now?

Its one thing to voice an opinion, quite another for a third party to put the words into your mouth. That is not only potentially libellous but can be grounds for suing.

Nor did he note in his autopy report that her hymen was 'eroded'. He said it was represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise from the 2 to 10 o'clock position. This is no abnormal finding.

So nobody sexually assaulted JonBenet, her hymen and vagina were healthy and appropropriate for a six-year old, is this what follows from your absence of information?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

The vaginal wound is described as a mere abrasion in the autopsy report. But wouldn't a broken paintbrush which was jabbed in do more damage than a mere abrasion?

That's exactly what I said. That I didn't think she HAD been jabbed with the broken paintbrush because there would be more damage to her vagina than is shown. I said that I felt the splinter was left there from the digital penetration, done by whoever broke the paintbrush.

 

[BBB167893]

Perhaps the person did not use full force?

 

[Ames]

Perhaps the person did not use full force?

And only a parent would NOT have used full force...IMO....for the same reason that they wrapped her "lovingly" in a blanket...like a "papoose".