Molested with the handle?

[DeeDee249]

I am not so sure the vaginal blood from a sexually immature differs from composition from blood in general. In a sexually mature (one who has reached puberty) female, vaginal secretions are present that may mix with blood from an injury and may be detected, and of course, menstrual blood contains cellular debris from the lining of the uterus and so can be distinguished from other blood. But in this case, neither of these things apply, as even the coroner described her uterus and breasts as "pre-pubescent".

 

[DeeDee249]

As far as how a coroner describes things in spoken notes at autopsy- things must first be described as they are SEEN, before they are tested.
For example- her bracelet, ring, necklace and cross are described as "yellow colored metal" because that is how they appear as first seen on the body. After they are removed, it can be acertained what KIND of yellow colored metal, i.e. 14K, 18K, etc.
Blood has a color, odor, and viscosity well-known to a coroner. When it as described as "blood" it is because the coroner is certain that is, indeed, blood. But "thin watery red fluid" or "red staining" may be blood that is mixed with other fluids. So while the coroner may think it is blood, he must first test it to see what else is there. But he will describe it the way he first observes it on the body. For crime-solving purposes, to decribe the red staining as simply "blood stains" would not be prudent. If the samples later are found to also contain semen, or another fluid, the first description would be inaccurate.
The same is true for the tan mucous in her nostrils. Presumably the coroner has seen bloody mucous before. This was likely nasal mucous mixed with blood from the head bash. But until that mucous is tested, it must be noted as it appears: tan mucous.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
This is an important question e.g. was JonBenet's genital injury staged then removed from view?

Or was she sexually assaulted then it was cleaned up and hidden from view?



.

in theory,it could be either,or even both?
..but given the fact a splinter was left behind lends credence to a staged assault,IMO,at least initially.
..but it appears she had been molested b/f that night,but,was she molested on the same night of her death as well? hard to say,but perhaps JR's fiber evidence and the NEW underwear say she was?
If so,I don't think it caused an injury though..why the need to stage an injury if none was caused at the time?

 

[JMO8778]

As far as how a coroner describes things in spoken notes at autopsy- things must first be described as they are SEEN, before they are tested.
For example- her bracelet, ring, necklace and cross are described as "yellow colored metal" because that is how they appear as first seen on the body. After they are removed, it can be acertained what KIND of yellow colored metal, i.e. 14K, 18K, etc.
Blood has a color, odor, and viscosity well-known to a coroner. When it as described as "blood" it is because the coroner is certain that is, indeed, blood. But "thin watery red fluid" or "red staining" may be blood that is mixed with other fluids. So while the coroner may think it is blood, he must first test it to see what else is there. But he will describe it the way he first observes it on the body. For crime-solving purposes, to decribe the red staining as simply "blood stains" would not be prudent. If the samples later are found to also contain semen, or another fluid, the first description would be inaccurate.
The same is true for the tan mucous in her nostrils. Presumably the coroner has seen bloody mucous before. This was likely nasal mucous mixed with blood from the head bash. But until that mucous is tested, it must be noted as it appears: tan mucous.

right,he can't make assumptions until tests are done,it's the same way nurses notes.

 

[JMO8778]

I am not so sure the vaginal blood from a sexually immature differs from composition from blood in general. In a sexually mature (one who has reached puberty) female, vaginal secretions are present that may mix with blood from an injury and may be detected, and of course, menstrual blood contains cellular debris from the lining of the uterus and so can be distinguished from other blood. But in this case, neither of these things apply, as even the coroner described her uterus and breasts as "pre-pubescent".

I'm sure,I'm just wondering if the pH would be different in the overall secretions from the nose,if blood was mixed with it,and perhaps even the viscosity could be as well? I'm thinking there must be some way to tell the difference.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm sure,I'm just wondering if the pH would be different in the overall secretions from the nose,if blood was mixed with it,and perhaps even the viscosity could be as well? I'm thinking there must be some way to tell the difference.

Yes, there is certainly a way to tell the difference. Not just the Ph is different, but there is a way to tell if it is blood mixed with the mucous as well. Blood, when exposed to air, turns rust/brown. A small amount mixed with mucous would conceivably look tan by the time anyone saw her.
Not only that, but a forensic tests can show if blood is from a live or dead person. Blood chemistry changes very quickly after it ceases to be oxygenated.

 

[DeeDee249]

in theory,it could be either,or even both?
..but given the fact a splinter was left behind lends credence to a staged assault,IMO,at least initially.
..but it appears she had been molested b/f that night,but,was she molested on the same night of her death as well? hard to say,but perhaps JR's fiber evidence and the NEW underwear say she was?
If so,I don't think it caused an injury though..why the need to stage an injury if none was caused at the time?

As I see it, the need to stage an injury even if none was caused at the time (acute) is to hide PREVIOUS abuse (chronic). Meyer thought BOTH had occured.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

I agree thats why I cited Coroner Meyer. That does not exclude the missing piece being left inside JonBenet though?

You mean the coroner wouldn't have found it?
Or do you think he found it and did not mention it for some reason?
But this is highly unlikely. The autopsy was conducted in the presence of witnesses, and aside from that, Dr. Meyer had no reason to keep his mouth shut about it. He meticulously listed tiny details like a small piece of birefringent material, therefore we can draw the inference that he would have mentioned a missing paintbrush end too.

 

[DeeDee249]

You mean the coroner wouldn't have found it?
Or do you think he found it and did not mention it for some reason?
But this is highly unlikely. The autopsy was conducted in the presence of witnesses, and aside from that, Dr. Meyer had no reason to keep his mouth shut about it. He meticulously listed tiny details like a small piece of birefringent material, therefore we can draw the inference that he would have mentioned a missing paintbrush end too.

If the missing piece had been there, the coroner certainly would have found it. In an autopsy, the coroner doesn't just look- he cuts open so nothing is missed. If he saw the eroded hymen, exposed vaginal rugae, hyperemia, congestion and bruising he would also see a 3-inch piece of paintbrush.
I think we can draw two conclusions about this: the coroner saw and removed the paintbrush (which would be in police evidence now) and chose NOT to mention it specifically in the report (perhaps at the request of LE) OR the broken piece was NOT found in the vagina but a small splinter from it was. In this case, where that missing piece is remains unknown.

 

[BOESP]

I think it is as Thomas says. I think Patsy was tired of it and I think she wanted it to stop, the rashes, etc. and I think she was very severe in handling it per Linda Hoffman saying she heard daily crying from JonBenet and Patsy yelling.

That is horrible for anyone to go through. No child should go through it ever. We only have Linda saying this and of course she could be lying - she knows Patsy named her - so she is untrustworthy. I think there is some level of truth to it though.

As you know, people often won't tell all they know on the first go-round, especially if what they have to say is unflattering. Of course Linda could be lying but my take is she originally hated to say anything bad about Patsy and then Patsy showed no confidence in or loyalty toward Linda when she gave Linda's name as a possible suspect. I imagine at that point Linda decided she no longer owed Patsy the courtesy of loyalty and support. I can't see any real reason Linda H-P would have made up a story about hearing JonBenet's screams coming from the bathroom. I can't imagine Steve Thomas using the term "corporal cleaning" either unless he had evidence that it happened.

 

[BOESP]

As far as how a coroner describes things in spoken notes at autopsy- things must first be described as they are SEEN, before they are tested.
For example- her bracelet, ring, necklace and cross are described as "yellow colored metal" because that is how they appear as first seen on the body. After they are removed, it can be acertained what KIND of yellow colored metal, i.e. 14K, 18K, etc.
Blood has a color, odor, and viscosity well-known to a coroner. When it as described as "blood" it is because the coroner is certain that is, indeed, blood. But "thin watery red fluid" or "red staining" may be blood that is mixed with other fluids. So while the coroner may think it is blood, he must first test it to see what else is there. But he will describe it the way he first observes it on the body. For crime-solving purposes, to decribe the red staining as simply "blood stains" would not be prudent. If the samples later are found to also contain semen, or another fluid, the first description would be inaccurate.
The same is true for the tan mucous in her nostrils. Presumably the coroner has seen bloody mucous before. This was likely nasal mucous mixed with blood from the head bash. But until that mucous is tested, it must be noted as it appears: tan mucous.

Exactly! And, of course, the public doesn't have access to the lab reports so we are in the dark.

The big clue, to me, are the terms "semiliquid" and "watery." Something was mixed with what may have been blood -- what was it? Also, something described as semi-liquid wouldn't also be described as watery unless it had characteristics of both (such as a semi-liquid mass surrounded by a watery halo).

 

[Solace]

As you know, people often won't tell all they know on the first go-round, especially if what they have to say is unflattering. Of course Linda could be lying but my take is she originally hated to say anything bad about Patsy and then Patsy showed no confidence in or loyalty toward Linda when she gave Linda's name as a possible suspect. I imagine at that point Linda decided she no longer owed Patsy the courtesy of loyalty and support. I can't see any real reason Linda H-P would have made up a story about hearing JonBenet's screams coming from the bathroom. I can't imagine Steve Thomas using the term "corporal cleaning" either unless he had evidence that it happened.

I agree with you BOESP. Also, John has stated that Patsy never got angry. The two of them are so out there with the crap they try to sell.

 

[UKGuy]

You mean the coroner wouldn't have found it?
Or do you think he found it and did not mention it for some reason?
But this is highly unlikely. The autopsy was conducted in the presence of witnesses, and aside from that, Dr. Meyer had no reason to keep his mouth shut about it. He meticulously listed tiny details like a small piece of birefringent material, therefore we can draw the inference that he would have mentioned a missing paintbrush end too.

rashomon,

Or do you think he found it and did not mention it for some reason?

Yes.

He meticulously listed tiny details like a small piece of birefringent material, therefore we can draw the inference that he would have mentioned a missing paintbrush end too.

If the missing piece of paintbrush was inserted inside JonBenet, and since she was wrapped in those blankets and redressed in the longjohns etc, then nobody but the person who inserted the piece of paintbrush would know it was there, this is privileged information, and is commonly withheld from public disclosure since in the case of false confessions and public phone calls, it can help to determine the fake from the genuine.

He meticulously listed tiny details like a small piece of birefringent material, therefore we can draw the inference that he would have mentioned a missing paintbrush end too.

Therefore to generalise from Coroner Meyer's tiny details to larger unconnected ones, is clearly fallacious.


.

 

[UKGuy]

in theory,it could be either,or even both?
..but given the fact a splinter was left behind lends credence to a staged assault,IMO,at least initially.
..but it appears she had been molested b/f that night,but,was she molested on the same night of her death as well? hard to say,but perhaps JR's fiber evidence and the NEW underwear say she was?
If so,I don't think it caused an injury though..why the need to stage an injury if none was caused at the time?

JMO8778,
Putting prior molestation to one side. Consider why should anyone want to penetrate her, given we have a kidnap staging not a sexual offender staging?

Lets assume there was a sexual offender staging, who decided to go there and why?

Then someone decided Hey this sex crime does not look so good, lets do a kidnap crime

But it was never followed through as JonBenet was discovered in the wine-cellar.

So although the sex crime is abandonded a garrote is added, and her sexual injury is cleaned up and hidden from view?

So if a garrote was intended to create a diversion, how much more would a sex crime have added to the intended effect?

But someone took the risk of contaminating the crime-scene to clean her up, and redress her, they were so concerned they wiped the flashlight clean inside and out, although this may be part of the staging since Ramsey forensics are to be expected here?

The simplest suggestion is that JonBenet was initially sexually assaulted, for whatever reason, she bled, and what followed was violence and her death, and consequent staging?

Otherwise why bother hiding her sexual assault?


.

 

[BOESP]

I agree with you BOESP. Also, John has stated that Patsy never got angry. The two of them are so out there with the crap they try to sell.

Patsy may have had a passive-aggressive personality. By her own reports, she certainly exhibited many characteristics of that type behavior. A classic moment was her involvement with Susan Stine in using an innocent victim to get back at a reporter -- the fake "other women" trick they pulled. Patsy and Stine seemed to take great delight in hurting an innocent victim instead of confronting the reporter face-to-face in an adult manner. Passive-aggressive personalities are often very cruel underneath a smile that is a mile wide.

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy may have had a passive-aggressive personality. By her own reports, she certainly exhibited many characteristics of that type behavior. A classic moment was her involvement with Susan Stine in using an innocent victim to get back at a reporter -- the fake "other women" trick they pulled. Patsy and Stine seemed to take great delight in hurting an innocent victim instead of confronting the reporter face-to-face in an adult manner. Passive-aggressive personalities are often very cruel underneath a smile that is a mile wide.

Very true! There is a level of cruelty there with both these women, that paints a darker picture than they portray to their world. SS also impersonated a police officer in e-mails, if I am not mistaken.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
Putting prior molestation to one side. Consider why should anyone want to penetrate her, given we have a kidnap staging not a sexual offender staging?

Lets assume there was a sexual offender staging, who decided to go there and why?

Then someone decided Hey this sex crime does not look so good, lets do a kidnap crime

But it was never followed through as JonBenet was discovered in the wine-cellar.

So although the sex crime is abandonded a garrote is added, and her sexual injury is cleaned up and hidden from view?

So if a garrote was intended to create a diversion, how much more would a sex crime have added to the intended effect?

well,it would be easier to think a parent could not,would not garrotte their own child...but molestation/sex crime? happens all the time.
also,the garrotte was needed to help hide the manual strangulation that Dr Spitz said occurred first.

But someone took the risk of contaminating the crime-scene to clean her up, and redress her, they were so concerned they wiped the flashlight clean inside and out, although this may be part of the staging since Ramsey forensics are to be expected here?

all the more reason to make me wonder if the FL caused the head injury.

The simplest suggestion is that JonBenet was initially sexually assaulted, for whatever reason, she bled, and what followed was violence and her death, and consequent staging?

it may be the simplest,but yet,it doesn't quite fit.so we must look further...if the evidence doesn't fit...

Otherwise why bother hiding her sexual assault?

well,I've been thru that one a million times now...:slap:
anyway..the reason I think it doesn't fit...to reiterate again...IF there was a bleeding injury,then why the need to stage one? B/c I think the paintbrush handle was used *before she was garroted..and an abrasion occurred during the paintbrush assault,she bled,(the splinter was left sometime during the assault),the brush was removed,blood accidently got onto her thigh (and was wiped off at some point),AND AS SUCH...the splinter and the wiped thigh indicate this was a staged assault,with intent to bleed,possibly....so as I said b/f...why the need to stage a bleeding assault if one had already occurred that night?there just wouldn't be a need to.

 

[JMO8778]

As you know, people often won't tell all they know on the first go-round, especially if what they have to say is unflattering. Of course Linda could be lying but my take is she originally hated to say anything bad about Patsy and then Patsy showed no confidence in or loyalty toward Linda when she gave Linda's name as a possible suspect. I imagine at that point Linda decided she no longer owed Patsy the courtesy of loyalty and support. I can't see any real reason Linda H-P would have made up a story about hearing JonBenet's screams coming from the bathroom. I can't imagine Steve Thomas using the term "corporal cleaning" either unless he had evidence that it happened.

I think so,too.He must have talked to more than one person about it and overall,formed a firm opinion on it that it did indeed happen.
Perhaps that's what the intervention from friends was going to be about..more about the corporal cleaning and soiling issues/infections,and less about the platinum blond hair and 21 yo looks and poses.

 

[JMO8778]

rashomon,

Yes.


If the missing piece of paintbrush was inserted inside JonBenet, and since she was wrapped in those blankets and redressed in the longjohns etc, then nobody but the person who inserted the piece of paintbrush would know it was there, this is privileged information, and is commonly withheld from public disclosure since in the case of false confessions and public phone calls, it can help to determine the fake from the genuine.

something was blacked out in the description of when her body was found...it appears that was taken care of,although,yes,there could have been more...I just don't see it as the paintbrush handle being left inside her...

Therefore to generalise from Coroner Meyer's tiny details to larger unconnected ones, is clearly fallacious.


.

well...no...why the need to speculate where the splinter came from IF the handle was left inside her???? Also,using the handle was staging,and would have been too obvious as such to take the risk of that being known and leaving it inside her.I believe it was hidden,just as other evidence likely was.(and was for sure...like the package of size 12 underwear that later turned up...they got it out somehow....).and the handle would have been even smaller.it's not unfathomable to think it was easily hidden and removed..

 

[JMO8778]

UK,in considering a timeline for this to happen...perhaps Patsy alluded to that herself,when she said 'she was screaming and JR was screaming when he came up from the basement'.
I think Patsy did the initial head injury/garroting and staging of a sexual assault(as her fiber evidence indicates) ...then,as Patsy later said...'2 ppl know who did this crime..the killer,and someone that person confessed to'...I think she had a frame of reference on that one...herself.
So she confessed to JR,he went to the basement to see for himself...and 'she is screaming and JR is screaming when he comes up from the basement'....
..they write the RN,with intent to get her out of the house...
...phone calls are made (as the phone records did disappear),and a decision is made to leave her inside,in the WC...it will have to do (perhaps they just ran out of time,perhaps they also felt it was too risky)...SO...at that point,she must be restaged,as JR is worried about getting the blame for a sexual assault,now that leaving her indoors could point to him...so she is wiped down,redressed and covered...

only thing I would add is that I do feel molestation had taken place prior to that night...so Patsy factored that in with the staging..
..and when she said JR came running 'with his underwear on' when he heard her screaming? I think she *had to say that..same as he had to say it when he said he was in his underwear when he looked under JB's bed for her..he had some fiber evidence to account for there.