New member, and a theory

[DeeDee249]

I think the autopsy has one sentence mentioning cellulose found in the vagina as well as birefringent material.

 

[UKGuy]

I think the autopsy has one sentence mentioning cellulose found in the vagina as well as birefringent material.

DeeDee249,
The word 'cellulose' does not appear in the final autopsy:

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.

This suggests two possibilities either Coroner Meyer never knew what kind of material this was, or its type was deliberately obscured by using a scientific term to describe it?

But it must already have been tested to know that it was birefringent, never mind refractive, so Coroner Meyer or BPD did not want that information out in the public domain, which is not uncommon in homicide cases.

Steve Thomas in his book, chap. Not So Grand Jury refers to a tiny splinter being found in JonBenet's vagina, then it is qualified as a cellulose splinter which he sources to the paintbrush belonging to Patsy Ramsey.


.

 

[BOESP]

From UKGUY (my responses are dark blue)


The word 'cellulose' does not appear in the final autopsy:


This suggests two possibilities either Coroner Meyer never knew what kind of material this was, or its type was deliberately obscured by using a scientific term to describe it?

I doubt he would deliberately obscure evidence. He could get in BIG trouble if caught doing that.

But it must already have been tested to know that it was birefringent, never mind refractive, so Coroner Meyer or BPD did not want that information out in the public domain, which is not uncommon in homicide cases.

This is another example of why JonBenet's body was released too early if, indeed, the birefringent material had not yet been tested to find out what type of birefringent material it was. If it was mica from talcum powder or other personal care item it would mean something different than, say, being a piece of glitter, or varnish from a paintbrush, and so on.

Steve Thomas in his book, chap. Not So Grand Jury refers to a tiny splinter being found in JonBenet's vagina, then it is qualified as a cellulose splinter which he sources to the paintbrush belonging to Patsy Ramsey.

Wish he'd said more about that.

 

[UKGuy]

From UKGUY (my responses are dark blue)


The word 'cellulose' does not appear in the final autopsy:


This suggests two possibilities either Coroner Meyer never knew what kind of material this was, or its type was deliberately obscured by using a scientific term to describe it?

I doubt he would deliberately obscure evidence. He could get in BIG trouble if caught doing that.

But it must already have been tested to know that it was birefringent, never mind refractive, so Coroner Meyer or BPD did not want that information out in the public domain, which is not uncommon in homicide cases.

This is another example of why JonBenet's body was released too early if, indeed, the birefringent material had not yet been tested to find out what type of birefringent material it was. If it was mica from talcum powder or other personal care item it would mean something different than, say, being a piece of glitter, or varnish from a paintbrush, and so on.

Steve Thomas in his book, chap. Not So Grand Jury refers to a tiny splinter being found in JonBenet's vagina, then it is qualified as a cellulose splinter which he sources to the paintbrush belonging to Patsy Ramsey.

Wish he'd said more about that.

BOESP,

Birefringent is a scientific term that describes material that polarizes light, or is refractive in two directions. From memory most materials have a refractive index, which describes the angle at which light or laser bends as it passes through the material. So rather that saying it was cellulose as Steve Thomas did Coroner Meyer was more obtuse, which is imo a clever way of not releasing information.

Wish he'd said more about that.

Well speculating, its not necessary that it was the painbrush that was inserted inside JonBenet, it may have been another object, or someones finger e.g. Patsy's with her fingernail scratching and lacerating JonBenet internally, since the person who snapped the paintbrush, may be the same person who assaulted JonBenet, so depositing some cellulose via their finger inside JonBenet?


.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,

Birefringent is a scientific term that describes material that polarizes light, or is refractive in two directions. From memory most materials have a refractive index, which describes the angle at which light or laser bends as it passes through the material. So rather that saying it was cellulose as Steve Thomas did Coroner Meyer was more obtuse, which is imo a clever way of not releasing information.


Well speculating, its not necessary that it was the painbrush that was inserted inside JonBenet, it may have been another object, or someones finger e.g. Patsy's with her fingernail scratching and lacerating JonBenet internally, since the person who snapped the paintbrush, may be the same person who assaulted JonBenet, so depositing some cellulose via their finger inside JonBenet?


.

Yes, I know what birefringent means. As to your other points, I believe I said what you said only I used different examples. Certainly, if the cellulose were from the paintbrush it could have been transferred by the person's fingernail who broke the paintbrush. Just like it could have been any number of things transferred by someone's fingernail or their finger or some other contact point. I suspect authorities do know what that birefringent material was. Cellulose, however, doesn't mean it was a paintbrush and birefringent doesn't mean it was the paintbrush.

Thanks for your input.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, I know what birefringent means. As to your other points, I believe I said what you said only I used different examples. Certainly, if the cellulose were from the paintbrush it could have been transferred by the person's fingernail who broke the paintbrush. Just like it could have been any number of things transferred by someone's fingernail or their finger or some other contact point. I suspect authorities do know what that birefringent material was. Cellulose, however, doesn't mean it was a paintbrush and birefringent doesn't mean it was the paintbrush.

Thanks for your input.

BOESP,

Yes, I know what birefringent means.

Then you know that Coroner Meyer must have received test results reporting this, birefringent is distinct from refractive, so Coroner Meyer must have been offered a conclusion as to the type of material discovered inside JonBenet?

Cellulose, however, doesn't mean it was a paintbrush and birefringent doesn't mean it was the paintbrush.

I agree, so why does Coroner Meyer need to cover his autopsy findings with vague terms such as birefringent ?

Have you checked to see if either the glossy covering of a paintbrush has a cellulose base, or if the paintbrush handle which was wood constituted some form of cellulose, and are either of these birefringent?

Given that they are, they can be matched directly against the specimen recovered from inside JonBenet, the point being although we do not know the police most certainly do.

I guess this is why Steve Thomas in his book, chap. Not So Grand Jury where he refers to a tiny splinter being found in JonBenet's vagina, feels so confident in describing the splinter as cellulose which he then sources to the paintbrush belonging to Patsy Ramsey?


.

 

[Albert18]

I agree, so why does Coroner Meyer need to cover his autopsy findings with vague terms such as birefringent ?

The Ramsey muscle got to the DA's office and to the police department, so wouldn't they have attempted to get to the medical examiner's office. Meyer lived in that town and had to be aware of it's law enforcement climate.

I have to wonder if Meyer wasn't keeping his head low during that autopsy.

I think the autopsy should have been a much better guide for the police.

 

[UKGuy]

The Ramsey muscle got to the DA's office and to the police department, so wouldn't they have attempted to get to the medical examiner's office. Meyer lived in that town and had to be aware of it's law enforcement climate.

I have to wonder if Meyer wasn't keeping his head low during that autopsy.

I think the autopsy should have been a much better guide for the police.

Albert18,

Initially aspects of the original autopsy report were redacted, but later released, in this intervening period the language used in the report may have undergone some modification, with some details being relocated to the autopsy notes?

.

 

[BOESP]

(BOESP's replies are in red)

BOESP,

I agree, so why does Coroner Meyer need to cover his autopsy findings with vague terms such as birefringent ?

I can't answer that since it would be speculation on my part. Perhaps he was asked to withhold certain information that would be known only to the killer (I'm just speculating <G>).

Have you checked to see if either the glossy covering of a paintbrush has a cellulose base, or if the paintbrush handle which was wood constituted some form of cellulose, and are either of these birefringent?

I do paint so I'm very familiar with several types of paint brushes. High quality shellac or polyurethane is generally the protective coating for brushes. Wood, certainly, contains cellulose fibers. I would expect the glossy coating might be described as birefringent but just about everything will have some amount of refraction but this is way out of my realm of knowledge to even attempt to make decisions about what the pathologist meant. It seems to me that he would have identified the particles if he knew what they were rather than just saying he found birefringent material and/or a microscopic sliver of cellulose. I don't have a certified copy of the autopsy so maybe the "real thing" gives the details you are asking about.

Given that they are, they can be matched directly against the specimen recovered from inside JonBenet, the point being although we do not know the police most certainly do.

I would agree with the above statement.

I guess this is why Steve Thomas in his book, chap. Not So Grand Jury where he refers to a tiny splinter being found in JonBenet's vagina, feels so confident in describing the splinter as cellulose which he then sources to the paintbrush belonging to Patsy Ramsey?

You could very well be correct about that. I find Thomas's book the most useful of all that have been published so far (I haven't read the newest one that was published in Japan).

 

[Dru]

I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that JR was involved, at the very least, in the cover up, if not in the actual crime.

Here's a few:

-shirt fibers found on JBR
-RN which attempts to implicate disgruntled former Access Graphics employees
-behavior concerning the broken basement window
-instructions to pilot early, right after JBR's body was found
-'checking' on BR that doesn't involve actually going into the room to make sure the "intruder" isn't hiding in there (I mean, honestly. Your little girl is missing and you think she's been kidnapped, so you.....peek in on your son, flip the lights on quickly to make sure he's in there, flip them back off again, and leave? You don't get him out of there, keep him with you, search the room, beg him to try to remember anything unusual he's heard during the night, etc.? The whole 'flip the lights on and off again' sounds like what you do when you want to see if a child's still sleeping, not that he hasn't been kidnapped. I mean, for all the R's knew that morning, the "kidnapper" might have injured or killed BR as he slept!!!)
-finding the body
-the 'slip up' to S. Long over the time he found the body
-the duct tape which FW picked up curiously--could it be because he didn't see JR actually pull it off, but noticed that it fell to the ground as soon as JR picked JBR up?
-the knot tied on the "garrote"
-allowing his obviously hysterical wife to call 911 when he was clearly the calmer person and should have taken charge
-involvement of lawyers right away

and I would add, "the size 12 underwear" because I can't see how any woman would ever believe that anyone would buy the idea that a little girl would be happy wearing underwear that big--it just seems to have a man's touch, there.

Now, what evidence is there against PR?

-sweater fibers on JBR, the paint tray, and the rope used to make the "garrote"
-the use of the paintbrush in the "garrote"
-the RN (though I still can't get how a journalism major would use the wrong insertion caret!)
-her behavior in not running when she heard JR scream for an ambulance
-hanging up on the 911 call
-calling over friends, looking at photo books, generally acting like a person in mourning before JBR was even found
-ponytails (?) If these were added after the crime PR probably added them

If I've missed anything please add!

Now, I haven't included their many slip-ups, misstatements, and outright lies to LE and others; but I think they've both done this so consistently it would be hard to say that one or the other was the more guilty of this.

But I don't see that it's very likely that JR knew nothing of the crime till after he'd found JBR. In fact, it's very unlikely.

Why?

As CEO of a major corporation, JR knew that there were procedures that would automatically be triggered by a kidnapping. None of those procedures were put into place on Dec. 26; nor, as far as anyone knows or has been willing to state, did JR ever request that they be!

But if he'd read that note and thought even for a minute that this was a bona fide kidnapping, JR would have demanded that these procedures be initiated. Even if he'd 'subconsciously' recognized PR's handwriting, he would have been aware that Access Graphics would be involved as a matter of security, especially given the veiled and open threats against JR in the RN.

JR knew that his daughter was dead before morning on the 26th. He knew.

 

[BOESP]

-shirt fibers found on JBR

I'm confused a bit on this. Weren't there blue fibers found on JonBenet's thighs and crotch that couldn't be sourced, although some thought they belonged to John's shirt or John's bathrobe? Is it definite about them belonging to his shirt?

-'checking' on BR that doesn't involve actually going into the room to make sure the "intruder" isn't hiding in there (I mean, honestly. Your little girl is missing and you think she's been kidnapped, so you.....peek in on your son, flip the lights on quickly to make sure he's in there,

John or Patsy said in DOI (I could never be sure which one was writing in their book since the writer(s) changed their points of view without saying so) they checked in Burke's room because JonBenet sometimes got in bed with Burke during the night if she'd wet her bed so they thought she might be with Burke. Since Patsy had said JonBenet didn't wet her bed that night, I have no idea why they gave that reason for checking in Burke's room. I think they also said they wanted to make sure Burke was okay. They also could have wanted to see if he was awake or aware of what was going on. You can bet I'd wake up my other child to find out if he'd heard anything during the night! They said they didn't because they didn't want to upset him.

-the knot tied on the "garrote"

After looking at photos of this device, I'd call it a ligature instead of a garrote. If memory serves me, the press are the ones who started using "garrote" incorrectly. Somewhere I read that in one of the interviews Patsy was asked if JonBenet and Burke ever played around with ropes. Wish I could remember where I read that!

and I would add, "the size 12 underwear" because I can't see how any woman would ever believe that anyone would buy the idea that a little girl would be happy wearing underwear that big--it just seems to have a man's touch, there.

There's no way JonBenet wore panties that large when she was awake but I'm not sure it would necessarily mean a man put them on her some time during her killing. It could mean they were just what was available to fill the need. It didn't strike me as something a molester or kidnapper would do to their victim within the victim's home with parents around who could wake up at any time.

-the RN (though I still can't get how a journalism major would use the wrong insertion caret!)

Hard to say about that but if it is a fake ransom note (yeah, I know, quit laughing) the author could have purposely made misspellings, grammar, and punctuation errors thinking it would throw off investigators. I'm not sure that a kidnapper/intruder would have done so much editing anyway.

-ponytails (?) If these were added after the crime PR probably added them

An Intruder wouldn't have worried about her hair. Intruders that want to "play around" with their victim remove the victim to another site to do their freaky perversions, especially if the victim's parents were in the same house at the time of the "kidnapping."

As CEO of a major corporation, JR knew that there were procedures that would automatically be triggered by a kidnapping. None of those procedures were put into place on Dec. 26; nor, as far as anyone knows or has been willing to state, did JR ever request that they be!

But if he'd read that note and thought even for a minute that this was a bona fide kidnapping, JR would have demanded that these procedures be initiated.

He probably did call someone and it just hasn't been made public. I doubt that security procedures would allow a leak like that.

It seems clear to me that what happened to JonBenet does not fit with the actions of a kidnapping, sexual predator abduction, or an intruder coming into the house at night to kill for enjoyment. No one else was harmed and nothing was missing.

It seems to me that of all the books written about this case, Steve Thomas had access to the most and best evidence. I suspect he has a pretty good idea of what happened. I also expect his book doesn't tell all he knows.

I know this is long-winded but if you were gracious enough to take time to put those thoughts together, I thought they deserved a reply.

 

[Solace]

I vaguely remember reading about a small cellulose or wooden splinter having been found in the vagina.

Steve Thomas in his book says it is a splinter.

 

[Solace]

I'm confused a bit on this. Weren't there blue fibers found on JonBenet's thighs and crotch that couldn't be sourced, although some thought they belonged to John's shirt or John's bathrobe? Is it definite about them belonging to his shirt?



John or Patsy said in DOI (I could never be sure which one was writing in their book since the writer(s) changed their points of view without saying so) they checked in Burke's room because JonBenet sometimes got in bed with Burke during the night if she'd wet her bed so they thought she might be with Burke. Since Patsy had said JonBenet didn't wet her bed that night, I have no idea why they gave that reason for checking in Burke's room. I think they also said they wanted to make sure Burke was okay. They also could have wanted to see if he was awake or aware of what was going on. You can bet I'd wake up my other child to find out if he'd heard anything during the night! They said they didn't because they didn't want to upset him.


After looking at photos of this device, I'd call it a ligature instead of a garrote. If memory serves me, the press are the ones who started using "garrote" incorrectly. Somewhere I read that in one of the interviews Patsy was asked if JonBenet and Burke ever played around with ropes. Wish I could remember where I read that!



There's no way JonBenet wore panties that large when she was awake but I'm not sure it would necessarily mean a man put them on her some time during her killing. It could mean they were just what was available to fill the need. It didn't strike me as something a molester or kidnapper would do to their victim within the victim's home with parents around who could wake up at any time.



Hard to say about that but if it is a fake ransom note (yeah, I know, quit laughing) the author could have purposely made misspellings, grammar, and punctuation errors thinking it would throw off investigators. I'm not sure that a kidnapper/intruder would have done so much editing anyway.



An Intruder wouldn't have worried about her hair. Intruders that want to "play around" with their victim remove the victim to another site to do their freaky perversions, especially if the victim's parents were in the same house at the time of the "kidnapping."



He probably did call someone and it just hasn't been made public. I doubt that security procedures would allow a leak like that.

It seems clear to me that what happened to JonBenet does not fit with the actions of a kidnapping, sexual predator abduction, or an intruder coming into the house at night to kill for enjoyment. No one else was harmed and nothing was missing.

It seems to me that of all the books written about this case, Steve Thomas had access to the most and best evidence. I suspect he has a pretty good idea of what happened. I also expect his book doesn't tell all he knows.

I know this is long-winded but if you were gracious enough to take time to put those thoughts together, I thought they deserved a reply.

He says he called Westmorland that morning.

 

[UKGuy]

After looking at photos of this device, I'd call it a ligature instead of a garrote. If memory serves me, the press are the ones who started using "garrote" incorrectly. Somewhere I read that in one of the interviews Patsy was asked if JonBenet and Burke ever played around with ropes. Wish I could remember where I read that!

BOESP,
It is a garrote not a ligature, the addition of the broken paintbrush handle is what transforms it from a ligature into garrote.


.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

There was a poster here a while ago who brought some information up that I thought was very interesting in relation the overlarge underwear. This person had said that those size 12/14s had been meant for Jenny, Patsy's niece, who wore that size. In the basement was a box that partially unwrapped Christmas gifts in it...perhaps those underwear had been chosen to be the ones JB was redressed in because they were brand new, with no evidence of the Rs on them, and perhaps because they were in the basement, in the box, and were easy to get to.

I'm pretty much as convinced as I can be without solid proof that the package of underwear those on JB had come from was in that box, wrapped and ready to send, only to be unwrapped and used by the redresser...but it really makes sense, and answers why those undies might on her.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
It is a garrote not a ligature, the addition of the broken paintbrush handle is what transforms it from a ligature into garrote..

How do you use it as a garotte if the stick is attached to the long end of the rope and by twisting that stick, the rope isn't set up to tighten the part that's around the neck? All that happens is the length of rope between the noose and the stick just "corkscrews." It would take a lot of twisting to get the noose at the other end of the long rope to tighten enough to strangle someone that way. Maybe I've misinterpreted the drawing and photos I've seen, plus didn't the autopsy say ligature?

I'd call it a garotte if the stick was inserted in the noose and then twisted. Is that what happened?

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics but I think of ligature strangulation as different than strangulation by garotte. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[BOESP]

There was a poster here a while ago who brought some information up that I thought was very interesting in relation the overlarge underwear. This person had said that those size 12/14s had been meant for Jenny, Patsy's niece, who wore that size. In the basement was a box that partially unwrapped Christmas gifts in it...perhaps those underwear had been chosen to be the ones JB was redressed in because they were brand new, with no evidence of the Rs on them, and perhaps because they were in the basement, in the box, and were easy to get to.

I'm pretty much as convinced as I can be without solid proof that the package of underwear those on JB had come from was in that box, wrapped and ready to send, only to be unwrapped and used by the redresser...but it really makes sense, and answers why those undies might on her.

Yes, that does make sense. Seems like I read somewhere that there was, indeed, an opened Christmas package that seemed to have contained the panties. I can't see an Intruder opening Christmas presents in the basement, panties or not. Sooooo ... who would've done that an why? If an Intruder, why? If not an Intruder, who and why?

 

[UKGuy]

There was a poster here a while ago who brought some information up that I thought was very interesting in relation the overlarge underwear. This person had said that those size 12/14s had been meant for Jenny, Patsy's niece, who wore that size. In the basement was a box that partially unwrapped Christmas gifts in it...perhaps those underwear had been chosen to be the ones JB was redressed in because they were brand new, with no evidence of the Rs on them, and perhaps because they were in the basement, in the box, and were easy to get to.

I'm pretty much as convinced as I can be without solid proof that the package of underwear those on JB had come from was in that box, wrapped and ready to send, only to be unwrapped and used by the redresser...but it really makes sense, and answers why those undies might on her.

Nuisanceposter,
Yes Patsy supposedly purchased two sets, from Bloomingdales, one in size 6 and one in size 12 for Jenny. They were in packages of seven with the days of the week printed on them.

Makes you wonder why the story about them ever being in JonBenet's dresser ever arose?

If the underwear came from the box as you suggest then the police already know this, since there will only be six-pairs in the box?

If this is the case then it looks to me like you have Patsy cleaning up JonBenet and redressing her, did John wipe her down first? Which, imo, all adds up to another staging theory.

.

 

[UKGuy]

How do you use it as a garotte if the stick is attached to the long end of the rope and by twisting that stick, the rope isn't set up to tighten the part that's around the neck? All that happens is the length of rope between the noose and the stick just "corkscrews." It would take a lot of twisting to get the noose at the other end of the long rope to tighten enough to strangle someone that way. Maybe I've misinterpreted the drawing and photos I've seen, plus didn't the autopsy say ligature?

I'd call it a garotte if the stick was inserted in the noose and then twisted. Is that what happened?

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics but I think of ligature strangulation as different than strangulation by garotte. Of course, I could be wrong.

BOESP,

I dont think you are wrong, but its not a matter of semantics because the meaning of a garrote is fixed, and allegedly originates in spain.

Ligature strangulation, and garotte strangulation are both strangulation, only the chosen technique differs.

On the semantics popular culture tends to use garroted as a synonym for strangled, when a ligature is employed.

Your questions open a can of worms since I reckon the autopsy report says JonBenet was ligature strangled, and her cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation which imo is slightly different?

When you read the autopsy report you will find :

I. Ligature strangulation
A. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow
of neck
B. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages, neck
C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and
skin of face

Note the recording of the circumferential ligature furrow, now if the garrote caused this, you would expect a mention. The fact it is circumferential suggests it was applied when JonBenet was lying horizontal, else you would have the furrow angled upwards?

As the garrote is staging and that it would never work as intended since the knots were fixed, then if you like to think of the naming as a matter of semantics, thats fine as long as you can distinguish between the ligature as nylon cord and the nylon cord tied to the paintbrush handle to construct some makeshift garroting device?


.

 

[BOESP]

I dont think you are wrong, but its not a matter of semantics because the meaning of a garrote is fixed, and allegedly originates in spain. <snip>

Ligature strangulation, and garotte strangulation are both strangulation, only the chosen technique differs..

UKGuy, I think we are on the same page with this and I don't mind being wrong so don't worry about that, please. Ligature strangulation is the manner of death and we agree. In my mind, however, it is critical if we are to use that piece of data to determine something about the killer, whether staged or truly done with the intent to kill, that the method be properly identified. Someone who strangles says something about the killer. Someone who strangles by pulling a knotted rope around a throat is a bit different than someone who uses a a tightening device to strangle (the device being a stick inserted into a rope used to tighten the rope).

Hope that makes sense. Communications on message board is hard work. :waitasec:

By the way, I do think it was staged, for what that's worth and I appreciate your thoughtful response.