Questions you'd like answers to...

[IridescentDreams]

Lou Smit didn’t start investigating until 3 months after her murder. The other picture of the wine cellar is not a crime scene photo. It is a “staged” photo by the tabs.

Ive looked through the Smit photos, but don't really reference them. Too much time had elapsed between the murder and his photos and I don't feel they were objective. I'll have to try and dig up the picture I'm referring to wrt the WC/log grabber thing

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

Do we know if the abrasions on JBR were inflicted pre or post mortem?

Well, bruising doesn't happen after death. But beyond that, I have not expertise.

Abrasions certainly can, and actually bruising can and does occur postmortem as well. Usually it is inflicted within minutes of death while there is sufficient blood pressure to fill the impacted tissue from damaged capillaries. But it is still possible before the blood has congealed (within the livor mortis timeframe). If an M.E. has a reason to question whether it was inflicted antemortem or is an artifact, it can be visibly differentiated from antemortem bruises:

http://emedinews.blogspot.com/2012/06/difference-between-antemortem-and.html


There is even an objective test for determining whether a bruise might be ante- or post- mortem:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037907389601938X?via=ihub

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

How do you do the "originally posted by..." quote thingo?

I don't think anyone has answered this one of your questions, and BTW (by the way), welcome to WS.

When your are logged in, at the bottom of the post you want to respond to you'll notice four buttons: "Thanks" (which is polite if you appreciate the post), "Reply," "Reply With Quote," and then a "quote icon with a plus sign." If you click on the "Reply," your response is stacked in the old forum form directly under the post you are responding to (I don't know if anyone uses this any more). If you click on "Reply With Quote," it'll open the reply form with the post quoted. If you choose to respond only to a small portion of the quote (as I did in this one), you can delete the rest of the post, but it's polite to note that you did so (rsbm: respectively snipped by me). If you want to respond in one post to more than one post, click on the last icon of each you want to include and then click at the bottom of the page on the button that says "+ Reply to Thread."

One more thing... It's a good general practice to "Preview" your posts before you post, in case you need to edit or in case some of the formatting gets messed up.

 

[otg]

Hey Tadpole, This is exactly what I'm interested in. Not only afterwards but beforehand as well, what idiosyncrasies did each person have; I don't buy that JR and PR simply told BR she was missing, then in heaven and that was it. Unless he has a lot more mental health issues than I think he does, especially as a child, he wouldn't just accept that and then it's done.



First one I believe is from Lou Smit's files, second was a crime scene photo with tabloid overlays. I'm sure I've seen both in the crime scene photos, but I could be wrong on that



I don't put stock in his over all theory. I don't believe she wet the bed that night. The bed sheets didn't appear to have urine on them, I don't believe it was changed as they match the pillow. I think I also saw another pillow matching the sheets behind the bed head in the crime scene video. If she had wet the bed, there wouldn't be as much urine release upon death.

Disclaimer: My mistake I didn't read the WS book, it was Cyril Wecht that I read. I wish we knew more about the birefringent material, I could believe it was talcum powder, it fits with them wearing latex gloves in the staging. For what, I'm not sure. Perhaps when she was found she still had the paintbrush inserted and someone went fishing around to make sure there was nothing else there? I find that a bit weak. Maybe it was to help clean out blood? I don't know if I believe the auto-erotic asphyxiation, the lower white mark was done post mortem, wasn't it? And the "garrotte" was staging.

ID, so far, I'm enjoying seeing how a nube views and expresses the first impressions they have about the case, and you seem to have a level head on your shoulders (seeing through so many of the Ramsey lies, and not putting too much faith in someone just because they have a "Dr." in front of their name). Wecht speculated early on about the "birefringent material" and the "AE." Many things are birefringent besides talc, and the AE asphyxiation is ridiculous on so many levels. I won't bother going into all the reasons at this time, but you already understand the biggest of them: the fact that the white line was not inflicted antemortem. I also appreciate the fact that you recognize the "garotte" as staging.

 

[IridescentDreams]

(rsbm)


Abrasions certainly can, and actually bruising can and does occur postmortem as well. Usually it is inflicted within minutes of death while there is sufficient blood pressure to fill the impacted tissue from damaged capillaries. But it is still possible before the blood has congealed (within the livor mortis timeframe). If an M.E. has a reason to question whether it was inflicted antemortem or is an artifact, it can be visibly differentiated from antemortem bruises:

http://emedinews.blogspot.com/2012/06/difference-between-antemortem-and.html


There is even an objective test for determining whether a bruise might be ante- or post- mortem:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037907389601938X?via=ihub

Thanks for that, otg, that was quite an interesting read. The coroner didn't do these tests in this case, though, correct?

(rsbm)I don't think anyone has answered this one of your questions, and BTW (by the way), welcome to WS.

When your are logged in, at the bottom of the post you want to respond to you'll notice four buttons: "Thanks" (which is polite if you appreciate the post), "Reply," "Reply With Quote," and then a "quote icon with a plus sign." If you click on the "Reply," your response is stacked in the old forum form directly under the post you are responding to (I don't know if anyone uses this any more). If you click on "Reply With Quote," it'll open the reply form with the post quoted. If you choose to respond only to a small portion of the quote (as I did in this one), you can delete the rest of the post, but it's polite to note that you did so (rsbm: respectively snipped by me). If you want to respond in one post to more than one post, click on the last icon of each you want to include and then click at the bottom of the page on the button that says "+ Reply to Thread."

One more thing... It's a good general practice to "Preview" your posts before you post, in case you need to edit or in case some of the formatting gets messed up.

Thank you I'm glad to be here I some how did manage to figure the basics out by pure happenstance but you've outlined it wonderfully for me, thank you.

ID, so far, I'm enjoying seeing how a nube views and expresses the first impressions they have about the case, and you seem to have a level head on your shoulders (seeing through so many of the Ramsey lies, and not putting too much faith in someone just because they have a "Dr." in front of their name). Wecht speculated early on about the "birefringent material" and the "AE." Many things are birefringent besides talc, and the AE asphyxiation is ridiculous on so many levels. I won't bother going into all the reasons at this time, but you already understand the biggest of them: the fact that the white line was not inflicted antemortem. I also appreciate the fact that you recognize the "garotte" as staging.

This whole case is something I've checked in on from time to time. Over the last year I started fishing deeper for official documents etc so I'm not completely fresh to the case, but definitely completely green to Web sleuths. I only found this forum, and ACandyRose about a fortnight to a month ago. I try to keep an open mind and know that just because someone has a few letters before or after their name, it doesn't mean they're completely objective and not serving their own purpose, some how. The birefringent material is something I wish I had more information on, I can see how talcum powder could make sense depending on your chosen theory. Whether or not I subscribe to that, I'm not sure. As you said, it could come from many sources. I'm still in the very early stages of developing a theory, with that in mind, I don't look at anything as 100% fact, or fiction in regards to some of the main players' testimonies; be that actual testimony, books, comments etc. Any advice on where to focus with starting to develop my theory? I see a lot of talk about time line, circumstances, chronology of events. I know who I think did a few certain aspects, but beyond that I have no time line, what came first, what happened after, and so on.

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks UKGuy!

I am familiar with those ones, but there's some longer ones I'm unsure of IIRC, BBM I think? I'm sure there's a few more but there what I recall off the top of my head that I've seen pop up and just go "huh?" :thinking:

I think one thing everyone could agree on is these two couldn't lie straight in bed. I'm sure I read in one of the transcripts that PR went to bed first whilst JR brushed his teeth, then read but she was already asleep.

Im not the sort to put all my chickens in one basket and take anything at more than face value. I cherry pick things out of each that I know have no validity, being now that is some almost 20 years now after some of these were written. However, I have found some valid information in all. Good point on what the Ram's were avoiding but I suspect they were far too connected for that ever to be a possibility, just look at the outcome of the GJ.

My guess is the Stines know exactly what happened, but I suspect that had to happen pretty much immediately, the Rams went straight from the hell hole to the Stines. I thought they were more involved with the Whites, originally so why didn't they go there? Which also loops into what do the Whites know that we don't, I know they weren't bought off but they themselves said they never spoke out beyond what they did re a special prosecutor, release of files etc in case they were ever called into trial as witnesses. Something about FW saying "I'll have to tell them what I know John" or the likes after the whole lawyer up, CNN debarcle. Or is that more Ramsey slight of hand?

I don't really have much of a standpoint yet on whether it was genital trauma or sexual abuse. I think at this point in time I'm leaning towards abuse by JR, based on the transcripts. As soon as sexual assault was mentioned, JR was highly offended and ranting about the detectives disgracing his relationship with JBR and Patsy didn't seem to question that she'd been sexually assaulted and jumped to JR's defence without it ever being mentioned to either of them about him possibly being involved. Neither of them were concerned with the fact there was evidence she did have vaginal injuries but WERE concerned with quickly distancing JR from them. However, I am pretty early into my investigations so that could very well change.

Its plausible. I'll have to dig through the transcripts and books again, but I'm sure there's a record of Patsy being on medication at that time. And not just a paracetamol here or there. Me thinks I have to start up my own digital record to pull from. It's not far fetched to believe she was drinking either, it was Christmas after all, that also brings into play interactions between alcohol and medication. I'll have to double check but if she was on an antidepressant then, it's quite easy to have other or increased side effects.

Thats true. I am curious about what level of a role LHP played as a house keeper. Given PR's solid southern roots, what happens behind closed doors stays as such, like BoldBear said, would she really want someone digging around deep so often? No discredit to LHP's work as it may not have been set out for her, but surely she couldn't have done too much around there given all the clutter and mess?

The particular marks im focussing on at the moment are the triangle type bruise on the neck, the one on her face near the ear and the ones that the Rams have us believe are stun gun marks. The one near the ear is of particular interest to me in "what the hell is that" and the possible train tracks, could that have been done in the very seconds after her passing?

Well there goes my theory on the cord. Personally, I think it was to stage away from a certain person. Who, I'm not sure, because they all have reasons and circumstances to be written out of the picture. Of course, that all depends on things we will likely never know, or until the end of my time at the least.

Have you read LA's depo? Ive only just started it but she's already said she knows JDI and he was sexually abusing JBR. She was still in the police force when she was reported as getting close to PR, apparently Patsy even thanked her and sent her flowers? It was in ST's book. It'll be interesting to see if she comes out later in life and says anything.

I'd love to see the Whites do a book or something, including little Fleet and Daphne. I'd take their version of events prior and post to that of the Ramsey's. It'd be interesting on what light they'd shed in regards to personalities, family dynamics etc.

IridescentDreams,

I don't really have much of a standpoint yet on whether it was genital trauma or sexual abuse. I think at this point in time I'm leaning towards abuse by JR, based on the transcripts. As soon as sexual assault was mentioned, JR was highly offended and ranting about the detectives disgracing his relationship with JBR and Patsy didn't seem to question that she'd been sexually assaulted and jumped to JR's defence without it ever being mentioned to either of them about him possibly being involved. Neither of them were concerned with the fact there was evidence she did have vaginal injuries but WERE concerned with quickly distancing JR from them. However, I am pretty early into my investigations so that could very well change.

BBM.

January 30, 1997 Search Warrant, Excerpt

On December 27, 1996, Det. Linda Arndt and Det. Tom Trujillo of the Boulder Police Department were in attendance at the post mortem examination of the body of JonBenet Ramsey examination conducted by Dr. John Meyer. Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant of this, and that the clothing that the child was wearing at the time of Dr. Meyer's post mortem examination was the same clothing that she observed the child to be wearing when the body was initially discovered.

January 30, 1997 Search Warrant, Excerpt

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed the Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

January 30, 1997 Search Warrant, Excerpt

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

AUTOPSY REPORT

NAME: RAMSEY, JONBENET AUTOPSY NO:96A-155

...

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.

The birefringent foreign material might be varnish from the paintbrush handle or the actual missing piece of paintbrush handle. Cellulose is birefringent material, and can easily be identified as such via standard lab tests which Coroner Meyer requested, yielding the birefringent status of the material.

If you consider Coroner Meyer's verbatim Autopsy remarks and his observation regarding birefringent foreign material, then he patently does not want you know precisely the composition of birefringent foreign material.

.

 

[IridescentDreams]

IridescentDreams,

BBM.

January 30, 1997 Search Warrant, Excerpt


January 30, 1997 Search Warrant, Excerpt


January 30, 1997 Search Warrant, Excerpt



The birefringent foreign material might be varnish from the paintbrush handle or the actual missing piece of paintbrush handle. Cellulose is birefringent material, and can easily be identified as such via standard lab tests which Coroner Meyer requested, yielding the birefringent status of the material.

If you consider Coroner Meyer's verbatim Autopsy remarks and his observation regarding birefringent foreign material, then he patently does not want you know precisely the composition of birefringent foreign material.

.

Given what I've read, in my opinion there is very little doubt it was sexual abuse, that said I do keep my mind open to other possibilities. PR could use digital penetration as a form of punishment, though I do find that rather flimsy.

Wouldn't it be fair to assume if the end of the paintbrush handle was recovered inside her, it would be listed as part of the items and evidence on his report? This could be incredibly naive on my part but surely given the circumstances and the authorities need to know, these would be included in the report for them. Or are you suggesting there was an additional report outlining the details in a specific manner?

 

[UKGuy]

Given what I've read, in my opinion there is very little doubt it was sexual abuse, that said I do keep my mind open to other possibilities. PR could use digital penetration as a form of punishment, though I do find that rather flimsy.

Wouldn't it be fair to assume if the end of the paintbrush handle was recovered inside her, it would be listed as part of the items and evidence on his report? This could be incredibly naive on my part but surely given the circumstances and the authorities need to know, these would be included in the report for them. Or are you suggesting there was an additional report outlining the details in a specific manner?

IridescentDreams,

Wouldn't it be fair to assume if the end of the paintbrush handle was recovered inside her, it would be listed as part of the items and evidence on his report?

Unlikely, since the Coroner will not identify the composition of the birefringement foreign material, and police like to keep information you describe under wraps, so to match anyone who confesses.

Or are you suggesting there was an additional report outlining the details in a specific manner?

Yes, Coroner Meyer probably outlined what he thought took place, but left the speculation out of the Autopsy Report. Also unpublished is the results of a second genital examination undertaken on the same day as the autopsy by Dr Anfrew Sirotnak, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado's Health Sciences Center.

Dr Anfrew Sirotnak agreed with Coroner Meyer's earlier finding of vaginal injury and sexual assault.


If the case were PDI and Patsy staged the crime-scene, why bother with a sexual assault then clean it all away and redress JonBenet, as if nothing happened?

if the case is not PDI, then that leaves JDI or BDI? If Burke is too young to be engaging in sexual activity for his personal gratification, does this mean the case is really JDI, and explains why JR is still active in offering new evidence and accounts regarding what took place on the night of JonBenet's death?

.

 

[otg]

Cottonstar,
An explanation for Burke's Hi-Tec footprint is that he told James Kolar in interview that he was in the wine-cellar on Christmas Day afternoon rummaging about.

James Kolar never interviewed any of the Ramseys. If I'm not mistaken, it was Fleet White who first told investigators that Burke had worn a pair of Hi-Tecs. When testifying in front of the RGJ, Burke was asked about it and he acknowledged that he did indeed own such a pair. Kolar was later hired by the DA at the time (Mary "Curtains" Lacy) to review the case and investigate any new information. In his investigation, he had access to all the interviews and the RGJ testimony (as well as the TBs). Kolar stated in one of Tricia's podcasts that he "believed" (I'm pretty sure that was the word he used, but I'm not 100% on it) it was Burke who had partially opened some of the Christmas presents in the basement despite Patsy's claim that it was she. Unfortunately, he didn't say what that belief was based on. Whether it was Burke's testimony or something he said in one of his interviews, we don't know.

I think too much emphasis is placed on the Hi-Tec footprint. It couldn't be validated as not being caused by one of the policemen or investigators who walked through the crime scene, and the Hi-Tec logo in the print doesn't match exactly the poon on the pair that Burke owned.

[As a postscript, it was when Kolar began to realize this couldn't have been done by someone outside the family that Lacy called "curtains" on Kolar.]

 

[otg]

Thanks for that, otg, that was quite an interesting read. The coroner didn't do these tests in this case, though, correct?

Probably not. He wouldn't have done testing on this unless he had reason to suspect an area of interest and needed to determine if it was caused in the transport of her body for elimination from evidence. I just wanted people to be aware that bruising can occur after death because I've seen it stated too many times that it can't.

Thank you I'm glad to be here I some how did manage to figure the basics out by pure happenstance but you've outlined it wonderfully for me, thank you.

No wukkas. :giggle:

This whole case is something I've checked in on from time to time. Over the last year I started fishing deeper for official documents etc so I'm not completely fresh to the case, but definitely completely green to Web sleuths. I only found this forum, and ACandyRose about a fortnight to a month ago. I try to keep an open mind and know that just because someone has a few letters before or after their name, it doesn't mean they're completely objective and not serving their own purpose, some how.

Very true that.

The birefringent material is something I wish I had more information on, I can see how talcum powder could make sense depending on your chosen theory. Whether or not I subscribe to that, I'm not sure. As you said, it could come from many sources.

To understand what the "birefringent material" might or might not be, consider what the ME's (Medical Examiner) goal is in writing the AR (Autopsy Report). The word "autopsy" comes from Greek: auto (self) and psy (to see). Together these two words mean to see for oneself. That is what the ME is doing when he/she dissects the body. The report is written to describe what the ME sees. That is why in JonBenet's AR he describes a "yellow metal band" and a "yellow metal identification bracelet." He didn't know that it was gold, so he didn't state that it was a gold ring or bracelet.

The autopsy itself is in three main sections: the external examination, the internal examination, and the microscopic examination. Results of lab tests (except for what he does with the microscope) are not included in the AR.

Where is the "birefringent foreign material" mentioned? It is in the "Microscopic Examination" section of the AR, and it is written in the section on the Vaginal Mucosa. It is described as being found on the "smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen." Again, realize this was found during the microscopic examination.

Use this information to decide for yourself what you think it was. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to think Dr. Meyer discovered a 3" long section of paintbrush under a microscope.

I'm still in the very early stages of developing a theory, with that in mind, I don't look at anything as 100% fact, or fiction in regards to some of the main players' testimonies; be that actual testimony, books, comments etc. Any advice on where to focus with starting to develop my theory? I see a lot of talk about time line, circumstances, chronology of events. I know who I think did a few certain aspects, but beyond that I have no time line, what came first, what happened after, and so on.

If you ask me (and you did), I would suggest that there are three things that are key to understanding what happened:

1. the the vaginal injuries,
2. the head blow,
3. and the ligature asphyxiation.

When you understand those things, the staging, odd behaviors, lies, coverup, and lawyers, all make sense.

 

[southernmimi]

Thank you. There is the answer in one short statement.

 

[UKGuy]

James Kolar never interviewed any of the Ramseys. If I'm not mistaken, it was Fleet White who first told investigators that Burke had worn a pair of Hi-Tecs. When testifying in front of the RGJ, Burke was asked about it and he acknowledged that he did indeed own such a pair. Kolar was later hired by the DA at the time (Mary "Curtains" Lacy) to review the case and investigate any new information. In his investigation, he had access to all the interviews and the RGJ testimony (as well as the TBs). Kolar stated in one of Tricia's podcasts that he "believed" (I'm pretty sure that was the word he used, but I'm not 100% on it) it was Burke who had partially opened some of the Christmas presents in the basement despite Patsy's claim that it was she. Unfortunately, he didn't say what that belief was based on. Whether it was Burke's testimony or something he said in one of his interviews, we don't know.

I think too much emphasis is placed on the Hi-Tec footprint. It couldn't be validated as not being caused by one of the policemen or investigators who walked through the crime scene, and the Hi-Tec logo in the print doesn't match exactly the poon on the pair that Burke owned.

[As a postscript, it was when Kolar began to realize this couldn't have been done by someone outside the family that Lacy called "curtains" on Kolar.]

otg,

Kolar stated in one of Tricia's podcasts that he "believed" (I'm pretty sure that was the word he used, but I'm not 100% on it) it was Burke who had partially opened some of the Christmas presents in the basement despite Patsy's claim that it was she.

Maybe I misremembered and am conflating stuff, since that aspect is a critical componenet in Kolar's own unpublished theory regarding BR.

James Kolar's Reddit AMA, excerpt

I believe the torn wrapping on the Christmas presents photographed in the wine cellar played a part in the circumstances surrounding the murder. I can’t say how, because it was a part of my hypothesis.

James Kolar's Reddit AMA, excerpt

therealac:
Is it possible for you to explain your hypothesis in a way that can't get you sued? isn't there a way you can phrase it and protect your free speech?

jameskolar:
I believe this has been asked and answered elsewhere.

There was an interview I had with Trisha Griffith True Crime Radio where I expressed a little more about the hypothesis. I think it was the second interview with her program, but can't say for certain. (I know it wasn't the last interview I had with her...very disappointing - I had the flu and I don't think I did a very good job for her.)

James Kolar's Reddit AMA, excerpt

Masseychusetts:
I've watched Lou Smit's episode, and he says there were marks on JonBenet's neck that showed she was trying to claw at the rope choking her. If she was knocked out, and the strangulation was staged (as I get the impression that many people believe the murder was staged), how is this possible?

jameskolar:
Det. Smit didn’t appear to take into consideration the forensic opinions rendered about the sequencing of injuries. Based upon my review of those theories, it is my belief that the fingernail marks on JBR’s throat were created when the collar of her shirt was pulled tight around her neck, at the same time that the triangular shaped bruise was formed on the front her neck. Next came the blow to her head that rendered her unconscious.

The garrote could not have been responsible for the triangular bruising, and was applied some period of time later, when JBR was unconscious and unable to struggle against the placement of the cord.

I don’t believe the strangulation with the cord was a part of staging, and its use constituted an underlying part of the motivation involved in the assault on JBR. A more complete analysis of the sequencing of the injuries was offered in Chapter 6 of the book.

If you dissect John Ramseys sequencing of events, the intruder(s) remained in the home far beyond the 30 minutes bracketing the estimated time of JBR’s death.

If Burke owned a pair of Hi-Tec's and was opening the gifts in the wine-cellar on Christmas Day afternoon, then maybe thats how his footprint landed there?

This needs some further investigation ...


.

 

[IridescentDreams]

IridescentDreams,

Unlikely, since the Coroner will not identify the composition of the birefringement foreign material, and police like to keep information you describe under wraps, so to match anyone who confesses.



Yes, Coroner Meyer probably outlined what he thought took place, but left the speculation out of the Autopsy Report. Also unpublished is the results of a second genital examination undertaken on the same day as the autopsy by Dr Anfrew Sirotnak, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado's Health Sciences Center.

Dr Anfrew Sirotnak agreed with Coroner Meyer's earlier finding of vaginal injury and sexual assault.


If the case were PDI and Patsy staged the crime-scene, why bother with a sexual assault then clean it all away and redress JonBenet, as if nothing happened?

if the case is not PDI, then that leaves JDI or BDI? If Burke is too young to be engaging in sexual activity for his personal gratification, does this mean the case is really JDI, and explains why JR is still active in offering new evidence and accounts regarding what took place on the night of JonBenet's death?

.

I believe there is enough in the original autopsy publically available to determine the molestation was more than a one time thing. I've heard speculation that it was upon the night of her death that her hymen was broken, I don't believe that.

I think its likely the birefringent marterial is from the paintbrush, bear in mind I haven't really read any upto date information yet, I've started with JR/PR and I'm working in chronological order. I think it is highly unlikely it is the actual end of the paintbrush. Dr Meyer describes the ligatures in his report as consisting of the cord and the paintbrush. If you look not only at the end of the report with what evidence was turned over to BPD found on her person, but also at the contents of the search warrants, no paintbrush was listed as he'd already stipulated that as part of the ligature. If more was found he could have included "paintbrush/broken wooden length" in his autopsy report and it could be likely assumed it was simply part of the ligature device. As with the warrant items removed, it starts listing evidence taken from her person, then to what was found in the WC, there is a blacked out item. If it can be worked out from CS photos/video what actually was in the WC, compare it with the items on the warrant, it's possible it can be worked out what that blacked out item is, which given it is blacked out I assume plays an integral part in her death or the staging.

At this stage, I'm JDI. I can see how many RDI cases are somewhat plausible. If BDI, I doubt it would be for sexual gratification but it could be an ongoing exploration thing without sexual motive. Many speculate a child of his age and size wouldn't have the knowledge or strength, I disagree. At his age, he'd gone through a big testosterone dump a year to two earlier, possibly even still was. If there's behavioural issues, in midst of a meltdown, adrenaline is running high and we all know the effects of that. My own 7 year old at the time could throw me, a grown woman, across the room and broke a two inch thick solid wooden door with nothing but his foot.

Probably not. He wouldn't have done testing on this unless he had reason to suspect an area of interest and needed to determine if it was caused in the transport of her body for elimination from evidence. I just wanted people to be aware that bruising can occur after death because I've seen it stated too many times that it can't.


No wukkas. :giggle:


Very true that.


To understand what the "birefringent material" might or might not be, consider what the ME's (Medical Examiner) goal is in writing the AR (Autopsy Report). The word "autopsy" comes from Greek: auto (self) and psy (to see). Together these two words mean to see for oneself. That is what the ME is doing when he/she dissects the body. The report is written to describe what the ME sees. That is why in JonBenet's AR he describes a "yellow metal band" and a "yellow metal identification bracelet." He didn't know that it was gold, so he didn't state that it was a gold ring or bracelet.

The autopsy itself is in three main sections: the external examination, the internal examination, and the microscopic examination. Results of lab tests (except for what he does with the microscope) are not included in the AR.

Where is the "birefringent foreign material" mentioned? It is in the "Microscopic Examination" section of the AR, and it is written in the section on the Vaginal Mucosa. It is described as being found on the "smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen." Again, realize this was found during the microscopic examination.

Use this information to decide for yourself what you think it was. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to think Dr. Meyer discovered a 3" long section of paintbrush under a microscope.


If you ask me (and you did), I would suggest that there are three things that are key to understanding what happened:

1. the the vaginal injuries,
2. the head blow,
3. and the ligature asphyxiation.

When you understand those things, the staging, odd behaviors, lies, coverup, and lawyers, all make sense.

Thanks otg, that was very insightful, it certainly helps in approving or dispelling some theories.

I dont think the end of the paintbrush was found inside her, aside from what you've said, see my comment above to UKGuy. It could be plausible it is the blacked out item on the warrant found in the WC, it could be plausible it was taken outside of the house in a Ram's pocket or bag. I put my very loose theory on the thread how come no one thinks JDI. I think he did. In the transcripts, they start out saying different things, notice to how PRs answers change at a later date to match what JR said, notice how when the topic of sexual assault is brought up; it was never mentioned who they thought assaulted her but simply there was evidence to suggest JBR was sexually assaulted, both JR and PR jump straight on the JR DIDNT DO IT! Wagon, I find that very telling. Looking into both of their personalities is just as insightful.

 

[IridescentDreams]

Another rhetorical for members but to make JR squirm.

If you're looking for things missing or out of place, why start in the basement which is A) a colossal mess where you wouldn't know if something was out of place because nothing has ​a place, and, B) stated as being "rarely used".

Surely if if you're looking for something missing or out of place you'd start in commonly used areas particularly where there were items of exceptional value or, you know, the bedroom in which your child is missing from. Curiouser and curiouser....

 

[Tortoise]

Her bedroom was sealed with crime tape at about 10.30am that morning.

 

[UKGuy]

I believe there is enough in the original autopsy publically available to determine the molestation was more than a one time thing. I've heard speculation that it was upon the night of her death that her hymen was broken, I don't believe that.

I think its likely the birefringent marterial is from the paintbrush, bear in mind I haven't really read any upto date information yet, I've started with JR/PR and I'm working in chronological order. I think it is highly unlikely it is the actual end of the paintbrush. Dr Meyer describes the ligatures in his report as consisting of the cord and the paintbrush. If you look not only at the end of the report with what evidence was turned over to BPD found on her person, but also at the contents of the search warrants, no paintbrush was listed as he'd already stipulated that as part of the ligature. If more was found he could have included "paintbrush/broken wooden length" in his autopsy report and it could be likely assumed it was simply part of the ligature device. As with the warrant items removed, it starts listing evidence taken from her person, then to what was found in the WC, there is a blacked out item. If it can be worked out from CS photos/video what actually was in the WC, compare it with the items on the warrant, it's possible it can be worked out what that blacked out item is, which given it is blacked out I assume plays an integral part in her death or the staging.

At this stage, I'm JDI. I can see how many RDI cases are somewhat plausible. If BDI, I doubt it would be for sexual gratification but it could be an ongoing exploration thing without sexual motive. Many speculate a child of his age and size wouldn't have the knowledge or strength, I disagree. At his age, he'd gone through a big testosterone dump a year to two earlier, possibly even still was. If there's behavioural issues, in midst of a meltdown, adrenaline is running high and we all know the effects of that. My own 7 year old at the time could throw me, a grown woman, across the room and broke a two inch thick solid wooden door with nothing but his foot.




Thanks otg, that was very insightful, it certainly helps in approving or dispelling some theories.

I dont think the end of the paintbrush was found inside her, aside from what you've said, see my comment above to UKGuy. It could be plausible it is the blacked out item on the warrant found in the WC, it could be plausible it was taken outside of the house in a Ram's pocket or bag. I put my very loose theory on the thread how come no one thinks JDI. I think he did. In the transcripts, they start out saying different things, notice to how PRs answers change at a later date to match what JR said, notice how when the topic of sexual assault is brought up; it was never mentioned who they thought assaulted her but simply there was evidence to suggest JBR was sexually assaulted, both JR and PR jump straight on the JR DIDNT DO IT! Wagon, I find that very telling. Looking into both of their personalities is just as insightful.

IridescentDreams,

I believe there is enough in the original autopsy publically available to determine the molestation was more than a one time thing. I've heard speculation that it was upon the night of her death that her hymen was broken, I don't believe that.

I agree. Other Medical Examiners who have viewed the Autopsy Photographs have described JonBenet's hymen as eroded. She also has internal injuries which have healed.

I think its likely the birefringent material is from the paintbrush

It would be a surprise for many if it were otherwise. Also don't be fooled by where Coroner Meyer places his observation regarding the birefringent marterial, since the method of analysis does not tell you the size of the birefringent marterial, e.g. I can use a microscope to check the grooves on a bullet, but this does not imply I only had a richochet fragment to hand.

Although Steve Thomas, in his book, refers to the birefringent marterial as a splinter, so it looks like it could be a piece of varnish from the paintbrush. Therefore maybe the piece of varnish arrived via digital penetration as suggested by Coroner Meyer?

The latter scenario is consistent with Kolar's BDI, since he seems to think Burke Did It All, with the parents later adding the staging elements?

Its also consistent with a PDI, as Patsy might have been staging a sexual assault as part of her staging?

Its less consistent with JDI, since some type of penetration might have already taken place, rendering duplication questionable?

Kolar's BDI theory might be described as an outlier since you have to connect so many dots, notwithstanding BR's alleged behavioural issues.

PDI looks like the front runner since it explains a lot of the forensic evidence, yet Patsy could also have been staging for either Burke or John, or both, the latter assumption covers both the chronic and acute injuries, and identifies the Ramseys as a dysfunctional family.

.

 

[IridescentDreams]

Her bedroom was sealed with crime tape at about 10.30am that morning.

Never mind me :facepalm: My daftness aside, the other point of there being far more likely places to look for something out of place stands. Was the whole second floor taped off? If JR believed it was because of business why not check the study? Unless you knew what you were looking for already, the basement seems to me to be the least logical place to look.

IridescentDreams,

I agree. Other Medical Examiners who have viewed the Autopsy Photographs have described JonBenet's hymen as eroded. She also has internal injuries which have healed. .

Agreed

It would be a surprise for many if it were otherwise. Also don't be fooled by where Coroner Meyer places his observation regarding the birefringent marterial, since the method of analysis does not tell you the size of the birefringent marterial, e.g. I can use a microscope to check the grooves on a bullet, but this does not imply I only had a richochet fragment to hand. .

I see what you're saying but personally I don't agree as per my previous point of items removed from her body for evidence. I could be wrong on this next one but why would a 3 inch wooden stick be referred to as a microscopic slide and not a wooden stick examined under a microscope?

Although Steve Thomas, in his book, refers to the birefringent marterial as a splinter, so it looks like it could be a piece of varnish from the paintbrush. Therefore maybe the piece of varnish arrived via digital penetration as suggested by Coroner Meyer? .

Thats possible. Wouldn't it be more likely to actually be a splinter opposed to varnish if he describes it specifically as a splinter?

The latter scenario is consistent with Kolar's BDI, since he seems to think Burke Did It All, with the parents later adding the staging elements? .

Again, entirely possible.

Its also consistent with a PDI, as Patsy might have been staging a sexual assault as part of her staging? .

The more I read, the more I'm finding a case can be made for any RDI depending on how you theorise it.

Its less consistent with JDI, since some type of penetration might have already taken place, rendering duplication questionable? .

It could be. But does it not also pose the question they wanted to stage away from sexual assault occurring by him? Why stage sexual assault at all if not to stage away from something else?

Kolar's BDI theory might be described as an outlier since you have to connect so many dots, notwithstanding BR's alleged behavioural issues.

PDI looks like the front runner since it explains a lot of the forensic evidence, yet Patsy could also have been staging for either Burke or John, or both, the latter assumption covers both the chronic and acute injuries, and identifies the Ramseys as a dysfunctional family.

.

From what I have read, apparently we only have around 10% of the evidence, which leaves a helluva lot to be questioned. So far two different detectives on the same case, have seen the same evidence and have come out with two different who dunnits. That aside, you definitely have my agreement with the Rams being dysfunctional. As I said previously, with what we have available, there's a relatively believable theory for each of the Rams.

 

[UKGuy]

Never mind me :facepalm: My daftness aside, the other point of there being far more likely places to look for something out of place stands. Was the whole second floor taped off? If JR believed it was because of business why not check the study? Unless you knew what you were looking for already, the basement seems to me to be the least logical place to look.



Agreed




I see what you're saying but personally I don't agree as per my previous point of items removed from her body for evidence. I could be wrong on this next one but why would a 3 inch wooden stick be referred to as a microscopic slide and not a wooden stick examined under a microscope?



Thats possible. Wouldn't it be more likely to actually be a splinter opposed to varnish if he describes it specifically as a splinter?



Again, entirely possible.



The more I read, the more I'm finding a case can be made for any RDI depending on how you theorise it.



It could be. But does it not also pose the question they wanted to stage away from sexual assault occurring by him? Why stage sexual assault at all if not to stage away from something else?



From what I have read, apparently we only have around 10% of the evidence, which leaves a helluva lot to be questioned. So far two different detectives on the same case, have seen the same evidence and have come out with two different who dunnits. That aside, you definitely have my agreement with the Rams being dysfunctional. As I said previously, with what we have available, there's a relatively believable theory for each of the Rams.

IridescentDreams,

Thats possible. Wouldn't it be more likely to actually be a splinter opposed to varnish if he describes it specifically as a splinter?

It could be either, e.g. splinter of varnish or a splinter of wood. Either way the same interpretation can be followed.

As I said previously, with what we have available, there's a relatively believable theory for each of the Rams.

Yes, although they can be ranked according how consistent they are with the available forensic evidence. Many dislike this as it conflicts with their pet theories.

.

 

[IridescentDreams]

IridescentDreams,

It could be either, e.g. splinter of varnish or a splinter of wood. Either way the same interpretation can be followed. .

Yes, that's true. Personally I would more likely call it a flake of varnish, not a splinter. To me a splinter is fractured pieces of a solid form, a flake is fractured/peeling coating, but that's just me. It's all semantics, at the end of the day something was found in her vagina that shouldn't have been there.

Yes, although they can be ranked according how consistent they are with the available forensic evidence. Many dislike this as it conflicts with their pet theories.

.

It sure can. If that's the case, then it is a matter of prejudice and not following the evidence.

Im unsure if this is in your area of knowledge, maybe someone else can chime in as well; if JBR were digitally penetrated that night, would DNA from said person be left inside her vagina? Would there be any way to isolate that from her own? I know this isn't a DNA case, at least I don't believe so, but I imagine if such were found, that wouldn't be something we hear about; particularly if it belongs to a minor.

How are we able to know about BR's touch on the barbie nightgown and bowl? I thought anything implicating a minor was unable to be released. Or is it a matter of it's not directly related and implicating him, he lives in the house so it'd be plausible for it to be there. And what of PRs and JRs DNA on JBR? They both touched her. Surely their DNA had to be ​on her?

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, that's true. Personally I would more likely call it a flake of varnish, not a splinter. To me a splinter is fractured pieces of a solid form, a flake is fractured/peeling coating, but that's just me. It's all semantics, at the end of the day something was found in her vagina that shouldn't have been there.




It sure can. If that's the case, then it is a matter of prejudice and not following the evidence.

Im unsure if this is in your area of knowledge, maybe someone else can chime in as well; if JBR were digitally penetrated that night, would DNA from said person be left inside her vagina? Would there be any way to isolate that from her own? I know this isn't a DNA case, at least I don't believe so, but I imagine if such were found, that wouldn't be something we hear about; particularly if it belongs to a minor.

How are we able to know about BR's touch on the barbie nightgown and bowl? I thought anything implicating a minor was unable to be released. Or is it a matter of it's not directly related and implicating him, he lives in the house so it'd be plausible for it to be there. And what of PRs and JRs DNA on JBR? They both touched her. Surely their DNA had to be ​on her?

IridescentDreams,

Im unsure if this is in your area of knowledge, maybe someone else can chime in as well; if JBR were digitally penetrated that night, would DNA from said person be left inside her vagina? Would there be any way to isolate that from her own? I know this isn't a DNA case, at least I don't believe so, but I imagine if such were found, that wouldn't be something we hear about; particularly if it belongs to a minor.

Today the answer is yes. Back then, no.

If BPD have kept forensic samples relating to JonBenet, e.g. tissue specimens were sliced for microscopic analysis, then any foreign touch dna can be identified.

Some people think that Coroner Meyer's Digit can be substituted with the paintbrush handle.


JonBenet's vaginal injuries can be interpreted as a sexual assault, staging or both.

What you decide should help inform your theory since each option rules out the others.

How are we able to know about BR's touch on the barbie nightgown and bowl? I thought anything implicating a minor was unable to be released. Or is it a matter of it's not directly related and implicating him, he lives in the house so it'd be plausible for it to be there.

Regarding the touch-dna. I think it was released by accident. Someone scraped the details from a screen capture during a TV documentary, so its not like it was a public release.

The fingerprint information is incidental, but can place BR in the breakfast bar along with JonBenet. See the CBS Documentary.

And what of PRs and JRs DNA on JBR? They both touched her. Surely their DNA had to be ​on her?

Absolutely. Note no reference to JR's touch-dna, despite interview questions about the presence of his shirt fibers.

PR and JR's touch-dna can be expected to be found on JonBenet's person, as can that of BR, but not on her genital region either!

So does it mean Patsy played a masterstroke of staging when she redressed JonBenet in Burke Ramsey's long-johns?

An example of a Smoking Gun would be Burke Ramsey's touch-dna on the size-12 underwear!

Either parents touch-dna deposited on the size-12's would be similarly instructive, particularly that of JR's, Patsy has a Get Out Of Jail Card, since she claims to have redressed JonBenet but never noticed what underwear she was wearing !

.