Questions you'd like answers to...

[Userid]

The presents were there because that's where they always hid presents, as it had the latch at the top that the children couldn't get (according to the R's).

The partially opened gifts could have been there before the nightgown and/or the victim was ever left there. There's no way of knowing for sure one way or the other.

 

[Tadpole12]

@UK, wondering, if the blue track (pyjama bottoms) pants had a cord.

 

[Tadpole12]

TL4S,

Its entirely possible that the missing piece of the paintbrush was left inside JonBenet but redacted from the public domain?
.

IDK, why would that not have been noted within the autopsy?

 

[UKGuy]

The presents were there because that's where they always hid presents, as it had the latch at the top that the children couldn't get (according to the R's).

The partially opened gifts could have been there before the nightgown and/or the victim was ever left there. There's no way of knowing for sure one way or the other.

Userid,

The presents were there because that's where they always hid presents, as it had the latch at the top that the children couldn't get (according to the R's).

BBM: Precisely !

The stuff about the latch is nonsense, remember that chair blocking a doorway, well Burke or JonBenet could have stood on it and opened the wine-cellar door.

This might be why JR is keen to weave a tale about in his interview replies to Lou Smit, et al, i.e. deflection.


2000 March 20 - NBC News Today Show - John and Patsy Ramsey

Ms. RAMSEY: JonBenet had fallen asleep. She had fallen asleep in the back of the car by the time we got home.

COURIC: Did she ever wake up? Tell me what happened once you got her home.

Ms. RAMSEY: We put her to--John carried her up to bed, and then I, you know, kind of got her undressed and pulled her pajama pants on. They were kind of long underwear pants that were in her pajama drawer. She was sound asleep. Tucked her in bed, kissed her good night, said the prayers, and...

Patsy says she redressed Jonbenet in Burke's old longjohns, despite having drawer full of gowns and pajama bottoms! Don't ask about the underwear.

National Enquirer Page 361, Excerpt

LS: . . . Okay, we are going to talk a little bit if we can about the wine cellar. Now, did you - what - how often would you go into the wine cellar, let's say before the 26th? We touched on this yesterday. . . .

JR: Well, throughout the year, hardly at all. I mean the only things that were down there that we would get at, I think we had some wine stored in there, just in boxes at one time. I don't know if there was any - I don't know if there is any left or not. But we would get a case of wine and we would put it down there. Cigars I stuck down there. Um, and of course, you know Christmas stuff out once a year, put it back. Patsy usually, I think, certainly that year did it or had it done, so I don't remember ever getting in there to get the Christmas stuff out. That's about it. We rarely went in that room.

No mention of hiding gifts.

National Enquirer Book Page 293, Excerpt

Lou Smit: "Where were those presents kept?"

John Ramsey: "Well, there were some presents in a little, what we call, the butler's kitchen... a lower level kitchen... in fact, I think I wrapped some Christmas Day to take to the airplane...."

Lou Smit: "When you wrapped them... where would you get the wrapping paper and all the things?"

John Ramsey: "I think....down in the basement...."

Lou Smit: "...Did you go into the wine cellar at that time in order to get any of those items?"

John Ramsey: "...It wouldn't have been out of the question...."

Lou Smit: "...Try to think about that a little bit. It's just one of those things that we're trying to determine who all would have gone in there into that room at a specific time. That's why we have to find that out... Okay, we're still talking Christmas Day. And what time do you think you left for the airport (to check on the plane)?

No mention of hiding gifts, but JR says he was down in the basement wrapping gifts.

National Enquirer Book Page 36, Excerpt

Tom Trujillo: (Where) do you normally store the Christmas presents say before the 25th?

Patsy Ramsey: "......the basement. I had them all in the basement."

Tom Trujillo: "Okay. Why don't you walk me through the rest of the 25th? What all did you guys do that day?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Well, I continued to wrap some presents. I went back down to the basement on the washing machine area there and wrapped for taking the stuff to the lake..."

The basement is not the wine-cellar.

National Enquirer Book Page 85, Excerpt

Tom Trujillo: "Okay, Were you ever, you were not ever in the basement that morning before the police got there?"

Patsy Ramsey: "No, I was not."

Steve Thomas: "Patsy, when were you last in that cellar basement room prior to Christmas?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Prior to Christmas?"

Steve Thomas: "Yes, ma'am."

Patsy Ramsey: "Well, I was there, I was down there a lot on the 24th wrapping, and I was there on the 25th wrapping.."

Wrapping in the basement is not the same as wrapping in the wine-cellar. As Patsy's fibers were found in the wine-cellar.

The partially opened gifts could have been there before the nightgown and/or the victim was ever left there. There's no way of knowing for sure one way or the other.

Sure, so thats why they might just be like the other items, e.g. discarded forensic evidence, why privilege the Partially Opened Gifts over other stuff just because Patsy and John say so?

How about Burke whacking JonBenet because she opened one of his gifts?

.

 

[UKGuy]

@UK, wondering, if the blue track (pyjama bottoms) pants had a cord.

Tadpole12,
Sure, why not? I've not seen this itemized anywhere though.

.

 

[UKGuy]

IDK, why would that not have been noted within the autopsy?

Tadpole12,
Because its standard practise to redact or omit qualifying forensic evidence so LEA can reject all the Crazy I Did It claims upfront.

This means when someone confesses and they get walked through the homicide steps they should independently outline the use of the paintbrush.

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,

BBM: Precisely !

The stuff about the latch is nonsense, remember that chair blocking a doorway, well Burke or JonBenet could have stood on it and opened the wine-cellar door.

This might be why JR is keen to weave a tale about in his interview replies to Lou Smit, et al, i.e. deflection.


2000 March 20 - NBC News Today Show - John and Patsy Ramsey

Patsy says she redressed Jonbenet in Burke's old longjohns, despite having drawer full of gowns and pajama bottoms! Don't ask about the underwear.

National Enquirer Page 361, Excerpt

No mention of hiding gifts.

National Enquirer Book Page 293, Excerpt

No mention of hiding gifts, but JR says he was down in the basement wrapping gifts.

National Enquirer Book Page 36, Excerpt

The basement is not the wine-cellar.

National Enquirer Book Page 85, Excerpt

Wrapping in the basement is not the same as wrapping in the wine-cellar. As Patsy's fibers were found in the wine-cellar.



Sure, so thats why they might just be like the other items, e.g. discarded forensic evidence, why privilege the Partially Opened Gifts over other stuff just because Patsy and John say so?

How about Burke whacking JonBenet because she opened one of his gifts?

.

I hate to tell you this, but there's really nothing incriminating about any of this.

 

[Userid]

Tadpole12,
Because its standard practise to redact or omit qualifying forensic evidence so LEA can reject all the Crazy I Did It claims upfront.

This means when someone confesses and they get walked through the homicide steps they should independently outline the use of the paintbrush.

.

No, that's not how it works. It would have been in the AR; the forensic pathologist himself wouldn't have redacted or omitted his findings. That would have been up to the chief inspector to redact anything on the AR, but nothing is redacted, correct? A redaction is something that is "blacked-out" -- you can see something was there, but it's inked over to mask it. Does that occur on the AR?

Also, a forensic pathologist isn't going to pull the chief inspector aside and give him a separate report with omissions from the actual AR.

There was no paintbrush (the remainder of) found. That wouldn't have been omitted. It's not the pathologist's job to keep that information from leaking; it's law enforcement's, therefore, the pathologist would have included it in the AR.

 

[UKGuy]

No, that's not how it works. It would have been in the AR; the forensic pathologist himself wouldn't have redacted or omitted his findings. That would have been up to the chief inspector to redact anything on the AR, but nothing is redacted, correct? A redaction is something that is "blacked-out" -- you can see something was there, but it's inked over to mask it. Does that occur on the AR?

Also, a forensic pathologist isn't going to pull the chief inspector aside and give him a separate report with omissions from the actual AR.

There was no paintbrush (the remainder of) found. That wouldn't have been omitted. It's not the pathologist's job to keep that information from leaking; it's law enforcement's, therefore, the pathologist would have included it in the AR.

Userid,
This is my understanding of how it works. The use of blacked-out text, is one method another is implicit redaction where detail is omitted, as in referring to something as Birefringement Material, i.e. Whats That?

The usual method is agreed omission or absence, sometimes done to outwit the likes of a serial killer.

.

 

[Tadpole12]

Thanks for the feedback UK.
I was thinking along the same lines as Userid,
but 'agreed omission or absence' could be considered. Looking for a comparative, autopsy.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
This is my understanding of how it works. The use of blacked-out text, is one method another is implicit redaction where detail is omitted, as in referring to something as Birefringement Material, i.e. Whats That?

The usual method is agreed omission or absence, sometimes done to outwit the likes of a serial killer.

.

No, there is no such thing as "implicit redaction" in an AR. Again, that isn't the forensic pathologist's job. His job is to provide the chief inspector with the best, most accurate, and complete (to the best of his/her abilities) information regarding the death of the victim; nothing more. Birefringement material was the term used because the pathologist couldn't determine exactly where the material came from.

 

[UKGuy]

No, there is no such thing as "implicit redaction" in an AR. Again, that isn't the forensic pathologist's job. His job is to provide the chief inspector with the best, most accurate, and complete (to the best of his/her abilities) information regarding the death of the victim; nothing more. Birefringement material was the term used because the pathologist couldn't determine exactly where the material came from.

Userid,
What ends up in the Autopsy Report is subject to legal and discretionary decisions. Different states have different rules on what can be identified in an Autopsy Report. So photographs are meant to stay private which is why there has been no sanctioned release of JonBenet's genital injury photographs. Again consider the size-12's and the longjohns, there is no requirement to release these.

Redaction normally only applies to copies made public, not to the original. There are grey areas, consider what Coroner Meyer stated to Det. Arndt during the autopsy regarding JonBenet being Digitally Penetrated and subject to Sexual Contact later confirmed at a second examination. neither of these observations made it into the Autopsy Report that was made public.

here is an example of alleged redaction by a medical examiner:
Chester Bennington's Previous Suicide Attempt Redacted From Autopsy Report | iHeartRadio

If material has the property of being birefringement then Coroner Meyer will have read the results of the Lab Test saying so, which will have identified the material as each material has a specific spectral identifier allowing determination of its makeup.

If you have a reference stating Coroner Meyer could not identify the birefringement material please post it so we can adjust our interpretation of the evidence.

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
What ends up in the Autopsy Report is subject to legal and discretionary decisions. Different states have different rules on what can be identified in an Autopsy Report. So photographs are meant to stay private which is why there has been no sanctioned release of JonBenet's genital injury photographs. Again consider the size-12's and the longjohns, there is no requirement to release these.

Redaction normally only applies to copies made public, not to the original. There are grey areas, consider what Coroner Meyer stated to Det. Arndt during the autopsy regarding JonBenet being Digitally Penetrated and subject to Sexual Contact later confirmed at a second examination. neither of these observations made it into the Autopsy Report that was made public.

here is an example of alleged redaction by a medical examiner:
Chester Bennington's Previous Suicide Attempt Redacted From Autopsy Report | iHeartRadio

If material has the property of being birefringement then Coroner Meyer will have read the results of the Lab Test saying so, which will have identified the material as each material has a specific spectral identifier allowing determination of its makeup.

If you have a reference stating Coroner Meyer could not identify the birefringement material please post it so we can adjust our interpretation of the evidence.

.

The AR itself is my reference.

Again, there are no redacted lines in this AR. In your example, the family chose to make that specific redaction; not law enforcement or the the examiner.

Your inference that the examiner would use "code words" in order to "implicitly redact" that the paintbrush was found doesn't make much sense. It would have simply been noted.

 

[UKGuy]

The AR itself is my reference.

Again, there are no redacted lines in this AR. In your example, the family chose to make that specific redaction; not law enforcement or the the examiner.

Your inference that the examiner would use "code words" in order to "implicitly redact" that the paintbrush was found doesn't make much sense. It would have simply been noted.

Userid,
You appear to be highly selective in what you consider to be redacted. Like I mentioned before there are different methods of redaction, what you say is missing only applies to the public release, not everything Coroner Meyer observed made it into the AR, consider Det. Arndt's verbatim account.

What is Birefringement Material if not code words, as you suggest why not list the material explicitely , e.g. wood, cellulose, resin, talcum powder, etc.

Steve Thomas refers to a splinter in his book and we all know what he was meaning, contrast that with Coroner Meyer's neat technical jargon.

The missing piece of paintbrush might have gone the same way as JonBenet's size-6 underwear or her pink pajama bottoms, in that case we will never ever know.

If the missing piece was left inside JonBenet as a part of the staging and redacted then this information will be made public one day.

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
You appear to be highly selective in what you consider to be redacted. Like I mentioned before there are different methods of redaction, what you say is missing only applies to the public release, not everything Coroner Meyer observed made it into the AR, consider Det. Arndt's verbatim account.

What is Birefringement Material if not code words, as you suggest why not list the material explicitely , e.g. wood, cellulose, resin, talcum powder, etc.

Steve Thomas refers to a splinter in his book and we all know what he was meaning, contrast that with Coroner Meyer's neat technical jargon.

The missing piece of paintbrush might have gone the same way as JonBenet's size-6 underwear or her pink pajama bottoms, in that case we will never ever know.

If the missing piece was left inside JonBenet as a part of the staging and redacted then this information will be made public one day.

.

"Highly selective"? Not really. I'd say you're "highly selective" in what "code words" you unjustifiably perceive in this AR.

Again, because there are many things made out of "birefringement material." The pathologist didn't know the exact source at the time he was conducting the autopsy, so he used that specific term, as he knew the material but not the exact source (which was absent). This isn't Rocket Science.

Forensic pathologists aren't instructed to use code words by anyone before or during when they conduct their AR's. That's ludicrous.

 

[UKGuy]

"Highly selective"? Not really. I'd say you're "highly selective" in what "code words" you unjustifiably perceive in this AR.

Again, because there are many things made out of "birefringement material." The pathologist didn't know the exact source at the time he was conducting the autopsy, so he used that specific term, as he knew the material but not the exact source (which was absent). This isn't Rocket Science.

Forensic pathologists aren't instructed to use code words by anyone before or during when they conduct their AR's. That's ludicrous.

Userid,

The pathologist didn't know the exact source at the time he was conducting the autopsy, so he used that specific term, as he knew the material but not the exact source (which was absent). This isn't Rocket Science.

BBM: I agree. Yet it is rocket science, thats the point. Once Coroner Meyer has read the Lab Test results it tells him that the material has the property of birefringence, i.e. not that it is made out of "birefringement material.

Wikipedia says:

Birefringence is the optical property of a material having a refractive index that depends on the polarization and propagation direction of light.

Knowing the refractive index is a magic number that tells Meyer exactly what the material is, but he is not telling you !

If you reckon what Meyer put in his AR is kosher and above board with no omissions by employing technical jargon, then that's fine, its probably an aspect that might never be resolved?

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,

BBM: I agree. Yet it is rocket science, thats the point. Once Coroner Meyer has read the Lab Test results it tells him that the material has the property of birefringence, i.e. not that it is made out of "birefringement material.

Wikipedia says:


Knowing the refractive index is a magic number that tells Meyer exactly what the material is, but he is not telling you !

If you reckon what Meyer put in his AR is kosher and above board with no omissions by employing technical jargon, then that's fine, its probably an aspect that might never be resolved?

.

At this point you're simply splitting hairs. Again, the pathologist was able to determine the material was birefringent, but there are many things/sources where it could have originated. Also, any material (i.e. "a" material) can be "birefringent."

 

[UKGuy]

At this point you're simply splitting hairs. Again, the pathologist was able to determine the material was birefringent, but there are many things/sources where it could have originated. Also, any material (i.e. "a" material) can be "birefringent."

Userid,

Also, any material (i.e. "a" material) can be "birefringent.

Not all materials are birefringent it is a distinguishing property from those materials that do not exhibit dual refraction.

Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Part 3, Stories Within Stories, Excerpt

Pathologists had to be consulted to determine if JonBenét’s vaginal injury had taken place before or after her death and, if it was prior, to see if penetration had come from the child herself or from another person. The police would have to track down the origin of a small amount of cellulose*

* Cellulose is a carbohydrate of high molecular weight that is the chief constituent of the cell walls of plants. Raw cotton is 91 percent cellulose. Other important natural sources are flax, hemp, jute, straw, and wood.

Steve Thomas cites a splinter in his book so its likely to be wood from the paintbrush.

Using the birefringent index of the cellulose found inside JonBenet Coroner Meyer could compare it with a sample taken from the piece of paintbrush attached to the ligature and determine if both materials have a matching birefringent index?

If Dr. Andrew Sirontak, Chief of Denver Children’s Hospital Child Protection Team and Coroner Meyer both agree that JonBenet was Digitally Penetrated and was subject to Sexual Contact just what role could cellulose play in her death?

.

 

[Userid]

I never said all materials are birefringent. I said "a," as in any (not all; those that share that quality) material can be birefringent.

Your quote from Thomas proves my point all the more. They can determine it's cellulose, but there are many sources of cellulose; hence, why that terminology "birefringement material" was used in the AR. It wasn't coded.

 

[UKGuy]

I never said all materials are birefringent. I said "a," as in any (not all; those that share that quality) material can be birefringent.

Your quote from Thomas proves my point all the more. They can determine it's cellulose, but there are many sources of cellulose; hence, why that terminology "birefringement material" was used in the AR. It wasn't coded.

Userid,
Sure, so we can agree its cellulose but does it match the cellulose from the paintbrush, they will have done the tests.

Any thoughts why Coroner Meyer went for birefringement material over cellulose since he could only cite birefringement material after running the Lab Tests?

.