Which came first, Strangulation or Head Trauma???

[Deleted member 278]

rocket,
So why not simply smother her, which also keeps her quiet?

Smothering isn't exactly EA.

 

[Deleted member 278]

That's the Wecht theory, rocket.

The pathologists who worked with the police said that the head blow was fully developed. Werner Spitz, Henry Lee and Ronald Wright all said it could have been anywhere from ten minutes to an hour.

That's my theory also, SD.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi Dave! haha Ive emailed you before remember me? lol. Anyway, what do you mean by the head blow was fully developed? Im pulling a duh moment sorry.

You're not the only one. I can't say as I remember you. PM me about it! I look forward to talking.

What I mean by fully developed is that the brain had swollen. That takes time, and can't happen on someone who is already dead. Also, one of the pathologists described her head as having what he called a big blood clot.

 

[DeeDee249]

PolyGraph,
The major injuries sustained by JonBenet may have occurred simultaneously or sequentially.

Theoretically they may have occurred at the EXACT same time since JonBenet may have reacted by moving her head backwards as she was being manually strangled thus striking some hard suface, or the momentum of the manual strangulation propelled her to strike some solid object?

The sequential model has her being manually strangled but on release and falling unconcious to the floor striking her head on some solid object. Alternately she is whacked on the head say using a flashlight whilst she lies unconcious? A flashlight was later recovered and found to have been wiped clean.

Some think that the lividity present surrounding the ligature furrow e.g. the whitening would be missing if the ligature was wholly staging, this is consistent with Coroner Meyer's conclusion as Ligature Strangulation being a cause of death.

So it appears that JonBenet sustained a head injury and was then in short succession ligature strangled leaving little time for bleeding into or inflamation of her brain.

This tells you little of what went before, yet we know the Coroner suspected chronic sexual abuse, along with a cleanup of JonBenet's genital area. So it appears the whole story never mind all the forensic evidence has not been made public yet?


.

I agree with that last paragraph wholeheartedly. There is a lot Meyer did not report. Was he told to keep it under wraps? Probably, otherwise why not state all your findings?
As far as JBR falling and causing the skull fracture- I think that is highly unlikely. That kind of "puncture" fracture is caused by blunt force (getting hit with a blunt instrument). While coroner Meyer make have allowed things to go UNsaid, he does not state falsehoods. That would be a serious thing for him to do.

 

[Tadpole12]

PolyGraph,
The major injuries sustained by JonBenet may have occurred simultaneously or sequentially.

Theoretically they may have occurred at the EXACT same time since JonBenet may have reacted by moving her head backwards as she was being manually strangled thus striking some hard suface, or the momentum of the manual strangulation propelled her to strike some solid object?

The sequential model has her being manually strangled but on release and falling unconcious to the floor striking her head on some solid object. Alternately she is whacked on the head say using a flashlight whilst she lies unconcious? A flashlight was later recovered and found to have been wiped clean.

Some think that the lividity present surrounding the ligature furrow e.g. the whitening would be missing if the ligature was wholly staging, this is consistent with Coroner Meyer's conclusion as Ligature Strangulation being a cause of death.

So it appears that JonBenet sustained a head injury and was then in short succession ligature strangled leaving little time for bleeding into or inflamation of her brain.

This tells you little of what went before, yet we know the Coroner suspected chronic sexual abuse, along with a cleanup of JonBenet's genital area. So it appears the whole story never mind all the forensic evidence has not been made public yet?


.

Hi UK Guy. Quick Q.

"yet we know the Coroner suspected chronic sexual abuse". vs evidence of abuse limited to days

Guess I'm having trouble understanding the difference between chronic sexual abuse which was suspected by Meyers ( Does Meyers actually state that?) and Wecht's comment that JBR was sexually abused by someone over a period of days.


re Wecht interpretation of Meyer's findings....
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Haven/9101/wecht.html

To Wecht, the material he had just read made it clear that she had been sexually abused by someone over a period of several days. The abuse certainly might have covered a much longer time, but the evidence here was limited to days.

same geocites link Detective Linda Arndt swearing that Coroner Meyer had told her after the autopsy that JonBenet "had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina." Meyer had added "that it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact."

 

[DeeDee249]

People get confused by the term "chronic". That simply means having occurred on more that one occasion. It needn't have been long-term. The term "acute" means occurring at or near the moment (of death, in this case). So Meyer is stating (though vaguely) that there was evidence of some type of vaginal insult that occurred AT OR NEAR DEATH and also evidence that someone had had sexual contact with her on at least one other previous occasion.

 

[Tadpole12]

People get confused by the term "chronic". That simply means having occurred on more that one occasion. It needn't have been long-term. The term "acute" means occurring at or near the moment (of death, in this case). So Meyer is stating (though vaguely) that there was evidence of some type of vaginal insult that occurred AT OR NEAR DEATH and also evidence that someone had had sexual contact with her on at least one other previous occasion.

TY for the clarification, DD.

 

[UKGuy]

Smothering isn't exactly EA.

rocket,
Sure is not, so why bother flagging up any EA evidence by applying a garrote? Also the garrote as applied was not capable of functioning as an EA device, since the knotting was fixed, if it had ever been used as such then JonBenet's hair would have been ripped out by the roots, since it was embedded into the knotting.

Hardly a prescription for a pleasurable EA experience!

 

[UKGuy]

Hi UK Guy. Quick Q.

"yet we know the Coroner suspected chronic sexual abuse". vs evidence of abuse limited to days

Guess I'm having trouble understanding the difference between chronic sexual abuse which was suspected by Meyers ( Does Meyers actually state that?) and Wecht's comment that JBR was sexually abused by someone over a period of days.


re Wecht interpretation of Meyer's findings....
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Haven/9101/wecht.html

To Wecht, the material he had just read made it clear that she had been sexually abused by someone over a period of several days. The abuse certainly might have covered a much longer time, but the evidence here was limited to days.

same geocites link Detective Linda Arndt swearing that Coroner Meyer had told her after the autopsy that JonBenet "had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina." Meyer had added "that it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact."

Tadpole12,

Guess I'm having trouble understanding the difference between chronic sexual abuse which was suspected by Meyers ( Does Meyers actually state that?)

No he does not, just as he does not state JonBenet was manually strangled, yet forensic evidence exists to demonstrate that both may have occurred.

and Wecht's comment that JBR was sexually abused by someone over a period of days.

Wecht is applying common sense and limiting the use of the term chronic to a period of days.

If you read the Vaginal Mucosa section in Coroner Meyer's Autopsy Report he refers to:

All of the sections contain vascular congestion and focal interstitial chronic inflammation

Now both the emphasised terms have explicit meanings in the world of pathology : 1. vascular congestion refers to the infusion or build up of blood at a particular spot e.g. Clitoris or in the bulbs of vestibule.

And 2. focal interstitial chronic inflammation means that there was a localised injury that was attempting to heal itself thus inducing the inflammation, signs of which are cellular damage and an imbalance in the interstitial fluid. Basically that there was chronic inflammation present suggests as Wecht does that sexual abuse had occurred prior to the day JonBenet was killed?

3. epithelial erosion means it took place over time, with skin cells gradually being displaced. 4. underlying capillary congestion tells you the remaining surface skin cells are damaged thus displaying capillary congestion impeding the cells ability to engage in normal osmosis.

So Coroner Meyer's use of the terms 1. , 2. , 3. and 4. is offering evidence of a process that has occurred over a period of time, much more than a matter of days since epithelial erosion would take longer than that, chronic inflammation tells you that it is at least days old, but an analysis of the capillary congestion would offer an opinion beyond that of recent days.

5. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen. Acute inflammation is distinct from chronic inflammation since inflammation progresses through various stages. Acute inflammation usually involves an increased movement of plasma and leukocytes from the blood into the injured tissues. This is what I assume is the infiltrate that Coroner Meyer refers to?

Now the latter statement may be Coroner Meyers way of saying This looks like staging since Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen. or he may be suggesting the injury took place after death?

You can find Detective Arndt's remarks here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm

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.

...

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 Your 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 the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.

...

So Wecht limited his application of the term chronic to days since he never had access to the forensic evidence and resulting analysis. Whereas Meyer was explicitly making a distinction between the acute and chronic evidence.

imo it appears there is enough evidence to suggest historical and ongoing sexual abuse.


.

 

[PolyGraph]

That bone is called the hyoid bone. The report mentions that it was not broken in JBR, which is why some believe the strangulation was not meant to kill her. In one of the photos, you can clearly see where the ligature had dug deeply into her neck, but strangulation victims also will have some swelling in the head/neck- possibly that is why her neck folds over the mark- it could also be the position of her head that caused the fold. Without seeing the whole image in the photo, it is hard to tell.

As far as exhuming the body at this point- it has been 12 years. Embalming can delay decomposition for a brief period (days, weeks if the body is refrigerated) but after 12 years there will not be a lot of soft tissue left, especially in a child. I don't know if an exhumation will give us much more information.

Thanks DD, I wasnt sure if that bone was broken or not! That makes things a bit clearly doesnt it! So maybe the strangulation was just staging and she died as a result of an accident. However the strangulation could have originally been sex play such as auto erotic asphyxiation (cs) and that would have still brought me back to the theory of sex abuse. As for exhuming the body even if there was no tissue left with the technology out there Im sure they would find some new evidence. at least we hope right? Poor poor baby.

 

[PolyGraph]

DeeDee249,
I agree with you. The report appears to be unambiguously stating JonBenet was killed by a combination of head injury and ligature strangulation.

I reckon by the time the autopsy was finished Coroner Meyer knew and had told his attending colleagues that a lot of what was presented seemed like staging, so along with his alleged verbatim remarks e.g.

Ramsey warrant dated January 30, 1997


Ramsey warrant dated January 30, 1997


Also from the Autopsy Report


If you combine the latter highlighted points along with Meyer's verbatim remarks I reckon he is stating JonBenet had been sexually molested. Thats what epithelial erosion, capillary congestion and vascular congestion along with chronic inflammation suggest e.g. that the abuse was historical and ongoing. Now his last sentence may be suggesting a cutoff point for her death after being molested since there has not been time for the acute inflammatory infiltrate to develop, or he may be indicating that although acute, the lack of inflammatory infiltrate suggests JonBenet was already dead when the injury was inflicted?

So without Detective Arndt's evidence we would be in the dark as to precisely how to interpret the autopsy report. Now Coroner Meyer does not explicitly spell out in his report that there was historical abuse, or that he thinks there was sexual contact which is distinct from physical contact intended to injure. His use of obscure terminology such as birefringent foreign material. suggests to me that his report is intentionally ambiguous, probably with a view to fooling JonBenet's killer into thinking much of the staging has worked?

Maybe this is why there is no mention of manual strangulation just as there is no mention of prior abuse, yet he itemizes the evidence, just as he itemizes the evidence for the manual strangulation etc.


.

Great Post As Always UK!!! I keep flip flopping back and forth on my theory of either it was an accident (patsy) or sex abuse (by john). I have put more weight into the sex abuse theory as well but they only thing is why would patsy cover for that? why would she write a randsom note to protect him unless he had something over her (maybe violence? or money? or protection of burke?) I dont know if she would have protected John or stayed married to hm for that time afterwards without some public display of hostility towards him. Unless he lied to her and told her he did something by accident, I dont know. Like you have mentioned though the chronic inflamation is what seems to answer all of these questions. I just cant see Patsy sticking up for him if she knew. Wonder what ever happened to that memoir or book that Ardnt was supposed to write for patsy or about the case etc??? I was waiting for that one. Again all posts are my oppinion only.

*something very telling though was in Thomas's book (dont remember the page or even the chapter) but that it was said that after the murder, John was overheard at a friend's house dopped up on medication saying "what did i do" or something to that affect.*

 

[PolyGraph]

You're not the only one. I can't say as I remember you. PM me about it! I look forward to talking.

What I mean by fully developed is that the brain had swollen. That takes time, and can't happen on someone who is already dead. Also, one of the pathologists described her head as having what he called a big blood clot.

ohhhhh. That must have taken a while at least. But I suppose she still could have been strangled and then hit on the head which still did not result in her death right away.

Oh maybe I talked to a different Dave then I thought it was you. You seemed quite busy if it was you so maybe I did and you forgot. People always forget me dont worry about it lol

 

[PolyGraph]

I agree with that last paragraph wholeheartedly. There is a lot Meyer did not report. Was he told to keep it under wraps? Probably, otherwise why not state all your findings?
As far as JBR falling and causing the skull fracture- I think that is highly unlikely. That kind of "puncture" fracture is caused by blunt force (getting hit with a blunt instrument). While coroner Meyer make have allowed things to go UNsaid, he does not state falsehoods. That would be a serious thing for him to do.

As I agree with that post too I also agree with the triangular part of the fracture being 'punched out'. Its too precise in my oppinion to be a fall. but then again that would not go with an accident, Just pondering....

 

[PolyGraph]

Hi UK Guy. Quick Q.

"yet we know the Coroner suspected chronic sexual abuse". vs evidence of abuse limited to days

Guess I'm having trouble understanding the difference between chronic sexual abuse which was suspected by Meyers ( Does Meyers actually state that?) and Wecht's comment that JBR was sexually abused by someone over a period of days.


re Wecht interpretation of Meyer's findings....
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Haven/9101/wecht.html

To Wecht, the material he had just read made it clear that she had been sexually abused by someone over a period of several days. The abuse certainly might have covered a much longer time, but the evidence here was limited to days.

same geocites link Detective Linda Arndt swearing that Coroner Meyer had told her after the autopsy that JonBenet "had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina." Meyer had added "that it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact."

Thanks for that link! I was looking to read Wecht's book but I just got a preview of what he thought! Interesting to say the least. I am wondering however if that vascular congestion and interstitial focal points could be produced post mortem? I dont know, or maybe soon after death??? but the chronic things always gets me. Wecht is rigth in stating that means long term. So what were myers intentions with the chronic statement is what we need to know. UK is right though how he may have been intentionally vague on that for several reasons. MOO

 

[PolyGraph]

Tadpole12,

No he does not, just as he does not state JonBenet was manually strangled, yet forensic evidence exists to demonstrate that both may have occurred.


Wecht is applying common sense and limiting the use of the term chronic to a period of days.

If you read the Vaginal Mucosa section in Coroner Meyer's Autopsy Report he refers to:


Now both the emphasised terms have explicit meanings in the world of pathology : 1. vascular congestion refers to the infusion or build up of blood at a particular spot e.g. Clitoris or in the bulbs of vestibule.

And 2. focal interstitial chronic inflammation means that there was a localised injury that was attempting to heal itself thus inducing the inflammation, signs of which are cellular damage and an imbalance in the interstitial fluid. Basically that there was chronic inflammation present suggests as Wecht does that sexual abuse had occurred prior to the day JonBenet was killed?

3. epithelial erosion means it took place over time, with skin cells gradually being displaced. 4. underlying capillary congestion tells you the remaining surface skin cells are damaged thus displaying capillary congestion impeding the cells ability to engage in normal osmosis.

So Coroner Meyer's use of the terms 1. , 2. , 3. and 4. is offering evidence of a process that has occurred over a period of time, much more than a matter of days since epithelial erosion would take longer than that, chronic inflammation tells you that it is at least days old, but an analysis of the capillary congestion would offer an opinion beyond that of recent days.

5. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen. Acute inflammation is distinct from chronic inflammation since inflammation progresses through various stages. Acute inflammation usually involves an increased movement of plasma and leukocytes from the blood into the injured tissues. This is what I assume is the infiltrate that Coroner Meyer refers to?

Now the latter statement may be Coroner Meyers way of saying This looks like staging since Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen. or he may be suggesting the injury took place after death?

You can find Detective Arndt's remarks here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm


So Wecht limited his application of the term chronic to days since he never had access to the forensic evidence and resulting analysis. Whereas Meyer was explicitly making a distinction between the acute and chronic evidence.

imo it appears there is enough evidence to suggest historical and ongoing sexual abuse.


.

After looking at wecht's findings, it would certainly look like it. Especially since I kind of answered my own question with the 'punch out' theory, that seemed like no accident. Unless she fell and hit her head on a pointed object but that of course does not seem likey!

Another thing that I learned while studying psychology was that sexually abused children often have issues with bedwetting etc. and that they typically wipe feces on walls or themselves as a deterant to the abuser. Also I remember reading something about how JB has soiled herself not just by urine, but by having defication stains in much of her underpants. Im not saying that this was def abuse but just another indicator that points towards sex abuse. Its sickening to think that this was what was happening but unfortunately I hear it happens in One out of Five girls in the US. Hard to believe. MOO

 

[Deleted member 278]

rocket,
Sure is not, so why bother flagging up any EA evidence by applying a garrote? Also the garrote as applied was not capable of functioning as an EA device, since the knotting was fixed, if it had ever been used as such then JonBenet's hair would have been ripped out by the roots, since it was embedded into the knotting.

Hardly a prescription for a pleasurable EA experience!

Simple - because someone wanted to desperately disguise/hide the EA and the EA apparatus was not the garrote. Of course, JonBenet did not find pleasure in the EA, but the perp did just by employing it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks for that link! I was looking to read Wecht's book but I just got a preview of what he thought! Interesting to say the least. I am wondering however if that vascular congestion and interstitial focal points could be produced post mortem? I dont know, or maybe soon after death??? but the chronic things always gets me. Wecht is rigth in stating that means long term. So what were myers intentions with the chronic statement is what we need to know. UK is right though how he may have been intentionally vague on that for several reasons. MOO

Inflammation and vascular congestion never occur postmortem. These kinds of inflammatory responses do not happen after the blood stops circulating. All metabolic activity (including digestion, which is very relevant to this case) stops as soon as the heart stops pumping blood and breathing stops. Then anaerobic activity takes over, and the process of dying begins.

 

[PolyGraph]

Inflammation and vascular congestion never occur postmortem. These kinds of inflammatory responses do not happen after the blood stops circulating. All metabolic activity (including digestion, which is very relevant to this case) stops as soon as the heart stops pumping blood and breathing stops. Then anaerobic activity takes over, and the process of dying begins.

The more and more I learn about this, it seems IMOO like a sex abuse crime. Which leads me to think either the father or perhaps someone close to the family. Cant think of why Patsy would cover for an intruder or other family member though and after reading about many handwitting analysis' then I suspect she wrote the RN. I always get carried away with my thoughts so please excuse my mind lol It really upsets me that all these 'parents' of these murder victims (not naming them all but we all know who they are)get off so easily. The first thing that comes to my mind and always will is why dont they take a polygraph if they are so innocent??? hence my nic. Like all of the parents who were innocent and were cleared quickly to search for the real killers, they do not seem to get that far and refuse to cooperate with police, all the signs of the guilty parents seem to be the same types of behaviors.

 

[UKGuy]

After looking at wecht's findings, it would certainly look like it. Especially since I kind of answered my own question with the 'punch out' theory, that seemed like no accident. Unless she fell and hit her head on a pointed object but that of course does not seem likey!

Another thing that I learned while studying psychology was that sexually abused children often have issues with bedwetting etc. and that they typically wipe feces on walls or themselves as a deterant to the abuser. Also I remember reading something about how JB has soiled herself not just by urine, but by having defication stains in much of her underpants. Im not saying that this was def abuse but just another indicator that points towards sex abuse. Its sickening to think that this was what was happening but unfortunately I hear it happens in One out of Five girls in the US. Hard to believe. MOO

PolyGraph,
On the subject of bedwetting or soiling etc. Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, stated had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of the investigation; in 2006 she stated: "There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith....While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions."

Holly Smith Link:
http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/...n=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

So it seems like all the indicators were there. Robert Kirschner, MD. University of Chicago, Department of Pathology. Suggests JonBenet's vaginal opening was twice the normal size for six-year-olds. http://bardachreports.com/articles/v_19971000.html

Also John McCann, MD Clinical Professor of Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics at University of California at Davis. Reckons examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet"

And although JonBenet visited her pediatrician, Dr. Beuf, many times over the years, only 5 of those were related to genital matters. Which might answer those who ask why would Patsy take JonBenet to the doctor? Well maybe she did but before her abuse became chronic and regular?

Whatever you think about who killed JonBenet and why? It appears irrefutable that she was being sexually molested regularly?

 

[UKGuy]

Simple - because someone wanted to desperately disguise/hide the EA and the EA apparatus was not the garrote. Of course, JonBenet did not find pleasure in the EA, but the perp did just by employing it.

rocket,
mmm well EA is a part of Lou Smit's intruder theory, and that seems to have led nowhere, and he seems to have vanished from public view, curious that!