Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

No! Cellulose exhibits birefringence properties when subjected to laser tests, i.e. cellulose is a birefringent material, meaning that the cellulose and Coroner Meyers remarks regarding a birefringent material can coincide.

What is unknown, is whether the birefringent material referred to in the Autopsy Report is cellulose, which leaves open the possibility that a wooden splinter and some other unidentified object, i.e. the birefringent material was found inside JonBenet.

If this is the case why would Coroner Meyer cite one instance but not the other?

We don't know for sure that the cellulose and birefringent material are one and the same. We DO know that wood splinters were found in her vagina. The autopsy mentions the birefringent material and does not specify if they are the SAME materiel as the cellulose. In autopsy notes, the coroner describes what he SEES before the material is tested, even if he knows what it is. That is why the wood splinters would be described as cellulose. The jewelry she was wearing is described as "Yellow metal", not as "gold" even though it is obvious it is gold jewelry. The testing of the jewelry determines whether it is gold filled, 10K, 14K, 18K, etc. but that description does not go into the report because the testing is done at a different time. So it is noted as "yellow metal" because literally that it what it is. It is the same for the cellulose. It may be wood, may be part of the paintbrush, may be come other thing, but until it is independently tested apart from the autopsy itself, it is "cellulose" for the purposes of the written autopsy. In all the books I have read, I have never seen the birefringent material definitively names as to what it really was. Talc, paint chips or varnish from the paintbrush, or the splinters themselves.

 

[Mama2JML]

I guess my confusion is what exactly cellulose is? I know its an organic compound. I understand that a cotton fibre is about 90% cellulose and that wood is comprised of about 45% cellulose. So if they found a wood splinter, why wouldn't they just say it was wood?

Regardless, I feel the events unfolded as follows:

Sexual assault - upstairs
Head bash - upstairs
Garrotte applied - downstairs
wipe down - downstairs
Re-dress - downstairs

I feel that the splinter arrived in her vagina during the wipe down. I believe the only reason for wiping down her vagina would be to hid evidence of a sexual assault.

How do you account for the fibers from the stansport cord found in the victim's bed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

Many good posts on this thread, thanks to all posting here, your thoughts, opinions and insights here at WS continually challenge my own. I mostly keep quiet simply because Im a perpetual "fence-sitter" about this case. I followed this case as best I could long before reading or joining WS, and Especially since then, reading WS and from various books including (argh) those written by the R's. Be that as it may, many of my own opinions remain somewhat in flux, in fact I try to avoid latching on to any solid opinion no matter how "small" the detail.

However, I do want to speak up about this issue of "birefringent material" as written in the autopsy. Google it, find out what it really means. Depending on how small the evidence sample, one could attempt to draw different conclusions. Was it truly cellulose? Cellulose doesnt necessarily mean "birefringent". Could it be fragments of the paintbrush? we can't be certain can we? Is it possibly talcum powder, oh hey like from a latex glove? Do we have solid reason to even suspect that?

Within categories, I do not consider myself IDI, or any solid RDI except for my own gut feelings from the very beginning of media reports of this case. Who cares what I think, I know that.

But I will say this, regarding ANY possibility of the "birefringent material" being talcum powder. If it really is evidence of talcum powder then 1) I seriously doubt the powder would have been placed there by PR and 2) she would have likely "thrown a fit" if she had known talc was used/had been used on her daughter's genital area. NO EXCEPTIONS in my opinion. Most ladies back in 1996 were already aware of the link between talc and ovarian cancer, as well as other female cancers. I just can't imagine that she would have allowed JBR to use talc anywhere near her private parts, and all I say here is JMHO.

I can remember trying to magnify pics of JBR's bathroom counter and bedroom nightstand looking for any container of baby bowder or such. I didn't like seeing a bottle of lotion there, because really a 6 yr old shouldn't be concerned about such imo.

In other words, I do not believe we are talking about TALC when it comes to the A.R. It has to be something else, more specific that it's referring to. But if it IS TALC, then my eyebrows go up to my scalp and I want to know more, KWIM?

I do not have young children, but I know some mothers still use talc on their babies. I don't know whether Patsy was aware of the warnings or not. Most people feel that if the birefringent materiel IS talc, it was talc that is found as a light coating on latex gloves. These gloves were found in Patsy's bathroom, I believe. She used them when dyeing hair. I can see the parents wearing these gloves when staging the crime scene, but without a definite match between the gloves and the birefringent materiel, I couldn't say for sure WHAT that material actually was.

 

[icedtea4me]

How do you account for the fibers from the stansport cord found in the victim's bed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about secondary transfer from the grapefruit knife that was found on the counter under the open cabinet with the package of Pull-Ups hanging halfway out in the second floor laundry area?

 

[questfortrue]

We don't know for sure that the cellulose and birefringent material are one and the same. We DO know that wood splinters were found in her vagina. The autopsy mentions the birefringent material and does not specify if they are the SAME materiel as the cellulose. In autopsy notes, the coroner describes what he SEES before the material is tested, even if he knows what it is. That is why the wood splinters would be described as cellulose. The jewelry she was wearing is described as "Yellow metal", not as "gold" even though it is obvious it is gold jewelry. The testing of the jewelry determines whether it is gold filled, 10K, 14K, 18K, etc. but that description does not go into the report because the testing is done at a different time. So it is noted as "yellow metal" because literally that it what it is. It is the same for the cellulose. It may be wood, may be part of the paintbrush, may be come other thing, but until it is independently tested apart from the autopsy itself, it is "cellulose" for the purposes of the written autopsy. In all the books I have read, I have never seen the birefringent material definitively names as to what it really was. Talc, paint chips or varnish from the paintbrush, or the splinters themselves.

Agreed with everything you described.

Just to add to the information after the autopsy report was completed -
The microscopic slide evidence revealed the foreign material mentioned in the autopsy to be a small splinter, consistent with the paintbrush. The site of the damaged tissue was excised and prepared for a pathology slide. Later examination would reveal the presence of ‘cellulose material’ in the membrane of the hymeneal opening that was consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote. He (Dr. Meyer) noted that he didn’t consider this injury the result of a particularly vicious assault with a foreign object. A very small splinter of material was discovered during microscopic examination, and more trauma to the site would have been expected if the perpetrator had been intent on physically torturing the child. Kolar, FF

IIRC, the only expert reviewing this case who thought the birefringent foreign material could have been talc was Wecht, and he did not see the later lab reports. But I speculate talc transfer could have occurred, possibly if someone wore latex gloves when JB was cleaned.

What seems to be most important in this discussion is that however the means the splinter came to be in her vaginal vault/hymen, it shouldn’t have been there, and speaks to a scene either during or subsequent to her molestation. I’ve no way of knowing, of course, but it would seem as though a broken paintbrush would shed a splinter more easily than one which hasn’t been broken. And then, if the timing of this splinter is placed in the framework of breaking a paintbrush and fashioning a “simulated” garrote then the judgment of most of the experts that the acute assault happened shortly before or shortly after she died does make some cohesive sense, imo.

 

[UKGuy]

We don't know for sure that the cellulose and birefringent material are one and the same. We DO know that wood splinters were found in her vagina. The autopsy mentions the birefringent material and does not specify if they are the SAME materiel as the cellulose. In autopsy notes, the coroner describes what he SEES before the material is tested, even if he knows what it is. That is why the wood splinters would be described as cellulose. The jewelry she was wearing is described as "Yellow metal", not as "gold" even though it is obvious it is gold jewelry. The testing of the jewelry determines whether it is gold filled, 10K, 14K, 18K, etc. but that description does not go into the report because the testing is done at a different time. So it is noted as "yellow metal" because literally that it what it is. It is the same for the cellulose. It may be wood, may be part of the paintbrush, may be come other thing, but until it is independently tested apart from the autopsy itself, it is "cellulose" for the purposes of the written autopsy. In all the books I have read, I have never seen the birefringent material definitively names as to what it really was. Talc, paint chips or varnish from the paintbrush, or the splinters themselves.

DeeDee249,

In autopsy notes, the coroner describes what he SEES before the material is tested, even if he knows what it is.

So what did he see?

In the Autopsy Report section headed MICROSCOPIC DESCRIPTION: (All Sections Stained with H&E) Coroner Meyer outlines his microscopic discoveries.

He specifically identifies a foreign object:

Autopsy Report, excerpt

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, contain 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.

So did Coroner Meyer view foreign material under the microscope, and speculate that looks like cellulose so I'll describe it as birefringent foreign material, or did he have it tested specotgraphically which yielded precisely which material it was and its likely source, which he then wrote up in his report as birefringent foreign material?

In all the books I have read, I have never seen the birefringent material definitively names as to what it really was. Talc, paint chips or varnish from the paintbrush, or the splinters themselves.

Neither have I. But Kolar has identified the birefringent foreign material as cellulose likely originating from the paintbrush. Whilst not conclusive I reckon we can match ST's splinter, Kolar's cellulose and Meyer's birefringent material as being one and the same object!


This I hope will avoid any future confusion on this subject?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Agreed with everything you described.

Just to add to the information after the autopsy report was completed -
The microscopic slide evidence revealed the foreign material mentioned in the autopsy to be a small splinter, consistent with the paintbrush. The site of the damaged tissue was excised and prepared for a pathology slide. Later examination would reveal the presence of ‘cellulose material’ in the membrane of the hymeneal opening that was consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote. He (Dr. Meyer) noted that he didn’t consider this injury the result of a particularly vicious assault with a foreign object. A very small splinter of material was discovered during microscopic examination, and more trauma to the site would have been expected if the perpetrator had been intent on physically torturing the child. Kolar, FF

IIRC, the only expert reviewing this case who thought the birefringent foreign material could have been talc was Wecht, and he did not see the later lab reports. But I speculate talc transfer could have occurred, possibly if someone wore latex gloves when JB was cleaned.

What seems to be most important in this discussion is that however the means the splinter came to be in her vaginal vault/hymen, it shouldn’t have been there, and speaks to a scene either during or subsequent to her molestation. I’ve no way of knowing, of course, but it would seem as though a broken paintbrush would shed a splinter more easily than one which hasn’t been broken. And then, if the timing of this splinter is placed in the framework of breaking a paintbrush and fashioning a “simulated” garrote then the judgment of most of the experts that the acute assault happened shortly before or shortly after she died does make some cohesive sense, imo.

questfortrue
BBM: ITA this should be the focus of our discussion. For me it suggests JonBenet was cleaned up after the paintbrush was broken. Alternatively the person who sexually assaulted her using a finger had been whittling prior to the assault?

This suggests a different scenario from one where the paintbrush handle is used to mask a prior assault?

.

 

[andreww]

My question would be, if the paintbrush was inserted in JBs vagina, was any of her DNA found on the remaining pieces? Seems like it would have been difficult to remove all traces from a splintered piece of wood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

My question would be, if the paintbrush was inserted in JBs vagina, was any of her DNA found on the remaining pieces? Seems like it would have been difficult to remove all traces from a splintered piece of wood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
I have never seen any information released about this. Presumably they dna tested the remaing pieces of paintbrush handle, although one piece is missing in action. So it might have traces of her dna?

Whilst you can never rule out that JonBenet was assaulted with the paintbrush. My settled view is that the splinter arrived after the paintbrush was broken, possibly as she was being cleaned and redressed, or the person assaulting her had been whittling prior the assault?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

My question would be, if the paintbrush was inserted in JBs vagina, was any of her DNA found on the remaining pieces? Seems like it would have been difficult to remove all traces from a splintered piece of wood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does not follow that her DNA would have to be on other pieces of the paintbrush if it was broken before it was inserted (if, indeed, it was). There is a missing piece, as far as I know.

 

[andreww]

Just seems odd that DNA can be left by a simple touch, yet something that was presumably inside her has none?

I'm with UKGuy on this and don't think she was assaulted with the brush.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Just seems odd that DNA can be left by a simple touch, yet something that was presumably inside her has none?

I'm with UKGuy on this and don't think she was assaulted with the brush.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

andreww,
The reason I think this is because whichever piece of paintbrush would have been used, they would either have had a ragged or pointed end and would have punctured JonBenet internally.

Remember Coroner Meyer saying there had been digital penetration? Well I wonder if they kept any forensic samples, since using todays technology could separate JonBenet's cells from those left behind by someone's digit, more or less identifying who assaulted her!

.

 

[887sMtreme]

The description of JB's vaginal tissues suggest vigorous penetration by something, and prior to death because the blood was still flowing into the area in response to some kind of irritation (or so I read it). Could this have taken place between the head-bashing and the later strangulation? If the stagers thought JB to be dead at that stage, there would have been little concern for this causing the little girl any pain -- though it would still have taken a monster to do such a thing. This could reinforce the idea that PR interrupted a molestation upstairs, struck at the molester with the MagLite, missed and hit JB. Panic ensued, death was presumed, followed by the "kidnapping gone wrong" coverup begins, including the hasty "erasure" of evidence of chronic sexual abuse. That PR's paintbrush was used for this task could be a frantic use of whatever was handy, or it could have had some other meaning to the perpetrator: an angry statement about PR's delusions of artistic skill, perhaps? The actual death was later ensured with the strangulation. At what point was the cleanup and redressing accomplished, before or after that? I think we need to give a great deal more leeway for panic in this whole thing, which could explain the things that don't make sense. Panic seldom does.

 

[DeeDee249]

We really can't say for sure exactly when each injury was inflicted. We only can tell that she was alive when they were. Coroners can always tell when an injury is postmortem, and I have not seen where Mayer mentions any. He wasn't the most transparent note-taker. There were things he did not say or said only as a verbal comment to police present at the autopsy. And IMO he was told not to look too closely or dig too deeply. But I think he'd still have noted any postmortem injury.

 

[Muy Curioso]

. Coroners can always tell when an injury is postmortem, ...

No, they can not. They are unable to determine if an injury has occurred a few minutes before or after death.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No, they can not. They are unable to determine if an injury has occurred a few minutes before or after death.

They can tell. A lot of cases are made on such findings.

 

[Muy Curioso]

For many wounds, and with no other information, it is not possible to know if a wound was made shortly before or shortly after death. This uncertainty may be a matter of a few minutes, but sometimes is longer.

For Jonbenet case, experts do not agree on whether it was first strangulation or head blow, or the elapsed time between the two events.

 

[questfortrue]

We really can't say for sure exactly when each injury was inflicted. We only can tell that she was alive when they were. Coroners can always tell when an injury is postmortem, and I have not seen where Mayer mentions any. He wasn't the most transparent note-taker. There were things he did not say or said only as a verbal comment to police present at the autopsy. And IMO he was told not to look too closely or dig too deeply. But I think he'd still have noted any postmortem injury.

DeeDee249, I agree and think he may have been pretty shocked at several things the autopsy revealed. Also, that he held some things back in his notes. BTW, sometime in the past you indicated that you believe she may have received two sa injuries that night. I also think the autopsy gives some indication of that possibility. The following is just my recap quoting from the autopsy and my comments in green. Others may disagree.

General comments in the autopsy
A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule. Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice. A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 x 1 cm hymenal orifice.

Interpretation of reddish hyperemia – meaning it is a fresh injury. If it was pinkish it would have indicated an older injury, according to a medical source.

Hyperemia is circumferential. Cyril Wecht did a long podcast of his pathologist analysis and interpreted that this is evidence of a digital assault.

An area of abrasion. This abrasion might be construed as an injury from a foreign object. (This wasn’t from bubble baths.)

Meyer’s discussion of evidence from slides
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.

Vascular congestion of her vaginal mucosa. The evidence of sexual contact.

Focal interstitial chronic inflammation. Healing injuries, according to Wecht, and another indicator of chronic molestation which happened prior (iirc, pertaining to injuries 48 hours or more in the past).

The red blood cells present on the eroded surface, possibly an indication she was penetrated with a foreign object, causing what common terminology references as an abrasion. This was an injury manifesting no acute inflammatory infiltrate which experts postulated occurred shortly before or shortly after her death.

YMMV

 

[midwest mama]

Thanks to otg for his help with this:
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/4971908

If you take a look at the video link above, you will see a short clip of JB performing at a pageant. Look at the bruise on her arm and think about that Christmas morning photo of PR holding JB by the arm.



There is also a photo of JB in her showgirl costume showing this same type of bruise...and I wonder if it was taken at the same pageant, but with her competing in a separate event that day. Otherwise the same type of bruise shows up more than once and we should wonder why. Was the bruise due to being physically restrained or "manhandled" for some reason?

 

[DeeDee249]

Or could that bruise be the result of someone holding her down or restraining her while molesting her?