Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[UKGuy]

Was the garrotte still around her neck when John carried her upstairs?

And as to the supposed "splinter", it is my understanding that it wasn't actually a splinter, but a piece of cellulose. Now I'm not a scientist but I do know that cellulose is a component in lacquer finishes. So I am assuming that the theory is this cellulose is a small particle of the lacquer that was used to finish the wood handle of the paintbrush?. If that be the case, its hard to fathom her being violated with the splintered end of that brush with no other larger pieces being found.

andreww,
Whatever the splinter represents, it can be conclusively identified, i.e. cellulose as wood can be spectographically distinguished from cellulose as lacquer.

Either way we do not have a satisfactory explanation for its location. Other than it being residue from a staging event?

.

 

[Annapurna]

Was the garrotte still around her neck when John carried her upstairs?

And as to the supposed "splinter", it is my understanding that it wasn't actually a splinter, but a piece of cellulose. Now I'm not a scientist but I do know that cellulose is a component in lacquer finishes. So I am assuming that the theory is this cellulose is a small particle of the lacquer that was used to finish the wood handle of the paintbrush?. If that be the case, its hard to fathom her being violated with the splintered end of that brush with no other larger pieces being found.

Andrew, yes the garrotte was indeed around her neck. It was actually beneath her as she was laid down and not seen right away.

Steve Thomas is the source we have for the "cellulose" and "splinter" isn't it? The AR says "birefringent material" which I have heard attributed to talcum powder (such as could be found on latex gloves, for example).

Dr. Mccann, a child abuse specialist who examined the body/ confirmed Meyer's findings says the internal injury had "well defined edges" such as would not be seen from a finger as well as no sign it was a jagged object such as (as UKguy noted) the broken paintbrush.

Interesting.

 

[CorallaroC]

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?

 

[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?

There has long been confusion about the cellulose and birefringent material. They actually are two separate things. The cellulose, according to police present at the autopsy and other LE insiders, was wood splinters that matched the paintbrush. What is not known for sure is whether the paintbrush was inserted in her vagina (and possibly the missing piece left there) or if those splinters could have been carried in on a finger. This seems likely, as the coroner did say he felt her injuries were consistent with "digital penetration" (his words). As for the birefringent material, that word means "refractive or reflective". While talc has those properties, some feel the birefringent material could have been tiny paint chips or varnish from that same paintbrush.

 

[CorallaroC]

I agree with you DeeDee249. In fact, I TIA with most of your posts. TY for pointing out clearly that birefringent is not by definition cellulose. Many people jump to the wrong conclusion about that. In my mind, LE already knows exactly what that sample is made of. We the public dont know yet...

 

[questfortrue]

Photo of JB's bathroom from Kolar's book. Take a guess as to what is highlighted in the front section of the photo. I know what it looks like to me but YMMV.

 

[887sMtreme]

What does Kolar say it is?

 

[Tadpole12]

Photo of JB's bathroom from Kolar's book. Take a guess as to what is highlighted in the front section of the photo. I know what it looks like to me but YMMV.

View attachment 69127

heyya questfortrue

a pair of gloves?

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?

heyya CorallaroC,

I was unaware of the association, very interesting, talc with asbestos, ....cringe.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/talcum-powder-and-cancer

 

[Tadpole12]

andreww,
Whatever the splinter represents, it can be conclusively identified, i.e. cellulose as wood can be spectographically distinguished from cellulose as lacquer.

Either way we do not have a satisfactory explanation for its location. Other than it being residue from a staging event?

.

Heyya UKGuy

The splinter in the vagina had caused a disagreement among the examiners. Some examiners said it had been in the vagina as long as a week, but the detectives sided with Dr. Spitz’s conclusion that it was inserted about the time of death as a part of the staging. Thomas, Steve; Davis, Donald A. IRMI (p. 305), Kindle Edition.

I wonder if ST dismissed the examiners who "said [the splinter] had been in the vagina as long as a week", because ritualistic abuse can not coincide with the bed wetting theory?

 

[BBB167893]

Heyya UKGuy



I wonder if ST dismissed the examiners who "said [the splinter] had been in the vagina as long as a week", because ritualistic abuse can not coincide with the bed wetting theory?

Sadly, we can't ask him ourselves.

 

[andreww]

Photo of JB's bathroom from Kolar's book. Take a guess as to what is highlighted in the front section of the photo. I know what it looks like to me but YMMV.

View attachment 69127

That is interesting and I've never seen it mentioned before. What did Kolar say about it? Remember, Patsy colored her hair that day and latex type gloves are a standard piece of any hair color kit. I believe Patsy's shower was broken so she may have done her dye job in JBs bathroom. Just seems odd that in Patsy's second interview, cops had her go through countless photos and identify even the most mundane objects, and I never saw mention of latex gloves.

ETA, wouldn't that talc like substance on latex gloves also be present on a non lubricated latex condom?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Heyya UKGuy



I wonder if ST dismissed the examiners who "said [the splinter] had been in the vagina as long as a week", because ritualistic abuse can not coincide with the bed wetting theory?

Tadpole12,
A week, I wonder how they worked that out, and not say 12 days? JonBenet patently wet the bed regardless of whichever RDI, IDI you support.

ST's book, was IMO, a legal compromise, since he could say little of substance in case a trial took place and of course he was bound by his employment code etc.

I understood ST to be saying that the birefringement material was the splinter?


.

 

[UKGuy]

There has long been confusion about the cellulose and birefringent material. They actually are two separate things. The cellulose, according to police present at the autopsy and other LE insiders, was wood splinters that matched the paintbrush. What is not known for sure is whether the paintbrush was inserted in her vagina (and possibly the missing piece left there) or if those splinters could have been carried in on a finger. This seems likely, as the coroner did say he felt her injuries were consistent with "digital penetration" (his words). As for the birefringent material, that word means "refractive or reflective". While talc has those properties, some feel the birefringent material could have been tiny paint chips or varnish from that same paintbrush.

DeeDee249,

There has long been confusion about the cellulose and birefringent material. They actually are two separate things.

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?

 

[UKGuy]

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?

CorallaroC,
The birefringent material could represent residue from plastic gloves. Why would anyone wear these to assault JonBenet, discuss?

Also since the birefringent material can be positively identified, that is why it is termed birefringent material, the Coroner will know precisely what it is.

That Coroner Meyer chose to describe it as birefringent material does leave open the possibility that other non-birefringent material was found or he wishes to mask any association between the paintbrush and JonBenet's internal injury?

.

 

[andreww]

CorallaroC,
The birefringent material could represent residue from plastic gloves. Why would anyone wear these to assault JonBenet, discuss?
.

I think that with case people tend to jump to quick and simple conclusions. The cellulose chip (supposedly from the paintbrush) was found in JBs vagina, so the theory becomes "she was sexually assaulted with the paintbrush. While that is possible, it doesn't seem overly probable. In fact, if it weren't for that micro sliver of cellulose, would the assault have even been detected? So why is it there? Like you UKGuy, I believe that what happened in the basement was simply a diversion from the actual crime scene, somewhere else in the house. I believe that a more conventional sexual assault took place somewhere else in the house, that resulted in JBs ultimate death. I believe that semen was very likely deposited on her body, and that she was scrubbed down by someone wearing the latex gloves. I think that during this "cleansing", the cellulose fragment was transferred from the glove to the vagina.

 

[UKGuy]

I think that with case people tend to jump to quick and simple conclusions. The cellulose chip (supposedly from the paintbrush) was found in JBs vagina, so the theory becomes "she was sexually assaulted with the paintbrush. While that is possible, it doesn't seem overly probable. In fact, if it weren't for that micro sliver of cellulose, would the assault have even been detected? So why is it there? Like you UKGuy, I believe that what happened in the basement was simply a diversion from the actual crime scene, somewhere else in the house. I believe that a more conventional sexual assault took place somewhere else in the house, that resulted in JBs ultimate death. I believe that semen was very likely deposited on her body, and that she was scrubbed down by someone wearing the latex gloves. I think that during this "cleansing", the cellulose fragment was transferred from the glove to the vagina.

andreww,
If the splinter as described by ST came from the paintbrush then we are in a different ballpark than if it did not!

It might be the splinter is simply crime-scene artifact which has no evidential value, alike the dust on the floor of the wine-cellar, i.e. its just there.

The existence of the splinter might suggest that it arrived inside JonBenet after she was asphyxiated, i.e. she was cleaned up and redressed after having the paintbrush handle applied. Otherwise why would there be any splinters of wood around?

Alternatively if the splinter did not originate from the paintbrush then possibly it is connected with the primary crime-scene in some manner? BR whittling comes to mind here?

Still nobody has offered a cogent explanation as to why the splinter should arrive inside JonBenet despite her being fully clothed and wrapped in a blanket!

Assuming the splinter is from the paintbrush then we can assume, minimally, that JonBenet was redressed after the paintbrush was broken.


.

 

[andreww]

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.

 

[southernmimi]

We'll never know what happened to her. The living aren't talking. From what I can determine by reading, she was mistreated and that wouldn't have changed as she aged. She was a beautiful and talented child who is now at rest.

 

[andreww]

We'll never know what happened to her. The living aren't talking. From what I can determine by reading, she was mistreated and that wouldn't have changed as she aged. She was a beautiful and talented child who is now at rest.

You know what, get a district attorney in Boulder that has some guts, and put John Ramsey in a pair of cuffs and haul him off to jail. I'm sure he'd be singing like a canary very quickly. After all, thats what they would have done to you or I if we'd been in that situation.

 

[southernmimi]

I agree. No one will touch John Ramsey and he knows it. He's not the only one who knows what happened to her, but they've got to live with it.