I believe he was attempting to avoid this issue completely hence the birefringent foreign material
We can speculate from now on about what Meyer was thinking and attempting to do when he wrote the AR. I’ll base my speculation on the “status” of the case at the time he did the autopsy.
The day after her body was “discovered”, when Meyer went into his lab to begin work, this case was not on the national news yet. There weren’t multiple forums where it was discussed at length and in detail about every single aspect and even the possible nuanced meanings behind some statement made, overheard, or reported. When Meyer began examining her body, he had no idea this would become the spectacle it became. He had no idea even that any of what he wrote in his report would ever be read by anyone outside of law enforcement. He didn’t write the report mindful of what information could be garnered from his words -- he was simply writing what he saw as he did his examination. Had he known at the time that it would be released publicly (and remember, he fought in court to have it suppressed), he simply would have not written in the AR anything he wanted kept quiet. If he wanted something not to be known outside of LE, he would have simply left it out of the official AR and written it only in his personal notes.
OK, we have intent to injure, presumably?
Intent? How do we know what the “intent” was? There again, we’re back to speculating about what was going on in someone’s mind. We know Dr. McCann related the appearance of the injuries with what he associated it with (a forceful jab), but are there not circumstances where the same type of injury might result from unintentional force? Imagine yourself trying to do something requiring a careful, steady hand with a knife. Can you imagine a sudden sound or something that might startle you causing an unintended movement with the knife? Would the possible resulting injury not be similar to what would be seen from an intentional swing with a knife? Even with as much confidence as I have in anything Dr. McCann might have had to say, I understand that he didn't know what was intended by the assailant -- he was simply trying to associate the appearance of the injury to an action that could be used to account for the result. He said "
forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in" (although I don't see much difference in the wording there). You presumed the intent.
OK I'll buy that, except that birefringent foreign material was described as found inside JonBenet and further detailed as a splinter in Steve Thomas' book, which I think originated from the broken paintbrush?
I don’t think Thomas even uses the word “birefringent” in
IRMI, much less connect it with the splinter he was the first to disclose existed. And I’m not so sure the splinter and the BFM are one in the same. I know it could be, but I’ve seen the BFM evolve over the years from talcum powder to cellulose, from cellulose to splinters, from splinters to shards of whittled wood, from shards of wood to the entire end of the paintbrush. I think Meyer was simply describing what he saw but couldn’t identify without further testing. The only thing he says about it in the AR is that some undisclosed amount (or size) of foreign material was found and that it has the physical property of being birefringent. He doesn’t even tie this BFM to a splinter or anything of a cellulose material.
I don’t have the time or inclination to compare the different accounts and try to figure out exactly how this all evolved. But I will point out that you should always pay close attention in any autopsy report to
where something is written. The examination itself is divided into three sections:
External,
Internal, and
Microscopic. This BFM is mentioned only in the Microscopic section where it lists what was examined or found with a microscope and the items collected as evidence.
My personal opinion is that the BFM is flecks of varnish that were left behind from insertion of the unbroken paintbrush. But until we find out something that makes it more conclusive, my opinion is no better than anyone else’s.
I think the missing piece of the paintbrush was left inside JonBenet and was intended as staging!
Here is what is written in the Bonita Papers, if you choose to accept
(bbm):
PAINT BRUSH:
The Colorado Bureau of investigation analyzed and confirmed that the wooden stick used with the ligature rope is, in fact, the paint brush handle from the broken paint brush from the painting supply tray a critical second piece of weapon evidence that came from within the house. It was also noted that a portion of the paint brush handle, appearing to be from the top, is unaccounted for. No fingerprints were ever found on any portion of the paintbrush.
(Just as a side note: Isn’t it strange that there were no fingerprints found on Patsy’s paintbrush? Shouldn’t Patsy’s fingerprints be on Patsy’s paintbrush?)
could the small foreign faction be the people involved in the cover up be referring to themselves? And maybe SBTC means something for them.