Dna

[Redbird]

I became interested in the Ramey case when it first happened. I did not have a computer yet. About the same time I became very interested in astrology, and this was making me obsessed with both the Ramseys and the way to get a computer. I actually didn't get one until 2001. By this time I had lost some interest in the case,l but not in astrology or computers. I looked every where for the BD of Burke, From what info I had to do their charts I concluded that either Patsy or Burke committed the act and John Ramsey's chart seemed to be one of a victim, or one who is deceived. Does anyone have their birth times? Would be very interested in seeing a chart someone may have. TIA

If this is too O/T please remove. I wanted it to be seen.

 

[Whaleshark]

Respectfully, John Ramsey is not a 'victim'....might want to check your chart again, because he is very much a deceiver, rather than the deceived...

Might help if you checked some of the testimonies rather than astrology....just saying...

 

[UKGuy]

I think you are misunderstanding me. What I am saying is that Mayer felt the small drops of blood in her panties are LESS BLOOD than would be expected to be there considering the FACT that there had been enough blood on her pubic are and thighs to require wiping with a cloth. He is NOT saying the blood shouldn't be there- simply that the blood on the panties is not enough blood for her to have been wearing them as she was assaulted before she died. While he does not spell it out this way, I interpret his statements as saying the blood drops on the panties were the result of the small amount of blood he found in the vagina rather than the larger amount if blood that had already been wiped from her thighs and pubic area.
So if she had been wearing "original" panties when she was assaulted or shortly after, yes, they would have been much more bloodied, which is one reason why they needed to put on a fresh pair, even if they were not hers. I believe whoever put the size 12 on her had NO idea the blood droplets were there. As there was NO blood on the lonhjogns, just by looking at her you wouldn't have known about the blood on the panties. Also because there was no blood on the longjohns, it tells me that the blood drops on the panties were very likely postmortem ooze rather than directly from the injury. A dead person does not bleed (which is why there was such a small amount of blood inside her- much more flowed while she was still alive or she wouldn't have had to be wiped down), but blood can ooze.
Your timeline is incorrect, IMO. She was wiped down BEFORE the size 12s were put on her. Had she been wiped AFTER- there would be much more blood on the size 12s. which is exactly what Mayer was saying when he said the blood in the panties did not correspond to the blood that had been wiped from her body.
After she was wiped down (and any panties she was wearing destroyed (fireplace?) or otherwise disposed of or hidden, then the size 12s were put on her and the longjohns after that.

DeeDee249,

Again here is Coroner Meyer's verbatim opinion:
1996-12-29: Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado, Excerpt

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

I think you are misunderstanding me. What I am saying is that Mayer felt the small drops of blood in her panties are LESS BLOOD than would be expected to be there considering the FACT that there had been enough blood on her pubic are and thighs to require wiping with a cloth.

Not any more. Coroner Meyer's opinion is that JonBenet was wiped down, precisely because there is an absence of blood on her exterior pubic area. He offers no opinion regarding the prior volume of blood that exited JonBenet.

Your timeline is incorrect, IMO. She was wiped down BEFORE the size 12s were put on her. Had she been wiped AFTER- there would be much more blood on the size 12s. which is exactly what Mayer was saying when he said the blood in the panties did not correspond to the blood that had been wiped from her body.

Again you misinterpret Coroner Meyer. He is not so concerned with the volume of blood on the size-12's, but the absence of blood on her exterior pubic area. Precisely because there is no blood on her pubic area which came in contact with the size-12's.

So someone wiped JonBenet down after she had been dressed in the size-12's, otherwise Coroner Meyer would be able to cite blood residue on her pubic area!

If you give it careful consideration you will find that my proposed timeline is consistent with Coroner Meyer's opinion.



.

 

[UKGuy]

Cover up of abuse of some kind(s) by someone(s) definitely seems to be motive for this crime....

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence%20of%20Prior%20Sexual%20Abuse

Expert Panel. "In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . . 'Evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."

Interesting tidbit here --

Michael Doberson, MD. On the question of whether the autopsy findings indicated chronic abuse, "Arapahoe County Coroner Dr. Michael Doberson says you would need more information before you could come to any conclusion. That was part of Smith's job. But then she was abruptly pulled off the investigation and told police were handling everything." [Editor's Note: **Holly Smith** was head of Boulder Country Sexual Abuse Team].

...Would be something if it really is Holly Smith that is the person who will soon speak, wouldn't it?.....

Also of note:
"Grab marks on the arms and inner thighs are also strongly suggestive of sex abuse, especially thumb marks on the inner aspect of the thigh, placed there when the child's legs were forced apart."
___

Yes, Barbie nightgown has blood on it....Blanket has blood on it.... they are both in the wine cellar for a reason...or at least, due to being part of the crime, that is....

There's definitely some missing bloody clothes somewhere...
It's curious the bloody barbie nightgown is left behind in the wine cellar, though, and the other bloody clothes are not....

And is probably what is meant by them 'accidentally' being there, just like John's curious statement of 'that's not supposed to be there'.... (Because what - everything else IS supposed to be there? JonBenet is perfectly normal murdered in the wine cellar, as you expect, but no, not the Barbie nightgown - that's just.. just, too strange)? I think that tells us a lot...And if it was from the laundry with the blanket, how'd it get blood on it then? If it was the item used to wipe her down, does it match any of the fibers found on her/in her 'area', and/or is the blood on the nightgown consistent with wiping/smearing of blood, and not just drops....For that matter, how'd the blanket get blood on it? If there is no blood on her outer area, and the only blood we find out about on her is hidden close to her body in that underwear, then blood had to get on the blanket somehow too...
There is another set of bloody items somewhere....

So, part of the speculation on that particular item, is, it still could have been 'overloooked' and left behind in the wine cellar 'accidentally' in, or rather, on the blanket (but NOT as part of the clean laundry, per se), but maybe as part of the crime, and was supposed to have been disposed of along with the other bloody clothes, but was not... and is why that 'is not supposed to be there'? ....

Whaleshark,

Would be something if it really is Holly Smith that is the person who will soon speak, wouldn't it?.....

Yes that would be excellent, Holly Smith has seen all the photographs, checked JonBenet's clothes and underwear. I reckon she is the source for the theory that someone had been abusing JonBenet, and that she had evidence to demonstrate this. So she was dropped from the case!

Yes, Barbie nightgown has blood on it....Blanket has blood on it.... they are both in the wine cellar for a reason...or at least, due to being part of the crime, that is....

Of course. The Barbie-Nightgown was placed into the wine-cellar, just in case someone noticed the bloodstains. Why is there no blood on the longjohns?

It's curious the bloody barbie nightgown is left behind in the wine cellar, though, and the other bloody clothes are not....

But someone was staging a crime-scene, and one look at the partially opened gifts and blodstained Barbie-Nightgown, would have immediately called the crime-scene into question. I reckon the other items might have semen or other forensic evidence on them?

And is probably what is meant by them 'accidentally' being there, just like John's curious statement of 'that's not supposed to be there'.... (Because what - everything else IS supposed to be there? JonBenet is perfectly normal murdered in the wine cellar, as you expect, but no, not the Barbie nightgown - that's just.. just, too strange)? I think that tells us a lot...And if it was from the laundry with the blanket, how'd it get blood on it then? If it was the item used to wipe her down, does it match any of the fibers found on her/in her 'area', and/or is the blood on the nightgown consistent with wiping/smearing of blood, and not just drops....For that matter, how'd the blanket get blood on it? If there is no blood on her outer area, and the only blood we find out about on her is hidden close to her body in that underwear, then blood had to get on the blanket somehow too...
There is another set of bloody items somewhere....

The wine-cellar is a staged homicide crime-scene. Nothing arrived there by accident, the R's knew full well at some point its contents would be subject to scrutiny.

So, part of the speculation on that particular item, is, it still could have been 'overloooked' and left behind in the wine cellar 'accidentally' in, or rather, on the blanket (but NOT as part of the clean laundry, per se), but maybe as part of the crime, and was supposed to have been disposed of along with the other bloody clothes, but was not... and is why that 'is not supposed to be there'? ....

Not really since the blodstains are unaccounted for. JonBenet's exterior is largely free from blood, so if you consider the timeline:

1. Redressed in size-12's.

2. Wiped down

3. Subject to garroting.

Where did the bloodstains originate from? Not unless JonBenet was wearing the Barbie-Nightgown, which was then swapped for the longjohns, precisely because the person who wiped JonBenet down, realized she might continue to bleed, and disclose the R's big secret?


.

 

[KoldKase]

KoldKase,

When the forensic evidence conflicts with peoples cherished theories they always invent a special case, a reason as to why a particular event happened. This is I reckon a prime example.

The Barbie Gown is in the wine-cellar, not by accident, but like JonBenet deliberately. It represents evidence just as the partially opened Christmas gifts have been placed into the wine-cellar, out of eyesight. I would also include the Barbie Doll, but cannot connect it with JonBenet, other than Patsy claiming ownership!

The bloodstains on the Barbie-Nightgown may have arrived there by numerous paths, but certainly not by accident, since this means an R handled the Barbie-Nightgown directly, contrary to a belief in a chance happening.

Its possible that someone had already staged JonBenet in the Barbie-Nightgown, then for whatever reason they decided to restage, or alternatively JonBenet was assaulted as she wore the Barbie-Nightgown.

The bloodstains on both the size-12's and the Barbie-Nightgown corroborate each other, which is a higher standard of inference than assuming blind chance intervened, and nobody noticed, as they went about constructing a crime-scene they hoped would allow them to evade justice!

Its the touch-dna argument in the form of bloodstains, e.g. they arrived by accident, or formed part of a crime-scene, the latter is the IDI case of course.

Again we have a problem with inference and speculation, however high you think the probability is. We really have no idea how much blood was actually found on the gown and blanket--if any was on the blanket, which I repeat because I can't remember if this was nailed as positive fact or misinformation from one of the many confusing and often wrong sources I've read through the years. Sorry, hate to be confusing myself.

My point is the blood in question might have been found by forensic testing/lighting, etc., and not something we would see with the naked eye. Therefore, I personally can't assume any level of probability about how it got there. JMO.

Entirely possible, but she was still wiped down after being redressed in the size-12's. Coroner Meyer's remarks confirm this.

If JonBenet had been wiped down first then had the size-12's placed on her, followed by some event that allowed droplets of blood to appear on her size-12's, then Coroner Meyer should have some physical evidence, e.g. blood on her external genitalia, to correspond with the path taken by the droplets of blood. If there had only been one droplet, then there is room for debate, with more than one e.g. several, this increase expectations of corroborating evidence. Which Coroner Meyer stated was absent, so he concluded she had been wiped down.

I understand the problem you're addressing. It's hard to come to a conclusion as to when the wiping down was done, before or after the strangulation. I've always thought it was before the strangulation because of the urine deposit on the front of the longjohns, which can be speculated to have happened when her bladder released at death upon strangulation from behind as she lay on her stomach. I also speculate that the sexual assault took place before she was strangled, after the head blow, but in the basement when she was lying on her back, because that seems intuitive to me, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

This sequence I arrived at because I'm assuming the paintbrush from the paint tray in the basement was used as the method of sexual assault that night, because of the missing paintbrush tip and its incorporation into the ligature device, with a wood sliver found on the child's chin and more by the paint tray on the carpet, where it was possibly. (Cynic did some experimenting with the breaking of that paintbrush, included in a thread at FFJ, if you are interested.)

So if I'm reading your argument correctly, you're postulating that the wipe down was done after the evacuation of the bladder upon death, after the underwear had already been changed? Interesting. Let me think about that.

Could the blood drops on the too large underwear could have come from drips, not direct contact? The underwear was so large, I believe they would have been quite bunched up under the longjohns, not in anatomically correct alignment as we are used to. Since Dr. Meyer very negligently didn't photograph the underwear on the child, it's hard to say, but that might not have demonstrated much as they'd have been compelled to pull them out of the longjohns and arrange them on the child's body, I would think.

Maybe the missing pink bottoms are important in answering these questions:

You are correct and Patsy wishes to agree with you:

1997-04-30: Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Steve Thomas, Tom Trujillo, Excerpt

I wonder why Patsy is so eager to tell Haney JonBenet never wore them Christmas Night? I'm assuming since Haney is asking he is aware the bottoms might exist, so gets Patsy to lock this as fact into her interview answers.

I'll speculate that the pink bottoms went the same route as JonBenet's size-6 underwear?

.

Maybe the new photo we have from yet another Team Ramsey book will help?

 

[KoldKase]

I have to say, my head is swimming.

So to recap:

The gown, blanket, and size 12-14 Bloomies had JB's vaginal blood on them in some amount, though not lots.

And missing items in question:

Tip of paintbrush

Underwear the child would actually have worn in her own size

Pink pj bottoms

The body may have been wiped down before the strangulation or after, or both, and the Bloomies found on the body may have been changed before or after the strangulation?

Here's another composite of the pj top found on the bed and JB's photo wearing it Christmas morning. Clearly the color differences had to do with the lighting and exposures. Also, I just realized the large hole at the left of the garment on the bed is the neck, with the tags Patsy mentioned at the upper edge. Patsy also mentioned the top is turned inside out.

Because of the much brighter, "white" color the pj's appear to be in the Christmas morning photo, I realize I've always thought the "longjohns" were actually the bottoms from this pink set. But the med. ex. clearly stated the longjohns were white, so now again, we have a missing pair of pink pj bottoms from this set, right?

 

[UKGuy]

Again we have a problem with inference and speculation, however high you think the probability is. We really have no idea how much blood was actually found on the gown and blanket--if any was on the blanket, which I repeat because I can't remember if this was nailed as positive fact or misinformation from one of the many confusing and often wrong sources I've read through the years. Sorry, hate to be confusing myself.

My point is the blood in question might have been found by forensic testing/lighting, etc., and not something we would see with the naked eye. Therefore, I personally can't assume any level of probability about how it got there. JMO.



I understand the problem you're addressing. It's hard to come to a conclusion as to when the wiping down was done, before or after the strangulation. I've always thought it was before the strangulation because of the urine deposit on the front of the longjohns, which can be speculated to have happened when her bladder released at death upon strangulation from behind as she lay on her stomach. I also speculate that the sexual assault took place before she was strangled, after the head blow, but in the basement when she was lying on her back, because that seems intuitive to me, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

This sequence I arrived at because I'm assuming the paintbrush from the paint tray in the basement was used as the method of sexual assault that night, because of the missing paintbrush tip and its incorporation into the ligature device, with a wood sliver found on the child's chin and more by the paint tray on the carpet, where it was possibly. (Cynic did some experimenting with the breaking of that paintbrush, included in a thread at FFJ, if you are interested.)

So if I'm reading your argument correctly, you're postulating that the wipe down was done after the evacuation of the bladder upon death, after the underwear had already been changed? Interesting. Let me think about that.

Could the blood drops on the too large underwear could have come from drips, not direct contact? The underwear was so large, I believe they would have been quite bunched up under the longjohns, not in anatomically correct alignment as we are used to. Since Dr. Meyer very negligently didn't photograph the underwear on the child, it's hard to say, but that might not have demonstrated much as they'd have been compelled to pull them out of the longjohns and arrange them on the child's body, I would think.

Maybe the missing pink bottoms are important in answering these questions:



Maybe the new photo we have from yet another Team Ramsey book will help?

KoldKase,

Again we have a problem with inference and speculation, however high you think the probability is. We really have no idea how much blood was actually found on the gown and blanket--if any was on the blanket, which I repeat because I can't remember if this was nailed as positive fact or misinformation from one of the many confusing and often wrong sources I've read through the years. Sorry, hate to be confusing myself.

The blanket I am not certain about. The volume of blood found on the Barbie-Nightgown is also uncertain, but it was there.

Unless you wish to invoke another special case for the bloodstains, the dna analysis identfied them as originating from JonBenet.

My point is the blood in question might have been found by forensic testing/lighting, etc., and not something we would see with the naked eye. Therefore, I personally can't assume any level of probability about how it got there. JMO.

Sure and a finer point is that the bloodstain(s) should not be there at all. Particularly when we can timeline individual events.

I understand the problem you're addressing. It's hard to come to a conclusion as to when the wiping down was done, before or after the strangulation. I've always thought it was before the strangulation because of the urine deposit on the front of the longjohns, which can be speculated to have happened when her bladder released at death upon strangulation from behind as she lay on her stomach. I also speculate that the sexual assault took place before she was strangled, after the head blow, but in the basement when she was lying on her back, because that seems intuitive to me, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

The wiping down may have taken place prior to JonBenet being garroted, or after. Assuming Coroner Meyer's observations are safe, then JonBenet was wiped down after she was dressed in the size-12's.

The sexual assault is likely to be the catalyst leading to JonBenet's death. Unless an R harbors necrophilliac desires, it seems sensible to assume the encounter with JonBenet was originally sexual in nature, which, for whatever reason, escalated with her death as the conclusion.

The person staging the wine-cellar is attempting to mix up the evidence and remove as much as possible. So it is entirely possible that JonBenet was deliberately injured with the missing piece of paintbrush, for all we know it was left inside her. This could be the source of the blood on the size-12's?

I suspect JonBenet is wearing longjohns and is wrapped in a white blanket, so to mask any bloodstains that might be evident, if she were simply wearing the Barbie-Nightgown?

So if I'm reading your argument correctly, you're postulating that the wipe down was done after the evacuation of the bladder upon death, after the underwear had already been changed? Interesting. Let me think about that.

Certainly after the size-12's were changed, you can arrive at other conclusions if you discount Coroner Meyer's opinion. I'm actually assuming that the application of the garrote came last, it might have come first, but I view the garrote as staging and not a functional garrote.

Someone seemed to have returned to JonBenet's body and decided to restage her, particularly the size-12's, along with wiping her down, she may have already been asphyxiated, and the garrote is window dressing?

Could the blood drops on the too large underwear could have come from drips, not direct contact? The underwear was so large, I believe they would have been quite bunched up under the longjohns, not in anatomically correct alignment as we are used to. Since Dr. Meyer very negligently didn't photograph the underwear on the child, it's hard to say, but that might not have demonstrated much as they'd have been compelled to pull them out of the longjohns and arrange them on the child's body, I would think.

If its drips does this mean JonBenet was standing vertically, we are talking several droplets of blood? They are either postmortem residue or the direct result of an acute injury, assuming staging then my money is on the latter?

You might be correct about the bunching effect and Coroner Meyer's assumption about a one to one correspondence of the droplets with her exterior pubic area.

Maybe the new photo we have from yet another Team Ramsey book will help?

The images are nice and clear and seem to show JonBenet wearing a wite top and bottom, although in the collage what she is wearing seems to have a different design of neckline and appears, to me at least, to have pink hue to it?



.

 

[UKGuy]

I have to say, my head is swimming.

So to recap:

The gown, blanket, and size 12-14 Bloomies had JB's vaginal blood on them in some amount, though not lots.

And missing items in question:

Tip of paintbrush

Underwear the child would actually have worn in her own size

Pink pj bottoms

The body may have been wiped down before the strangulation or after, or both, and the Bloomies found on the body may have been changed before or after the strangulation?

Here's another composite of the pj top found on the bed and JB's photo wearing it Christmas morning. Clearly the color differences had to do with the lighting and exposures. Also, I just realized the large hole at the left of the garment on the bed is the neck, with the tags Patsy mentioned at the upper edge. Patsy also mentioned the top is turned inside out.

Because of the much brighter, "white" color the pj's appear to be in the Christmas morning photo, I realize I've always thought the "longjohns" were actually the bottoms from this pink set. But the med. ex. clearly stated the longjohns were white, so now again, we have a missing pair of pink pj bottoms from this set, right?

KoldKase,
If the white top and bottoms are in all three photographs, then yes it appears that the pink bottoms are unaccounted for. I've always assumed the same regarding the pink bottoms, e.g. she was wearing them Christmas morning, apparently not so?

The body may have been wiped down before the strangulation or after, or both, and the Bloomies found on the body may have been changed before or after the strangulation?

Possibly but if JonBenet is dead, then their might be minimal blood flow?

Someone pulled JonBenet's size-12's down and wiped her down. Now the important point to note is that it was the size-12's that were pulled down, and not her normal sized underwear, which tells us we are dealing a potential restaging?

There is no need for the items you mentioned to be missing, so I reckon they have been removed because they were contaminated with identifiable forensic evidence, e.g. semen?

This is why there might be such a casual approach to the Barbie-Nightgown, e.g. it played no part in the original assault, but possibly the pink bottoms and size-6 underwear did?

So I would suggest precisely because JonBenet might have been dripping blood, the Barbie-Nightgown was removed, and replaced with the white longjohns and blanket, thus solving the problem that someone might visually recognise JonBenet had been sexually assaulted?


Thought I might add as a PS

Patsy is on record stating:

19 the -- looks like a little pink pajama top, with

...

PATSY RAMSEY: It looks sort of
5 like the top, because there is a little tag,
6 might be at the neck, you know. It may be
7 inside-out.

11 PATSY RAMSEY: I know she wore it,
12 she had this on Christmas Day.

The photos you supply seem to contradict this?

So why is this so important Patsy has to say it?

PATSY RAMSEY: She did not wear it
20 Christmas night, you know.

There is something going on here?



.

 

[KoldKase]

Cover up of abuse of some kind(s) by someone(s) definitely seems to be motive for this crime....

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence%20of%20Prior%20Sexual%20Abuse

[snip]

Also of note:
"Grab marks on the arms and inner thighs are also strongly suggestive of sex abuse, especially thumb marks on the inner aspect of the thigh, placed there when the child's legs were forced apart."
___

[snip]

Just to clarify this statement, because it had me a bit confused, so I went to the wiki page:

This appears to have been used as an EXAMPLE of what COULD be seen on victims of child abuse. As far as I've read in the autopsy report, there were no bruises like this found on the body. Here is the full quote from the wiki link:

No Other Injuries Observed. Dr. Richard Gardner has stated: "McCann (1988) states that 85% of preadolescent children who are being molested are molested on a chronic, ongoing, and recurring basis. Such molestation should, then, produce changes indicative of chronic trauma. He emphasizes the importance of examination for bruises in other parts of the body, in the nongenital area. The mouth is a common site of lesions because the perpetrator may have placed his hand over the child's mouth in order to stop the child from screaming. Grab marks on the arms and inner thighs are also strongly suggestive of sex abuse, especially thumb marks on the inner aspect of the thigh, placed there when the child's legs were forced apart."

However, we have debated the suspicious bruise, much like a thumbprint, on JB's inner arm seen in her pageant where she wore the Las Vegas outfit--marks that are often covered up in Team Ramsey's crocumentaries, I've recently noticed.

Nedra actually was asked about it and claimed it came from an pet animal cage JB pulled onto herself. It's just my opinion, but that sounds like more cover up to me. The mark was VERY MUCH like a thumbprint, in exactly the same place it would be if someone grabbed her hard in that area of her arm.

[I'll see if I can get a photo of that for you.]

 

[KoldKase]

The bruises visible on JB's arm in photos which appear to be altered now when you see them played on TV:

I cropped and enlarged the 2nd photo from the first full length shot. The 3rd photo is from another photo I copied years ago, though I can't remember the source--probably an online website with pics/screen shots or copied from a tabloid? You can tell the colors are clearer and different hues, like print copy?

The following pics are from the same pageant, I am going to assume, because the bruise is clearly the same bruise:

 

[KoldKase]

Years ago someone commented on Patsy's "death grip" in this photo:

Makes me go, Hmmmmmm....

 

[rashomon]

So someone wiped JonBenet down after she had been dressed in the size-12's, otherwise Coroner Meyer would be able to cite blood residue on her pubic area!

Why must the wiping have occured "after" JonBenet had been dressed he size 12's?
Suppose she was wiped before the size 12s were put on her, Coroner Meyer would not have detected blood on her exterior pubic area either.

 

[Whaleshark]

There is no need for the items you mentioned to be missing, so I reckon they have been removed because they were contaminated with identifiable forensic evidence, e.g. semen?

This is why there might be such a casual approach to the Barbie-Nightgown, e.g. it played no part in the original assault, but possibly the pink bottoms and size-6 underwear did?

So I would suggest precisely because JonBenet might have been dripping blood, the Barbie-Nightgown was removed, and replaced with the white longjohns and blanket, thus solving the problem that someone might visually recognise JonBenet had been sexually assaulted?

...But there is another reason for the items to be missing, in addition to them having identifiable forensic evidence: because she is supposed to be wearing what the Ramseys said she was wearing when put to bed...

There shouldn't be any other sets of jammies or clothing around her, especially with her blood, or any other type of forensic evidence or any extraneous evidence discounting the Ramseys version of the crime, around her body. She was supposed to have been taken quietly from her bed wearing that exact outfit she was found in.

If there is a bloody barbie nightgown found in the vicinity of her body, with her blood on it, why is it there? Especially if she wasn't supposed to be wearing anything else than what she had on when put to bed? I think it IS significant...if it's NOT significant, then why aren't the other bloody clothes tossed in there with her? I know she was hidden in there and staged -- the body is supposed to look like a kidnapped child that was not assaulted, but still in the clothes she went to bed in... so why are there extra bloody clothes in there with her?

That gown was not supposed to be left behind.

...And if it didn't matter that a bloody nightgown was left behind, then why wipe down the blood on her body and clean her up at all?

 

[Whaleshark]

Why must the wiping have occured "after" JonBenet had been dressed he size 12's?
Suppose she was wiped before the size 12s were put on her, Coroner Meyer would not have detected blood on her exterior pubic area either.

I think what UKGuy is saying, is that the reason he thinks that it was done this way, is because if the wiping was done before the size 12s were put on, yet there are these 'new' drops on the new size 12s put on her, then those blood drops had to travel down her skin to get into the new underwear, and there would be corresponding blood on her skin, that matched these new drops in the new underwear, yet the coroner stated there was no matching blood on her exterior pubic area which corresponded to the blood drops in the size 12 underwear that she was wearing, so she must have been wiped down after blood was dripping down into the underwear, then the underwear pulled back up -- else how is blood on her underwear, but for the most part her exterior pubic area is clean?

Not saying I agree -- saying I think this is his logic....

 

[Whaleshark]

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/jonbenet_ramsey/jonbenet_ramsey_autopsy.pdf
"....The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension."

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

"On the anterior aspect of the perineum, along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood. 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 hymeneal orifice. The hymen itself is represented by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and 10:00 positions. The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen. On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violent discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses no hemorrhage. A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault. No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified."

"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".

This is why Koldkase and/or DeeDee say that it's possible that the small amount of blood could be in the underwear just due to the leftover blood and/or ooze, liquid that was still in JonBenet's body, as noted in the autopsy notes above...

I have to say I probably agree that if the size 12s had been put on her before wiping her down, there should be a lot more blood in them than a few drops as noted. After all, there was blood found in several places: blanket, barbie nightgown, on her shirt, on her inner thigh, and some left in her 'area'. I think I have to agree that there was a lot more blood on the 'original' underwear, and those needed to be replaced with new ones, after she was wiped 'clean'....and what blood in the 'new' underwear that is there, probably came from the blood that is described in the autopsy, that was still in her vaginal area.

__

Screen Capture of DNA Lab Report -- Lists all the places there is blood found/tested....

"Two lines BLACKED OUT
DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A, #15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??"

...Plus, there was blood on her pillow in her room....

 

[Chrishope]

KoldKase,

The blanket I am not certain about. The volume of blood found on the Barbie-Nightgown is also uncertain, but it was there.

Unless you wish to invoke another special case for the bloodstains, the dna analysis identfied them as originating from JonBenet.


Sure and a finer point is that the bloodstain(s) should not be there at all. Particularly when we can timeline individual events.


The wiping down may have taken place prior to JonBenet being garroted, or after. Assuming Coroner Meyer's observations are safe, then JonBenet was wiped down after she was dressed in the size-12's.

The sexual assault is likely to be the catalyst leading to JonBenet's death. Unless an R harbors necrophilliac desires, it seems sensible to assume the encounter with JonBenet was originally sexual in nature, which, for whatever reason, escalated with her death as the conclusion.

The person staging the wine-cellar is attempting to mix up the evidence and remove as much as possible. So it is entirely possible that JonBenet was deliberately injured with the missing piece of paintbrush, for all we know it was left inside her. This could be the source of the blood on the size-12's?

I suspect JonBenet is wearing longjohns and is wrapped in a white blanket, so to mask any bloodstains that might be evident, if she were simply wearing the Barbie-Nightgown?


Certainly after the size-12's were changed, you can arrive at other conclusions if you discount Coroner Meyer's opinion. I'm actually assuming that the application of the garrote came last, it might have come first, but I view the garrote as staging and not a functional garrote.

Someone seemed to have returned to JonBenet's body and decided to restage her, particularly the size-12's, along with wiping her down, she may have already been asphyxiated, and the garrote is window dressing?


If its drips does this mean JonBenet was standing vertically, we are talking several droplets of blood? They are either postmortem residue or the direct result of an acute injury, assuming staging then my money is on the latter?

You might be correct about the bunching effect and Coroner Meyer's assumption about a one to one correspondence of the droplets with her exterior pubic area.


The images are nice and clear and seem to show JonBenet wearing a wite top and bottom, although in the collage what she is wearing seems to have a different design of neckline and appears, to me at least, to have pink hue to it?



.

Certainly after the size-12's were changed, you can arrive at other conclusions if you discount Coroner Meyer's opinion. I'm actually assuming that the application of the garrote came last, it might have come first, but I view the garrote as staging and not a functional garrote.

Well certainly it functioned. Ligature strangulation, ligature furrow, petechial hemorrhages, ....

Whether meant to finish her off, or just as staging (or both) it was effective at causing asphyxiation.

It's unfortunate that "garrotte" became the word to use to describe this mess. It was just a piece of small diameter rope tightened around her neck. IMO a sloppy piece of work showing no sign of expertise in knot making.

My opinion aside, and your theory aside, the "garrotte" certainly was functional, if by functional we mean causing asphyxiation.

 

[DeeDee249]

Why must the wiping have occured "after" JonBenet had been dressed he size 12's?
Suppose she was wiped before the size 12s were put on her, Coroner Meyer would not have detected blood on her exterior pubic area either.

This is the way I see it. There was no blood noted on the white blanket. While NO one has any way of knowing how much blood seeped onto JB's thighs and pubic area, we DO know it was more than a drop or two.
Once again...sigh...Mayer noted the disparity between the small amount of blood in her panties and inside the vagina and the apparent larger amount of blood that WOULD have had to be on her thighs and pubic area in order to require wiping with a cloth. I san see no way the size 12s or longjohns were on her during the part of the assault which caused her to bleed, nor do I see either garment as having been put on her until after she was wiped down. There would have been more blood on the panties and blood on the longjohns as well.

 

[UKGuy]

Why must the wiping have occured "after" JonBenet had been dressed he size 12's?
Suppose she was wiped before the size 12s were put on her, Coroner Meyer would not have detected blood on her exterior pubic area either.

rashomon,
If the wiping had happened prior to JonBenet being redressed in the size-12's, then the process by which droplets of blood had arrived onto the size-12's crotch, would leave the size-12's and her exterior pubic area in a near pristine condition.

From which it follows there should then be some blood residue on JonBenet's external pubic area, even if it was caused by John picking JonBenet up and carrying her upstairs. That is those blood droplets did not magic themselves onto the size-12's leaving no trace of their origin?

Coroner Meyer noted that there was no blood on JonBenet's external pubic area, he concluded that she had been wiped down.

I am just assuming the obvious that JonBenet was wiped down after being redressed in the size-12's.

Another consequence of this is that if JonBenet had already been redressed in the size-12's prior to be wiped down, then maybe she was dressed in the size-12's some place other than the basement.

All this is consistent with the wine-cellar being a staged crime-scene.



.

 

[UKGuy]

This is the way I see it. There was no blood noted on the white blanket. While NO one has any way of knowing how much blood seeped onto JB's thighs and pubic area, we DO know it was more than a drop or two.
Once again...sigh...Mayer noted the disparity between the small amount of blood in her panties and inside the vagina and the apparent larger amount of blood that WOULD have had to be on her thighs and pubic area in order to require wiping with a cloth. I san see no way the size 12s or longjohns were on her during the part of the assault which caused her to bleed, nor do I see either garment as having been put on her until after she was wiped down. There would have been more blood on the panties and blood on the longjohns as well.

DeeDee249,

Here is Coroner Meyer's verbatim opinion:
1996-12-29: Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado, Excerpt

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

Once again...sigh...Mayer noted the disparity between the small amount of blood in her panties and inside the vagina and the apparent larger amount of blood that WOULD have had to be on her thighs and pubic area in order to require wiping with a cloth.

Coroner Meyer offered no opinion regarding the volume of blood on either her external pubic area or her thighs. This is your interpretation and it is not based on fact. Patently a wish that the evidence should match your particular RDI!

Coroner Meyer's verbatim opinion refers to the absence of blood on her exterior pubic area.

 

[UKGuy]

...But there is another reason for the items to be missing, in addition to them having identifiable forensic evidence: because she is supposed to be wearing what the Ramseys said she was wearing when put to bed...

There shouldn't be any other sets of jammies or clothing around her, especially with her blood, or any other type of forensic evidence or any extraneous evidence discounting the Ramseys version of the crime, around her body. She was supposed to have been taken quietly from her bed wearing that exact outfit she was found in.

If there is a bloody barbie nightgown found in the vicinity of her body, with her blood on it, why is it there? Especially if she wasn't supposed to be wearing anything else than what she had on when put to bed? I think it IS significant...if it's NOT significant, then why aren't the other bloody clothes tossed in there with her? I know she was hidden in there and staged -- the body is supposed to look like a kidnapped child that was not assaulted, but still in the clothes she went to bed in... so why are there extra bloody clothes in there with her?

That gown was not supposed to be left behind.

...And if it didn't matter that a bloody nightgown was left behind, then why wipe down the blood on her body and clean her up at all?

Whaleshark,
The assumption that there could identifiable forensic evidence on say the pink pajama bottoms and the size-6 underwear is paramount. Otherwise they could be left in place, with the R's claiming an intruder did it all.

The Barbie Nightgown is significant to us but not to the R's, precisely because it had no identifiable forensic evidence on it other than the bloodstains. Obviously it would have been better if it had been removed but again this underlines my assumption that the Abduction Scenario was a last minute revision of a prior staging where JonBenet had been wearing the Barbie Nightgown, e.g. it replaced the pink pajamas.


.