846 users online (143 members and 703 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 66
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    537

    Body being wiped down

    This might not be relevant to anything, but I thought I would post it anyway. We have all heard about how JB's body had been found to be "wiped down", without any real indication of what that specifically means. One can envision someone taking a wet rag and wiping down the body with that to removed evidence so it would not be discovered by LE. For a long time I envisioned that someone brought a wet rag, etc. to the location of JB's dead body (in the basement) and did the wiping down there. Later, I thought that it would be more logical for someone who wanted to clean the body to physically bring the body to a location where it could be thoroughly cleaned, such as to a bathtub in a bathroom. If I wanted to clean a body and make sure it was done right, that is how I would do it. So I thought that, assuming the murder happened in the basement, that JB's body would have been carried to a bathroom upstairs to be cleaned prior to the staging. But then I read somewhere that there was a shower stall actually in the basement and I had one of those Aha moments, where I thought: that's how they did it. They brought her to that shower stall in the basement and cleaned her up there prior to the staging of the body.

    The only reason I bring this up is that I have never read anything about this "wiping down" and this may be somehow significant.

    Does this make sense to anyone? Am I off-base with this? Please share your thoughts on this.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    537
    http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/.../December%2026

    The men next searched a shower stall located in the basement.

    JR and FW said they searched a shower stall in the basement prior to finding JB's body.

    Again, maybe this is nothing but maybe it means something. I have always found it interesting to hear that the body was wiped down, as if the perpetrator(s) were being careful to remove any evidence from the body. What if the body was not just wiped down? What if there was seminal fluid in the vagina after the sexual assault that was washed out in this shower stall? That would explain why no semen was found in or on the body.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Anyhoo View Post
    This might not be relevant to anything, but I thought I would post it anyway. We have all heard about how JB's body had been found to be "wiped down", without any real indication of what that specifically means. One can envision someone taking a wet rag and wiping down the body with that to removed evidence so it would not be discovered by LE. For a long time I envisioned that someone brought a wet rag, etc. to the location of JB's dead body (in the basement) and did the wiping down there. Later, I thought that it would be more logical for someone who wanted to clean the body to physically bring the body to a location where it could be thoroughly cleaned, such as to a bathtub in a bathroom. If I wanted to clean a body and make sure it was done right, that is how I would do it. So I thought that, assuming the murder happened in the basement, that JB's body would have been carried to a bathroom upstairs to be cleaned prior to the staging. But then I read somewhere that there was a shower stall actually in the basement and I had one of those Aha moments, where I thought: that's how they did it. They brought her to that shower stall in the basement and cleaned her up there prior to the staging of the body.

    The only reason I bring this up is that I have never read anything about this "wiping down" and this may be somehow significant.

    Does this make sense to anyone? Am I off-base with this? Please share your thoughts on this.
    The "wiping down" has been known for years and discussed on this forum for years as well. During the autopsy, there were two police detectives present as well as another female Medical Examiner. The two police were Dets Arndt & Trujillo. As is usual in an autopsy of a crime victim, the coroner will say verbally to police things that he does not put in the written report. The reason for this is that the written report is only for describing what the coroner SEES, and not what he thinks about it. For example, the autopsy noted JB's cross, ring and ID bracelet as "yellow metal". They were actually 14K gold, but to the coroner's eyes they were "yellow metal". Further tests with chemicals would be needed to ascertain if they were 14K gold.
    The same held true for two much more important findings. One was that the coroner told police at the autopsy that her internal injuries were consistent with digital penetration and the other was that her pubic area and upper thighs appeared to have been wiped down with a cloth. Neither appears in the written report because opinions, no matter how expert, of the coroner do not belong in the official written report. Instead, they may be in his notes, either written or dictated, and may be shared with police or other LE. But the fact that the coroner found this evidence was made public by Det Arndt, and is not simply speculation.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,233
    I find this topic VERY INTERESTING, Anyhoo, but I became interested in the case more recently than many (most?) other posters.

    Shapiro wrote an article in March of 2012 about the media portraying the crime, evidence, etc. inaccurately. Included in the article is this tidbit:

    "The only time the police ever changed their course in the investigation was very early on when they initially suspected John Ramsey of the murder and then decided it could be Patsy instead. The very first stories following the December 26, 1996 murder falsely reported that semen was found on JonBenet after she was brought upstairs from the basement by her father, John Ramsey.

    Those reports created intense speculation that John was a pedophile and a murderer who sexually abused his 6-year old daughter. Nothing could have been further from the truth. It later turned out that the so called semen found JonBenet was actually a skin cleanser that killer used to remove his or her DNA off JonBenet."

    This is the only source, of which I am aware, mentioning "skin cleanser". Of course, we don't know that this is factual information based upon Shapiro's word alone, but it's interesting nonetheless... IMO.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...0the%20Ramseys

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Mama2JML View Post
    I find this topic VERY INTERESTING, Anyhoo, but I became interested in the case more recently than many (most?) other posters.

    Shapiro wrote an article in March of 2012 about the media portraying the crime, evidence, etc. inaccurately. Included in the article is this tidbit:

    "The only time the police ever changed their course in the investigation was very early on when they initially suspected John Ramsey of the murder and then decided it could be Patsy instead. The very first stories following the December 26, 1996 murder falsely reported that semen was found on JonBenet after she was brought upstairs from the basement by her father, John Ramsey.

    Those reports created intense speculation that John was a pedophile and a murderer who sexually abused his 6-year old daughter. Nothing could have been further from the truth. It later turned out that the so called semen found JonBenet was actually a skin cleanser that killer used to remove his or her DNA off JonBenet."

    This is the only source, of which I am aware, mentioning "skin cleanser". Of course, we don't know that this is factual information based upon Shapiro's word alone, but it's interesting nonetheless... IMO.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...0the%20Ramseys
    It is interesting because it reveals the mind of the killer that they would think to do this. Was the entire body cleaned or just one region? Was only the pubic region cleaned? Why would it be important to clean that? What was being wiped away? What evidence in that region could it be that they were trying to remove? I can think of one thing: semen or seminal fluid. If not that, then what? Or is it possible that this was nothing but staging, to give the appearance that the killer cleaned their semen from her body?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    her panties were changed as well which makes me think she was wiped off in order to clean her blood >>>hide the fact that she was assaulted?
    The rice is already cooked...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    her panties were changed as well which makes me think she was wiped off in order to clean her blood >>>hide the fact that she was assaulted?
    If her panties were changed, did LE find her other panties or did they disappear?

    If they cleaned a significant amount of blood away then that would indicate a more severe sexual assault. If we believe the Ramsey's did the staging, then it seems to me they would want for there to be blood to indicate sexual assault. It would be illogical to clean up your own staging. I think the wiping down was done for a different reason. I suspect someone was afraid that their DNA had been left in JB's vaginal region and they wanted this removed before LE found the body.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Anyhoo View Post
    If her panties were changed, did LE find her other panties or did they disappear?

    If they cleaned a significant amount of blood away then that would indicate a more severe sexual assault. If we believe the Ramsey's did the staging, then it seems to me they would want for there to be blood to indicate sexual assault. It would be illogical to clean up your own staging. I think the wiping down was done for a different reason. I suspect someone was afraid that their DNA had been left in JB's vaginal region and they wanted this removed before LE found the body.
    could be.I started a thread earlier (not approved yet I see) re JR's bathrobe (found PR's comment weird) and all the talk re his underwear (why did LE insist re what he was wearing BEFORE 911 was dialed??)
    The rice is already cooked...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    I read this a long ago,sorry don't recall now whether in PMPT or ST's book that they found some fluid on her leg but they couldn't extract DNA from it.Does anyone know what kind of fluid it was?
    The rice is already cooked...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    I read this a long ago,sorry don't recall now whether in PMPT or ST's book that they found some fluid on her leg but they couldn't extract DNA from it.Does anyone know what kind of fluid it was?
    I heard the fluid was a drop of JB's blood and that there was foreign DNA co-mingled with that blood that LE did extract and that it was a match with the foreign DNA found in JB's oversized underwear. The foreign DNA supposedly does not match any Ramsey.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    1,690
    Steve Thomas' Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation/kindle location 1745
    Colorado Bureau of Investigation technicians gave us some bad news when they determined that the substance found on JonBenet's leg during the ultraviolet light examination at the autopsy, initially thought to be semen, was just a smear of blood.
    Lawrence Schiller's Perfect Murder, Perfect Town/kindle location 4736
    From the beginning officials have been convinced that a tiny spot fluid, found on the girl's leg, is semen. But lab tests of the fluid produced no DNA ... and were therefore inconclusive. Sources say the killer wiped the body clean of any other evidence.

    ABC World News Tonight, March 13, 1997
    didn't find it mentioned in Foreign Faction
    _____________
    You may touch the dust but please don't write in it.
    _____________
    The way I see it is: if you are making a decision that will affect someone else's life, prepare for public scrutiny.
    ~ VICE journalist Tim Pool
    _____________
    Beware Of The Dog. The Cat Is Not Trustworthy Either.
    _____________
    Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow.
    Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me alone.

  12. #12
    otg's Avatar
    otg is offline Reports of my death are greatly exagerated... but not completely unfounded.
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,347
    Linda Arndt didn't make public what the medical examiner said. Det. James Byfield wrote in his search warrant affidavit what Arndt told him about witnessing the autopsy and the reasons that justified a new search warrant for items not previously listed. Until the autopsy, they didn't know about the sexual assault. Once they did know, they had to get an additional warrant to look for items that might be related to a sex crime (computers, storage media, video recorders, VCR tapes, etc.). When the search warrants were released publicly, that's when we found out about Arndt's relating Meyer's opinion that the genital injuries were "consistent with digital penetration," and that the Wood's lamp revealed something on the surface of her thighs which might have been semen. Byfield's exact words of what Arndt told him follow (from the search warrant):
    In the presence of Det. Arndt, Det. Tom Trujillo of the Boulder Police Department, (Dr. Meyer) used a black florescent light to view the body including the pubic area of the victim in an attempt to observe the possible presence of semen or seminal fluid. (Your Affiant (Byfield) knows from previous experience and training that substances such as semen or seminal fluid, not visible to the unaided eye, may become visible when viewed under a black florescent light). Det. Arndt stated that she observed florescent areas on the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh. Det. Arndt stated that her observations of the result of the black florescent light observation is consistent with the presence of semen or seminal fluid.
    Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer swab these florescent areas. Dr. Meyer was also observed by Det. Arndt to obtain vaginal, oral and anal swabs form the child's body.
    This warrant was requested and issued before the results of the swabs came back from the lab. I've always understood the lab determined that the smeared fluid was blood. I've never before heard anyone suggest it was "skin cleanser" (which I'm not sure would show up under a black light). But, who knows? Did Jeffie Boy reveal some inside knowledge that Alex Hunter told him about while they were looking at and giggling over men's magazines like a couple of teenagers?

    All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech.”

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    1,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Anyhoo View Post
    I heard the fluid was a drop of JB's blood and that there was foreign DNA co-mingled with that blood that LE did extract and that it was a match with the foreign DNA found in JB's oversized underwear. The foreign DNA supposedly does not match any Ramsey.
    James Kolar's Foreign Faction/kindle location 3869
    Denver Police Department crime lab supervisor Greg Laberge met me for lunch in early December 2005 and advised me that the forensic DNA sample collected from the underwear was microscopic, totally invisible to the naked eye. So small was in in quantity, consisting of only approximately 1/2 nanogram of genetic material, equivalent to about 100 - 150 cells, that it took him quite a bit of work to identify the 10th marker that eventually permitted its entry into the CODIS database.

    [snip]

    Labarge indicated that the sample had flashed the color of blue during CBI's initial testing of the sample, suggesting that amylase was present. Amylase is an enzyme that can be found in saliva, and it had been theorized by other investigators in the case that someone involved in the production phase of this clothing article could have been the source of this unknown DNA sample. It was thought that this could have been deposited there by coughing, sneezing, or spitting or through a simple transfer of saliva on the hands of a garment handler.

    Laberge confirmed that no traces of semen had been present in the underwear or clothing articles worn by JonBenet upon the discovery of the body.

    Laberge advised, confirming what Tom Bennett had previously shared with me, that some random DNA tests had been conducted in 'off-the-shelf' children's underwear to determine if trace biological DNA samples could be obtained from brand new clothing that had been shipped from the manufacturer.

    He indicated that DNA samples had been located on the articles of new clothing, but that they had been approximately 1/10 the strength of the unknown sample found in JonBenet's underwear. The male sample identified in Distal Stain 007-2 was weak, and degraded to begin with, and weaker samples of the same genetic material were found in the waistband and leg bands of the underwear. It was observed that these were areas of the clothing that would have been handled more strenuously during the production phase of the clothing article.

    Laberge indicated that it was his opinion that the male sample of DNA could have been deposited there by a perpretrator, or that there could have been some other explanation for its presence, totally unrelated to the crime. I would learn that many other scientists held the same opinion.

    [snip]

    It was my understanding that the Bloomies brand of underwear, worn by JonBenet at the time of the discovery of her body, was manufactured and produced in Taiwan, making it entirely possible that this article of clothing was produced in a garment sweatshop.

    [snip]

    Furthermore, there is no scientific method to determine when a biological specimen was placed at the scene of a crime.
    _____________
    You may touch the dust but please don't write in it.
    _____________
    The way I see it is: if you are making a decision that will affect someone else's life, prepare for public scrutiny.
    ~ VICE journalist Tim Pool
    _____________
    Beware Of The Dog. The Cat Is Not Trustworthy Either.
    _____________
    Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow.
    Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me alone.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Quote Originally Posted by otg View Post
    Linda Arndt didn't make public what the medical examiner said. Det. James Byfield wrote in his search warrant affidavit what Arndt told him about witnessing the autopsy and the reasons that justified a new search warrant for items not previously listed. Until the autopsy, they didn't know about the sexual assault. Once they did know, they had to get an additional warrant to look for items that might be related to a sex crime (computers, storage media, video recorders, VCR tapes, etc.). When the search warrants were released publicly, that's when we found out about Arndt's relating Meyer's opinion that the genital injuries were "consistent with digital penetration," and that the Wood's lamp revealed something on the surface of her thighs which might have been semen. Byfield's exact words of what Arndt told him follow (from the search warrant):
    In the presence of Det. Arndt, Det. Tom Trujillo of the Boulder Police Department, (Dr. Meyer) used a black florescent light to view the body including the pubic area of the victim in an attempt to observe the possible presence of semen or seminal fluid. (Your Affiant (Byfield) knows from previous experience and training that substances such as semen or seminal fluid, not visible to the unaided eye, may become visible when viewed under a black florescent light). Det. Arndt stated that she observed florescent areas on the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh. Det. Arndt stated that her observations of the result of the black florescent light observation is consistent with the presence of semen or seminal fluid.
    Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer swab these florescent areas. Dr. Meyer was also observed by Det. Arndt to obtain vaginal, oral and anal swabs form the child's body.
    This warrant was requested and issued before the results of the swabs came back from the lab. I've always understood the lab determined that the smeared fluid was blood. I've never before heard anyone suggest it was "skin cleanser" (which I'm not sure would show up under a black light). But, who knows? Did Jeffie Boy reveal some inside knowledge that Alex Hunter told him about while they were looking at and giggling over men's magazines like a couple of teenagers?
    I always had this crazy (I admit ) idea....what if they found semen indeed but covered it up after figuring out who it belonged to?wouldn't surprise me to be honest
    The rice is already cooked...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Anyhoo View Post
    If her panties were changed, did LE find her other panties or did they disappear?

    If they cleaned a significant amount of blood away then that would indicate a more severe sexual assault. If we believe the Ramsey's did the staging, then it seems to me they would want for there to be blood to indicate sexual assault. It would be illogical to clean up your own staging. I think the wiping down was done for a different reason. I suspect someone was afraid that their DNA had been left in JB's vaginal region and they wanted this removed before LE found the body.
    Her panties were never found.
    The above mentioned text and views are my opinion and mine alone.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Jonbenet's body had been wiped clean
    By madeleine in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-17-2010, 03:36 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-18-2008, 09:45 AM
  3. Where is the Body ?
    By gord in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-12-2007, 11:34 AM