Dna

[UKGuy]

Originally Posted by otg

KoldKase, if you mean the V shaped bruise that Meyer referred to as “roughly triangular shaped” and “parchment-like”, have I got a thread for you: The “roughly triangular, parchment-like rust colored abrasion” - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community



I don’t completely disagree with you. I don’t think it was untied, and then retied in the final location. But I don’t think it rolled up on its own and then tightened up on its own. The geometry of the two angles tells me that the first circumference of cord (the one that appears as the whitish area below the adam’s apple and runs up at an angle to the back of the neck into the furrow) would have to have been larger than the final one which was found on the body. Also, I think that if it was rolled up while it was as tight as it is shown in autopsy photos, it probably would have done more damage to the internal structures of her throat than was described by Dr. Meyer in the autopsy report.


I know. I am. I have. That is the “accident”, I believe, that Dr. Lee referred to.


(I knew what you meant.)


Completely agree with you on the illogic in twisting a 17” long piece of nylon cord. Makes no sense whatsoever.


KK, in the past, I had posed the question as to whether anyone had any information that I might have missed on whether the hair caught in the paintbrush knot was still attached to her scalp or if it had been pulled out by the roots. It had to be one or the other. Right? And the answer would tell us a great deal. (I’m assuming everyone understands the significance of that.)

If in the autopsy report, Dr. Meyer had noted that he cut the attached hair when he cut the ligature from around her neck, we would know. But he didn’t note that. Does that mean he didn’t have to cut it, or does it simply mean he didn’t make note of it?

I don’t know the answer, but I have come to the conclusion that it was still attached, and Meyer didn’t make note of cutting it. Here’s why:

Length of cord between paintbrush and ligature knot is 17”, which is longer than the length of the longest strands of JonBenet’s hair. This means that with her hair caught in the paintbrush knot, it couldn’t be pulled 17” without pulling her hair. Look at the photo of the paintbrush with the wraps of cord around it and the entangled hair. None of the entangled hair is as long as JonBenet’s hair was, which makes me suspect that it was cut. Add to that the fact that there are no visible roots on the ends of the hair as one would expect were they pulled out at the scalp (Yes, I’ve seen pulled out hair.). Also, the knot that was tied on the cord going around her neck had hair entangled in it; and although Meyer mentions marking and cutting the cord, he doesn’t mention that he had to cut the attached hair. Now, one other photo (which I don’t remember seeing until a couple of years ago) that I looked at a little closer recently is one apparently shown on Court-TV. In it, it appears that the paintbrush is lying close to her head and at least a couple of strands of hair are going directly into the wraps of cord around the paintbrush. The strands are somewhat straight (like they’re being pulled) between the paintbrush and her head.


.

otg,
I've always assumed because JonBenet's hair was embedded into the ligature knotting that it did not function as advertised. This is corroborated by a lack of trauma on JonBenet's neck where the necklace and ligature coincide.

If it had been employed as advertised then JonBenet's hair would have been pulled out at the roots, and Coroner Meyer should have written this into his autopsy notes, since it is relevant.

For some reason he has omitted detailing that he cut the hair?


.

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by otg

See? I told ya’ DD knew her stuff!

But just to clarify one little thing... The blanching had to occur after death -- yes. But that is not to say that the object causing the blanching had to be applied after death.

Actually, it DOES mean it had to have been applied AFTER death. If it had been applied before death, the mark would be reddish. Even if it wasn't deep.

[Whaleshark]

Originally Posted by DeeDee249

Actually, it DOES mean it had to have been applied AFTER death. If it had been applied before death, the mark would be reddish. Even if it wasn't deep.

I'm sorry.... No disrespect, but I don't think so... I just read up on this and saw a body with blanching and lividity over the body, with the explanation...

As the blood settles, it pools due to gravity and you get the purple coloration wherever the blood settled since it is not circulating anymore.... And so anything the body is resting on, or something applying enough pressure on the body when it dies will cause blanching in that pressured area, because the blood cannot settle there. So if an item is tight enough on a body or pressed against it - like a blanket, rope, chair or anything... Is pressed against the body when it dies, the blood can't pool in that location and will show blanching rather than lividity... And this is how they can know if a body was moved... Depending on the blanching and lividity patterns... So something does not have to have been applied only after death to cause blanching... But pressed against the body as it died....

Here's a link:
http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/06...-livor-mortis/

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by Whaleshark

I'm sorry.... No disrespect, but I don't think so... I just read up on this and saw a body with blanching and lividity over the body, with the explanation...

As the blood settles, it pools due to gravity and you get the purple coloration wherever the blood settled since it is not circulating anymore.... And so anything the body is resting on, or something applying enough pressure on the body when it dies will cause blanching in that pressured area, because the blood cannot settle there. So if an item is tight enough on a body or pressed against it - like a blanket, rope, chair or anything... Is pressed against the body when it dies, the blood can't pool in that location and will show blanching rather than lividity... And this is how they can know if a body was moved... Depending on the blanching and lividity patterns... So something does not have to have been applied only after death to cause blanching... But pressed against the body as it died....

Here's a link:
http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/06...-livor-mortis/

Yes- I see, but the words "as it dies" is important. The blood is slowing, as the heart is slowing, so it doesn't make the same kind of mark that will result when the person is still alive (though in the process of being killed). Certainly she could have lain in the wineceller for a short while, left for dead, and still been alive, though dying. I can easily see how that could have happened- so if that one white mark had been the last one to have been made (the last time the cord was wound around her neck) and left in place, it could account for why it was white.
I didn't think they'd actually come back later and wind it one more time "just to be sure", so leaving her dying (and being unaware of it) makes sense.

[Whaleshark]

So, if anything, the item that caused the blanching on her neck, or anywhere else had to be there before/as she died, so the blood could not pool there - no lividity in that area. And if we had full pics of her we should be able to tell with some certainty when/if she was moved or repositioned after death....depending on patterns

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by Whaleshark

So, if anything, the item that caused the balancing on her neck, or anywhere else had to be there before she died, so the blood could not pool there - no lividity in that area, as she died. So the blanching is evidence of something pressing against her as or shortly after she died, within a certain period of time, which did not allow the blood to pool and cause the lividity in that area?

The way I see it is that the reddish, seep ligature furrows were made first, and the white mark was made last (while she was closer to death). As it was tight next to her throat (but not so tight as to make a deep furrow) it pressed there as she died and made the white mark.

[otg]

I haven’t caught up yet on all the posts since yesterday’s great webcast (Thanks, Tricia!), but just to make sure we’re all on the same page on the blanching/lividity issue before moving on...

Originally Posted by otg

See? I told ya’ DD knew her stuff!

But just to clarify one little thing... The blanching had to occur after death -- yes. But that is not to say that the object causing the blanching had to be applied after death.

Also, I should point out that since the cord (assuming that to be what it was) had to be in that area long enough after death to cause the blanching, but not long enough to have caused a prominent furrow, it will give an approximate window of time that the cord would have remained in that position before it was removed (or moved).
.

Originally Posted by Whaleshark

I'm sorry.... No disrespect, but I don't think so... I just read up on this and saw a body with blanching and lividity over the body, with the explanation...

As the blood settles, it pools due to gravity and you get the purple coloration wherever the blood settled since it is not circulating anymore.... And so anything the body is resting on, or something applying enough pressure on the body when it dies will cause blanching in that pressured area, because the blood cannot settle there. So if an item is tight enough on a body or pressed against it - like a blanket, rope, chair or anything... Is pressed against the body when it dies, the blood can't pool in that location and will show blanching rather than lividity... And this is how they can know if a body was moved... Depending on the blanching and lividity patterns... So something does not have to have been applied only after death to cause blanching... But pressed against the body as it died....

Here's a link:
http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/06...-livor-mortis/

Originally Posted by DeeDee249

Yes- I see, but the words "as it dies" is important. The blood is slowing, as the heart is slowing, so it doesn't make the same kind of mark that will result when the person is still alive (though in the process of being killed). Certainly she could have lain in the wineceller for a short while, left for dead, and still been alive, though dying. I can easily see how that could have happened- so if that one white mark had been the last one to have been made (the last time the cord was wound around her neck) and left in place, it could account for why it was white.
I didn't think they'd actually come back later and wind it one more time "just to be sure", so leaving her dying (and being unaware of it) makes sense.

Originally Posted by Whaleshark

So, if anything, the item that caused the blanching on her neck, or anywhere else had to be there before/as she died, so the blood could not pool there - no lividity in that area. And if we had full pics of her we should be able to tell with some certainty when/if she was moved or repositioned after death....depending on patterns

Originally Posted by DeeDee249

The way I see it is that the reddish, seep ligature furrows were made first, and the white mark was made last (while she was closer to death). As it was tight next to her throat (but not so tight as to make a deep furrow) it pressed there as she died and made the white mark.

DD, I hope you know how much I value your knowledge. I don’t have the medical background you do, so I can only follow along on the discussions about the reasons that certain things happen (metabolic, chemical, etc. changes). I do know though that if you press on the skin of a living person, when you remove the pressure it will be white for a few seconds because the blood has been suppressed. With the pressure removed and as the blood returns, it will come back to its natural color. Not that I have ever tried this, but if I did the same thing to the skin of a dead person (depending of course on how long after death), when I remove the pressure, the blood will not return (because of all the reasons you stated above).

The reason for clearing that up is because we can disagree on the interpretation of what that means, but we need to agree first on the facts.

Based on all this, if I understand your theory correctly, you believe the blanched area to have been formed by something other than the cord after the upper ligature was in place and after death had occurred. I can’t disagree with that as a possibility based on our understanding of the physiological aspects.

However, I do believe in a little different sequence of events, which I don’t believe you can dispute by the same understanding of those physiological aspects. I believe the blanched area occurred first and caused her death (along with the head blow). Because of the angle of the lower circumference, it tells us the direction of force pulling on the cord (I believe the same cord that was left on her neck). Because of the direction of the force pulling on the cord there, it is unlikely that it was done facing her. IOW, the person or force pulling on the cord had to have been behind her when it happened. The reason for no defensive scratch marks on her neck is because she was unconscious from the head blow. Shortly after she expired, the cord was moved to the upper position where it remained until her body was found about 12 hours later. (Again, note the angle of the furrow in the relation to the blanched circumference.)
.

[otg]

Originally Posted by UKGuy

otg,
I've always assumed because JonBenet's hair was embedded into the ligature knotting that it did not function as advertised. This is corroborated by a lack of trauma on JonBenet's neck where the necklace and ligature coincide.

If it had been employed as advertised then JonBenet's hair would have been pulled out at the roots, and Coroner Meyer should have written this into his autopsy notes, since it is relevant.

For some reason he has omitted detailing that he cut the hair?

.

I too, UKGuy, have suspected that all along, but didn't have a enough to go on to presume it until recently when I put several things together (which I posted in my response to KoldKase).
.

[UKGuy]

Originally Posted by otg

I too, UKGuy, have suspected that all along, but didn't have a enough to go on to presume it until recently when I put several things together (which I posted in my response to KoldKase).
.

otg,
I'm glad you did, it really underlines that the wine-cellar was all about staging JonBenet.

So which asphyxiation killed JonBenet the lower or the upper? Since there are no injuries from JonBenet's necklace. I do not think much force was used in regard to that ligature.

Patently Coroner Meyer surely knows about all this, he just detailed the injuries and cause of death etc?



.

[otg]

Originally Posted by UKGuy

otg,
I'm glad you did, it really underlines that the wine-cellar was all about staging JonBenet.

So which asphyxiation killed JonBenet the lower or the upper? Since there are no injuries from JonBenet's necklace. I do not think much force was used in regard to that ligature.

Patently Coroner Meyer surely knows about all this, he just detailed the injuries and cause of death etc?

.

MOO (my opinion only?): Lower.

.

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by otg

I haven’t caught up yet on all the posts since yesterday’s great webcast (Thanks, Tricia!), but just to make sure we’re all on the same page on the blanching/lividity issue before moving on...












DD, I hope you know how much I value your knowledge. I don’t have the medical background you do, so I can only follow along on the discussions about the reasons that certain things happen (metabolic, chemical, etc. changes). I do know though that if you press on the skin of a living person, when you remove the pressure it will be white for a few seconds because the blood has been suppressed. With the pressure removed and as the blood returns, it will come back to its natural color. Not that I have ever tried this, but if I did the same thing to the skin of a dead person (depending of course on how long after death), when I remove the pressure, the blood will not return (because of all the reasons you stated above).

The reason for clearing that up is because we can disagree on the interpretation of what that means, but we need to agree first on the facts.

Based on all this, if I understand your theory correctly, you believe the blanched area to have been formed by something other than the cord after the upper ligature was in place and after death had occurred. I can’t disagree with that as a possibility based on our understanding of the physiological aspects.

However, I do believe in a little different sequence of events, which I don’t believe you can dispute by the same understanding of those physiological aspects. I believe the blanched area occurred first and caused her death (along with the head blow). Because of the angle of the lower circumference, it tells us the direction of force pulling on the cord (I believe the same cord that was left on her neck). Because of the direction of the force pulling on the cord there, it is unlikely that it was done facing her. IOW, the person or force pulling on the cord had to have been behind her when it happened. The reason for no defensive scratch marks on her neck is because she was unconscious from the head blow. Shortly after she expired, the cord was moved to the upper position where it remained until her body was found about 12 hours later. (Again, note the angle of the furrow in the relation to the blanched circumference.)
.

I actually DO believe the ligature made BOTH the red and white marks on her neck. IMO I do not believe there are marks from anything else on her neck.

[UKGuy]

Originally Posted by otg

MOO (my opinion only?): Lower.

.

otg,
You could be correct. I thought blanching was a postmortem effect. Am I wrong?

Could it be the lower trauma reflects her death, but the upper furrow represents a tidy up and garrote staging, all done in the same timeframe?

If you can prove that, as a result of the the lower trauma, JonBenet was asphyxiated, that would change the perception of the case completely, since the upper furrow would then represent clear evidence of staging.


.

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by UKGuy

otg,
You could be correct. I thought blanching was a postmortem effect. Am I wrong?

Could it be the lower trauma reflects her death, but the upper furrow represents a tidy up and garrote staging, all done in the same timeframe?

If you can prove that, as a result of the the lower trauma, JonBenet was asphyxiated, that would change the perception of the case completely, since the upper furrow would then represent clear evidence of staging.


.

Blanching IS postmortem. It is the early stage of livor mortis. But in a living person, if you press against the skin of, say, the lower leg, if there is water retention, when you take your finger away there will be a white mark, but it will fill instantly as the blood rushes back into the tissues. This is also known as blanching, but it is different than that which happens in livor mortis.

[Whaleshark]

So I pulled up WebSleuths and JB info with her photos up for the first time on my Asus Pad..... I'm used to looking at it all on my laptop, computer monitor, or cell phone....

So here's the deal - I was very clearly able to see in the middle back of her neck, where the furrow goes deep, a pattern design in a circle, not unlike the one on the side of her face. I don't know if maybe that's where the ligature pushed the cross pendant of her necklace into her neck and left a permanent impression....or if it's the same pattern as in the circular wound on her face.

I was able to zoom in and it's very clear - multiple photos, same thing. I can draw the pattern if I want to. I also viewed the back of neck circular wound with pattern photo next to the face wound with pattern photo and they are very similar.

It also looks like this pattern is repeated in different spots, faintly, overlapping...

It may just be the necklace pendant, but it may be significant if it was the buttons from her vest or something else used in strangling her before the ligature was put on.

I wish somebody would do the same treatment to that spot on the back of her neck as FR Brown did with spot on her face....the close up zoom...

Either way, something was pressed into her face, neck more than once and left impressions of patterns that are very distinct.

...Maybe someone who has another Pad/Tablet, or iPad can try the same thing and see if they see it as well....

[qtc]

In Kolar's book, on page 65-66, he gives Dr. Werner Spitz's opinion on the wounds.

1. The first injury sustained by Jonbenet was believed to have been the constriction marks on the sides and front of her throat. He believed that her assailant had grabbed her shirt from the front and twisted the collar in their fist. The cloth from the edge of the collar had created the discolored, striated bruising and the abrasions on the sides of her neck, and the knuckles of the perpetrator had caused the triangular shape bruise located on the front side of her throat.

2. Jonbenet reached up to her neck with her hands to attempt to pull away the collar causing some nail gouges/abrasions with her fingernails on the side of her throat.

If he is correct about the killer grabbing and twisting the front of her shirt, assuming the killer didnt wear gloves, wouldnt they have left lots of skin cells in that area?

[Agatha_C]

Originally Posted by qtc

In Kolar's book, on page 65-66, he gives Dr. Werner Spitz's opinion on the wounds.




If he is correct about the killer grabbing and twisting the front of her shirt, assuming the killer didnt wear gloves, wouldnt they have left lots of skin cells in that area?

I have long thought she was wearing the red turtleneck and it was the first strangulation device. I cant see the white star shirt working in the same fashion if grabbed from the front. Hmmmm, curiouser and curiouser!!!!!!

[DeeDee249]

Originally Posted by qtc

In Kolar's book, on page 65-66, he gives Dr. Werner Spitz's opinion on the wounds.




If he is correct about the killer grabbing and twisting the front of her shirt, assuming the killer didnt wear gloves, wouldnt they have left lots of skin cells in that area?

Dr. Spitz did not actually perform the autopsy, nor did he actually view the body. The Coroner who DID- never noted any scratches on her, and there was no evidence under her nails that she had her own blood, skin or tissue under them. Mayer noted the marks on her neck as petechiae.