Dna

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.



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

If you consider the garrote you will find it could not function as advertised, that is it was not really a functional garrote. Others have accepted this but suggest it does not need to be perfect, just good enough to asphyxiate JonBenet?

I agree with the latter, but then you have to ask why garrote JonBenet, why not place a hand over her mouth and wait for her to stop breathing? Or use a plastic bag?

Either of the latter would be better from an, evading detection, perpsective. Also you have, and I assume it was Patsy, going to her paint tote and deliberately selecting a paintbrush, ask yourself why, the ligature is sufficient to asphyxiate JonBenet? Also Patsy places a piece of the painbrush back into the paint tote, why so?

Also the paintbrush is another potential source for the touch-dna!

So the way I see it, you have Patsy bringing JonBenet, who is dressed in the Barbie Nightgown and size-12's, downstairs to the basement to effect a last minute staging.

After restaging JonBenet, Patsy ligature strangles JonBenet then for whatever reason decides to apply a piece of the paintbrush handle to the ligature, thus fabricating a garrote.

The garrote per se is not required. Patsy had to make two separate decisons, one to fetch the ligature and another to fetch the paintbrush handle. Only the first decision is required.

So it appears that the garrote conforms with the general tenor of the wine-cellar e.g. that it is a staged crime-scene.


.
 
A couple of things....

There was also JB's blood on the pillowcase on her bed. You can find Haney discussing that with Patsy in the '98 DA interview with her, asking her if JB had nosebleeds, when the sheets were last changed, etc.

There is no reason to believe the "handle" on the ligature wasn't pulled from behind to tighten the cord around JB's neck. I constructed a ligature around my leg using a slip knot exactly as we can clearly see the one in the autopsy photos of the wrist binding. Not only did it grab and hold, it also worked itself to the side, much like the ligature was found to the rear side of the child's neck.

The paintbrush appears to have been broken at the paint tray, as well, because of the wood splinters found beside the tray. JB had a piece of green paint on her chin, plus a fiber of carpet from the basement. The paint chip matched the green paint in the paint tray, as well. With her urine on the carpet there (if that's true, as Lou Smit said), it's a fair set of clues that at least the paintbrush was broken and tied onto the ligature in that spot, where it was then pulled until she was strangled to death. Her bladder then relaxed and emptied onto the front of her longjohns and the carpet there.

At least, that seems reasonable to me.

The question we seem to be debating is this: was she wiped down before or after she died, or both?

I have to say this again: some things may seem logical and therefore a solid theory, but some of these puzzle pieces are interchangeable. At least, IMO.
 
A couple of things....

There was also JB's blood on the pillowcase on her bed. You can find Haney discussing that with Patsy in the '98 DA interview with her, asking her if JB had nosebleeds, when the sheets were last changed, etc.

There is no reason to believe the "handle" on the ligature wasn't pulled from behind to tighten the cord around JB's neck. I constructed a ligature around my leg using a slip knot exactly as we can clearly see the one in the autopsy photos of the wrist binding. Not only did it grab and hold, it also worked itself to the side, much like the ligature was found to the rear side of the child's neck.

The paintbrush appears to have been broken at the paint tray, as well, because of the wood splinters found beside the tray. JB had a piece of green paint on her chin, plus a fiber of carpet from the basement. The paint chip matched the green paint in the paint tray, as well. With her urine on the carpet there (if that's true, as Lou Smit said), it's a fair set of clues that at least the paintbrush was broken and tied onto the ligature in that spot, where it was then pulled until she was strangled to death. Her bladder then relaxed and emptied onto the front of her longjohns and the carpet there.

At least, that seems reasonable to me.

The question we seem to be debating is this: was she wiped down before or after she died, or both?

I have to say this again: some things may seem logical and therefore a solid theory, but some of these puzzle pieces are interchangeable. At least, IMO.

KoldKase,
There was also JB's blood on the pillowcase on her bed. You can find Haney discussing that with Patsy in the '98 DA interview with her, asking her if JB had nosebleeds, when the sheets were last changed, etc.
Which suggests JonBenet was lying on her bed prior to arriving in the basement? Note we have JonBenet's blood at various locations and everyone is offering accidental reasons as to why this should be.


There is no reason to believe the "handle" on the ligature wasn't pulled from behind to tighten the cord around JB's neck. I constructed a ligature around my leg using a slip knot exactly as we can clearly see the one in the autopsy photos of the wrist binding. Not only did it grab and hold, it also worked itself to the side, much like the ligature was found to the rear side of the child's neck.
Yes but your ligature did not have JonBenet's hair actually embedded into it, nor did your ligature cross over a necklace. If the garrote had been used as advertised then there should be trauma on JonBenet's neck resulting from compression by the necklace, and her hair should have been pulled out at the roots. Neither occured!


The paintbrush appears to have been broken at the paint tray, as well, because of the wood splinters found beside the tray. JB had a piece of green paint on her chin, plus a fiber of carpet from the basement. The paint chip matched the green paint in the paint tray, as well. With her urine on the carpet there (if that's true, as Lou Smit said), it's a fair set of clues that at least the paintbrush was broken and tied onto the ligature in that spot, where it was then pulled until she was strangled to death. Her bladder then relaxed and emptied onto the front of her longjohns and the carpet there.
The urine on the carpet is a factoid, another special case invented to assist a particular RDI. Other than that the rest may have taken place, then again we do not know where JonBenet was actually located in the basement?

The question we seem to be debating is this: was she wiped down before or after she died, or both?
Most likely both. Firstly when upstairs during the pink pajama bottoms and size-6 underwear cleanup. Then again after she had been redressed in the size-12's.

Why is it important to know if JonBenet was wiped down either postmortem or antemortem?

One potential error is that the size-12's were placed on JonBenet in the basement?

.
 
Chrishope,

What functioned?

If you consider the garrote you will find it could not function as advertised, that is it was not really a functional garrote. Others have accepted this but suggest it does not need to be perfect, just good enough to asphyxiate JonBenet?

I agree with the latter, but then you have to ask why garrote JonBenet, why not place a hand over her mouth and wait for her to stop breathing? Or use a plastic bag?

Either of the latter would be better from an, evading detection, perpsective. Also you have, and I assume it was Patsy, going to her paint tote and deliberately selecting a paintbrush, ask yourself why, the ligature is sufficient to asphyxiate JonBenet? Also Patsy places a piece of the painbrush back into the paint tote, why so?

Also the paintbrush is another potential source for the touch-dna!

So the way I see it, you have Patsy bringing JonBenet, who is dressed in the Barbie Nightgown and size-12's, downstairs to the basement to effect a last minute staging.

After restaging JonBenet, Patsy ligature strangles JonBenet then for whatever reason decides to apply a piece of the paintbrush handle to the ligature, thus fabricating a garrote.

The garrote per se is not required. Patsy had to make two separate decisons, one to fetch the ligature and another to fetch the paintbrush handle. Only the first decision is required.

So it appears that the garrote conforms with the general tenor of the wine-cellar e.g. that it is a staged crime-scene.


.


What functioned?
The garrotte functioned. Or if you prefer, was a functional device, capable of causing asphyxiation in just the form it was found by the coroner.

If you consider the garrote you will find it could not function as advertised, that is it was not really a functional garrote. Others have accepted this but suggest it does not need to be perfect, just good enough to asphyxiate JonBenet?
I don't know where you are getting the idea that it was not functional. It was functional. It had to be cut off by the coroner. Also see Koldkase's post.

I have no problem with the notion that the garrotte was, in part, staging. But to call it non-functional is inaccurate. If you tie the same thing around your neck, twist the handle, you'll quickly discover how functional it is.

Even if she were ligature strangled first, then the ligature were made into a garrotte by addition of the paintbrush handle, it still is a functional garrotte. It would sort of be like shooting someone then putting the gun in the victims hand to make it appear a suicide. Putting the gun in the hand would be staging, but it's still a functional gun.

What was found on her neck by the coroner could have caused death. Whether or not it actually did, in that form, is open to debate.

I see no real reason to differ from Koldkase's view that it was tightened around her neck from the back in the spot where the carpet is stained.
 
The garrotte functioned. Or if you prefer, was a functional device, capable of causing asphyxiation in just the form it was found by the coroner.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that it was not functional. It was functional. It had to be cut off by the coroner. Also see Koldkase's post.

I have no problem with the notion that the garrotte was, in part, staging. But to call it non-functional is inaccurate. If you tie the same thing around your neck, twist the handle, you'll quickly discover how functional it is.

Even if she were ligature strangled first, then the ligature were made into a garrotte by addition of the paintbrush handle, it still is a functional garrotte. It would sort of be like shooting someone then putting the gun in the victims hand to make it appear a suicide. Putting the gun in the hand would be staging, but it's still a functional gun.

What was found on her neck by the coroner could have caused death. Whether or not it actually did, in that form, is open to debate.

I see no real reason to differ from Koldkase's view that it was tightened around her neck from the back in the spot where the carpet is stained.

Chrishope,
I have been over this many times with different people all eventually accepting that the garrote as built did not asphyxiate JonBenet.

Go and look at the autopsy photos of the garrote, note how JonBenet's hair is embedded into the garrote and that it crosses over the necklace.

I reckon JonBenet was ligature strangled then for the purposes of staging Patsy attached the paintbrush handle to the garrote, knotting it up, embedding JonBenet's hair in the process, pushing it close to her neck.

If JonBenet had been ligature strangled as displayed in the autopsy photographs, then she should have resulting trauma on her neck, there is none!

JonBenet's Autopsy Photographs
face1.jpg

neck72.jpg




.

.
 
Chrishope,
I have been over this many times with different people all eventually accepting that the garrote as built did not asphyxiate JonBenet.

Go and look at the autopsy photos of the garrote, note how JonBenet's hair is embedded into the garrote and that it crosses over the necklace.

I reckon JonBenet was ligature strangled then for the purposes of staging Patsy attached the paintbrush handle to the garrote, knotting it up, embedding JonBenet's hair in the process, pushing it close to her neck.

If JonBenet had been ligature strangled as displayed in the autopsy photographs, then she should have resulting trauma on her neck, there is none!

JonBenet's Autopsy Photographs
face1.jpg

neck72.jpg




.

.

I have been over this many times with different people all eventually accepting that the garrote as built did not asphyxiate JonBenet.

Did not or could not? That's the crux of it, as far as calling the garrotte "non-functional".
 
Chrishope,
I have been over this many times with different people all eventually accepting that the garrote as built did not asphyxiate JonBenet.

Go and look at the autopsy photos of the garrote, note how JonBenet's hair is embedded into the garrote and that it crosses over the necklace.

I reckon JonBenet was ligature strangled then for the purposes of staging Patsy attached the paintbrush handle to the garrote, knotting it up, embedding JonBenet's hair in the process, pushing it close to her neck.

If JonBenet had been ligature strangled as displayed in the autopsy photographs, then she should have resulting trauma on her neck, there is none!

JonBenet's Autopsy Photographs
face1.jpg

neck72.jpg


.

Go and look at the autopsy photos of the garrote, note how JonBenet's hair is embedded into the garrote and that it crosses over the necklace.

She had long hair and was wearing a necklace, yes.

I reckon JonBenet was ligature strangled then for the purposes of staging Patsy attached the paintbrush handle to the garrote, knotting it up, embedding JonBenet's hair in the process, pushing it close to her neck.

Possible.

If JonBenet had been ligature strangled as displayed in the autopsy photographs, then she should have resulting trauma on her neck, there is none!

I'm sorry, just what part of her neck do you find free of signs of trauma?

We seem to have your view, along with Delmar England's (a candy rose) that the garrote was non-functional. Then we have Koldkase saying he made a similar garrote and that he tested it on his leg and it proved effective. We also have the coroner's report stating deep ligature furrow encircling the neck.

My point isn't that the garrote can't be staging, my point is very particular- a small quibble really - the point being, that the garrote was capable of causing asphyxiation, therefore, functional. That it may not have cause the asphyxiation is a separate issue.
 
She had long hair and was wearing a necklace, yes.



Possible.



I'm sorry, just what part of her neck do you find free of signs of trauma?

We seem to have your view, along with Delmar England's (a candy rose) that the garrote was non-functional. Then we have Koldkase saying he made a similar garrote and that he tested it on his leg and it proved effective. We also have the coroner's report stating deep ligature furrow encircling the neck.

My point isn't that the garrote can't be staging, my point is very particular- a small quibble really - the point being, that the garrote was capable of causing asphyxiation, therefore, functional. That it may not have cause the asphyxiation is a separate issue.

Chrishope,
I'm sorry, just what part of her neck do you find free of signs of trauma?
The points at which the ligature and necklace coincide. There are no impressions arising from the compression of the necklace upon the neck. If the garrote had been employed as you describe might you not expect some trauma?

the point being, that the garrote was capable of causing asphyxiation, therefore, functional.
It may have been, and since I am suggesting it was added postmortem, this is not inconsistent with your approach.

I actually think JonBenet may have been manually strangled leading to the head injury, and that the garrote or ligature was added as staging!

JonBenet's person is part of staged crime-scene so it is helpful not to assume forensic evidence as found, represents all the causal factors.


.
 
Chrishope,

The points at which the ligature and necklace coincide. There are no impressions arising from the compression of the necklace upon the neck. If the garrote had been employed as you describe might you not expect some trauma?

I see trauma. Ligature furrow. I don't necessarily expect an imprint of the necklace.

It may have been, and since I am suggesting it was added postmortem, this is not inconsistent with your approach.

No argument there.

I actually think JonBenet may have been manually strangled leading to the head injury, and that the garrote or ligature was added as staging!

Interesting. You figure manual strangulation might have caused an 8.5 inch crack in her head? I don't mean caused directly, but lead to her head being slammed into something causing the injury?

JonBenet's person is part of staged crime-scene so it is helpful not to assume forensic evidence as found, represents all the causal factors.

True, but we also don't want to outsmart ourselves and assume that everything we see is false.
 
DeeDee249,

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



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.

Mayer noted verbally (as he did with the digital penetration) that the two areas did not match up. His report notes only the two findings and not a relationship between them. This is customary in autopsy reports- the coroner will note findings but not put in writing his opinion about relationships between his findings and what may have caused them. Just the facts. The coroner will be asked his opinion when he/she is questioned on the witness stand. As we know, that never happened here, though Mayer did admit that he expected to be asked about certain things if the case went to trial and he expected to be called as a witness.
I find it feasible that the disparity was caused by small amounts of blood that oozed from her vagina AFTER she was wiped down, and possibly after she died. It explains the disparity very well. Had the panties been on her before she was wiped, there would be more blood on them and the area where there was blood would have matched those area where she had been wiped.
Your last comment was snotty and unnecessary. I am never condescending to you. We ALL have opinions that form to our theories. If they didn't, we'd have other theories. I have no WISH for any of my theories to be right. In fact, I WISH the evidence pointed to something OTHER than my theories. I WISH that JB hadn't had to look at the face of someone she loved harming her that night.
 
Mayer noted verbally (as he did with the digital penetration) that the two areas did not match up. His report notes only the two findings and not a relationship between them. This is customary in autopsy reports- the coroner will note findings but not put in writing his opinion about relationships between his findings and what may have caused them. Just the facts. The coroner will be asked his opinion when he/she is questioned on the witness stand. As we know, that never happened here, though Mayer did admit that he expected to be asked about certain things if the case went to trial and he expected to be called as a witness.
I find it feasible that the disparity was caused by small amounts of blood that oozed from her vagina AFTER she was wiped down, and possibly after she died. It explains the disparity very well. Had the panties been on her before she was wiped, there would be more blood on them and the area where there was blood would have matched those area where she had been wiped.
Your last comment was snotty and unnecessary. I am never condescending to you. We ALL have opinions that form to our theories. If they didn't, we'd have other theories. I have no WISH for any of my theories to be right. In fact, I WISH the evidence pointed to something OTHER than my theories. I WISH that JB hadn't had to look at the face of someone she loved harming her that night.

DeeDee249,
Mayer noted verbally (as he did with the digital penetration) that the two areas did not match up. His report notes only the two findings and not a relationship between them.
Assuming you are referring to JonBenet's size-12's and her exterior pubic area. Coroner Meyer does indeed infer a relationship, and it is one that is absent, e.g. no blood on her exterior pubic area.

I find it feasible that the disparity was caused by small amounts of blood that oozed from her vagina AFTER she was wiped down, and possibly after she died.
Coroner Meyer in his verbatim opinon, nowhere refers to the volume of blood that exited from JonBenet. His focus is upon a relationship in which he notes there is an absence of blood, from this he concludes JonBenet had been wiped down.

You might be entirely correct, those bloodstains on the size-12's could be the result of blood that oozed from her vagina AFTER she was wiped down, and possibly after she died. Then you must explain why there is a disparity between your conclusion and Coroner Meyers?

Your last comment was snotty and unnecessary. I am never condescending to you.
Your reliance on the volume of blood to base your conclusion appears as you say your opinion, unless Coroner Meyer is wrong, I assume mine is based upon fact. I apologise for using a condescending tone, but it is not intended to be personal only to distinguish our approaches.





.
 
Manual strangulation is almost *always* accompanied by a fractured hyoid bone, which was in tact according to Meyer. Manual strangulation will leave digital imprints, especially thumb compression marks. These aren't noted in the autopsy either.
 
Manual strangulation is almost *always* accompanied by a fractured hyoid bone, which was in tact according to Meyer. Manual strangulation will leave digital imprints, especially thumb compression marks. These aren't noted in the autopsy either.

BOESP,
Sure, but note I am not claiming JonBenet was manually strangled to death. Only that someone compressed JonBenet's throat, e.g. twisting the red turtleneck or one hand around the base of the neck, where there is evident trauma that can be disassociated from the circumferential furrow, the two are not coincident.

Even the head trauma might be staging, e.g. the constriction of JonBenet's air passage leaves her in a coma, so someone decides to bludgeon her to death, after accomplishing this, say by employing the flashlight, thus explaining why it was wiped clean.

Eventually someone realizes JonBenet is still alive this after staging her in her own bed as the victim of an intruder, hence the bloodstains on her pillow.

So with another change of plan comes a revision of the staging, including a garrote, e.g. no doubt allowed here, a wipe down to prevent leakage, then in fact longjohns and blanket just to make any potential leakage invisible.

Apart from the real details this is how I largely view the death of JonBenet, e.g. a series of staging revisions so to avoid justice, but at each stage little clues are left indicating what we thought happened in fact never.

I see the genesis lying in JonBenet being sexually abused, when she cries out, someone throttles her, but for far to long a period resulting in her becoming comatose!


.
 
BOESP,
Sure, but note I am not claiming JonBenet was manually strangled to death.
.

Here's what you said in note #88 above:

"I actually think JonBenet may have been manually strangled leading to the head injury, and that the garrote or ligature was added as staging!"
 
DeeDee249,

Assuming you are referring to JonBenet's size-12's and her exterior pubic area. Coroner Meyer does indeed infer a relationship, and it is one that is absent, e.g. no blood on her exterior pubic area.


Coroner Meyer in his verbatim opinon, nowhere refers to the volume of blood that exited from JonBenet. His focus is upon a relationship in which he notes there is an absence of blood, from this he concludes JonBenet had been wiped down.

You might be entirely correct, those bloodstains on the size-12's could be the result of blood that oozed from her vagina AFTER she was wiped down, and possibly after she died. Then you must explain why there is a disparity between your conclusion and Coroner Meyers?


Your reliance on the volume of blood to base your conclusion appears as you say your opinion, unless Coroner Meyer is wrong, I assume mine is based upon fact. I apologise for using a condescending tone, but it is not intended to be personal only to distinguish our approaches.





.

Coroner Mayer does note she had been wiped by a cloth, but he does not write about the blood on the panties not matching up. He SAYS this to those present. (just as he said he thought she had been digitally penetrated but did not write it in his report).
Mayer reached NO conclusion, as far as I can see, he simply wrote what he found. He never speculated whether or when her panties had been changed, simply noting what he observed about them. He never even mentioned in writing that they seemed to be far too large for a child that size. though this was surely noted by all present who saw them and LE discussed this very thing with Patsy.
So my theory about how the blood got on her panties (while not appearing on he labia or longjohns doesn't disagree with the coroner because he voiced no opinion as to how the blood got there.
 
Here's what you said in note #88 above:

"I actually think JonBenet may have been manually strangled leading to the head injury, and that the garrote or ligature was added as staging!"

BOESP,
aha, so where does that conflict with what I outlined above?


.
 
BOESP,
aha, so where does that conflict with what I outlined above?


.

I don't see evidence of manual strangulation in the autopsy photos or the report so in my view that is in direct conflict with statements you recently made in this thread.

I do agree there is a possibility she was first asphyxiated by someone, probably Patsy, grabbing her by the red sweater and twisting the sweater collar as she attempted to coerce JonBenet into moving or not moving her body during an act of corporal punishment.

That is my speculation and my final answer.
 
I don't see evidence of manual strangulation in the autopsy photos or the report so in my view that is in direct conflict with statements you recently made in this thread.

I do agree there is a possibility she was first asphyxiated by someone, probably Patsy, grabbing her by the red sweater and twisting the sweater collar as she attempted to coerce JonBenet into moving or not moving her body during an act of corporal punishment.

That is my speculation and my final answer.

Mine, too. The hyoid bone is more flexible in children, but there was still no damage reported to the INNER structure of JB's neck. It had been described once as a "gentle" strangulation.
Just as IDI always falsely reports the fictional "scratch marks" on her neck- when the autopsy CLEARLY identifies them as petechia. Manual strangulations leave marks. ALWAYS. In this case all we have are ligature furrows. Clearly, she was strangled, but I doubt it was anything other than that cord. Even a soft cotton turtleneck would have made some kind of a mark or bruise.

The way I see it- the strangulation was one of two things- a sexual activity gone wrong (compression of the vagus nerve causing cardiac arrest) or a staged strangulation on a child who appeared dead but was not dead yet.
The only thing we are certain of is that she was alive when the ligature was tightened enough to make those petechiae and the furrow.
If you look at her neck in some photos, in addition to the reddish furrows (indicating she was alive when they were made) there is also at least one white circumferential mark that does not appear to be as deep as the furrows. This white mark had to have been made after death, during the blanching phase of livor mortis. To me, it looks like the cord was wound around one more time after she died.
 
Coroner Mayer does note she had been wiped by a cloth, but he does not write about the blood on the panties not matching up. He SAYS this to those present. (just as he said he thought she had been digitally penetrated but did not write it in his report).
Mayer reached NO conclusion, as far as I can see, he simply wrote what he found. He never speculated whether or when her panties had been changed, simply noting what he observed about them. He never even mentioned in writing that they seemed to be far too large for a child that size. though this was surely noted by all present who saw them and LE discussed this very thing with Patsy.
So my theory about how the blood got on her panties (while not appearing on he labia or longjohns doesn't disagree with the coroner because he voiced no opinion as to how the blood got there.

DeeDee249,
Coroner Mayer does note she had been wiped by a cloth, but he does not write about the blood on the panties not matching up. He SAYS this to those present. (just as he said he thought she had been digitally penetrated but did not write it in his report).
This is precisely, over many posts, what I quoted to you, e.g. verbatim opinion. For the record, do you give precedence to either of Coroner Meyer's manner of communication?

Mayer reached NO conclusion, as far as I can see, he simply wrote what he found.
As far as you can see? Well he did and I will elucidate it for you:

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.

1. Red stains observed on size-12's, assumed to be blood.
2. No blood observed on the exterior pubic area, located next to the areas of the size-12's containing the red stains.
=================
Conclusion:
=================
3. JonBenet was wiped down

Coroner Meyer's conclusion reached from separate facts observed at autopsy are to be read in the last sentence in the above verbatim opinion.

So my theory about how the blood got on her panties (while not appearing on he labia or longjohns doesn't disagree with the coroner because he voiced no opinion as to how the blood got there.
Your theory has some merit, but relates to the volume of blood having exited, at some point, from JonBenet. A subject which Coroner Meyer also offers no opinion on!

Whilst the original subject was that JonBenet was already wearing the size-12's prior to being wiped down, and that is my inference, and it is based on something Coroner Meyer opined on, and if queried on oath, I'm certain he would agree?


That is two different subjects are being conflated, e.g.

1. The timeline in which JonBenet was wiped down: prior to being redressed in the size-12's or after?

2. The volume of blood exiting from JonBenet.



.
 
There are abrasions on the neck that are visible with the naked eye which, in my layperson's opinion, could be from the small chains links being rolled up the neck, under pressure from the ever-tightening ligature.

The ligature was never removed after it was tightened. I in fact had to cut the cord off my own leg once I tightened it similar to the furrow in the photos.

There are no bruises from fingerprints left on the neck to indicate anyone strangled the child manually.

Also, it's a common mistake for people to think the "paintbrush handle" was somehow used to "twist" the cord. It was not. It was simply pulled: you couldn't possibly twist the attached cord itself and make the noose around the neck do anything in terms of effectively tightening it. Using the ligature like a true garrote--i.e. with the noose encircling the neck and looped over the stick itself, which is then turned like a faucet to tighten the noose, execution-style--would have left further bruising and abrasion on the neck skin at the site of that kind of friction. There is none. In fact, if you notice the area under the knot of the ligature on the neck is actually the least bruised section; it appears to me that the cord was lifted slightly away from the neck from behind as the handle was pulled to tighten it. Of course, I'm just guessing.

The hair tied into the knot of the ligature at the neck was still attached to the scalp, it's true. Why wouldn't it be? She had very long hair and the ligature noose only rolled up the neck in the front for a few inches, whereas in the back it was rather turning in the same location.

The hair tied into the handle: if it was still attached, I'll have to revisit my thoughts on this, but I don't remember that it was stated that was still attached to the head. I could be simply forgetting or misunderstood that piece of info. If you remember off the top of your head, could you direct me to that particular statement of the evidence? Don't look it up or go to any trouble, but just if you have it on hand. I've forgotten so much by now. :blush:

[I made a composite picture which I posted in my next post, #101, which may clarify what I mean--and please don't think I believe I'm absolutely, 100% right. I'm just fumbling along here, waiting for an expert to explain it to us one fine day.]
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
797
Total visitors
895

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,759
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top