Body being wiped down

[Mama2JML]

Are the screen shots posted @ WS? Are we permitted to post them in discussion threads?

 

[teeandcee]

Reading the blurry screen shot from the link OTG furnished (Thank you, OTG!) it seems the specimens from 23A&B were from the "black" blanket and attributed to JAR.

I wondered about that. I've been trying to find out so thank you.

 

[otg]

Not exactly. This applies to the Polymarker + DQA1TM testing conducted in 1997. The STR results from 2003 & 2008 indicate the forensic male DNA profileS in CODIS belong to one male.

See! You just proved EXACTLY what I said in the following post (snipped):

Like I said, I'm not very knowledgeable on the DNA stuff.

:floorlaugh:

 

[otg]

Heyya Anyhoo,

No, it's an interesting line of speculation.
IMO PR would have been part of a generation that used douching, the diaphragm and the pill as methods of contraception.


http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=320146.xml

Following are some of the solutions to be used for the douche, which, when carefully used will kill the male sperm or prevent its entering the womb:
Lysol--is a brown oily liquid which added to water forms a clear soapy solution. One teaspoonful of lysol to 2 quarts of water (warm) makes a good solution for douching. Mix into a pitcher or vessel before placing it in the bag.

......

Salt solution--Mix four tablespoons of table salt in one quart of warm or cold water and dissolve thoroughly. This is good and cheap.
Vinegar solution--Many peasants in Europe use vinegar as an antiseptic almost exclusively. One glassful to two quarts of water is the strength usually desired. Cider vinegar is preferred. Douche afterward with clear water.
Cold water douche--This will sometimes remove the semen quite effectively without the aid of an antiseptic. But as the semen can hide itself away in the wrinkled lining of the vaginal cavity, the cold water will only impede its progress for a time. As soon as the warmth of the body revives its activity, the semen continues on its journey to meet the ovum.


afterthought: she would have had to be washed in a manner that did not remove the lint on her feet

OMG, Tad (and heyya, my friend)!

Lysol douches? :sheesh: From this site:

By 1911 doctors had recorded 193 Lysol poisonings and five deaths from uterine irrigation. Despite reports to the contrary, Lysol was aggressively marketed to women as safe and gentle. Once cresol was replaced with ortho-hydroxydiphenyl in the formula, Lysol was pushed as a germicide good for cleaning toilet bowls and treating ringworm, and Lehn & Fink's, the company that made the disinfectant, continued to market it as safeguard for women's "dainty feminine allure."

Douching may have been cheaper than condoms or diaphragms and available over the counter in most drugstores, but it didn’t work. In a 1933 study, Tone writes, nearly half of the 507 women who used douching as a birth control method ended up pregnant.​

Even any of the other suggestions from that 1918 advice from Margaret Sanger would cause all sorts of problems. No wonder I always remember as a child the women around me dismissing their illnesses as simply having "female problems". With advice like that going around, it's a wonder there weren't more deaths from acute female problems.

:notgood:

 

[otg]

OT, but a long time ago, when I was a teenager (okay... a REAL long time ago :giggle: ), a friend of mine worked in a pet store. After he had closed up the store for the day, he had to clean it up. One time I agreed to help him, because the sooner he was done, the sooner we could go out and get into a little mischief. Cleaning it up included mopping the floors and such, and Lysol was the cleaning solution we used. I just now realized why my mother was so suspicious of "what I had been up to" when I got home. :blushing:

 

[Tadpole12]

Just a general question.
but could pre-ejaculate have escaped detection?

Forensic tests for Semen: What you should know
http://ncforensics.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/forensic-tests-for-semen-what-you-should-know/

Additional notes on pre-ejaculation fluid:
Pre-ejaculation fluid originates from a male anatomic structure known as the bulbourethral gland (also known as the Cowper’s gland) and functions as a natural lubricant during intercourse. In the absence of full male ejaculation, what is the forensic significance of this fluid? It is widely accepted that pre-ejaculation fluid can contain traces of acid phosphatase and prostate specific antigen; although no evidence for the semen specific antigen semenogelin has been found to date. There is still debate on whether sperm is expected to be present in pre-ejaculation fluid. Most scientists agree that the presence of sperm will depend on the individual male, and that pre-ejaculate sperm can be attributed to previous full ejaculation in that male. Stephen R. Killick et al, Sperm content of pre-ejaculatory fluid, 14 Human Fertility 1, 48-52 (2011); Zvi Zukerman et al, Short Communication: Does Preejaculatory Penile Secretion Originating from Cowper’s Gland Contain Sperm? 20 Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 4, 157-159 (2003).

 

[Linda7NJ]

Just a general question.
but could pre-ejaculate have escaped detection?

Forensic tests for Semen: What you should know
http://ncforensics.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/forensic-tests-for-semen-what-you-should-know/

Additional notes on pre-ejaculation fluid:
Pre-ejaculation fluid originates from a male anatomic structure known as the bulbourethral gland (also known as the Cowper’s gland) and functions as a natural lubricant during intercourse. In the absence of full male ejaculation, what is the forensic significance of this fluid? It is widely accepted that pre-ejaculation fluid can contain traces of acid phosphatase and prostate specific antigen; although no evidence for the semen specific antigen semenogelin has been found to date. There is still debate on whether sperm is expected to be present in pre-ejaculation fluid. Most scientists agree that the presence of sperm will depend on the individual male, and that pre-ejaculate sperm can be attributed to previous full ejaculation in that male. Stephen R. Killick et al, Sperm content of pre-ejaculatory fluid, 14 Human Fertility 1, 48-52 (2011); Zvi Zukerman et al, Short Communication: Does Preejaculatory Penile Secretion Originating from Cowper’s Gland Contain Sperm? 20 Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 4, 157-159 (2003).

IMO it's probable especially if the originator was a prepubescent. Prepubescent males can ejaculate and have no sperm present


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Does anyone have a primary source for the information about the body being wiped down? Who it was first reported to and who shared it with the public?

Thanks.

 

[Chelly]

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.

From my readings I never got the sense the area was washed. "Wiped down" to me implies she was probably wiped off with the panties that were removed and discarded.

 

[Venom]

Does anyone have a primary source for the information about the body being wiped down? Who it was first reported to and who shared it with the public?

Thanks.

:sigh: Here we go again, back to the basics, we have to have a big discussion over another fact that is so easy to find.

- Boulder County Coroner John Meyer, who conducted the autopsy on 6-year-old JonBenet, said the child's pubic area showed evidence consistent with having been wiped by a cloth. http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1107jonnn.shtml


-Pubic Area "Wiped Down." "Boulder County Coroner John Meyer, who conducted the autopsy on 6-year-old JonBenet, said the child's pubic area showed evidence consistent with having been wiped by a cloth" RMN 11/7/98. http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682513/The Body#AutopsyFindings


-"Since the autopsy, the police had thought there was semen on JonBenet's upper thighs. Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenet's body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the fluorescent light at the autopsy" (Schiller 1999:132, according to Internet poster Mikie)http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA Evidence Note: You're going to ask who "Mikie" is, I don't know the link takes you to a dead websleuths link.


- "Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary sayshttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-killed-jonbenet/ Note: McCrary is Greg McCrary former FBI profiler

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

:sigh: Here we go again, back to the basics, we have to have a big discussion over another fact that is so easy to find.

- Boulder County Coroner John Meyer, who conducted the autopsy on 6-year-old JonBenet, said the child's pubic area showed evidence consistent with having been wiped by a cloth. http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1107jonnn.shtml


-Pubic Area "Wiped Down." "Boulder County Coroner John Meyer, who conducted the autopsy on 6-year-old JonBenet, said the child's pubic area showed evidence consistent with having been wiped by a cloth" RMN 11/7/98. http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682513/The Body#AutopsyFindings


-"Since the autopsy, the police had thought there was semen on JonBenet's upper thighs. Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenet's body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the fluorescent light at the autopsy" (Schiller 1999:132, according to Internet poster Mikie)http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA Evidence Note: You're going to ask who "Mikie" is, I don't know the link takes you to a dead websleuths link.


- "Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary sayshttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-killed-jonbenet/ Note: McCrary is Greg McCrary former FBI profiler

Back to basics? More like sourcing the claims in the thread. I just want to see who the original source was because it seems to be bantered about but I don't see an original source. I have heard it from being wiped to being cleansed..

Thanks for the links.

 

[Venom]

Back to basics? More like sourcing the claims in the thread. I just want to see who the original source was because it seems to be bantered about but I don't see an original source. I have heard it from being wiped to being cleansed..

Thanks for the links.

Post #3 by DeeDee249:

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.

 

[Chelly]

:sigh: Here we go again, back to the basics, we have to have a big discussion over another fact that is so easy to find.

- Boulder County Coroner John Meyer, who conducted the autopsy on 6-year-old JonBenet, said the child's pubic area showed evidence consistent with having been wiped by a cloth. http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1107jonnn.shtml


-Pubic Area "Wiped Down." "Boulder County Coroner John Meyer, who conducted the autopsy on 6-year-old JonBenet, said the child's pubic area showed evidence consistent with having been wiped by a cloth" RMN 11/7/98. http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682513/The Body#AutopsyFindings


-"Since the autopsy, the police had thought there was semen on JonBenet's upper thighs. Then, on January 15, the CBI came back with the analysis. The substance thought to be semen was in fact smeared blood. There was no semen. JonBenet's body had been wiped clean, leaving a residue that was visible under the fluorescent light at the autopsy" (Schiller 1999:132, according to Internet poster Mikie)http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682463/DNA Evidence Note: You're going to ask who "Mikie" is, I don't know the link takes you to a dead websleuths link.


- "Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary sayshttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-killed-jonbenet/ Note: McCrary is Greg McCrary former FBI profiler

There was a discussion on this thread about wiping down until an IDI interrupted asking, yet again, for a source. Why does the discussion have to stop to appease interruptions and contradictions? Can't we just IGNORE?

 

[DeeDee249]

There was a discussion on this thread about wiping down until an IDI interrupted asking, yet again, for a source. Why does the discussion have to stop to appease interruptions and contradictions? Can't we just IGNORE?

I'd just ignore them. Why should we jump through their hoops? They can find it the same as we can. The release of the GJ indictments did it for me. If they can read it and STILL see the parents as uninvolved, there is simply no point in having a dialog on this case at all with any IDI.

 

[Nom de plume]

I'd just ignore them. Why should we jump through their hoops? They can find it the same as we can. The release of the GJ indictments did it for me. If they can read it and STILL see the parents as uninvolved, there is simply no point in having a dialog on this case at all with any IDI.

You're so right DeeDee, but I think we've all been missing the point. Demanding sources, proof, etc. distracts from our discussion, which IMO is the whole point in the first place. If we're busy defending the evidence, which no one should ever have to do, providing links, etc., it diverts attention away from the Rs, which is exactly what they want to do. Funny, we all had to dig for this info to begin with, but it's just too much trouble for some others to do the same.

ETA: I think that part of the reason this happens is to frustrate RDIs to the point that we get disgusted and stop posting. I also believe that Ramsey "insiders", pun intended, walk among us.

 

[Anti-K]

It is widely known and accepted that the genital/thigh areas were “wiped down.” Cleansing, and/or wiping of the body is speculative only.

There were fibers found in this area, but details and opinions vary, and some of these fibers are controversial, but I think that it is safe to say that these fibers are probably from the item used for the wiping.

If the fibers are from the item used for the wiping, than the item used should have the victim’s blood on it.
...

AK

 

[madeleine]

20 TRIP DeMUTH: 48, what is that?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: That's John's study,

22 back --

23 TRIP DeMUTH: To the right?

24 PATSY RAMSEY: Where you turn

25 right, uh-hum.

0303

1 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you know what this

2 is? It's hard to see, in the back lower corner?

3 Does that look like his bathrobe?

4 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. Looks

5 like a sweater or something.

6 TRIP DeMUTH: Would it be unusual

7 for John to put his bathrobe down on the floor

8 in that area?

9 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. Because he

10 usually hangs it up in his bathroom. Unless,

11 you know, he was starting to put it on when I

12 screamed for him and he dropped it or something.


don't you put your bathrobe on right after you jumped out of the shower?he had his underwear on,right?the next step would have been getting dressed not putting the bathrobe on.

also,why do they keep insist re what he was wearing?


25 TOM HANEY: What is John's -- how

0042

1 is he dressed?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: He is in his

3 underwear.

4 TOM HANEY: Just shorts or--

5 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

6 TOM HANEY: Okay. And what

7 conversation, what does he say to you?

8 PATSY RAMSEY: God, I can't

9 remember.




14 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

15 TOM HANEY: Okay, he is there, he

16 was in his underwear on his hands and knees. I

17 think that's a wood floor there?

18 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.





7 PATSY RAMSEY: When I hung up, they

8 said they would send somebody out, and I don't

9 know, I think John went to get dressed. I was

10 you know, was just pacing around here praying.

11 TRIP DeMUTH: You say he was in his

12 underwear.

13 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

14 TRIP DeMUTH: What does underwear

15 consist of?

16 PATSY RAMSEY: His briefs.

17 TRIP DeMUTH: Anything else?

18 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-uh.

19 TRIP DeMUTH: So he was otherwise

20 naked except for his briefs?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Correct.




5 TOM HANEY: And then he is reading

6 the note and then is that when he is checking

7 the doors or are you saying that he was dressed

8 when he was checking them?

9 PATSY RAMSEY: Gosh, I don't know I

10 don't remember exactly. It's been a long time.

11 These are the kinds of questions I wish we could

12 have done way the hell a long time ago.

13 TOM HANEY: Absolutely.



11 LOU SMIT: How were you dressed?

12 JOHN RAMSEY: I think I had underwear on; I

13 had a shirt on. I don't think I had on my shirt

14 shirt. It was just an underwear thing.

15 LOU SMIT: How long did it take you?

 

[DeeDee249]

It is widely known and accepted that the genital/thigh areas were “wiped down.” Cleansing, and/or wiping of the body is speculative only.

There were fibers found in this area, but details and opinions vary, and some of these fibers are controversial, but I think that it is safe to say that these fibers are probably from the item used for the wiping.
of
If the fibers are from the item used for the wiping, than the item used should have the victim’s blood on it.
...

AK

I am confused. You admit that it is widely accepted that her genital/thigh area was wiped, then say that cleansing/wiping is speculative.
I do agree that whatever was used to wipe her down would of course have her blood on it. There are several items that were never found- this being one of them. The pink pajama bottoms are unaccounted for, as are the original panties she was wearing that day. It is my belief (and not exclusively mine) that these items may have been placed in the golf bag that JR seemed to need Patsy's sister to retrieve. In any event, among the lists of evidence I do not see where the police list items from a golf bag, so I have to assume it wasn't searched.

 

[Anti-K]

I am differentiating between wiping the GENITAL/THIGH AREA and cleansing/wiping of the ENTIRE BODY.
...

AK

 

[DeeDee249]

I am differentiating between wiping the GENITAL/THIGH AREA and cleansing/wiping of the ENTIRE BODY.
...

AK

Now I see. Yes, there is no conclusive evidence that she was wiped down or cleansed or bathed in entirety, either before or after death that night with the exception of the area the coroner noted. Some speculate that Patsy may have done some too-aggressive cleaning or even douching that night because JB soiled herself, but there is no conclusive evidence for this. Detective Steve Thomas believes there was "corporal cleaning" that night by Patsy. I would have entertained that myself a while back, but since reading Kolar's book and the release of the GJ indictments, I do not feel this is the case. I tend to lean towards Kolar's views.