Did JonBenet Have A Nosebleed The Night She Died?
- Thread starter Ames
- Start date
If her skull was split to the bridge of her nose there most probably would have been some bleeding through her nose. Reading Amess medical link it seems to me very possible. After reading UKs quote from the autopsy report about the mucous I went to the smoking gun website and read the whole autopsy report they have there and found that particular section.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet5.html Coroner Meyer said that it does not appear to be hemorrhagic. (I think that means blood from some kind of hemorrhage?) He doesnt say for definite at that point probably because he hasnt tested the substance yet and he is making an assumption based on what he is examining. Perhaps it is all in the wording, or lack of?
If you then take a look at the last page of the autopsy report http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet9.html it says that the swabs from her right cheek were taken for evidence. I wonder what the results of the actual testing were on that substance. It is interesting to note too that the autopsy doesnt state swabs taken directly from the substance located above her top lip, just her right cheek. Why wasnt JB swabbed under her nose as well? How was he certain that it was all the same substance? In suspicious murder investigations it would make sense to me to swab everywhere on the face in case there were different fibers, fluids etc there. I suppose looking at it another way, you have to entertain the idea that the autopsy report most probably does have certain parts omitted.
Just another thought, does anyone know if there was any brown tan stuff found on her white blanket as well? I have just only recently gotten my books back that I lent to a friend and I cant remember off the top of my head. I saw in the autopsy report that there was some found on the sleeve of her shirt. I wonder what else that stuff may be on besides perhaps her pillow case. I would think for sure there would be some found on the tape that was used to cover her mouth. I dont know how to cut and paste from that page so I will type the relevant parts.
It is on page 2. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet2.html
There are no defects noted in the shirt but the upper anterior right sleeve contains a dried brown-tan stain measuring 2.5 x 1.5 inches, consistent with mucous from the nose or mouth.
There is that brown tan stuff again.
Interesting that he says that the external ear canals were free of blood but he doesnt mention if he found any other substance in there or in the inner ear. Wonder why if he could say free of blood about her ear canals why then he couldnt say that about her face? Unless he was uncertain or was waiting to do tests to be certain. Hang on a tic, maybe he did know, didnt they use a special light in the autopsy to detect blood and that? I think I remember something about detective Arndt (sp) being there for it or something. (Sorry dont have a link or anything for this right now) Is that how he knew about the ears but he just didnt or couldnt say that in the report about her face? Seems he is only specific on certain things in the autopsy report. It certainly makes me think that there were things left out of it for a reason.
Sorry if this post is a bit scattered, I keep leaving the computer going away thinking about it, and then adding new thoughts.
I just went on a hunt with google and found the link for the info on the autopsy with Det Arndt present. Dont know if anyone wants to read this but it says that they used a black florescent light. http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet5.html Coroner Meyer said that it does not appear to be hemorrhagic. (I think that means blood from some kind of hemorrhage?) He doesnt say for definite at that point probably because he hasnt tested the substance yet and he is making an assumption based on what he is examining. Perhaps it is all in the wording, or lack of?
If you then take a look at the last page of the autopsy report http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet9.html it says that the swabs from her right cheek were taken for evidence. I wonder what the results of the actual testing were on that substance. It is interesting to note too that the autopsy doesnt state swabs taken directly from the substance located above her top lip, just her right cheek. Why wasnt JB swabbed under her nose as well? How was he certain that it was all the same substance? In suspicious murder investigations it would make sense to me to swab everywhere on the face in case there were different fibers, fluids etc there. I suppose looking at it another way, you have to entertain the idea that the autopsy report most probably does have certain parts omitted.
Just another thought, does anyone know if there was any brown tan stuff found on her white blanket as well? I have just only recently gotten my books back that I lent to a friend and I cant remember off the top of my head. I saw in the autopsy report that there was some found on the sleeve of her shirt. I wonder what else that stuff may be on besides perhaps her pillow case. I would think for sure there would be some found on the tape that was used to cover her mouth. I dont know how to cut and paste from that page so I will type the relevant parts.
It is on page 2. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet2.html
There are no defects noted in the shirt but the upper anterior right sleeve contains a dried brown-tan stain measuring 2.5 x 1.5 inches, consistent with mucous from the nose or mouth.
There is that brown tan stuff again.
Interesting that he says that the external ear canals were free of blood but he doesnt mention if he found any other substance in there or in the inner ear. Wonder why if he could say free of blood about her ear canals why then he couldnt say that about her face? Unless he was uncertain or was waiting to do tests to be certain. Hang on a tic, maybe he did know, didnt they use a special light in the autopsy to detect blood and that? I think I remember something about detective Arndt (sp) being there for it or something. (Sorry dont have a link or anything for this right now) Is that how he knew about the ears but he just didnt or couldnt say that in the report about her face? Seems he is only specific on certain things in the autopsy report. It certainly makes me think that there were things left out of it for a reason.
Sorry if this post is a bit scattered, I keep leaving the computer going away thinking about it, and then adding new thoughts.
I just went on a hunt with google and found the link for the info on the autopsy with Det Arndt present. Dont know if anyone wants to read this but it says that they used a black florescent light. http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
According to the autopsy report, none was found in the external canals...but, thats just the area that the Medical Examiner could SEE. We don't know about the internal portion of the ears.
from the autopsy report:No scalp trauma is identified. The external auditory canals are patent and free of blood. The eyes are green and the pupils equally dilated. The sclerae are white. The nostrils are both patent and contain a small amount of tan mucous material.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
I wonder though, if JB's face and outer ears had been wiped down with alcohol swabs, would the black florescent light work. Also, she still could have been bleeding from the inner ears. I just don't see anyway to get around that....with the severity of her head blow. And especially since her skull was split to the bridge of her nose...there HAD to have been some bleeding, according to the medical link that I provided at the beginning of this thread. I found another link too, that said that the fluid that comes from the ears, nose or mouth did NOT have to be blood. I have never seen tan mucus before, I am guessing that it was mixed with some blood.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
I don't think she was,after thinking about it,b/c the injuries are on the right side of the body..and the way her bed was,she would be laying with her left side facing outwards,unless she had her head at the opposite end.other than that,she would have to have been in the other bed,or sitting or standing,is best my guess.what if she was sitting on the floor and someone grabbed her collar,twisting it and pulling her up at the same time? that may have left some of the marks on her neck?
edited to add: unless she was on her stomach on the bed.
Ames,
Thanks so much for the reply and your info. I so enjoy reading your post.:blowkiss:
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
I am still stuck on the Patsy threw her into the tub or sink scenario...after a bed soiling incident. So, what you are saying makes sense...if that was the case. THEN she could have been PLACED in the bed, afterward. I am sure that she was unconscious...Patsy could have placed her there, while she figured out what to do next....to make her more comfortable. AGAIN, I believe that it was a rage attack and not intentional.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
Awwww...thank you. You just made my day!!!
Ames,
Its possible she did not bleed because she was dead?
Its possible that the blood on the pillow is not connected to her death?
Coroner Meyer states in his autopsy report that he discovered blood in one location and only one, and that was JonBenet's genitals.
He also states:
So after discounting bleeding he speculates the source to be the nose or mouth.
.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
either that, or I wonder if there was a first staging there? then the basement was later decided upon? UK,is there any evidence to support that most likely that did occur?
I think the scream heard was PR screaming in the basement when she first saw JB staged and strangled with the rope around her neck..it must have been a shock.I think it stopped suddenly b/c JR placed his hand over her mouth,out of fear she would be heard...which she was.She indicated in the interview there was screaming going on,and I think hers started in the basement(if not b/f),since BR didn't hear anything.
I DON'T THINK PR DID THE BASEMENT STAGING.I think JR was the only one who knew how to tie that knot(from sailing),and do a garrote ..he read crime books,so he staged it using that knowledge.I think in regards to abuse,he HAD to stage it as a sex crime to cover for that.ALSO...would PR use her OWN equipment(paintbrush) for the staging? I don't think so..but JR didn't have a problem with it..it wasn't his and it didn't point to him. (think about that long and hard...I think that's the case...)
I think one of the reasons JB was placed in the WC was b/c JR used night vision goggles for some of the staging(since those were asked about in the interview),but,he needed to turn on a light to be sure everything looked right ..but was afraid of being seen with the basement light on by neighbors.SO he moved her there and used the light that was in there to see better,and ultimately decided to leave her there.JMO.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
I don't discount either one of them in the initial attack on JB(head wound and manual strangling),since they were both in the house.I do discount BR,for several reasons.
BUT,as far as JB taking her last breath,and thus, who the final murderer was...I THINK IT WAS JR.I think they both covered this crime up and BOTH should have been sent to prison,if not more.IF PR was the one who did the initial attack,then JR should have tried to get JB medical help.Since he didn't then that alone is murder to me.I don't know in a legal sense what it is,since she would have died from the head wound anyway,but I think he did the final staging and strangling,which caused her to take her last breath,and he should have been charged with murder.
I think that's why he shook his head yes when asked by Tracey if he killed JB.He knew he did.
SO,in my quotes...I don't know for sure in what respect MF and CS are saying it was an intentional murder,but I think that's the reason.
I agree JB was on her bed at one time. There are cord fibers on her sheets...could Patsy have cut the cord in JB's bedroom.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 38
maybe so,it seems likely to have came from the AG doll,which was in her room?
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
She obviously didn't die right away...or else the garrote wouldn't have been necessary. And also, after a blow that hard to the head, the bleeding would have started right away...from everything that I have read about severe head injuries. And as I have said, she obviously didn't die RIGHT AWAY, after the head blow. I am sure that she was knocked unconscious, though...and probably convulsed...given plenty of time for her nose or ears to have bled. Yes, it is possible that the blood on her pillow was not connected to her death, but...my guess is...it was tested and there is a way to find out how old it is. I don't believe that the interviewer would have brought the stain up, or the other interviewer would have brought up night time nosebleeds, if there wasn't a reason for it. They obviously had some reason to ask those questions. I am sure that if Patsy or John had of seen JB's ears or nose oozing blood, they would have wiped it off...with an alcohol swab or something....thats why the coroner saw no presence of blood. How do you know that there wasn't blood in her INNER ear(s)? The autopsy said that there was no presence of blood in the outer ear canal....there was no mention of the inner ear. There is no doubt in my mind that she bled that night, from either her ears or nose or BOTH.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
Me either. Patsy wouldn't have known how to make that garrote...IMO. John probably said, "Patsy, you go work on that Ransom note, and don't worry about the staging...I will take care of that part.".
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
I agree. I am starting more and more to think that a scarf played a part in her strangulation...somewhere down the line. In one of PR interviews, she was asked a ton of questions about scarves in the home...who owned them, were they just lying around the house...etc. I thought that was odd...unless, the investigators believe that a scarf could have played a part in her murder. I also think that John should have scooped JB up and taken her to the ER...and if Patsy protested, he should have shoved her down, and kept on walking out the door, to the car....with his daughter. He shouldn't have helped to cover it up....and I also think that if the truth (what I believe to be the truth) ever comes out, that he STILL should be arrested, for covering up a crime, aiding and abeiting, lying to investigators, withholding evidence...etc.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
Yep, and just as JMO8778 said, her bedroom could have been the first place for the staging. They may, at first, was going to leave her there...and make it like an intruder came in and entered her room, attacked and killed her there. But, then decided on putting her in the basement instead...for the reason that JMO8778 says...because it was dark down there, and the neighbors wouldn't see a light on...and be able to tell the police about it later. Patsy did say that John's night vision goggles were out of place. I agree with JMO, that John used those to stage the crimescene in the basement...so that he didn't have to turn on a light.
JMO8778,
The ransom note is evidence of a change of plan, since she was eventually left in the wine-cellar and not abducted!
You have to decide if you are dealing with an accidental death or a murder, the need for staging may not be required in one of those.
If its not an accidental death then supplying a motive can help to explain subsequent staging.
Was JonBenet sexually assaulted prior to her death? The forensic evidence suggests yes, and Coroner Meyer verbally opined that she may have been digitally assaulted too, no doubt based upon the abnormal size of her hymen and its chronic erosion?
JonBenet was asphyxiated twice, sexually assaulted, suffered a severe skull fracture, and had various abrasions inflicted upon her body, can these injuries be characterised as accidental, imo, no.
Looks to me like JonBenet was intentionally killed, her head injury alone was enough to kill her, so we are dealing with a murder, the initial motive appears sexual in nature, and the subsequent staging was intended to cover this up.
JonBenet was neither fully dressed in day-clothes or night-clothes indicating she died wearing the white-gap top, and possibly her black velvet pants, but if she was the victim of a sexual assault then she may have been naked from the waist down?
imo JonBenet never made it to her bed, she had a pineapple snack, then she was sexually assaulted in another room, e.g. not the kitchen or the basement, since evidence of the snack was forgotten about, and the basement was her final resting place.
Evidence that demonstrated JonBenet was sexually assaulted was removed and she was wiped down, cleaning away blood etc, also her size-6 underwear was removed, why do all this if it was just an accidental death, then there are her asymmetric ponytails, when were these fashioned, and why?
It appears an initial staging was constructed somewhere other than the wine-cellar, possibly intended as an intruder assault, later this was amended to become an abduction scenario, with the addition of a ransom note, when this was not fulfilled the wine-cellar staging was constructed.
So the killer(s) staged thinking may have gone like this, Intruder Assault then Intruder Kidnapping, then Bedtime Abduction.
The Intruder Assault may have been dropped due to its reliance on too much domestic evidence making the occupants prime suspects, the Intruder Kidnapping may have been dropped due to the killer(s) reluctance to dump JonBenet's corpse outdoors, finally as a last resort a Bedtime Abduction was created complete with JonBenet's Barbie-Gown, which would have indicated she had been sleeping?
.
The forensic evidence found at thre crime scene strongly implicates Patsy Ramsey in the basement staging: fibers from her jacket were found in the wrappings of the garrote, in the paint tote and on the duct tape. Both the knots and the garrote were clumsily done, and John Ramsey himself said in DOI that if he had staged the scene, he would have done a far better job. Imo this was one the few times where he told the truth ......
I don't think JonBenet was sexually assaulted, she was sexually manipulated. They wanted you to think she was sexually assaulted. Parents don't sexually assault their children in that way, intruders do. If you look at the number of people on the forums who believe JonBenet was sexually assaulted, you have to conclude that part of the staging was a brilliant move by the Ramsey's.
Children suffer from emotional injuries when they are sexually abused by family members, not physical injuries. People keep moving prior sexual abuse to the front of the line in concerns for the Ramsey's that night. Wouldn't the injury to JonBenet's head be 1,000,000 times more important to explain than some possible abrasions to her genital's that you need a microscope to see or might not be there at all.
Patsy frequently took JonBenet to a doctor so how could she have any concern over sexual abuse being discovered? And Patsy was there that night making decisions.
Burke and prior sexual abuse need to be put in a box and put away in storage, they only clutter up what may have happened that night. If the decision makers there that night were involved in prior sexual abuse to JonBenet, why on earth would they do anything to cause greater scrutiny in that area.
It seems to me, if the head wound hadn't happened, JonBenet would still be alive today, prior sexual abuse or not.
Children suffer from emotional injuries when they are sexually abused by family members, not physical injuries. People keep moving prior sexual abuse to the front of the line in concerns for the Ramsey's that night. Wouldn't the injury to JonBenet's head be 1,000,000 times more important to explain than some possible abrasions to her genital's that you need a microscope to see or might not be there at all.
Patsy frequently took JonBenet to a doctor so how could she have any concern over sexual abuse being discovered? And Patsy was there that night making decisions.
Burke and prior sexual abuse need to be put in a box and put away in storage, they only clutter up what may have happened that night. If the decision makers there that night were involved in prior sexual abuse to JonBenet, why on earth would they do anything to cause greater scrutiny in that area.
It seems to me, if the head wound hadn't happened, JonBenet would still be alive today, prior sexual abuse or not.