Interpreting the "evidence"

[RedChief]

UKGuy,

There was external blood around the genitalia. From the autopsy report:

"On the anterior aspect of the perinium (the area between the vagina and the anus), along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood."

...that appeared to be blood. The CORRESPONDING areas of her skin in the public area, showed no matching stains." Sure, there was blood on the perinium, but, apparently it didn't match (correspond to) any of the blood that was on the underwear.

I think we may be reading too much into this non-matching "stain" business. If cloth brushes against wet blood on a body, won't it tend to pick up the blood? And, if it does pick up the blood, whether through brushing or blotting or both, there will be blood on the cloth but maybe little or none left on the body.

For this reason, at this juncture, I don't feel that the lack of corresponding "stains" on the body is evidence of wiping. The stronger evidence for wiping is the virtually blood-free pubic area (except for the perinium & fourchette) and the presence of dark fibers in the folds of the labia and elsewhere in the pubic area. Apparently the coroner felt that this lack of correspondence was significant.

There is one other thing I'd like to have cleared up: does "inner aspect" refer to the interior of the underpants or to the area of the underpants in proximity to the midline of the crotch?

To Eagle1 and sistersocks: I don't see those fingernail marks.

 

[UKGuy]

...that appeared to be blood. The CORRESPONDING areas of her skin in the public area, showed no matching stains." Sure, there was blood on the perinium, but, apparently it didn't match (correspond to) any of the blood that was on the underwear.

I think we may be reading too much into this non-matching "stain" business. If cloth brushes against wet blood on a body, won't it tend to pick up the blood? And, if it does pick up the blood, whether through brushing or blotting or both, there will be blood on the cloth but maybe little or none left on the body.

For this reason, at this juncture, I don't feel that the lack of corresponding "stains" on the body is evidence of wiping. The stronger evidence for wiping is the virtually blood-free pubic area (except for the perinium & fourchette) and the presence of dark fibers in the folds of the labia and elsewhere in the pubic area. Apparently the coroner felt that this lack of correspondence was significant.

There is one other thing I'd like to have cleared up: does "inner aspect" refer to the interior of the underpants or to the area of the underpants in proximity to the midline of the crotch?

To Eagle1 and sistersocks: I don't see those fingernail marks.

Ok on this topic I defer to BlueCrab's knowledge. I simply assumed if a perp is going to wipe a girl down to remove forensic evidence, and the autopsy suggests she was, due to lack of forensic blood transfer, then I assumed it would be done, lets say quite efficiently. But lets ahem say its not an area I would claim any expertise in at all ...

I think its a significant issue in terms of crime scene reconstruction i.e. did it occur prior to her relocation into the wine-cellar or after. But with no images to compare and contrast its difficult to be definitive.

So did the blood travel by gravity, after she was dressed in her size-12 underwear ?

 

[RedChief]

So did the blood travel by gravity, after she was dressed in her size-12 underwear ?

Well, this blood in the underpants business is somewhat of a mystery to me; it may have gotten there via gravity at some point in time between when the undies were last installed and when the coroner examined her.

If the perp wanted to remove all trace of blood, etc., to cloak his involvement in molestation or whatever he had been doing that gave rise to the bleeding, one would think he'd not want to leave any blood in the undies. Maybe, he wasn't concerned with any re-bleeding that might occur after he left the scene, thinking that it would be of no help to the authorities in identifying him; thinking he'd removed the potentially incriminating material. Who can say. If a family member molested the girl, might he not be satisfied with erasing visible signs, and not be worried about leaving behind DNA?

It appears that we don't have enough information, as you say, to be positive about all this. It certainly would be helpful to know the exact sequence of the bleeding, the urination, the dressing/redressing and the wiping.

Here is another question: In PMPT schiller said (and I paraphrase) that what remained of the hymen was a rim of tissue running from the 2 o'clock to the 10 o'clock position. To me this implies that some of the original hymen was missing. Assuming that this was so, it leaves one to wonder whether the alleged missing tissue was freshly missing as a result of the fresh vaginal injury or whether it represented an event or events that had occurred in the past. The coroner didn't say (in his report) that the hymen was torn, just that it was freshly abraded. My impression was, from reading his report, that the hymenal abrasion was made at the same time and by the same instrument that abraded the distal vaginal wall. What's your take?

How do you explain the vestibular hypemia and the congestion in the mucosa? Who is more likely to attempt sexual intercourse (in the ordinary sense) with a girl this age; an older adult or a teenager or adolescent?

 

[BlueCrab]

RedChief, I'm not sure what you are suggesting, but there is no problem with the several drops of blood that oozed from JonBenet's vagina from lining up with the several red spots on the inside of her underwear at the crotch.

The main evidence of her having been wiped down with a piece of dark cloth has nothing to do with where the blood is; it is the numerous microscopic fibers on the inner thighs and the labia that showed up under a black light while the cops were looking for evidence of semen. They originally thought a trace of JonBenet's blood was a trace of semen until it was tested in the lab.

UKGuy, it probably wouldn't have made any difference whether JonBenet was on her back or on her stomach with respect to the blood stains. The blood could be absorbed into the panties by gravity or by capillary attraction. The urine would be another matter because there was more of it. She was definitely on her stomach, unless that part of her body was strung up, feet first, and elevated higher than the stomach when the urine was released.

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, it probably wouldn't have made any difference whether JonBenet was on her back or on her stomach with respect to the blood stains. The blood could be absorbed into the panties by gravity or by capillary attraction. The urine would be another matter because there was more of it. She was definitely on her stomach, unless that part of her body was strung up, feet first, and elevated higher than the stomach when the urine was released.
BlueCrab

Thanks for that, so there was not enough blood release in volume terms for it to travel forward towards her stomach, that which did travel, remained close to the perineum?

 

[BlueCrab]

Thanks for that, so there was not enough blood release in volume terms for it to travel forward towards her stomach, that which did travel, remained close to the perineum?

UKGuy,

Yes, that's how I would characterize the blood. It should be remembered that the injuries to JonBenet's vagina were relatively slight and there was very little blood externally and internally.

 

[RedChief]

So, let's talk about the minor vaginal injury in terms of staging. The staging didn't include vaginal injury; i.e., that wasn't a staged injury? So, does that injury look more like (appear to be) something that would be inflicted by a young boy, possibly with a paintbrush handle? Was it a single-stage injury; i.e., had it been inflicted in one operation? Rockets scientists, feel free to respond.

There had apparently been enough blood on the child (her body) prior to the wiping to motivate the wiping. Exactly how much blood, one cannot say; also the extent of the bleeding, while proportional to the injury, would also be a function of blood pressure; if the wound had been inflicted pre-mortem, then more bleeding; if post mortem (peri-mortem) then less bleeding.

Back to the wiping motivation: if a parent, what motivation? If a stranger/intruder, what motivation? Fill in the blanks: A parent wiped away the blood because _______________ A stranger/intruder wiped away the blood because ________________ Explain it fully, and connect it to your scenario.

Maybe the "splinter" in the vagina had nothing to do with the paintbrush that had been broken and used as a garotte handle. Maybe that splinter got there at some time in the past, due to self-exploration or to a similar curiosity-satisfying incident on the part of the brother or another. I recall that one expert thought the splinter had been there too long to be associated with the incident leading to her death.

We need some scenarios that include and explain all the significant evidence; scenarios that are consistent with the evidence; that don't leave out important evidence; that are plausible.

It's things like this minor vaginal injury that are good clues. They give you a direction to head off in. They speak to the perp's motives.

 

[UKGuy]

Back to the wiping motivation: if a parent, what motivation? If a stranger/intruder, what motivation? Fill in the blanks: A parent wiped away the blood because _______________ A stranger/intruder wiped away the blood because ________________ Explain it fully, and connect it to your scenario.

A stranger/intruder wiped away the blood because they want to remove forensic evidence, then stage her placement before escaping out the door.

A parent wiped away the blood because she wanted JonBenet to appear looked after and well taken care of!

 

[RedChief]

I want to make this perfectly clear......

We appear to have a minor vaginal injury; if so, that's a good clue. How did she get it? I'll list some possibilities. I'm bearing in mind your hypotheses.

Some will seem silly; we can use them as contrast:

(1.) The girl hurt herself while exploring her body and then got banged on the head and strangled? Nah! (also leaves out a lot of details=LOLD)

(2.) The girl was hurt by her brother while he was similarly exploring, and then she got banged on the head and strangled? Nah! (LOLD)

(3.) The girl was sexually injured by the nasty intruder to effect staging? Nah! (LOLD)

(4.) The girl was sexually injured by a parent, then she got banged on the head and strangled. Maybe. Does this fit with minor vaginal injury?

(5.) The girl was banged on the head by the brother, then got strangled and sexually injured? Nah! (LOLD)

(6.) The girl was banged on the head by the mother or father, then got strangled and sexually injured? Maybe. Does this fit with minor vaginal injury?

(7.) The girl was sexually injured by the intruder, then strangled, then banged on the head. Maybe. Does this fit with minor vaginal injury?

(8.) The girl blah, blah, blah...(Oh, I have serious doubts about this!)

What I want to know is who did what when and where and for what reason. In lieu of that, I would be satisfied for the time being with a timeline for the injuries and the staging (which may or may not include injuries). Example:

(1.) Banged on the head accidentally in bedroom.

(1.5) Moved to basement along with some items.

(2.) Strangulation as further staging in conjuntion with sexual injury.

(2.5) Wiped.

(3.) Close and latch door to wine cellar.

(4.) Write note.

(5.) Call cops.

Which scenario does the minor vaginal injury fit best, in conjunction with all the rest of the critical evidence?

We need a keystone.

 

[UKGuy]

1.) JonBenet Arrives Home.

2.) JonBenet Snacks Pineapple.

3.) JonBenet is Deceased.

4.) JonBenet involved in Bedroom Staging.

5.) JonBenet involved in Kidnap Staging.

6.) JonBenet involved in Other Staging.

7.) JonBenet involved in Wine Cellar Staging.

8.) JonBenet's Body is Discovered.

Its likely each and every stage above occurred but not neccesarily in the linear order 1.) through to 8.)

These are stages we can present evidence for or infer are likely to have occurred, its possible other events took place we know nothing about e.g. forensic evidence being destroyed!

You can arrange each element above to fit your favorite theory i.e.
.3) Patsy is overtaken by toilet rage, hitting JonBenet accidentally.

4.) Patsy re-arranges the bedroom.

5.) Patsy writes or directs Burke to write the ransom note.

6.) Patsy carries JonBenet's body to the basement and prepares it to be a kidnap victim, including a hair styling, sexual assault etc.

7.) John revises the options at 6.) and decides to redress, wipe down, and re-pose JonBenet's body by preparing a paintbrush style garrote, apply and tighten the cord as a noose, and change her into her Barbie Gown.

8.) John discovers the body
.
.
.

Naturally you can iterate a similar scenario for other theories Consider one that includes a family aquaintance, who after having had trusted access to JonBenet, has been sexually abusing her.

He creeps into the house and unleashes an assault upon JonBenet, who has been told it is a special xmas visit. As BlueCrab has suggested this culminates at stage .6) in JonBenet's body being degraded and posed indecently to satisfy some percieved personal or political motives.

Stage 7.) repeats with John deciding he wants his daughter to have some dignity in death so wipes her down, re-dressing her etc. Then stage 8.) recurs.

 

[RedChief]

OK UKGuy,

Thanks for that. I'll file it for reference. Your event timeline is quite similar to the one you supplied before, so I guess that means you're pretty comfortable with it.

But, back to the supposed minor vaginal injury: You don't get that from a full-scale sexual assault; also, why would anyone want to stage a minor injury, unless to incriminate John? And, if Patsy got the ball rolling, and staged the minor injury (for some strange reason), why would John come along later and attempt to erase the evidence; i.e., wipe her down to give her dignity in death? Patsy wouldn't want her to have that? John would, but Patsy wouldn't? Why is that? It doesn't wash.

We have to examine this supposed minor vaginal injury (I hope that is what we're dealing with; at least that is a characterization that we can operate with). We have to know: what caused it; is it staging or not; is it sexually motivated or not? Is it accidental or not?

To recap: We have someone who may have been attempting to erase the evidence of a minor sexual injury, or who may have been attempting to remove forensic evidence, or both, while, possibly, knowingly leaving blood in the undies. This is unexplained. You may conjecture that there was no blood in the undies when the wiper left the scene. Fine! Let's assume that is true. We have someone who may have been attempting to give the child a measure of dignity in death; someone who may have had nothing to do with her death. Fine! We're really narrowing this down, aren't we.

Now, let's suppose it's John who's concerned about the dignity; he's more concerned about that than staging a convincing scene? It doesn't wash. The dignity scenario as an explanation for the wiping, has fatal flaws. Why not go one step further and put clean underwear on her; not leave urine stained longjohns and pants, not to mention bloody pants (assuming the bleeding didn't occur after he left the scene). Are urine-stained longjohns and underpants dignified? It doesn't wash. Someone at some point in time was mighty concerned about the vaginal injury and the bleeding. Her dignity was the last thing on his mind. Erasing evidence (blood and/or forensics) was of paramount importance.

Now, it has been suggested that she may have been wiped down after the blood in her undies and on her pubic area had dried substantially; that could account for the lack of correspondence, which puzzled the coroner, that was mentioned in Schiller's book. If that were so, the wiper must have come along quite some time after the injury was inflicted and the bleeding commenced. If there were a lot of bleeding (not consistent with minor injury), a pull-up diaper could have been used to capture some of it initially or at some point in time. But that's pure speculation. We know that she had blood in her undies which puzzled the coroner because there was none in corresponding areas of the pubic area. Now, I think this is good evidence (I've changed my mind), because it suggests not only that she had been wiped (so do the fibers), but it suggests that at the time she was wiped, the blood had substantially dried, and could not re-transfer, once the undies were re-installed. So, this wiping (referred to above) may have been the final wiping; and it could even have occurred in the wine cellar; but that is pure speculation.

Does this get us any closer to the wiper?

 

[UKGuy]

Its a staging timeline, not an event timeline, its importance lies in each of the stages should form part of any theory, else we will know it has holes in it.

"Are urine-stained longjohns and underpants dignified? "
Well if you consider my remarks about the wine-cellar being staged, her longjohns and white gap top, were intended to be removed and be replaced by her Barbie Gown, the first part ie wiping her down, had been accomplished, but the Barbie Gown lay next to her body unused, ie unfinished staging.

Yes your revised thoughts about the "evidence" and your speculation about her possibly being wiped down in the wine-cellar are probably most peoples settled view.

Its possible the sexual assault was just that, with more blood issuing onto her old underwear, that is prior to the wine-cellar staging.

Its also possible it was deliberate staging at the "Other Staging" ie .6), which was revised later either as a decency presentation or to chime with the purpose of the wine-cellar staging.

Some people prefer to see the bifringement material as evidence of digital penetration, others as paintbrush handle penetration.

So its likely there was a sexual assault with a subsequent cleanup and staging to minimise the forensic evidence. But whether the "supposed minor vaginal injury" is staging to mask prior sexual abuse is something for you to consider?

All the usual suspects are still on the table, since there is nothing yet to link them as the perp!

 

[RedChief]

Its a staging timeline, not an event timeline, its importance lies in each of the stages should form part of any theory, else we will know it has holes in it.

Staging isn't an event? Semantics.

"Are urine-stained longjohns and underpants dignified? "
Well if you consider my remarks about the wine-cellar being staged, her longjohns and white gap top, were intended to be removed and be replaced by her Barbie Gown, the first part ie wiping her down, had been accomplished, but the Barbie Gown lay next to her body unused, ie unfinished staging.

How do you account for this "unfinished staging"? One more time.

Yes your revised thoughts about the "evidence" and your speculation about her possibly being wiped down in the wine-cellar are probably most peoples settled view.

I don't insist on it's having been done in the wine cellar.

Its possible the sexual assault was just that, with more blood issuing onto her old underwear, that is prior to the wine-cellar staging.

Well, instead of referring to it as sexual assault--a vague term--let's be specific. Do you mean the person who inflicted the injury was sexually attracted to the victim and attempting to satisfy an urge, or are you referring to something else entirely?

Its also possible it was deliberate staging at the "Other Staging" ie .6), which was revised later either as a decency presentation or to chime with the purpose of the wine-cellar staging.

It's a minor injury, so either that didn't happen or, the person who staged it wasn't well-versed, or she bled a lot, irrespective of the minor injury, and that was the stager's objective; i.e., "if she bleeds a lot, they'll think she's been ravaged"--some naivete here?

Some people prefer to see the bifringement material as evidence of digital penetration, others as paintbrush handle penetration.

Are you referring to the "splinter" or something else? Either method could deposit the material. I'm not sure the birefringent material and the "splinter" are one and the same.

So its likely there was a sexual assault with a subsequent cleanup and staging to minimise the forensic evidence. But whether the "supposed minor vaginal injury" is staging to mask prior sexual abuse is something for you to consider?

Again, how are you defining sexual assault in this instance (see your quote immediately above)? Penetration with a finger would be sexual assault? Penetration with a paintbrush handle would be sexual assault? No matter what the motivation; e.g., sexual attraction accompanied by a desire to molest, or e.g., a sadistic act, or e.g., staging? Staging to mask prior sexual abuse is unlikely, though possible. Why would one conclude that pappa had nothing to do with the fresh injury, but might have had something to do with the prior injury (assuming there were evidence of that)? That would be roughly like cutting someone's hand off to remove evidence that a finger had previously been cut off. Which is worse, being suspected of severing the hand, or of severing the finger? I reserve the right to change my mind.

All the usual suspects are still on the table, since there is nothing yet to link them as the perp!

Wait, wait, wait, suspects in what respect? If we can agree that the final wiping occurred some hours after she bled into the size-12's (the period of time necessary for the blood to become appreciably dry), can't we conclude that this wiping wasn't the work of a stranger/intruder? And in so concluding, haven't we eliminated one suspect, at least, insofar as his involvement in the wiping? This is significant. It represents progress. Now we have to decide which family member did the wiping and why. If the wiping was done, say, by John, as part of a decency presentation, then we've milked this cow for all she's worth; i.e., we can't eliminate the stranger/intruder as the killer, even though we've eliminated him as the wiper. So, tell me again, why would John do wiping to make her decent and then refuse to share this information with the authorities? It makes no sense, unless he's protecting someone, because for as long as he remains mum about it, he remains a suspect. If he has no one to protect, then he ought to fess up to assist the investigation. We may have to analyze his behavior to guage his motivations. Also, there's something we haven't considered: there was no mention of visible blood on the longjohns that JBR was wearing. If John found her in these longjohns, what would prompt him to undress her (as it were) to examine her private parts? How would he know, without doing that, about the blood? We also have blood smears on the thighs; not just in the pubic area. Those thigh areas had apparently been wiped also. But, again, blood there would also be concealed by the long underwear, and it's presence unknown to John unless he removed the underwear.

The plot thickens...

 

[UKGuy]

RedChief:

Thanks for your reply,

Its not quite semantics, else I would not bother to make the distinction, an event is something we know happened e.g. JonBenet goes to the White's Party. Whereas "staging" is designed to make you think it was an event e.g. Ransom Note or the Wine-Cellar Staging.

The Wine-Cellar staging is the last in a series. Its intention is to present JonBenet's Body to you as having been abducted from her bed and sadistically sexually assaulted! But it was unfinished as per my previous remarks.

We have to distinguish between a staged sexual assault and an actual sexual assault, some people would say there is no distinction. So either you consider there was an actual sexual assault occurred prior to or during her relocation to the Wine-Cellar, or it may be a staged sexual assault?

The removal of blood and other forensic evidence, whether on the longjohns or elsewhere is what points decidedly towards the Wine-Cellar being staging.

The bifringement material I assume is the cellulose originating from the paintbrush handle.

Possibly she was not discovered in longjohns, she may have been found naked with those clothes lying close by, and posed indecently with the cord acting as a bondage restraint. She may have been partially clothed e.g. from the waist up. So there may have been prior staging as I have already suggested, but for different motives, and possibly by a different person(s).

When staging occurs in a homicide its purpose is to point your focus away from the perpetrator.


Assuming John staged the Wine-Cellar scenario, he is not going to vote himself forward as a suspect candidate, by confessing to the staging, when he himself thinks all he was doing was reposing JonBenet's body to afford her some dignity. Law Enforcement are perfectly aware of this phenomenon as a feature of staging in homicides. They will likely have factored that in as a consideration.

Once you consider JonBenet's death as a Staged Homicide the plot does thicken, but at least you know what to factor in as real evidence, as opposed to the staged.

 

[RedChief]

UKGuy--Its not quite semantics, else I would not bother to make the distinction, an event is something we know happened e.g. JonBenet goes to the White's Party. Whereas "staging" is designed to make you think it was an event e.g. Ransom Note or the Wine-Cellar Staging.

It's precisely semantics, but now I think you've cleared it up by distinguishing between a staging event and a crime event; assuming you don't consider staging a crime.

UKGuy--The Wine-Cellar staging is the last in a series. Its intention is to present JonBenet's Body to you as having been abducted from her bed and sadistically sexually assaulted! But it was unfinished as per my previous remarks.

Ah, so you're going to make me go back and search out your previous remarks? There has been speculation that the Barbie gown had adhered to the blanket when it was taken from the dryer--static cling--and that explains it's presence in the wine cellar. I believe LHP surmised that. So, there is at least one plausible alternative explanation for the Barbie gown. So you're inferring that the fact that the body wasn't dressed in the Barbie gown means that the staging in the wine cellar was unfinished. Still, you haven't explained why the stager didn't complete the staging; did rigor mortis interfere? If so, why didn't he retrieve the gown?

UKGuy--We have to distinguish between a staged sexual assault and an actual sexual assault, some people would say there is no distinction. So either you consider there was an actual sexual assault occurred prior to or during her relocation to the Wine-Cellar, or it may be a staged sexual assault?

UKGuy--Agreed. We may have to make even more precise distinctions from time to time--distinctions within distinctions.

UKGuy--The removal of blood and other forensic evidence, whether on the longjohns or elsewhere is what points decidedly towards the Wine-Cellar being staging.

UKGuy--Ah, but don't forget--could also point toward a genuine effort on the part of the stranger/intruder or a family member to remove his/her DNA, etc. BTW, how effective would the wiping that you suspect occurred in this case be in removing inculpatory forensic evidence? Isn't it just as likely that forensic evidence will be deposited upon the body during such wiping; e.g., the fibers, and even DNA, hair, etc.? I'm more inclined to think the wiping was done in an effort to remove evidence of the sexual injury; i.e., the blood. There is also the possibility that it was an act of shame or remorse. To me, what would be especially significant about the wiping is evidence of when it occurred, relative to the time of commission of the crime. As I've already stated, and I think you've agreed, if the wiping occurred "long" after the commission of the crime, it probably means it wasn't undertaken by a stranger/intruder; but, was probably undertaken by a family member; so, one could concentrate on family members in trying to fathom which one did it and why. So, it's imperative that we explain the absence of "corresponding blood" (see PMPT, paperback, pg 57) in connection with the "several red areas of staining" mentioned in the AR (I assume those were blood stains) as being in the size-12 underpants.

UKGuy--The bifringement material I assume is the cellulose originating from the paintbrush handle.

Well, there was also varnish, a birefringent material, on the paintbrush; this seems more likely to me to be the material in question that was found on the surface of the hymen. A separate piece of material, the splinter, was found imbedded in tissue, and at least one expert thought it had been there for a good while.

UKGuy--Possibly she was not discovered in longjohns, she may have been found naked with those clothes lying close by, and posed indecently with the cord acting as a bondage restraint. She may have been partially clothed e.g. from the waist up. So there may have been prior staging as I have already suggested, but for different motives, and possibly by a different person(s).

Yes, all that is possible--insofar as I know--but why wipe her (clean her up)and then put bloody, urine-stained clothes back on her, if your intention is to present her decently?

UKGuy--When staging occurs in a homicide its purpose is to point your focus away from the perpetrator.

I think we all know this full well.


UKGuy--Assuming John staged the Wine-Cellar scenario, he is not going to vote himself forward as a suspect candidate, by confessing to the staging, when he himself thinks all he was doing was reposing JonBenet's body to afford her some dignity. Law Enforcement are perfectly aware of this phenomenon as a feature of staging in homicides. They will likely have factored that in as a consideration.

OOPS! Now, you're using staging and decency presentation synonymously. You're saying that, one the on hand, he staged the wine-cellar scenario, but, on the other hand, he just reposed her body to afford her some dignity. Which is it? Was he reposing her body to afford her some dignity, or was he staging the wine-cellar crime scene? If the former, then he would not be voting himself forward as a suspect, by confessing to the posing (not staging). He'd be doing himself a favor. If the latter, then he would be well advised to keep his yap shut. I will give you an out--you could maintain that there was posing within staging. My, oh my! We ARE getting a long way from KISS.

UKGuy--Once you consider JonBenet's death as a Staged Homicide the plot does thicken, but at least you know what to factor in as real evidence, as opposed to the staged.[/QUOTE]

True, and I would venture to guess that most people think it was just that, because they have not looked beyond the surface.

Here's something for you to think about (providing you haven't already, which seems unlikely): If you suspect this was a staged homicide, involving a family member (for as you have pointed out, staging is done to point AWAY from the perp, not toward him), why do you suppose a family member would pose the body indecently in the first place, making it necessary for John to intervene???????? How many family members do we have as candidates? John, Patsy, and Burke. So which of those three, do you suspect, posed the body indecently??? Certainly not John, for he is the one who is revising the staging. Food for thought?

 

[sissi]

Before we interpret the evidence, are we all comfortable with it or are there items that remain questionable?
When John Ramsey found the body, he claimed her arms and feet were exposed,however during his questioning, the interviewer said, "how was she wrapped" then between the two of them they agreed on the term "papoosed". I lay a blanket, put a baby's head toward one corner, fold up the bottom corner, and then fold the sides one over the other, IMO that's a papoose fold, no hands or feet are exposed. Was the interviewer trying to achieve this as an answer to incriminate a family member , to show at a later date, perhaps in a court room , that the child was treated with the respect a family member would give . Looks like a motive to me.

In the autopsy report, there was a notation of "birefringent material", there was no mention of a splinter, a speck, or a piece, and there was no mention of recovery of this material to be sent to the police lab. IMO this points toward material, perhaps that could be picked up on a swab, however not available as a "piece" of anything to be studied or sourced.

To those that think Patsy "lost it", should we consider how she had all of the items in hand to commit this crime? She loses it, says hold on child while I run downstairs to the utility drawer and grab a maglite to bash in your head? (On the way she fixes her a snack) John will you fashion a garotte for me while I digitally molest her so they think a maniacal child molestor broke into this house. Quickly,John, ditch the cord and tape, but leave the pad and pen, I hate to waste so will reuse those items. Then John thinks, hmm, we overdid this staging, so I will find the body and unstage it a bit, loosen the cords, take off the tape. Finding the body in itself is HUGE, what a waste of time and staging to not give LE or a friend this "chore". Then the note, what parent would refer to executing their own child with beheading? It doesn't work for me, never has!
What kind of person did write that note, do we see premeditation or do we see a desperate attempt at covering for a crime already committed. Many think it was written before the murder, this is a tough call. After the murder, why not just walk away, no explanations needed. Before the murder, perhaps a sociopathic attempt at letting Ramsey know he in some way disturbed this person with his business, yet something personal seems to be at the root, something sociopathic in placing the onus on John for his daughter's death. You didn't do something my way, so I am gonna screw up your life by taking your most precious POSSESSION and ya ' know what John,"It's your fault". I tend to believe it was written before the crime by someone who was familiar with the family and the house, someone who was out to get JR, but someone not close enough to know how to spell Jonbenet.

 

[UKGuy]

RedChief,

You have a nice line in humor:
"Still, you haven't explained why the stager didn't complete the staging; did rigor mortis interfere? If so, why didn't he retrieve the gown?"

If I could explain it all I would write a book or something LOL.

The Barbie Gown:
I dont think there is anything else in there, thats arrived by accident. The stager had plenty time to select his staging elements, so even if he did carry the Barbie Gown into the Wine-Cellar by mistake, then its very easy to pick it up and just fling it out or carry it elsewhere, where its discovery has little meaning. So it was meant to be there, the stager just never got round to finishing the Wine-Cellar staging.

The Blood:
Although you can view it as an attempt to defeat detection, the lack of blood, and other kinds of forensic evidence that although does not have to be present at the scene of a crime, its absence strongly suggests you are looking at staging.

The Wiping:
This need not have taken place in the Wine-Cellar. That and the underwear change may have occured during the "Other Staging" , the staging although broken into virtual stages may have been done ad-hoc, so she is wiped down during stage .6) her underwear is changed, and she relocated to the Wine-Cellar where further staging occurs, and an intended Barbie Gown re-dressing is unfinished.

"Yes, all that is possible--insofar as I know--but why wipe her (clean her up)and then put bloody, urine-stained clothes back on her, if your intention is to present her decently?"
Because the stager is yet to retrieve her Barbie Gown and re-dress her in that.

It need not have been a family member who posed the body indecently. It may have been an Intruder/Acquaintance, then a family member discovers the body horrifically posed and does not to have to show JonBenet like that to the world. So the family member reposes, re-dressing JonBenet to appear as a sadistic murder. This behaviour in a homicide is still described as staging, its not materially different from what the perp sets out to do. So you dont need to distinguish two types other than having separate motives.

But for those who have read a lot on the Jonbenet case they will have their firm favorite, but for the basement staging, the forensic evidence points towards Patsy, but its not clear cut, so it may have been a joint effort, a family affair, Patsy is directing Burke to pen the RN, whilst John is cutting JonBenet down, this done he talks with Patsy and she takes over the basement stage possibly with him helping here and there? Plot does thicken dont it!

 

[RedChief]

Before we interpret the evidence, are we all comfortable with it or are there items that remain questionable?

sissi,

Regarding papoose: Do you think John was being coached when he arrived at that characterization--papoose?

>From the 1998 interviews: [courtesy of BlueCrab]

MIKE KANE: "All right. Okay. Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it like -- "

JOHN RAMSEY: "It was like an Indian papoose."

MIKE KANE: "Okay."

JOHN RAMSEY: "You know, the blanket was under her completey. It was >brought up and folded over like that."

John also mentioned that the head lay on the blanket. He also mentioned that the head, arms and feet were exposed. He also referred to something he noticed under her coat. I couldn't figure out what that was. She wasn't wearing a coat.

I agree that it was a slight mischaracterization. I recall that John said it appeared that someone had wanted to comfort her (referring to the blanket wrapped around her). He also said the blanket was folded carefully; not haphazardly. This, however is not what the Ramseys (their lawyers) told John Douglas. He was told that the blanket was draped over her.

BTW, I recommend Douglas' book, 'The Cases That Haunt Us' to all who are interested in multiple points of view from various professionals. It was in reading his chapter on the JonBenet Ramsey murder in this book that I first began to seriously doubt my own theory as to whodunnit. His incredulouness respecting the PDI theory mirrors sissi's. I don't believe he addresses the BDI theory, however.

Back to the papoose: whoever wrapped the body (folded the blanket around it) would have been prevented from doing it precisely papoose-like, if rigor had set in, because to position the arms next to the body, as is done with a papoose, would have required that the rigor be overcome. This would have been a gruesome and heartbreaking task for anyone, let alone a family member. So maybe we can safely speculate (oh, yeah), knowing (oh, yeah) that the bona fide papoose configuration would have been preferred, that the blanket installation was undertaken while the body was in rigor. Uh oh!

The splinter: There is mention of it in Thomas' book, pg 228, hardback-- "Then we had experts assess why a tiny splinter had been found in JonBenet's vagina. The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that had been used to make the garotte. Although the source of the splinter was never definitively proved..." There is also a discussion of it in PMPT I think. I remember hearing or reading that the experts couldn't agree as to how long it had been there. Yeah, could have picked it up on a swab. It's puzzling because unless it was embedded or had some tissue attached to it from which a determination could be made as to how long it had been there; how would one make such a determination? The coroner described the birefringent material as being on the surface. BTW, what is your take on the epithelial erosion and the mucosal congestion? Would you expect these from a brief excursion with a stick? Or, do those require other explanation?

"Finding the body in itself is HUGE, what a waste of time and staging to not give LE or a friend this "chore"." Granted. That's what always puzzled me in relation to the staging and posing theory. But, maybe when John opened the door and saw the Barbie gown and realized he'd forgotten to remove her bloody undies and urine-soaked longjohns, and had forgotten to dress her in her nightie, he realized he had no choice but to abandon that wine-cellar project and start a new one in the foyer.

"I tend to believe it was written before the crime by someone who was familiar with the family and the house, someone who was out to get JR, but someone not close enough to know how to spell Jonbenet."

It sure does put the onus on John alright. It's as if they've arranged that she'll be automatically murdered as soon as John deviates from the instructions in the slightest. I think if I were John I'd want to sit down with these folks and make sure I'd interpreted the note correctly. One little misinterpretation and bang, she's dead, and the money turns into swiss cheese. Also, they take no responsibility whatever, for John's situation; interestingly, it's not a situation for "your daughter." It is for sure "up to you now John"! Your move, sucker!

Are we making progress?

 

[sissi]

Do I trust NE copied line for line without editing? No.

The birefringent material IMO doesn't match up to a splinter. This doesn't mean I'm right. Why was there no mention of a splinter being found during the autopsy, when something as slight as dried mucous /artifact on tongue was? ...google search..autopsy birefringent..comes up with some interesting choices..

Are we getting closer? Heck if I know. Given the information coming out concerning BTK, just who can ya trust, obviously not the older man next door. I tend to believe more and more it was less random and more personal. Yet because the crime seems like that of a young man, I wonder who was slighted or offended by John, the perp or the perp's father/sister/mother/brother?
I did read John Douglas' book when it first hit the shelves, and YES I felt he used his years of experience to get a solid handle on the crime scenario. Likely I did not mirror his thoughts, I probably stole them

 

[RedChief]

Do I trust NE copied line for line without editing? No.

The birefringent material IMO doesn't match up to a splinter. This doesn't mean I'm right. Why was there no mention of a splinter being found during the autopsy, when something as slight as dried mucous /artifact on tongue was? ...google search..autopsy birefringent..comes up with some interesting choices..

Are we getting closer? Heck if I know. Given the information coming out concerning BTK, just who can ya trust, obviously not the older man next door. I tend to believe more and more it was less random and more personal. Yet because the crime seems like that of a young man, I wonder who was slighted or offended by John, the perp or the perp's father/sister/mother/brother?
I did read John Douglas' book when it first hit the shelves, and YES I felt he used his years of experience to get a solid handle on the crime scenario. Likely I did not mirror his thoughts, I probably stole them

Who, what's NE??? The quoted testimony is from the transcript of the '98 interview. Are you saying you think it's erroneous?

Well, give Meyer a break, will ya? The artifact "of" the tip of the tongue was obviously pretty easy to spot.

Here's a question for ya: How did foreign DNA get into the undies but apparently none in the vagina (none found in the swab or smear)? Isn't it usually the other way 'round--find it on the swab, but not in the undies, 'cause the undies are usually removed prior to the rape? How does a swab differ from a smear? Also, apparently, no foreign DNA in the mouth, the nose, etc. Did they check the ears and eyes? Maybe JonBenet had been wearing those undies when she'd been fondled at some earlier time by the owner of the foreign DNA. Nah! Too complicated. Jury wouldn't buy it.

The birefringent not a splinter: that's what I think. Re the splinter: there was talk about it in the media, I think. On talk shows like Geraldo, etc. I'm not making this up. It was a controversial situation: the experts argued about how long it had been in the vagina. Think it's in PMPT too. In my mind, the bi-re is varnish or talc from a glove or soap, and the splinter is from Santa's sleigh. Also, cotton, as in cotton undies, is cellulose, isn't it?

Any mention of the size-12's and re-dressing in PMPT? I was afraid to read it all for fear someone would solve the case before I had fininshed.