The PINEAPPLE!

[BlueCrab]

I believe what isn't in her stomach is an important clue in the telling of where the crime occurred,I do not believe she was murdered in the Ramsey home, and believe she threw up her stomach contents during her abduction.
While we discuss pineapple and the ransom note as important clues, and they are, we ignore the animal fur in her hands. There is more to this fur than we have heard, IMO it is one of the most important clues they have. Find the animal, the type of animal and find the killer.
If it belongs to her own dog, which wasn't present in the house that night, then we can consider her going outside and either running into her dog or being in the Barnhill's garage. We don't know the source of this fur, so we can conjure up anything.
IMO the artifact on her tongue was a little residual material from vomiting , since clearly there is no matching area in the house to indicate her either vomiting or urinating on any surface there leaves open a good chance she wasn't murdered in her home.

Sissi,

I'm forced to respond to the three items you brought up in your post:

o There is NO evidence that JonBenet vomited. Her stomach was empty because the pineapple she ate about one-hour prior to dying had been passed on by the stomach to the next stage of digestion -- in the small intestine.

o Forensics has no problem identifying and matching animal hair to the animal. It's no mystery.

o An artifact is usually considered a man-made object of some kind. So the "artifact" on the tip of JonBenet's tongue was an artificial object of some kind and not something natural (such as food) she had eaten and then vomited.

JMO

 

[twizzler333]

Sissi,


o An artifact is usually considered a man-made object of some kind. So the "artifact" on the tip of JonBenet's tongue was an artificial object of some kind and not something natural (such as food) she had eaten and then vomited.

JMO

I work in the medical field and artifact is a very common term we use in identifying many things. This is the medical meaning of artifact.

Artifact (of skin)- 1) A skin lesion produced or perpetuated by self-inflicted action, as in dermatitis artefacta (self-induced skin lesions resulting from habitual rubbing, scratching, or hair pulling, malingering, or mental disturbance). Also referred to as dermatitis autophytica or factitial dermatitis. 2) Anything, especially in a histologic specimen or a graphic record, that is caused by the technique used or is not a natural occurrence, but is merely incidental.

 

[sissi]

An artifact can be used to describe dried mucous or almost anything..vomit, saliva..anything even dust and mold..correct me if I'm wrong as while I disagree with the definition, I have read it before when a piece of dust was found on a body and described by the coroner as an "artifact". IMO in a court of law, Myers would be "called" on this one, as an artifact yes, should pertain to something manmade.

I do believe they know what kind of fur, but they aren't telling us are they?

Tell them to release the information on the fur, because they said wool when they meant acryllic, they called her jacket a sweater corrected it to a jacket...they said polyester in the LAB! when the cord was found to be nylon, yep....I want to know the origin of the fur!

IMO

Oops..posted after Twizzler...missed your definition..but I will stand that although perhaps not correct it is often used to describe almost any little thing . ( merely incidental is likely the reason Myers called it an artifact..wasn't much of anything?)

 

[twizzler333]

I believe the artifact to be either dried mucous/saliva or maybe even some dust/dirt, JMO. I believe had it been a significant artifact of the man-made kind, it would have been noted, but being I deal with medical reports and imaging all the time, I would say it is probably insignificant and just dried up something. A doctor would state in his report if he thought it were anything unusual that normally would not be there from the person's body. If it is something odd they WILL mention it and tell you what they think it may be.

 

[BlueCrab]

I believe the artifact to be either dried mucous/saliva or maybe even some dust/dirt, JMO. I believe had it been a significant artifact of the man-made kind, it would have been noted, but being I deal with medical reports and imaging all the time, I would say it is probably insignificant and just dried up something. A doctor would state in his report if he thought it were anything unusual that normally would not be there from the person's body. If it is something odd they WILL mention it and tell you what they think it may be.

Twizzler,

If the artifact on the tip of JonBenet's tongue is not significant, why then mention it in the autopsy report at all? There was dried mucous on the face of JonBenet, and the coroner mentioned it AND identified it in the autopsy report (and didn't call it an artifact). Why didn't he identify the ARTIFACT on the tip of JonBenet's tongue?

I believe that in his notes the coroner did identify the artifact, but the cops didn't want it revealed in the autopsy report (which is public information) because it was an important clue. I think it could have been a tiny thread or lint from something that had been stuffed into JonBenet's mouth to keep her quiet -- such as a handkerchief or a sock -- before the tape was put across her mouth to keep the gag from coming out.

We know from our own experiments at home (on a thread at WS about a year ago) that a piece of duct tape placed across a child's mouth can be removed in seconds by the child simply by her using her tongue. Therefore, there must have been something stuffed into JonBenet's mouth, such as a handkerchief or a sock. The tape alone wouldn't have done the job.

A predicted result from a handkerchief or sock stuffed into her mouth? AN ARTIFACT ON THE TIP OF THE TONGUE.

JMO

 

[sissi]

I would HOPE anything resembling fibers would have been taken as evidence!

 

[twizzler333]

Twizzler,

If the artifact on the tip of JonBenet's tongue is not significant, why then mention it in the autopsy report at all? There was dried mucous on the face of JonBenet, and the coroner mentioned it AND identified it in the autopsy report (and didn't call it an artifact). Why didn't he identify the ARTIFACT on the tip of JonBenet's tongue?

I believe that in his notes the coroner did identify the artifact, but the cops didn't want it revealed in the autopsy report (which is public information) because it was an important clue. I think it could have been a tiny thread or lint from something that had been stuffed into JonBenet's mouth to keep her quiet -- such as a handkerchief or a sock -- before the tape was put across her mouth to keep the gag from coming out.

We know from our own experiments at home (on a thread at WS about a year ago) that a piece of duct tape placed across a child's mouth can be removed in seconds by the child simply by her using her tongue. Therefore, there must have been something stuffed into JonBenet's mouth, such as a handkerchief or a sock. The tape alone wouldn't have done the job.

A predicted result from a handkerchief or sock stuffed into her mouth? AN ARTIFACT ON THE TIP OF THE TONGUE.

JMO

OR it could be them ol' straws we are grasping at right now! It is probably just something really insignificant. A doctor is not going to leave out something on an official autopsy report just because a police officer tells them to, on a Soap Opera maybe, but not in real life! That would be compromising his credentials. I just cannot see any honorable, respected ME doing that.

 

[BlueCrab]

OR it could be them ol' straws we are grasping at right now! It is probably just something really insignificant. A doctor is not going to leave out something on an official autopsy report just because a police officer tells them to, on a Soap Opera maybe, but not in real life! That would be compromising his credentials. I just cannot see any honorable, respected ME doing that.

Twizzler,

Meyer didn't leave it out. He called it an artifact. He's covered.

JMO