Does "Digitally Penetrated" mean by finger? If that's so, couldn't birefringent and cellulose both be linked to fingernail polish? It doesn't account for the splinter referenced, however.
Questions you'd like answers to...
- Thread starter Bev
- Start date
- Status
TL4S,
Yes it definitely means by the use of a finger.
I'm not certain that birefringent fingernail polish and cellulose are the same. The salient point regarding the Coroners use of the phrase Birefringent Foreign Material is he would have known precisely what the composition of the material was.
You can have both happening, i.e. Digital Penetration and the Splinter being separate aspects since you can promote postmortem assault, required as we assume splinters arise after the paintbrush is broken or that the Splinter represents evidence of staging?
The AR references red blood cells which indicate an assault before JonBenet has expired, consider how some think she was in a coma of sorts for over an hour?
Which is why I mention the missing piece of the paintbrush, compare and contrast the care taken by the the person using the paintbrush to place the remainder back in the paint tote.
.
Cellulose was "found" in the "birefringement material."
And notice how a "small amount" was found. Chances are, they could not definitively trace it back to the paintbrush because the amount was too small.
as well as silica
The Last Christmas Of JonBenet Ramsey
"What Dr. Meyer did find on the vaginal wall of Jonbenet, was 'birefringent material', This material appeared under the microscope, when it was exposed to a polarized light, and observed through a blue prism.
This material or substance was in fact, silica."
The Last Christmas Of JonBenet Ramsey
"What Dr. Meyer did find on the vaginal wall of Jonbenet, was 'birefringent material', This material appeared under the microscope, when it was exposed to a polarized light, and observed through a blue prism.
This material or substance was in fact, silica."
Tadpole12,
Nope, Cyril Wecht is only speculating, He is not offering Lab Test results just his opinion.
Common does not mean it was silica which is otherwise known as glass or sand.
.
Userid,
There are spectrographic tests that will identify what the material was and if it matched the paintbrush material.
These are standard procedures in a homicide case, its obvious they would be done, just that with Meyer's elliptic description of some common material, e.g. paintbrush resin or silica, paintbrush splinter or wood, talcum powder or silica, etc, he is not telling you, he is keeping it secret and has done done all these years.
Just like BPD don't tell us details of the underwear removed from the Ramsey's house !
.
There is absolutely zero proof whatsoever that the pathologist would keep it a secret. Again, that isn't the job of the pathologist.
Are you implying that there are never "inconclusive" conclusions when it comes to these type of tests? Or sample sizes that are too minimal to yield a conclusive answer? Because that's obviously false if that is your argument, and by the sound of it, it would have to be (your argument).
Thanks for the clarification UK.
But now I'm wondering if CW meant to say silicon/silicate?
google, What is...
"Talcum powder is made from talc, a mineral made up mainly of the elements magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. As a powder, it absorbs moisture well and helps cut down on friction, making it useful for keeping skin dry and helping to prevent rashes.Dec 4, 2018"
"Talc is a naturally occurring mineral, mined from the earth, composed of magnesium, silicon, oxygen, and hydrogen. Chemically, talc is a hydrous magnesium silicate with a chemical formula of Mg3Si4O10(OH)2.Aug 21, 2018"
But now I'm wondering if CW meant to say silicon/silicate?
google, What is...
"Talcum powder is made from talc, a mineral made up mainly of the elements magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. As a powder, it absorbs moisture well and helps cut down on friction, making it useful for keeping skin dry and helping to prevent rashes.Dec 4, 2018"
"Talc is a naturally occurring mineral, mined from the earth, composed of magnesium, silicon, oxygen, and hydrogen. Chemically, talc is a hydrous magnesium silicate with a chemical formula of Mg3Si4O10(OH)2.Aug 21, 2018"
Tadpole12,
Sure that's likely what he meant, but I'm certain he was either guessing or knew the information had been redacted so just offered a guesstimate, it happens all the time in cases, especially when the participants think nothing will come of it unless it goes to court.
Some reckon the Talcum Powder might be residue from latex gloves, i.e those worn by some who examined JonBenet.
Extra:
My understanding is that Talcum Powder is carcinogenic especially when used below the waist, its one of those results thats been out there for a long time but explained away as due to other factors, some big powder manufacturer is being sued over allegedly knowing this but doing nothing.
.
Last edited:
Userid.
Nope. I'm saying Coroner Meyer knew exactly what the common everyday name was for what he chose to describe as birefringement material.
If the Coroner knows its birefringement material. then it will have been identified, its birefringement index tells him what it is.
A similar Lab Test on the paintbrush found in the paint tote will either yield a match or not.
If Coroner Meyer knows the material is birefringement then he will not have a unknown result.
Birefringence is a property of the material its not another name for a type of material.
.
It was noted as such because that is the technical term for what was found. Nothing more, nothing less.
You have this kooky conspiracy in your head which is based on zero evidence but your own imagination.
And I know it's a property of a material. Many materials can be birefringent.
Userid,
Sure and you might be correct, then again you might be wrong, only a precise identification will tell us.
Nope, not a conspiracy a possibility, one that has not been ruled out, yet. There is a missing piece of paintbrush so the speculation continues ...
.
Simply because there is a missing piece of the paintbrush in no way whatsoever infers that the ME used code words in the AR. You're conflating.
Userid,
LOL, and members will know that you are confabulating, which is me being charitable.
I'm inferring that the missing piece of paintbrush could have been deliberately omitted from the Autopsy Report, because Coroner Meyer used technical jargon to refer what was likely wood?
That's not conflation its a hypothesis precisely because it can be falsified, which is why we are all here.
Next ...
.
Well, you've shown everyone that you once again don't really understand the meaning of another word, bravo.
Yes, that's a hypothesis alright: an incredibly weak one based on nothing but your own imagination. I'd more accurately call it a fantasy before I'd call it a hypothesis, as a hypothesis usually has, at the very least, limited evidence to fall back on. This "fantasy" has none.
Simply because the ME used techincal terminology in the AR is in no way evidence that said usage was nefarious. That's asinine.
Userid,
Who said it was nefarious that's a Perry Mason adjective. The use of technical terminology hides exactly what was found since it could be one of multiple materials.
You should just raise your arms and accept it is a possibility, just because you find the evidence either lacking or confusing is no reason to bar other members from considering this scenario.
.
Are you serious? You have been implying that it was nefarious this whole time. You've been saying that the ME deliberately used technical terms in order to conceal what was found -- that would fall under "nefarious."
You should just raise your arms and admit your fantasy is just that: fantasy. The evidence is neither lacking or confusing -- it's non-existent!
Me think someone doesn't know what nefarious means.
I think that the ME wouldn't say what the birefringent material was, was to preserve (somewhat) of the crime scene.
Only the perp, knows what he used in Jonbenet. so, if someone's being interrogated and the trip up and say there was a screwdriver used as opposed to the paintbrush, then IF the material was consistent with a screwdriver and not the paintbrush, well, then we've got our perp.
I only used a screwdriver as an example..
And MOO
I think that the ME wouldn't say what the birefringent material was, was to preserve (somewhat) of the crime scene.
Only the perp, knows what he used in Jonbenet. so, if someone's being interrogated and the trip up and say there was a screwdriver used as opposed to the paintbrush, then IF the material was consistent with a screwdriver and not the paintbrush, well, then we've got our perp.
I only used a screwdriver as an example..
And MOO
That's not really the question. The inference, is that the actual missing part of the paintbrush was found, but purposefully left out of the AR.
If you wanted to be purposefully vague (which I completely disagree with this premise, but for argument's sake), and the paintbrush was actually present, you could have used another term other than "birefringent material" to describe a chunk of wood that was serrated on both sides. You could have simply said "a foreign object." That could be anything also. But "birefringent material" was used because, it wasn't an entire piece (i.e. large part of the broken paintbrush), but rather, tiny specks.
Honestly, all one has to do is read the dang autopsy report. The "birefringent material" is listed under the section"Microscopic Description." In other words: specks that refracted light were found, which came from an unknown source.
Lastly, to put this ridiculous theory to bed: if the ME wanted to "preserve the crime scene" (whatever that means, considering the ME has absolutely nothing to do with the "scene," but rather, the actual victim), why wouldn't the ME have hidden the fact that the garrotte was made by the paintbrush as well? Why include it in one part of the AR (i.e. that it was found in the garrotte), but hide it in another part? Again, that doesn't make sense at all.
Since the AR does not identify the foreign "birefringent material" or cellulose, I personally don't know enough to draw any conclusions. I can see the argument that the report doesn't include known specifics (perhaps at the request of investigators) as an aid to preserve the investigation. But I can also see the argument that perhaps the material(s), or its source(s), was unidentifiable due to inadequate quantities, or other reasons. JMO
I am curious, though. There are many materials with birefringent properties that also contain some form of cellulose. Paint, detergents, soaps, cosmetics, nail polish, industrial dust, etc. etc. etc. If whatever the ME found WAS identified (even partially), and we know it could have possibly been introduced via "digital penetration," than that seems like key evidence for profiling, at the very least. If it was paint that matched the paintbrush, versus nail polish, versus industrial dust...those clues might lead in completely different directions.
Just some amateur thoughts.
- Status