Second autopsy and other objects with touch DNA

[voynich]

what do you hope a second autopsy should investigate?

I ask for a cease-fire between the IDI and RDI and compose a list

Not on the garrote. As some always choose to remind us, the Rs SHOULD have no connection with it at all. Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree.
Right.
EXACTLY!
NOW you're talking my language! Although, by now I doubt there'd be enough left for testing either.

So what do we hope to discover with a second autopsy, if the body is still in good condition?

1 stun gun marks? (i.e biopsy lesions)
2 "chronic" sexual abuse
3 whether she clawed at the ligature? (some bruising under ligature)
4- whether head blow or strangulation came first, if even possible
5 - "touch" DNA

assuming of course the corpse is not in such a state of decay.

if you wish, add details about how this will support your IDI or RDI theory and how it would affect if both are present.

which objects such as the ligature would you want tested for touch DNA?



i.e stun gun marks imply IDI, chronic sexual abuse imply RDI.

 

[DeeDee249]

Certainly the abrasions should be tested for evidence of an electric burn. BTW, I am one RDI who can still accept the stun gun use by an R.

The claw marks were already disproved at the autopsy. They were stated in the report to be petechiae. Claw marks are scratches, and there is a breaking of the skin. Petechiae are UNDER the skin. The coroner knows the difference. Her own skin was NOT found under her nails, as would be the case if she had clawed at her neck. The debris under her nails was degraded- so old it could not be identified, which means it didn't come from that night.

The sexual assault was also proved at autopsy. The hymen was eroded. NOTHING but sexual contact can erode the hymen of a 6-year old girl. NOTHING. Not bubble baths. Not tight clothing. Not nylon panties. Not masturbation. The hymen eroded when someone OTHER than JBR rubbed something against it. The coroner told those present at the autopsy (including at least one police officer) that the erosion looked to be the result of digital penetration, not penile penetration (which would have broken the hymen). Erosion takes time- happening as a result of several instances. The coroner described some vaginal injuries as "chronic", which means existing, or happening at least once before that night. Blood found in the vestibule of the vagina and on the forchette indicate sexual contact. 6 year old girls do not menstruate. ANY presence of her own blood there is evidence of sexual assault regardless of what caused it or when it happened (before or after death).

I'd love to know whether the head blow came first. To know for sure can help with retracing the timeline of events and even help to try to figure out what happened.

I'd like to see the following items tested for touch DNA (or ANY DNA):
The garrote.
The tape
The blanket
The pink nightie
The comforter and sheets on her bed
The rope found in JAR's room, as well as the dust ruffle on his bed
The spoon, glass, teabag tested for saliva as well
The kleenex box
The dining room chairs (where she last ate the pineapple)
The knob of the drawer that held the flashlight
The suitcase handle (this might backfire- FW said he was the one who moved it under the window when he looked at the broken window, but I'd still like to see if there is a match with the touch DNA already found on her clothes)
The basement window frame, latch, etc,
The chair that was found pulled in front of the train room door
The bat that was found outside
The metal grate on the window well
The cigar box from the wineceller, as well as the log grabber that is show in photos of that room

Of course, this is just a wish list. Some of these things are long gone, like the dining room chairs, and the house itself has been painted and any carpets that were there were removed, not long after the crime actually.

 

[madeleine]

Speaking of which,I'd like to see a reconstruction of the IDI theory.(and NO,not a lou smit-ish one,a serious one,based on what they have(not much supporting the IDI theory IMO anyway,still...))
Cause I keep trying to imagine how a stranger did all that and got away and it just doesn't make sense.
I just hope they test EVERYTHING.
Too bad the crime scene wasn't preserved in the first place,I think the guilty one would have been behind bars by now,sigh,but you never know what comes up.
And yeah,I would like the bruises to be re-examined if possible so we can exclude once and for all the stun gun myth.

 

[voynich]

Speaking of which,I'd like to see a reconstruction of the IDI theory.(and NO,not a lou smit-ish one,a serious one,based on what they have(not much supporting the IDI theory IMO anyway,still...))
Cause I keep trying to imagine how a stranger did all that and got away and it just doesn't make sense.
I just hope they test EVERYTHING.
Too bad the crime scene wasn't preserved in the first place,I think the guilty one would have been behind bars by now,sigh,but you never know what comes up.
And yeah,I would like the bruises to be re-examined if possible so we can exclude once and for all the stun gun myth.

Speaking for myself only, I cannot rule a variety of possible scenarios with the current evidence, for example, JB's "secret visit from Santa" could have been a pre-arranged agreement between JB and IDI, she allowed him in as a "friend" hence no obvious forced entry. While I know RDI find this far-fetched, there's no obvious reason for JB to tell this to (pam?), and when corrected -- Santa doesn't visit Christmas DAY, only Christmas Night -- she maintained she has an appointment.

So prior Santa and JB played doctor. Santa being of any age. Santa comes knocking, JB pretends to be asleep, wakes up, opens to door for him. He enters with his equipment. She asks for pineapple and tells him where it is and he obliges. Initially he wears winter gloves. No prints.
He does his deed, writes the RN, stages the scene and leaves. The available evidence does not rule out the possibility of this IDI having more than 1 person, nor motive (molestation, kidnapping for ransom, or plain murder, framing etc.)

 

[DeeDee249]

Speaking for myself only, I cannot rule a variety of possible scenarios with the current evidence, for example, JB's "secret visit from Santa" could have been a pre-arranged agreement between JB and IDI, she allowed him in as a "friend" hence no obvious forced entry. While I know RDI find this far-fetched, there's no obvious reason for JB to tell this to (pam?), and when corrected -- Santa doesn't visit Christmas DAY, only Christmas Night -- she maintained she has an appointment.

So prior Santa and JB played doctor. Santa being of any age. Santa comes knocking, JB pretends to be asleep, wakes up, opens to door for him. He enters with his equipment. She asks for pineapple and tells him where it is and he obliges. Initially he wears winter gloves. No prints.
He does his deed, writes the RN, stages the scene and leaves. The available evidence does not rule out the possibility of this IDI having more than 1 person, nor motive (molestation, kidnapping for ransom, or plain murder, framing etc.)

While this theory does seem possible, the utter lack of any intruder forensic evidence anywhere on the BODY or the crime scene or the home for that matter (with the exception of the touch DNA) makes it implausible. Theoretically, the touch DNA donor should have left evidence other areas, IF that donor was connected to the crime. That hasn't been proven. The donor was connected to the CLOTHING on the victim, not to the body or the actual crime at this point. Show me a match from that DNA in a crime-related area (garrote, tape, etc) and you'll get me thinkin'...

 

[voynich]

the utter lack of any intruder forensic evidence anywhere on the BODY or the crime scene or the home for that matter ..

well there's the garrote, the paintbrush, the RN esp forensic linguistics, unidentified boot print (alleged to be BR) a, suitcase, unsourced tape, animal hair (beaver according to Carnes) palm print (alleged to be Mellisa R) suitcase, for starters. Evidence which RDI interprets as "staging" -- I've wondered about this, since in other domestic murders from BTK to OJ, what is staging and what is the direct result of the murderer's deed is open to debate. I'd like to point out that Dennis Raider/BTK not only killed his victims, but cut their phone lines and in some cases, staged the CSI to look like a suicide (and actually succeeded -- only his confession revealed otherwise)

the touch DNA matched the earlier DNA mixed with her blood found in her undies from 1996 investigation.
I agree 100% about identifying other DNA.

 

[SeekingJana]

Before we discuss exhumation, could someone post a link to a case where " touch DNA" solved a murder consisting of at least a strangulation, a massive skull fracture, labial and vaginal injuries, attempts to clean part of the body and partial redressing?

One, just one solved by " touch DNA", and classified as such.

 

[DeeDee249]

well there's the garrote, the paintbrush, the RN esp forensic linguistics, unidentified boot print (alleged to be BR) a, suitcase, unsourced tape, animal hair (beaver according to Carnes) palm print (alleged to be Mellisa R) suitcase, for starters. Evidence which RDI interprets as "staging" -- I've wondered about this, since in other domestic murders from BTK to OJ, what is staging and what is the direct result of the murderer's deed is open to debate. I'd like to point out that Dennis Raider/BTK not only killed his victims, but cut their phone lines and in some cases, staged the CSI to look like a suicide (and actually succeeded -- only his confession revealed otherwise)

the touch DNA matched the earlier DNA mixed with her blood found in her undies from 1996 investigation.
I agree 100% about identifying other DNA.

The garrote, tape are not sourced to an intruder. They need prints or other DNA to have that accomplished. At this point, their source is unknown - We have NO DNA results from either. But we DO have Patsy's jacket fibers (the jacket she wore that day) found intwined in the garrote knot and on the inside of the tape. Keep in mind that a R receipt from McGuckin's Hardware for items matching them does exist.
The suitcase belongs to JAR. (as identified by the Rs in a depo)
I'd bet the rent the animal hair is from one of PR's paintbrushes. Beaver is commonly used.
The paper and pen used for the R are both PROVEN sourced to the house. They certainly do not point to an intruder bringing them in - we KNOW where they are from.
The palm print isn't "allegedly" Melinda's. It WAS Melinda's. That was certainly easy enough for them to prove.

 

[voynich]

Before we discuss exhumation, could someone post a link to a case where " touch DNA" solved a murder consisting of at least a strangulation, a massive skull fracture, labial and vaginal injuries, attempts to clean part of the body and partial redressing?

One, just one solved by " touch DNA", and classified as such.

How many murder cases are there with all of the above, minus touch DNA? For that matter, how many parents did all of the above to their daughter, minus R's?

 

[voynich]

The garrote, tape are not sourced to an intruder. They need prints or other DNA to have that accomplished. At this point, their source is unknown - We have NO DNA results from either. But we DO have Patsy's jacket fibers (the jacket she wore that day) found intwined in the garrote knot and on the inside of the tape. Keep in mind that a R receipt from McGuckin's Hardware for items matching them does exist.
The suitcase belongs to JAR. (as identified by the Rs in a depo)
I'd bet the rent the animal hair is from one of PR's paintbrushes. Beaver is commonly used.
The paper and pen used for the R are both PROVEN sourced to the house. They certainly do not point to an intruder bringing them in - we KNOW where they are from.
The palm print isn't "allegedly" Melinda's. It WAS Melinda's. That was certainly easy enough for them to prove.

I didn't know that paint brushes are made of beaver hair -- they seem to me to be mostly synthetic fibers (nylon). Not that I'm an expert but aren't beavers an endangered species?

So PR was wearing her jacket when she was garroting JB? Is there transfer of JB (hair, skin, rope fibers, beaver hair) on her jacket?

I am aware many of the items are unsourced, but they could be read as either RDI from their own items or IDI bringing with him rope, etc. The claim about the suitcase is that it was MOVED and deliberately placed under the open basement window (not that any RDI would believe this I know)

 

[JMO8778]

Speaking of which,I'd like to see a reconstruction of the IDI theory.(and NO,not a lou smit-ish one,a serious one,based on what they have(not much supporting the IDI theory IMO anyway,still...))
Cause I keep trying to imagine how a stranger did all that and got away and it just doesn't make sense.
I just hope they test EVERYTHING.
Too bad the crime scene wasn't preserved in the first place,I think the guilty one would have been behind bars by now,sigh,but you never know what comes up.
And yeah,I would like the bruises to be re-examined if possible so we can exclude once and for all the stun gun myth.

Smit did a sloppy job of climbing *in the window,but has he ever demonstrated how someone could actually stand ON such a suitcase and climb OUT the window?? appears to be an impossible feat,oh and...said intruder needs to be thoughtful enough to replace that window grate,too (after having made a lot of noise 'moving' it!).

 

[JMO8778]

Fleet White said he moved the suitcase when he was looking around that morning,and Thomas said the pics were not time-stamped,so it's impossible to say exactly when that suitcase got underneath the window.

If I'm not mistaken,it was Melinda's fiance who said Patsy was standing in the front yard wearing a pair of fur boots shortly after they arrived.(or rather,I think it was boots w fur around the top).Now when you read DOI,JR practically calls Stewart a liar when he says Patsy came running twds them..(..he must make a real nice father in law! (not!))
SO for that reason,I do not discount the fact that animal fur from the crime could have come from her boots.

 

[madeleine]

Speaking for myself only, I cannot rule a variety of possible scenarios with the current evidence, for example, JB's "secret visit from Santa" could have been a pre-arranged agreement between JB and IDI, she allowed him in as a "friend" hence no obvious forced entry. While I know RDI find this far-fetched, there's no obvious reason for JB to tell this to (pam?), and when corrected -- Santa doesn't visit Christmas DAY, only Christmas Night -- she maintained she has an appointment.

So prior Santa and JB played doctor. Santa being of any age. Santa comes knocking, JB pretends to be asleep, wakes up, opens to door for him. He enters with his equipment. She asks for pineapple and tells him where it is and he obliges. Initially he wears winter gloves. No prints.
He does his deed, writes the RN, stages the scene and leaves. The available evidence does not rule out the possibility of this IDI having more than 1 person, nor motive (molestation, kidnapping for ransom, or plain murder, framing etc.)

Yes it makes sense and I often wondered about Santa myself but what about the fiber evidence ,it all points to the R's.

In the course of the interview with Patsy Ramsey, prosecutors asserted that investigators had found:

Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."


http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

Do you think he planted them?

If it was Santa then it MUST have been someone she knew very well,someone she trusted and liked and as far as I know everybody was tested.

If it was Santa,did he bring a gift as well?Was he dressed like Santa when he came to visit her that night?(kinda uncomfortable)

Wasn't he afraid that a R would wake up?

 

[madeleine]

Fleet White said he moved the suitcase when he was looking around that morning,and Thomas said the pics were not time-stamped,so it's impossible to say exactly when that suitcase got underneath the window.
If I'm not mistaken,it was Melinda's fiance who said Patsy was standing in the front yard wearing a pair of fur boots shortly after they arrived.(or rather,I think it was boots w fur around the top).Now when you read DOI,JR practically calls Stewart a liar when he says Patsy came running twds them..(..he must make a real nice father in law! (not!))
SO for that reason,I do not discount the fact that animal fur from the crime could have come from her boots.

yup@bolded

 

[madeleine]

Smit did a sloppy job of climbing *in the window,but has he ever demonstrated how someone could actually stand ON such a suitcase and climb OUT the window?? appears to be an impossible feat,oh and...said intruder needs to be thoughtful enough to replace that window grate,too (after having made a lot of noise 'moving' it!).

Let's stop talking about smit pls
I DO find IDI theories very interesting and I am still not 100% sure that it was a Ramsey even if I tend to believe it and find it very probably that it was but I never liked smit and he really annoys me.

And re the window,it was JOHN RAMSEY's own words who made me believe that something stinks about it big time!!It's one of the things that makes me point the finger at him.I just can't get over it.It was locked,it wasn't locked,he broke it,he doesn't know when,all the trips to the basement.DOesn't sound right and never will.

 

[voynich]

Fleet White said he moved the suitcase when he was looking around that morning,and Thomas said the pics were not time-stamped,so it's impossible to say exactly when that suitcase got underneath the window.

If I'm not mistaken,it was Melinda's fiance who said Patsy was standing in the front yard wearing a pair of fur boots shortly after they arrived.(or rather,I think it was boots w fur around the top).Now when you read DOI,JR practically calls Stewart a liar when he says Patsy came running twds them..(..he must make a real nice father in law! (not!))
SO for that reason,I do not discount the fact that animal fur from the crime could have come from her boots.

Where are these boots now? If beavers are an endangered species, isn't it sort of like making a feather bonnet out of bald eagle feathers?

 

[voynich]

Yes it makes sense and I often wondered about Santa myself but what about the fiber evidence ,it all points to the R's.

In the course of the interview with Patsy Ramsey, prosecutors asserted that investigators had found:

Fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape John Ramsey removed from his daughter's mouth when he says he discovered her body in the basement wine cellar that are "identical" to fibers in the red sweater-jacket Patsy was photographed wearing at a Christmas dinner at a friends' house the previous day.

Fibers from the same type of jacket in the paint tray from which a brush was taken that was used to help fashion the ligature found around JonBenet's neck.

Fibers from the same type of jacket "tied into" the ligature.

Fibers from the same type of black wool shirt made in Israel that John Ramsey wore to the Christmas dinner "in" the panties JonBenet was wearing when she found and in her "crotch area."


http://www.crimemagazine.com/solvingjbr-main.htm

Do you think he planted them?

One possibility is that the fiber is there due to transfer or environmental. Pretty much any RDI 'explanation' for DNA could be used to explain fiber, Patty "hugged" JB with the sweater and jacket, and so it was on JB's person. Then a hypothetical IDI would transfer such stray fibers onto a sticky surface like tape

If it was Santa then it MUST have been someone she knew very well,someone she trusted and liked and as far as I know everybody was tested.

If it was Santa,did he bring a gift as well?Was he dressed like Santa when he came to visit her that night?(kinda uncomfortable)

You know, we could actually sort of test out these ideas.

We ask group of volunteer young 6 year old blond wf who match JB in intelligence and psychology, with their parents full knowledge and consent.

We then ask them to meet them after bedtime, after everyone is fallen asleep, and see what % does so, or leave the door unlocked. We could vary the experiment by having them dress up as Santa claus or in plain clothes.

Let's suppose hypothetically speaking a group of child psychologists have an actor tell a 6 y/o wf that Santa is coming, and leave door unlocked or meet them after everyone has gone to sleep for a special visit and secret gift.

let's suppose out of "representative sample" of 6 y/o wf, 20, 19 comply. Then the likelihood JB might have done this is pretty good. If only 1/20 or 0 comply then the likelihood is pretty not so good.

I don't have preconceived notions of how most wf 6 y/o's would respond, and whether their response would differ based on closeness, dress, Santa clauss appearance, date of the year, etc. We could even vary using blacks, hispanics, boys, children of gay couples, poor children, low or high iq, christian or atheist, etc.

Of course this would beg the question of why this sort of thing doesn't happen more often? My reply is most people aren't child-killers. Now that I think about this, if this research were published, and showed most 6 y/o wf would leave a door unlocked for a "friend" they trust, I'm not sure that's such a good thing. If this is what research shows, then it kidnapping by some teenager where $118k is a lot of money, might be more plausible.

Wasn't he afraid that a R would wake up?

That's sort of the same objection I have about Burke -- if he were to wake up and saw what his parents were doing, how would they have responded? How could they be *sure*, short of death, that he would not tattle on them. Unless, of course, BDI.

 

[Ames]

I didn't know that paint brushes are made of beaver hair -- they seem to me to be mostly synthetic fibers (nylon). Not that I'm an expert but aren't beavers an endangered species?

So PR was wearing her jacket when she was garroting JB? Is there transfer of JB (hair, skin, rope fibers, beaver hair) on her jacket?

I am aware many of the items are unsourced, but they could be read as either RDI from their own items or IDI bringing with him rope, etc. The claim about the suitcase is that it was MOVED and deliberately placed under the open basement window (not that any RDI would believe this I know)

I looked on the internet and I can't find ANY paintbrushes made of Beaver Hair. Some are made of Camel hair, though. Patsy's fur boots...that she wore to the White's...were thought to have been made from Beaver hair. The police wanted them so that they could test them. I don't know if they ever were or not.

==============================
This is from the Bonita Papers..

CLOTHING

One of the problems in the investigation was delayed gathering of
evidence. It was not until almost a year after the murder that the Boulder police through D.A. Hofstrom finally asked for the clothing worn by Ramsey family members to Whites’ dinner party on the night of December 25. Fleet had taken photos during the holiday gathering which were turned over to the police department, and police request the clothing that was depicted in these photos. Another month would go by before the Ramseys, through their legal counsel and private investigators, would comply with this request.
At that time, two black shirts from John and black pants and a red and black checked sweater from Patsy were provided. Two months later additional clothing, a red short sleeved shirt and a red turtleneck shirt, were also turned over by Patsy through the private investigator. The police department was informed that since John owned several pairs of khaki pants matching those in the photograph, John had not been able to determine which pair were worn on December 25. Not only had all of this clothing probably been reworn and been through many cleaning or laundering processes, the move from the Ramsey home had been done by a professional moving company. once again, contamination of evidence obtained from these articles of clothing could very likely present problems in any prosecution.

Considering the delayed cooperation from the Ramseys in turning over the clothing, it was significant what items of clothing requested by the police department were not turned over. Patsy had told the officers that she had worn black short boots, to the White’s dinner party. The boots had never beaver been given to police officials in spite of repeated requests. At a subsequent session with the police department to give handwriting samples, Patsy had been wearing short black fur boots, and the detectives wondered if these were the boots that the Ramseys were saying they could not locate. The detectives were anxious to locate the fur boots to test for beaver hair.

=========================

From Ames: So Patsy said that she could not locate the boots that she had worn to the White's, so she couldn't turn them over to investigators....yeah, right. How do you lose a pair of boots?

 

[JMO8778]

Where are these boots now? If beavers are an endangered species, isn't it sort of like making a feather bonnet out of bald eagle feathers?

no more so than say,an intruder keeping one as a pet,then playing with it before coming to the R's house.not likely.
More likely that Patsy had some article that contained fur from this endangered species,than an intruder just happened to have some fur on himself.

 

[JMO8778]

Let's stop talking about smit pls
I DO find IDI theories very interesting and I am still not 100% sure that it was a Ramsey even if I tend to believe it and find it very probably that it was but I never liked smit and he really annoys me.

And re the window,it was JOHN RAMSEY's own words who made me believe that something stinks about it big time!!It's one of the things that makes me point the finger at him.I just can't get over it.It was locked,it wasn't locked,he broke it,he doesn't know when,all the trips to the basement.DOesn't sound right and never will.

possibly he broke it some time that morning.I can't recall seeing any reports of a broken window from LE upon their arrival.If I'm missing that,then someone pls correct me.
Smit the schmuck..my name for him.I think he felt sorry for Patsy having cancer,and that was a lot of the reason he covered for her,IMO.(and who knows what all else the R's or their attorneys may have made up).But ok,enough of him,I agree.