Evidence you can't explain

[BOESP]

I’ve wondered these same questions. Some things are unclear. The “bifringent” material might have arrived on a gloved finger, and something else may have caused her vaginal injuries that night. But assuming a paintbrush injury, I agree this makes no sense as a mock pedo scene to thereafter clean and redress her.

The FBI said there was likely 2 killers, one organized and one disorganized. So in that line of thinking there could have been 2 stagers at this point and it is one idea for resolving a conflicted scene. However, I’m thinking this part with the paintbrush may have been PR’s. Disorganized example: Some things just do not track, A,B, C, D etc. They might do A and then decide to tackle D and then go back to B. “Oh, yeah, JR can’t stand the sight of blood so I’d better clean her up.”

Meyer said the likely instrument (the paintbrush) wasn’t gently inserted, but jabbed into her. I agree it seems so improbable that anyone would think that this would hide prior abuse (staging) Another scenario to the idea of hiding prior abuse is based on a mother blaming the victim, and this might point to PR who may have had a violent reaction to her daughter’s involvement in sex with a member of the family (moo, this went beyond a ‘playing doctor’ scenario). So the paintbrush may have been an assault on JB with dual motivations – disguise prior abuse plus real anger at the victim.
All this MOO.

BBM. Questfortrue, I've not seen the "organized/disorganized + two killers" statement from the FBI. Would you give a link for the statement please? TIA

 

[UKGuy]

Sorry, quest, but I have to call you on the two bolded.

I don't think the FBI actually said there were likely two killers. If I'm not mistaken, seems like a former FBI profiler (either McCrary, or maybe Ressler) stated in an interview that the crime scene showed signs of both organized and disorganized personalities. But IIRC, he also stated that much of what was present in the crime scene was most likely staging. Seems like he was trying to say (without actually stating it) that he thought both adult Ramseys were complicit at least in the staging.

Also, Dr. Meyer never (TMK) never spoke about the autopsy results to anyone outside of the investigation, so all we know is what is written in the AR and what others have stated (as in the search warrants) about his comments. From those sources, he never stated that the paintbrush was actually what was used. Nor did he ever state that it was a finger that was inserted. He also never stated anything about the gentle vs. violent nature of the violation -- and he absolutely never used the word "jabbed" in describing how anything was used. Instead, all we know is what he stated in the AR, and reports in the search warrants of his having stated during the autopsy that the vaginal injuries were "consistent with digital penetration". And even that does not mean that a finger was actually used. He's simply trying in that observation to note that the penetration was not what would be expected to be found under circumstances of a typical rape.

I know some here have inferred that because the two phrases ("sexual assault" and "digital penetration") have been used, there were two separate type of assaults. And then the inference is carried to another level and stated as being a digital assault and a separate assault with the paintbrush. But that is not what was stated. It doesn't mean it couldn't have actually happened of course -- but the coroner never stated that.

otg,
http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that she observed entangled in the hair of the child a green substance. Based upon her observations while at the residence on December 26, 1996, she believed that the green substance observed in the hair of the child was consistent with the green "garland" like decorative Christmas material that she had observed to be decorating the spiral staircase inside the child's home.

Det. Arndt stated to Your Affiant that she was present and observed a visual examination by Dr. Meyer of the shirt worn by the child. She observed and Dr. Meyer preserved dark fibers and dark hair found on the outside of the shirt

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

In the presence of Det. Arndt, Det. Tom Trujillo of the Boulder Police Department, used a black florescent light the view the body including the pubic area of the victim in an attempt to observe the possible presence of semen or seminal fluid. (Your Affiant knows from previous experience and training that substances such as semen or seminal fluid, not visible to the unaided eye, may become visible when viewed under a black florescent light). Det. Arndt stated that she observed florescent areas of the upper inner and outer left thigh, as well as the upper and inner right thigh. Det. Arndt stated that her observations of the result of the black florescent light observation is consistent with the presence of semen or seminal fluid.

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer swab these florescent areas. Dr. Meyer was also observed by Det. Arndt to obtain vaginal, oral and anal swabs from the child's body. (According to examination conducted at the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, no semen was located on the body, panties, or clothing of JonBenet Ramsey).

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public (sic) area having been wiped by a cloth.

I interpret this as Coroner Meyer opining that JonBenet sustained Sexual Contact and that this took the form of Digital Penetration, i.e use of a finger, following which she was wiped down?





.

 

[BOESP]

The injuries described in the autopsy and in the above post by UKGuy also seem consistent with Steve Thomas's theory of corporal cleansing, which could be considered sexual in nature if it involved cleaning JonBenet's privates. The ropes could also play a part in corporal cleansing as a restraining device.

 

[Linda7NJ]

perhaps you meant to say " after he couldn't get it up...

No, that's not what I meant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[UKGuy]

The injuries described in the autopsy and in the above post by UKGuy also seem consistent with Steve Thomas's theory of corporal cleansing, which could be considered sexual in nature if it involved cleaning JonBenet's privates. The ropes could also play a part in corporal cleansing as a restraining device.

BOESP,
Sure, but if its Corporal Cleaning gone wrong, why does Coroner Meyer opine Sexual Contact?

Is there not a difference in intent between the two modes of injury?



.

 

[Linda7NJ]

BOESP,
Sure, but if its Corporal Cleaning gone wrong, why does Coroner Meyer opine Sexual Contact?

Is there not a difference in intent between the two modes of injury?



.

I don't even understand the idea of corporal cleansing. Is that really even a thing? I've never heard of it before this case...and for years it was was actually my job to know these things....I've never heard or read about a single incidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[UKGuy]

I don't even understand the idea of corporal cleansing. Is that really even a thing? I've never heard of it before this case...and for years it was was actually my job to know these things....I've never heard or read about a single incidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Linda7NJ,
I guess it will have an entry in one of those symptoms books. I assume it refers to forced internal cleansing either by fluids or some other means, just plain cruelty?

I seriously doubt whether its a surrogate for Sexual Contact?


.

 

[otg]

otg,
http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm

I interpret this as Coroner Meyer opining that JonBenet sustained Sexual Contact and that this took the form of Digital Penetration, i.e use of a finger, following which she was wiped down?
.

Face it, UKG, we can interpret this any way we choose. But let's just remember exactly what Meyer wrote, and what he was reported to have said, and not start putting our own interpretations into account as something that he said. Penetration with anything is sexual contact -- whether it is a result of lascivious behavior or some form of misdirected punishment. Meyer's reported statement of something "consistent with digital penetration" simply implies that the object used was most likely similar in shape and size to a finger. The paintbrush would fit that description, as well as a finger. That doesn't mean that both were used, and it doesn't mean that something else might have been used. However, with the additional information that material consistent with the paintbrush was found in her vagina, MOO is that the missing end of the paintbrush is what caused the acute vaginal injuries found during the autopsy.

 

[questfortrue]

BBM. Questfortrue, I've not seen the "organized/disorganized + two killers" statement from the FBI. Would you give a link for the statement please? TIA

It's explained somewhat in my post 96. But to give you more detail, and I'm sorry, believe I mixed up two separate opinions (FBI Agent Walker and former FBI profiler JD). Except that the FBI at the scene were very pointedly arguing to look at the parents. This is from both ST's book and Kolar's book.

Regards the FBI comments: Kolar wrote in his book that the FBI investigators told Commander Eller to look at the parents. And then they also advised further that the circumstances of the crime told them that two 'hands' (I interpreted as two people) were involved in the murder. (I'm not able to furnish page numbers in my laptop Kindle version)

Now whether the FBI, in their statements, were simply looking at staging and implying that involvement means 2 killers or 2 stagers, or 1 killer and 1 stager, Kolar does not make clear in his book. It was Kolar himself who indicated the crime scene showed both organization and disorganization. But one also has the comment from JD, FBI profiler who said the “individual” showed both signs of organization and disorganization. He thought that inferred that the "individual" was an unsophisticated criminal. moo

 

[UKGuy]

Face it, UKG, we can interpret this any way we choose. But let's just remember exactly what Meyer wrote, and what he was reported to have said, and not start putting our own interpretations into account as something that he said. Penetration with anything is sexual contact -- whether it is a result of lascivious behavior or some form of misdirected punishment. Meyer's reported statement of something "consistent with digital penetration" simply implies that the object used was most likely similar in shape and size to a finger. The paintbrush would fit that description, as well as a finger. That doesn't mean that both were used, and it doesn't mean that something else might have been used. However, with the additional information that material consistent with the paintbrush was found in her vagina, MOO is that the missing end of the paintbrush is what caused the acute vaginal injuries found during the autopsy.

otg,
Yes the evidence actually allows for both interpretations simultaneously. That Coroner Meyer employs the term digital appears to bias his opinion towards that of a finger?

Otherwise he might have used the other commonly used term Instrument sometimes rendered as an object.

My take on it this is the common sense one, in my BDI I assume a digital assault followed up with a paintbrush assault intended as staging?


.

 

[otg]

Along your line of thought, questfortrue, on the "unsophisticated criminal", this is an interesting article where Gregg McCrary was interviewed:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/profiling/mccrary/2.html

In part, while speaking about the Sam Shephard case, McCrary says this:

After examining hundreds, perhaps thousands, of actual crime scenes, it's clear to me that a staged scene -- even one presented by an otherwise intelligent offender -- leaps out as being staged.

Sam Sheppard made the mistakes a lot of criminally unsophisticated people make; he tried to stage it to look like three different types of crimes:

1. He tried to make it look like a sexual crime...
2. He also attempted to stage it to look like a for-profit burglary...
3. Then there appeared to be a drug-related crime...

Also interesting about that particular case was that DNA evidence which had been used to tie another suspect to the crime hadn't even been typed for ABO grouping. After evidence was presented of how the DNA probes matched the other suspect, it was revealed that they didn't even know that his blood type was "A" -- and the blood profiled in the DNA evidence was type "O". (So much for indisputable DNA evidence, eh?)

Personally, I like McCrary much more than Douglas. Anything Douglas might say I have to first consider whether it was said pre- or post- RCSO (Ramsey Case Sell Out).

 

[otg]

otg,
Yes the evidence actually allows for both interpretations simultaneously. That Coroner Meyer employs the term digital appears to bias his opinion towards that of a finger?

Otherwise he might have used the other commonly used term Instrument sometimes rendered as an object.

My take on it this is the common sense one, in my BDI I assume a digital assault followed up with a paintbrush assault intended as staging?
.

Okay. As I said:

Face it, UKG, we can interpret this any way we choose.

 

[UKGuy]

Okay. As I said:

otg,
Excellent whenever I publish my BDI there should be consensus on this point.


.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
Sure, but if its Corporal Cleaning gone wrong, why does Coroner Meyer opine Sexual Contact?

Is there not a difference in intent between the two modes of injury?


.

I don't know UKGuy. :dunno: Contact with sexual organs is sexual contact regardless of intent. She was molested no matter the intent, imo. Her body was invaded.

 

[gramcracker]

I think someone applied the concept of corporal punishment (slapping, spanking, swatting) to intentionally rough exterior wiping/cleaning after someone toilets (or soils their bed/clothing, furniture, a floor, etc)

the evidence that didn't work for me at first, and to a degree still doesn't, was the bowl of pineapple left in plain sight. was it meant to imply that an intimate intruder knew about JB's favorite snack, or that a stranger intruder quickly gained her confidence and learned it from her? or was the bowl simply overlooked during all the other staging? they established that everyone was asleep and that there was absolutely no history of the kids roaming the house after lights out. I don't think they could be 100% sure of what BR might say, if questioned. if he said he came upon JB snacking on pineapple or they were raiding the frig together then it would look bad if the pineapple bowl was removed. were the stomach contents more easily identified because of the bowl on the table? were they even thinking about the stomach being examined?

I don't know....all this crazy,creepy staging,everything that happened after the crime (cover-up,and not only by the R team,by the DA office and the rest) makes me think that something very sick went on in that household....the disfunction,the behavior,the reactions...I agree that their medical records are key to solviong this crime...whoever did this (not only killing JB,but covering it up like this) definitely has a problem (mental??)...

:moo:

which is borne out by Dr B being in on the conversation when JR decided to hire an atty (JR/JF/Dr B). it's one thing to bring meds for PR and a totally different thing to be a party to the legal strategy. to say that he would destroy the medical records if asked to produce them = wowzer

 

[BOESP]

Gramcracker, I understand what you are saying in post #115 above but Burke did state that JonBenet was awake and walked into the house on her own. So, that showed that the parents lied. I think they just didn't consider the pineapple as important. They knew she was awake but maybe didn't know she had a couple of bites of pineapple. Either way, the only importance I place on the pineapple being a "bugaboo" as Lou Smit called it is that it proves JonBenet was awake thus the Ramseys lied.

Why would they lie is the question? To me the answer is simple. If she was awake then they need to come up with a story to explain what was going on. If she was asleep then they can claim they know nothing about what happened.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know UKGuy. :dunno: Contact with sexual organs is sexual contact regardless of intent. She was molested no matter the intent, imo. Her body was invaded.

BOESP,
nope I disagree, contact does not mandate sexual intent, contact might be of cleansing intent as outlined by Steve Thomas.

.

 

[BOESP]

BOESP,
nope I disagree, contact does not mandate sexual intent, contact might be of cleansing intent as outlined by Steve Thomas.

.

I agree with the above BBM. If that's not what I originally said it is what I originally meant.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree with the above BBM. If that's not what I originally said it is what I originally meant.

BOESP,
Good, cleansing as a theory is still relevant, its just the sexual aspect that evades explanation within this context?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Gramcracker, I understand what you are saying in post #115 above but Burke did state that JonBenet was awake and walked into the house on her own. So, that showed that the parents lied. I think they just didn't consider the pineapple as important. They knew she was awake but maybe didn't know she had a couple of bites of pineapple. Either way, the only importance I place on the pineapple being a "bugaboo" as Lou Smit called it is that it proves JonBenet was awake thus the Ramseys lied.

Why would they lie is the question? To me the answer is simple. If she was awake then they need to come up with a story to explain what was going on. If she was asleep then they can claim they know nothing about what happened.

BOESP,
Yes this was the R's strategy. You have left out a clue that can directly point to PR's involvement and hence PDI.

Any RDI theory must explain why the R's left out the pineapple snack, despite the forensic evidence being left on full display?


.