Incest Crime vs Rage Attack

[maya.morgen]

Wouldn't there be a signifcant amount of JB's DNA on the painbrush, at least as far up on the handle as it went in, if he/she had inserted it up inside her? Has anyone ever read anything about whether or not there was DNA, blood or vaginal fluid, on the paintbrush handle?

did they ever test it? (rolling eyes at the LE not you)

iirc,the ends of it were broken,or?were those pieces ever found?

 

[UKGuy]

true,and if JR put the size 12's on her,as it appears,that begs the question...how did JR know where the size 12's were?



I do believe so.

JMO8778,

Either he knew about them already, or simply found them and went ah! panties, now lets pick the wednesday pair.

The alternative is to put Patsy in the frame, but thats as good as a personal signature, since her billing records would show she purchased them. Assuming Patsy redressed JonBenet then at a minimum she would have placed the remaining size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer with the excuse JonBenet whined for them etc.

Also consider all the other evidential staging and removal of evidence e.g. wiping clean of the flashlight. Patsy had all night to think things over, and the one thing that links her to the crime-scene, apart from her fibers etc, are those size-12's, do you really think the importance of this would have been lost on her, particularly if the intention of staging the wine-cellar crime-scene is to distance the Ramsey's from JonBenet's death?


.

 

[UKGuy]

did they ever test it? (rolling eyes at the LE not you)

iirc,the ends of it were broken,or?were those pieces ever found?

maya.morgen,
They will have been tested. One remaining piece of the paintbrush was found in the paint tote, and the other tied to the ligature around JonBenet's neck. The third piece, the one with the tapered end is missing, or was redacted from the autopsy report. This is standard practice in homicides since it can quickly filter out the wannabe notorious claims from the real deal.



.

 

[UKGuy]

Wouldn't there be a signifcant amount of JB's DNA on the painbrush, at least as far up on the handle as it went in, if he/she had inserted it up inside her? Has anyone ever read anything about whether or not there was DNA, blood or vaginal fluid, on the paintbrush handle?

trixie,
That piece of the paintbrush is missing or has been redacted. Either way alike the size-12's considered as staging it either represents another big mistake, or was deliberately left inside JonBenet?


.

 

[UKGuy]

While I am aware that the missing part of the paintbrush has not been accounted for (though if it was found actually inside her, this has not been made public) I feel that her vaginal injuries would have been more severe if she had been jabbed with it. There would be lacerations, not just bruising and reddish hyperemia as noted. I lean towards a splinter from the finger that had been used to break the paintbrush. But the fact that part of the paintbrush IS missing (as far as we are told) is compelling....
Talc is commonly found as a dusting on latex gloves. If talc was the birefringent material, it could have come from a glove. With such an absence of fingerprints, gloves must have been used. Wouldn't it have been wonderful of the Rs hands had been tested for traces of talc?

As far the coroner noting an absence of blood on the genitals while noting blood stains on the panties...I don't interpret it quite this way. As I see it, noting that the genital area (including her thighs) had been wiped down, and confirming this with a black light, is not the same as there being an "absence" of blood. Evidence of blood that has been wiped away shows that there WAS blood- but it is no longer visible because it was wiped away. But it WAS there.
IMHO, this is very different than an absence of blood. THAT, to me, would only be the case if there had never been any indication that blood had been wiped away and the black light test had been negative. We know that was not the case.
So to me, finding blood stains on the crotch of the panties ALONG WITH evidence that blood had been wiped from the area do go hand in hand.

DeeDee249,
Not knowing if the splinter represents a part from the broken paintbrush or the whole piece means its difficult to be definitive. Coroner Meyer did opine on digital penetration adding to the idea that the splinter arrived by finger?

But its also difficult to swing both ways, the use of latex gloves would have prevented the adhesion of splinters.


Why is it imperative to be so analytic regarding Coroner Meyers conclusion that JonBenet had been wiped with a cloth. He says he saw no blood on her exterior genital area, but noted blood stains on the corresponding area of her panties, concluding she had been wiped down. If the black light scan then shows traces of blood left after being wiped down, then that represents further proof. The affidivit wording is no visible reddish stains.

When are people going to accept that Coroner Meyers conclusion implies that JonBenet was wiped by a cloth after being redressed in the size-12's, and not before?


Use the evidence not your theory.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

Either he knew about them already, or simply found them and went ah! panties, now lets pick the wednesday pair.

The alternative is to put Patsy in the frame, but thats as good as a personal signature, since her billing records would show she purchased them. Assuming Patsy redressed JonBenet then at a minimum she would have placed the remaining size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer with the excuse JonBenet whined for them etc.

Also consider all the other evidential staging and removal of evidence e.g. wiping clean of the flashlight. Patsy had all night to think things over, and the one thing that links her to the crime-scene, apart from her fibers etc, are those size-12's, do you really think the importance of this would have been lost on her, particularly if the intention of staging the wine-cellar crime-scene is to distance the Ramsey's from JonBenet's death?


.

I agree,and I think he put the rest in the golf bag,which was removed by PP.And of course it appears they didn't ever discuss this.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree,and I think he put the rest in the golf bag,which was removed by PP.And of course it appears they didn't ever discuss this.

JMO8778,
Sure those size-12's were of no consequence, that is until they realized they had made a big mistake so returned them, hoping to confuse everyone into thinking they had been in the house all the time!



Later on , I can just see Patsy saying to John why did you pick those size-12's, thats made me a suspect, size-6's would have been better?

 

[rashomon]

When are people going to accept that Coroner Meyers conclusion implies that JonBenet was wiped by a cloth after being redressed in the size-12's, and not before?

Use the evidence not your theory

UKGuy,
never forget to leave common sense out of the equation.
For it makes no sense for the stager of the scene to wipe the body but still leave the bloodstains in the size 12 underwear. If the goal was to remove the blood to hide forensic evidence of sexual assault, then common sense dictates the stager would have removed the blood-stained underwear also.

The "no corresponding stains" statement also has to be examined more closely. For the vaginal wound was per definitionem an internal wound, so there could not have been any 'corresponding' stains on the underwear. For vaginal blood to stain underwear, the blood has to seep out (like menstrual blood), and how on earth would the coroner know where exactly such blood would end up on far too large underwear on a body??

 

[DeeDee249]

UKGuy,
never forget to leave common sense out of the equation.
For it makes no sense for the stager of the scene to wipe the body but still leave the bloodstains in the size 12 underwear. If the goal was to remove the blood to hide forensic evidence of sexual assault, then common sense dictates the stager would have removed the blood-stained underwear also.

The "no corresponding stains" statement also has to be examined more closely. For the vaginal wound was per definitionem an internal wound, so there could not have been any 'corresponding' stains on the underwear. For vaginal blood to stain underwear, the blood has to seep out (like menstrual blood), and how on earth would the coroner know where exactly such blood would end up on far too large underwear on a body??

That is what is likely at play here. As far as that black light test- in any case where a child is found murdered, the coroner will check for signs of a sexual assault. There were several reasons why the black light was used- first, the dissection of the vagina showed bruising, erosion and all the other indications that something had penetrated the vagina. Then there were blood stains on the panties, which of course was seen first, as they were removed before the autopsy. Those blood stains gave the coroner, and anyone else in the room, a good indication that there was a sexual aspect to the case. So, though there was no blood visible on her body, there was blood internally and on the panties. That would make someone think she'd been wiped down even without the black light. When it was used- at first LE and the coroner though it might be semen- testing showed it was JBR's own blood. This indicates to me that there WAS blood there. Just because it was no longer visible doesn't mean it wasn't there.
I feel it was wiped before the size 12s- because you can't wipe her pubic area while the panties are on. If you removed them and then SAW the blood stains, you'd get yet another (clean) pair to put on her...UNLESS the panties needed to say Wednesday. And we've explored that option already.
See, I believe she bled a lot more than those few "areas of red staining" indicate. To me, those areas represent what may have oozed out AFTER the stagers wiped her and thought she was "clean". I just feel they never saw those stains. If they went to the trouble of wiping her down (which I don't think any intruder would have done) they wouldn't leave blood-stained panties on her, even if the stains were small.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
never forget to leave common sense out of the equation.
For it makes no sense for the stager of the scene to wipe the body but still leave the bloodstains in the size 12 underwear. If the goal was to remove the blood to hide forensic evidence of sexual assault, then common sense dictates the stager would have removed the blood-stained underwear also.

The "no corresponding stains" statement also has to be examined more closely. For the vaginal wound was per definitionem an internal wound, so there could not have been any 'corresponding' stains on the underwear. For vaginal blood to stain underwear, the blood has to seep out (like menstrual blood), and how on earth would the coroner know where exactly such blood would end up on far too large underwear on a body??

rashomon,
Well here is the statement:

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 area having been wiped by a cloth.

We do not know the precise loacation on JonBenet's body that Coroner Meyer was referring to, but if you think his conclusion is flawed then please expand upon this view?

 

[UKGuy]

That is what is likely at play here. As far as that black light test- in any case where a child is found murdered, the coroner will check for signs of a sexual assault. There were several reasons why the black light was used- first, the dissection of the vagina showed bruising, erosion and all the other indications that something had penetrated the vagina. Then there were blood stains on the panties, which of course was seen first, as they were removed before the autopsy. Those blood stains gave the coroner, and anyone else in the room, a good indication that there was a sexual aspect to the case. So, though there was no blood visible on her body, there was blood internally and on the panties. That would make someone think she'd been wiped down even without the black light. When it was used- at first LE and the coroner though it might be semen- testing showed it was JBR's own blood. This indicates to me that there WAS blood there. Just because it was no longer visible doesn't mean it wasn't there.
I feel it was wiped before the size 12s- because you can't wipe her pubic area while the panties are on. If you removed them and then SAW the blood stains, you'd get yet another (clean) pair to put on her...UNLESS the panties needed to say Wednesday. And we've explored that option already.
See, I believe she bled a lot more than those few "areas of red staining" indicate. To me, those areas represent what may have oozed out AFTER the stagers wiped her and thought she was "clean". I just feel they never saw those stains. If they went to the trouble of wiping her down (which I don't think any intruder would have done) they wouldn't leave blood-stained panties on her, even if the stains were small.

DeeDee249,
Why do think Coroner Meyer disregarded your view that JonBenet continued to bleed after being redressed and this explains the blood-stains on her size-12's?


Also:

I just feel they never saw those stains. If they went to the trouble of wiping her down (which I don't think any intruder would have done) they wouldn't leave blood-stained panties on her, even if the stains were small.

If they never saw those stains at what stage did the birefringement foriegn material aka splinter arrive inside JonBenet?

Are you saying Coroner Meyers conclusion is flawed because he misjudged the visual evidence and failed to cite the results from the black light scan?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Why do think Coroner Meyer disregarded your view that JonBenet continued to bleed after being redressed and this explains the blood-stains on her size-12's?


Also:

If they never saw those stains at what stage did the birefringement foriegn material aka splinter arrive inside JonBenet?

Are you saying Coroner Meyers conclusion is flawed because he misjudged the visual evidence and failed to cite the results from the black light scan?


.

Coroner Meyer may not have disregarded my view at all. Just as he did not mention the partial fingerprint that was taken from the body, he may have simply not included it in his report. I am sure there is a LOT that was deliberately left out. I do nor feel he misjudged the visual evidence. He got it right. There had been blood there that was wiped away. The black light test showed conclusively that there had been blood there. The fact that it was no longer there, combined with the fibers found in the area, told him that it had been wiped away.

The birefringent material could have gotten there either from the assault or from wiping. If from the wiping, they though they had gotten it all- the clean panties were put on, and they didn't look there again.

 

[UKGuy]

Coroner Meyer may not have disregarded my view at all. Just as he did not mention the partial fingerprint that was taken from the body, he may have simply not included it in his report. I am sure there is a LOT that was deliberately left out. I do nor feel he misjudged the visual evidence. He got it right. There had been blood there that was wiped away. The black light test showed conclusively that there had been blood there. The fact that it was no longer there, combined with the fibers found in the area, told him that it had been wiped away.

The birefringent material could have gotten there either from the assault or from wiping. If from the wiping, they though they had gotten it all- the clean panties were put on, and they didn't look there again.

DeeDee249,

Coroner Meyer may not have disregarded my view at all.

Well its curious that he never mentioned any potential evidence that would have transformed his opinion to that of evidential fact?

The black light test showed conclusively that there had been blood there. The fact that it was no longer there, combined with the fibers found in the area, told him that it had been wiped away.

That sounds similar to my interpretation , and if Coroner Meyer's opinion is that there is no visible blood on her genital area matching the corresponding area on her size-12's then it must follow that the wiping clean of that area took place after she was redressed.

I'm suggesting that JonBenet was wiped down at least twice, and it is the second of these that Coroner Meyer is adducing evidence for, since the former wiping down could be inferred from the use of the Black Light Scan?

The birefringent material could have gotten there either from the assault or from wiping. If from the wiping, they though they had gotten it all- the clean panties were put on, and they didn't look there again.

So JonBenet was assaulted , wiped clean, then redressed in the size-12's. So do you consider her sexual assault to have occurred prior to her being whacked on the head or before?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

Well its curious that he never mentioned any potential evidence that would have transformed his opinion to that of evidential fact?


That sounds similar to my interpretation , and if Coroner Meyer's opinion is that there is no visible blood on her genital area matching the corresponding area on her size-12's then it must follow that the wiping clean of that area took place after she was redressed.

I'm suggesting that JonBenet was wiped down at least twice, and it is the second of these that Coroner Meyer is adducing evidence for, since the former wiping down could be inferred from the use of the Black Light Scan?


So JonBenet was assaulted , wiped clean, then redressed in the size-12's. So do you consider her sexual assault to have occurred prior to her being whacked on the head or before?


.

I still can't decide between these 2 scenarios:
"assault" by douching, she screams, bleeds, PR bashes her head into a hard bathroom surface/faucet.
OR she is assaulted with a finger or paintbrush, bleeds, screams, and is bashed in a knee-jerk reaction to silence her.
Either way, to me, the bash comes LAST.

 

[JMO8778]

I still can't decide between these 2 scenarios:
"assault" by douching, she screams, bleeds, PR bashes her head into a hard bathroom surface/faucet.
OR she is assaulted with a finger or paintbrush, bleeds, screams, and is bashed in a knee-jerk reaction to silence her.

me,either.I also wonder if it could have happened in the basement,instead of her room/bathroom.

Either way, to me, the bash comes LAST.

I agree.I think what Ms Stanton heard was significant...a loud scream that stopped suddenly...it stopped because that's when the head injury occurred,IMO.

 

[UKGuy]

me,either.I also wonder if it could have happened in the basement,instead of her room/bathroom.

I agree.I think what Ms Stanton heard was significant...a loud scream that stopped suddenly...it stopped because that's when the head injury occurred,IMO.

JMO8778,

me,either.I also wonder if it could have happened in the basement,instead of her room/bathroom.

It could have but would that not have been more indicative of a molestation gone wrong than a douching scenario, who douches in the basement? Against this view is the notion that the staging was enacted in a location separate from the original crime-scene?


I just find douching too naive as an explanation for a homicide. Like I was douching jonBenet, we had a disagreement, I slapped her and she accidently fell onto the bath. She looked in a bad way, so I just finished her off by garroting her, and sexually assaulted her to hide the initial douching, then after wrapping her body in blankets I dumped her in the wine-cellar, and latched the door.

But douching is not a criminal offence, neither is an accident, so why not seek medical assistance? They did on a prior occassion when Burke whacked JonBenet with a golf-club.


.

 

[Solace]

JMO8778,

It could have but would that not have been more indicative of a molestation gone wrong than a douching scenario, who douches in the basement? Against this view is the notion that the staging was enacted in a location separate from the original crime-scene?


I just find douching too naive as an explanation for a homicide. Like I was douching jonBenet, we had a disagreement, I slapped her and she accidently fell onto the bath. She looked in a bad way, so I just finished her off by garroting her, and sexually assaulted her to hide the initial douching, then after wrapping her body in blankets I dumped her in the wine-cellar, and latched the door.

But douching is not a criminal offence, neither is an accident, so why not seek medical assistance? They did on a prior occassion when Burke whacked JonBenet with a golf-club.


.

It is possible that JB wet the bed again (creatine was found on the sheets) and that Patsy went into a rage (wouldn't be the first time, in fact it is one of the more common reasons for child abuse) and Patsy grabs her around her neck and brings her to the bathroom; she could have douched her then (maybe it was a common occurrence when Patsy found she wet herself). JonBenet could have strugged and the blow could have occurred then. There is no one saying the douching occurred in the basement, but there is evidence that a douching may have occurred.

Maybe Patsy saw the bruising around JB's neck and realized also that this would not go over well. She most definitely heard the crack - it was loud.

Or you are right and someone was sexually abusing JonBenet that weekend. Ames posted a site on either this board or FFJ and it is very interesting. One of the "facts" posted is that the boulder police PROVE that a scream could be heard coming from the Ramsey's bedroom. Now I still am not sure if they meant that the scream was heard that evening coming from the bedroom or if they proved it with one of their tests and are not sure if it did indeed come from the Ramsey bedroom.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

It could have but would that not have been more indicative of a molestation gone wrong than a douching scenario, who douches in the basement? Against this view is the notion that the staging was enacted in a location separate from the original crime-scene?

I tend to think it didn't happen in the basement,though,since it would be more logical to move her body to another location to conceal the original incident.That,plus SMIT and JR pushing the theory that it happened there,lead me to believe it didn't.

But douching is not a criminal offence, neither is an accident, so why not seek medical assistance? They did on a prior occassion when Burke whacked JonBenet with a golf-club.


.

...it appears to me something started going on with JB between the time of the golf club incident,and the time of the murder.Patsy wasn't afraid to seek medical assistance when BR accidentally hit JB w. the club,even resorting to plastic surgery if necessary.Molestation would be the most likely reason it was not sought again (?). That is,if it indeed was an accident,and JB was still alive when the other parent found out about the head injury.

 

[Solace]

I tend to think it didn't happen in the basement,though,since it would be more logical to move her body to another location to conceal the original incident.That,plus SMIT and JR pushing the theory that it happened there,lead me to believe it didn't.

...it appears to me something started going on with JB between the time of the golf club incident,and the time of the murder.Patsy wasn't afraid to seek medical assistance when BR accidentally hit JB w. the club,even resorting to plastic surgery if necessary.Molestation would be the most likely reason it was not sought again (?). That is,if it indeed was an accident,and JB was still alive when the other parent found out about the head injury.

When Burke whacked JB, she was not unconscious and her head was in tact. Come on UK, you know if your child gets hit in the face or the head you are going to check everything and try to feel for bumps. Patsy felt JB and felt and 8 1/2 inch crack in her skull. I think I would have passed out.

And lets not forget Patsy lied about Burke's age in the golf club incident. Just came right out of her mouth and said he was a toddler - means she is thinking all the time about repercussions. Social services might very well have wanted to talk to him if they knew his real age.

 

[DeeDee249]

JBR wasn't seriously hurt in the golf club incident. What PR was mainly worried about was whether it would leave a scar on her face.

The rage incident (if that's what happened) was different- with that audible skull fracture, JBR was rendered immediately unconscious, possibly convulsant, and it may have seemed that she died instantly, instead of the probably hour or so that it took. PR may have felt there was no going back- she'd be calling an ambulance for a dead child. You have to think of the mind-set of someone like PR. Hyper, nervous, hysterical, spoiled, and always with the attitude of being better than anyone else. That night both she and her husband went into overdrive to protect themselves. JBR was a lost cause. Why ruin all their lives? Why go through the public humiliation (BOY, would there be plenty of people they knew who would have loved to see THAT) and disgrace of having the quintessential stage mother responsible for killing her "future Miss America".