Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by madeleine, Apr 13, 2010.
Why do you think it happened?And what do you think was used?
The only reason I can think of is to remove evidence - blood, urine, semen, etc.
Yes but those would have shown up even if the body was cleaned,you can detect blood and semen with ultraviolet lights and luminol,right?
Why would a Ramsey need to clean the body if it was an accident(head bash or something).Remove urine?Her urine was everywhere anyway,sheets,longjohns,panties.Blood?they missed some spots anyway so why bother.
If it was semen(and IMO the only reason why a Ramsey OR an intruder would waste time to wipe her clean and remove it,it's EVIDENCE) then I guess this says it all and we're back to prior abuse/sex related crime and case closed.(in theory sigh)
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 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.
In the presence of Det. Arndt, Det. Tom Trujillo of the Boulder Police Department, used a black florescent light to 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 form the child's body.
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 the 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 that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.
If you put that together with what ST says below, it seems to add up to only blood that was wiped away. Thats my take, anyway.
"Colorado Bureau of Investigation technicians gave us some bad news when they determined that the substance found on JonBenet's leg during the ultraviolet light examination at the autopsy, initially thought to be semen, was just a smear of blood.
After JB's pubic area and thighs were swabbed, the substance that was found was JB's own blood, not semen or urine. There is a mistaken notion that her whole BODY was "washed". It was not. She wasn't actually "washed" at all, but rather wiped down with a dark cloth, on the thighs and pubic area.
The blood found in tiny drops on her too-large panties indicate to me (and it seems to the coroner) that the panties were put on her after she was wiped. There was so little blood on them, and in areas that did not match up with blood on the body that it seems to me those droplets seeped out, possibly even postmortem. Dead bodies don't bleed, but blood can still ooze and drip for a while, until it coagulates. I doubt whoever redressed her was even aware of the blood drops in the panties.
SOMETHING caused JB to bleed from the vagina. There are different theories on what that was. Sexual abuse? Too-vigorous douching? A staged sexual injury to cover up previous abuse? Any of these could have caused the bleeding.
If all those experts on LE side say that she was previously abused and if we believe them then how can we believe that her death was just an accident.
Let's say that it wasn't something sexual but the injuries were caused by too vigorous douching.Then what happened that night,it's not like PR assaulted her with her own paintbrush in order to cover up that she douched JB,she probably didn't even know that JB was hurt by it.
I am not even sure that she was assaulted with the paintbrush,I rather believe she was digitally penetrated by the one who broke the brush into pieces and that's how the splinters ended up there.But this doesn't necessarily mean it was something sexual.Maybe someone was just checking something.
Desitin ointment is mentioned in one of the depositions, asking Patsy if she ever used that product on JonBenet. Possibly Desitin was digitally applied internally. If true, that act could explain a lot.
The bleeding was caused by penetration and the molester used a cloth to remove the blood.
I just don't see someone "checking something". I also am not sure she was actually violated with the paintbrush, or whether the cellulose (wood) splinters were carried in on a finger. Obviously, this part of the autopsy was vague, possibly deliberately so. If we KNEW if the missing paintbrush piece or just some splinters were found in her vagina, we would have another piece of the puzzle to work with. But, I have to say that it really wouldn't change much for me whether it WAS the missing piece or just splinters. The missing piece in there just makes it all the more vile. Either way, cellulose was there because someone put it in there, and it happened as she was being violated. In death or while still alive, this was an appalling part of that crime.
Well, the way I see it - she bled from the vagina (that happens when you are alive, not dead) enough to cause someone to wipe her down. So her bleeding was known to her killer, stager, or both. Since I also think the garroting was staging also, this would be a way that the splinters got inside her- on the finger that snapped the paintbrush.
A too-vigorous douching could also have been the cause of the bleeding, and having seen that, made faking a sexual assault necessary.
I read this yesterday,sorry don't recall now whether in PMPT or ST's book (but will check if necessary) that they found some fluid on her leg but they couldn't extract DNA from it.Does anyone know what kind of fluid it was?
And I just read in the affidavit@candyrose that one officer wrote in his notes there were two blankets in the basement on the floor.Anyone know more about this?TIAFirst I thought the second blanket must be the one found in the suitcase but it says on the floor.
Haven't heard a lot about that. That officer may have seen the pink nightie and thought that was another blanket. There was only one blanket on the floor of the wineceller- JB's white blanket- and that can be clearly seen in the photos. However- there WAS another blanket in the basement- the dark comforter/blanket belonging to JAR, found in the suitcase in the basement. Possibly that has caused confusion. There are a lot of half-truths and mix-ups in this case.
I believe that wiping the body had more to do with the same psychological element that prompted covering up JBR with a blanket like a papoose. Someone that loved the child (such as a parent) would be far more inclined to clean her up and keep her warm.
Former FBI profiler Richard Ressler had this to say:
"A more casual killer - a predator, a serial killer - wouldn't be into wiping the body," said Ressler. "It shows a psychological remorse or a concern. Usually a predator doesn't get into a "cleanup."'
That curious combination of violence and tenderness is seen in other cases involving familial homicide:
Whoever killed Jennifer Jackson put a wicker basket over her head. It sounds strange, but Helldorfer said hed seen that kind of thing before.
When asked who puts a basket over somebodys face, Helldorfer replied, "Somebody who doesnt want to look at the face; somebody who is close to the victim."
"A stranger wouldnt do that," he continued.
Riggs then smothered her other son, 2-year-old Shelby, and placed the two dead children on the bed and covered them with a blanket.
Upon arrival at the Yates home, the police found four dead children laying on a bed covered with a sheet.
Much of that compassion turned to rage and disbelief last week when investigators searching Paulette's apartment for signs that clothes or suitcases had been removed stumbled on her tiny body, wrapped in sheets and wedged between the mattress and the frame of her very own bed.
Separate names with a comma.