Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 55
  1. #37

    Default

    Just to add my 2 cents, I have always thought that the Ramseys' strategy changed several times throughout the night and early morning, as they argued which one was best to employ. I suspect that the body was probably in the trunk of the car for later ditching, but with cops and friends running willy nilly throughout their home, fear of discovery would have motivated John to slip out the back, remove the body from the trunk and carry it downstairs when everyone had settled into a room with an obstructed view of the back stairs down to the basement. There is a possibility, not probability, that the body was stashed in a suitcase just in case someone caught him in the back hallway or found it in the trunk. A suitcase would also be convenient for dumping the body in a remote area in the hills near their home on the way to the airport too, just as we suspected OJ dumped his Bruno Malis and knife on the way to the airport. Afterall, they were planning an early trip to MI!

    I also suspect that since that time period JR was absent from Arndt's knowledge and sight, he had time by then to chat with Haddon via cell phone from either the basement or garage out of hearing range about further plans or whatever.

    These of course are just guesses on my part without substantiation. Nevertheless, I found both the Ramseys' performances upon discovery of the body totally absurd, even within unexpected emotional response patterns of parents in that situation. Peeking through splayed fingers, on again/off again hysterics, and throwing herself on JB's body, what a drama queen. And no tears to accompany all that. JR carrying the body upstairs stiff as a board and smelling already (have you ever smelled a dead body? It is unmistakeable!) and asking Arndt if she was dead, come on, even in hope or denial, that kind of traumatic reality has to sink in! Then when he mentions to Arndt that it's "an inside job", well, what the hell, is that a manipulative attempt or what?

  2. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Originally posted by DejaNu
    Just to add my 2 cents, I have always thought that the Ramseys' strategy changed several times throughout the night and early morning, as they argued which one was best to employ. I suspect that the body was probably in the trunk of the car for later ditching, but with cops and friends running willy nilly throughout their home, fear of discovery would have motivated John to slip out the back, remove the body from the trunk and carry it downstairs when everyone had settled into a room with an obstructed view of the back stairs down to the basement. There is a possibility, not probability, that the body was stashed in a suitcase just in case someone caught him in the back hallway or found it in the trunk. A suitcase would also be convenient for dumping the body in a remote area in the hills near their home on the way to the airport too, just as we suspected OJ dumped his Bruno Malis and knife on the way to the airport. Afterall, they were planning an early trip to MI!
    DejaNu, This is something I discussed on another forum. I believe the police actually checked the cars in the garage. One poster suggested JonBenét may have been placed in a freezer which was down in the basement. It's actually marked on one of those house plans on the net. Maybe Redd Herring's on the ACandyRose site (?). I'll check that tomorrow. JB could have been in a suitcase before rigor mortis set in. There was talk of Ramsey being very agitated when he returned from the basement after his absence. This would be between 10:00am and 11:00am. Ramsey admitted this to the police that he had gone down there himself. I felt Patsy Ramsey probably balked at the thought of JonBenét being left out in the cold, and hence the reason for the ransom note being created(?).

    I also suspect that since that time period JR was absent from Arndt's knowledge and sight, he had time by then to chat with Haddon via cell phone from either the basement or garage out of hearing range about further plans or whatever.
    Yes, this could have happened.

    These of course are just guesses on my part without substantiation. Nevertheless, I found both the Ramseys' performances upon discovery of the body totally absurd, even within unexpected emotional response patterns of parents in that situation. Peeking through splayed fingers, on again/off again hysterics, and throwing herself on JB's body, what a drama queen. And no tears to accompany all that. JR carrying the body upstairs stiff as a board and smelling already (have you ever smelled a dead body? It is unmistakeable!) and asking Arndt if she was dead, come on, even in hope or denial, that kind of traumatic reality has to sink in! Then when he mentions to Arndt that it's "an inside job", well, what the hell, is that a manipulative attempt or what?
    I could have written the above paragraph myself. I feel exactly the same way, DejaNu. Talk about drama. John Ramsey carrying JonBenét upstairs at arm's length because she was so stiff. I posted this somewhere else. This was absolutely ludicrous, He knew damn well she was dead, as you say from the smell alone.
    Linda Arndt talked about the "smell of decay." Gawd! What a fiasco!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  3. #39

    Default

    Elle, I don't remember any of the cops saying they checked the trunks of cars, so I'll just take your word for it. Putting the body in a freezer would definitely slow down the mortis process, but it would have to be in a suitcase or some other pretty insulated container stored in a freezer or else the body would freeze and there would be evidence on autopsy of frozen tissue, even if it did thaw. However, placing just the body in an unheated crawl space in or under the house considering the outdoor weather would protect it from freezing but still keep it cold enough to slow mortis. No tissue or organ evidence would be found in that case. I can imagine there were probably all sorts of places to temporarily hide a small body without actually freezing it in that house.

  4. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    DejaNu,


    I was wakened up by a new digital bedside clock which must have had the alarm already set. Came here to check in.

    I remember reading in one of the books (?) where the Ramseys were asked for their car keys. Linda Arndt came to mind. I'll check the books tomorrow, but this warrant I already had on file. Maybe someone else will remember something about this too. Know how you feel. I like to know the source too. I would hope Arndt would have opened the trunks.

    Ramsey warrant dated December 26, 1996


    http://community.bouldernews.com/ext...7/09/29-2.html


    Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she briefly viewed the two (2) vehicles parked inside the attached garage. She described one of the vehicles as a Jaguar 4 door and the other vehicle as a utility type vehicle. Detective Arndt obtained a Cosin printout of the vehicles listing to John Ramsey. The Cosin printout indicated that John Ramsey is the driver of a 1995 Jaguar 4 door with Colorado passenger license #MAN8301. Cosin indicated that John Ramsey is the driver of a 1996 Jeep utility vehicle with Colorado passenger license #MAH5615.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  5. #41

    Default

    Elle, I'm not sure, but I think in the scenario of a kidnapping, LE can't open trunks, cupboards, etc. without probable cause or a search warrant. I think that's why Arndt asked JR and FW to search the house that morning. However, I think she could have accompanied JR to the garage and asked HIM to open the trunks. We'd have to ask a cop.....

  6. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    I quite believe this is the way it works, DejaNu. I'll leave off the book search, which takes time. Maybe we'll hear more on this, but I thought along those lines too, that maybe she was in the trunk of his car, but I'm thinking there may have been some kind of smell coming from the trunk area by the amount of time that had elapsed, assuming JonBenét was killed between 10:00 pm and midnight of the 25 December, 1996. We haven't heard too much along these lines.

    Maybe WY can ask her daughter for us. Please and thank you, WY. Not to worry if this is out of line (?).
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  7. #43

    Default Elle and Deja

    Because of livor and rigor mortis, JonBenet was not moved; otherwise, there would have been telltale marks of where the livor mortis started to settle in the first position she was in (e.g., car trunk or crawlspace or behind a freezer) from the position she was eventually found in (flat on her back with hands raised over her head).

    However...it's mpo that she was placed on her back in this position in the corner of the winecellar out of sight, explaining why Fleet didn't see her when he opened the door.

    After hearing Fleet had opened the door and the body wasn't found, John disappeared to the wine cellar and pulled the body out from the corner and out into the open in front of the door where it could "easily" be seen when someone opened the door. I think the punctate wounds and abrasions on her backside (shoulders, legs) is from moving the body from one location to another in the same room. Note that the location of the body was moved, not the position of the body being changed.

    Elle, as regards the birefringent material, mpo is that this is the varnish or lacquer or whatever that covered the paintstick. Birefringency has to do with how light passes through the material. Wood is not birefringent. It's my guess that the cops, etc. looked at the evidence -- they didn't analyze it under a scope so a tiny shard of chipped lacquer or varnish would look very much like a tiny shard of wood, explaining why the parties believed it to be a wood shard. But the real evidence is that it's not wood, but a chip of the stick covering.

    Edited to add that this birefringent material could have been transferred digitally by the person handling (breaking) the paintstick. But it also could have flaked off naturally by pushing the paintstick into the vagina.

  8. #44

    Default This isn't evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1
    Bob, you will remember we were talking about the wooden shards found in JonBenét's vagina. It appears to be shards in this document:

    Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case 1:00-CV-1187-JEC
    Carnes Order March 31, 2003 (Page 11 thru 20)

    http://www.acandyrose.com/03312003carnes11-20.htm

    Page 17

    12 The bleeding in JonBenet's genital area indicates she was alive when she was assaulted. (SMF 48; PSMF 48.) Her hymen was torn and material consistent with wooden shards from the paintbrush used to make the garrote were found in her vagina. (SMF 48-49; PMSF 48-49.) No evidence, however, suggests that she was the victim of chronic sexual abuse. (SMF 50; PSMF 50.)
    An earlier post of mine describes the difference between a shard of wood and a shard of birefringent material and the liklihood of a layman's interpretation of the two being one and the same (which is false). More importantly, I wanted to get into the above cite from the Wolf case.

    SMFs are stipulated material facts between the parties...that is, both parties agree to certain facts. The problem in Wolf is that this was a civil case which attempted to litigate a criminal matter without the benefit of facts and evidence from the criminal investigation. Carnes opinion was based on stipulated facts of the litigants without any evidence from the criminal case; in essence, these stipulated material facts, as far as the criminal case/evidence is concerned, are meaningless if one tries to compare the civil case to the criminal case.

    For example, the SMF that JonBenet's hymen was torn is false. Both parties stipulated to such because neither party really argued the evidentiary points of the crime/scene. Neither party had the actual evidence, or any expert pathologist to opine on the autopsy report. As the actual autopsy reports, the hymen was represented by a rim of mucosa... . No where in the report does it say anything about tearing, let alone that the hymen was torn away. The report states further than this area was plagued by erosion, chronic inflammation and bruising.

    Likewise, the same SMF states that a wood shard was found in the body. Again, this is patently false. The evidence states that birefringent material was found lodged in the vaginal mucosa and as I explained in an earlier post, the reference to birefringency has to do with how the material reacts to light. Scientifically, wood is NOT a birefringent material so ergo there was no shard of wood found in JonBenet's body.

    The parties' SMFs go on to state that no evidence of chronic sexual abuse was found. Again, a patently false statement as the evidence of chronic abuse WAS found, from chronic inflammation to erosion and stretching of the vaginal opening. Many may want to argue that these injuries could occur in one event, but that's as foolish and irresponsible as claiming wood was found in her vaginal mucosa when the scientific evidence is that the material was birefringent.

    Beware of citing so-called evidentiary facts from Carnes' decision in Wolf as there were none; only stipulations between the parties of what THEY deemed as evidence. As anyone can see, their stipulations have nothing to do whatsoever with the criminal evidence in this case.

  9. #45

    Default

    The evidence states that birefringent material was found lodged in the vaginal mucosa and as I explained in an earlier post, the reference to birefringency has to do with how the material reacts to light. Scientifically, wood is NOT a birefringent material so ergo there was no shard of wood found in JonBenet's body.
    Excellent post, Ginja! I agree with you wholeheartedly with regard to using the Carnes ruling as any standard. However, I have to disagree with the statement above. The term "birefringent" simply means "shiny" and can refer to any shiny material found in the vaginal tract. The autopsy report simply refers to this particular piece of evidence as birefingent, or shiny, but provides no further description of it, so one cannot rule out what sort of shiny material this is. Early speculation, probably inspired by BPD, was that this birefringent material was residue deposited by a latex-gloved finger. Only later was it changed to a broken fragment of the paintbrush and I cannot find the reason for that change.

    Now, you are correct that a mere fragment of wood would not constitute "birefingent" material. But IF it were a paintbrush fragment, we know based on forensic disclosure that the wooden paintbrush, although made of wood, was also varnished with some kind of high gloss finish, and gold embossed lettering, also birefringent, was imprinted on the high gloss finished wood. Therefore, a highly glossed and embossed fragment of the paintbrush could satisfy the definition of "birefringent" if that's the only description we have to go on, which it is. Furthermore, both assumptions, either a deposit from a gloved finger, or a fragment of the high gloss paintbrush, could fit the term "birefingent." Without any further description of this piece of evidence, it remains open to speculation.

    But geez, I love your post! I've been trying to communicate the same regarding Carnes' crap and the stipulated "facts" for a long time. DH was way errant in stipulating to most of these "facts" because they aren't, and have never been qualified, as case "facts." Thanks for the post!

  10. #46

    Default Deja

    Quote Originally Posted by DejaNu
    I have to disagree with the statement above. The term "birefringent" simply means "shiny" and can refer to any shiny material found in the vaginal tract. The autopsy report simply refers to this particular piece of evidence as birefingent, or shiny, but provides no further description of it, so one cannot rule out what sort of shiny material this is. Early speculation, probably inspired by BPD, was that this birefringent material was residue deposited by a latex-gloved finger.
    Thanks for your kudos, Dej, but I have to disagree with your disagreement. Only because this is perhaps a significant piece of evidence that could make the difference, but if we define birefringency as simply meaning 'shiny', we'd be off on the wrong tract. (jmo)

    The dictionary defines birefringence as: the refraction of light in an anisotropic (exhibiting properties with different values when measured in different directions, e.g., an anisotropic crystal) material (as calcite) in two slightly different directions to form two rays. A more simpler definition in school texts states that birefringence is another name for double refraction. In doubly-refractive stones, the light entering the stone is split into two light rays, and the rays travel in different paths. These stones have more than one refractive index. Calcite, peridot, zircon, tourmaline, and titanite are doubly-refractive stones.

    So you see, to simply say it's 'shiny' is a misrepresentation in that it leads one to think that any shiny material is birefringent, and this isn't so. Birefringence references light refraction. There are shiny materials/objects which are dense where light can't pass through, ergo no refraction. Wood is a substance whereby light cannot pass through, ergo refraction (double or otherwise) is impossible.

    In the autopsy, Meyer 'biopsied' tissue from the vaginal area and removed vaginal mucosa, sending the tissue to the lab for further examination. One part of the examination of that tissue was to analyze it under the microscope -- the birefringent material was seen, extracted from the mucosa and further analyzed.

    We have to keep in mind that the AR wasn't released for months. During that time, Meyer was waiting for the various samples to come back from the lab. So when he wrote the report, he used what lab reports that had come back and included them in the AR.

    My reading of your post indicates that you were of the mind that the birefringency of the varnish/lacquer on a wood shard constituted the birefringency definition and therefore one could speculate that it could be a shard of wood covered with the birefringent material.

    But we do have further definition in that the lab report on the material had been conducted. Even if Myer had "guessed" birefringency prior to the lab report release, if the lab report had come back stating that in addition to the birefringency there was wood, or that the birefringent material was attached to wood, this "change" would not only have been appended to the AR, but I'm sure we would have heard about this result. The only information we have of any "change" to the AR results has been made by laymen using the naked eye.

    Based on 'naked-eye' identification only, we have the speculation that the birefringency of talc indicates the possibility of the perp wearing latex gloves. I believe that it's because of the lab analysis of the material (that the material matches whatever covering was on the stick) that the latex glove theory has been dismissed.

    Also, there's the theory that the material could have been transferred digitally by the perp. Considering the erosion, stretching and chronic inflammation of the vaginal area, there is a high probability that JonBenet was manipulated digitally. However...more importantly, did the birefringent material get deposited digitally that night, indicating she was sexually abused/assaulted that night; or, given the bruising and bleeding in the same genital area, was she 'poked' with the stick, indicating coverup?

    This is why I think it's important to get all the facts and put them in their place. In this way, a lot of speculation can be ruled out as well as getting a truer picture of what happened to JonBenet that night.

  11. #47

    Default

    Yes, Ginja, I agree with the highly technical definition of "birefringent" you posted. I'm simply trying to keep this issue on a layman's basis. The term "birefingent" is most commonly used in the field of cystallography and specifically refers to the molecular structure of material. Birefringency can occur in any material that possesses some asymmetry in its molecular structure so that the material is more "springy" in one direction than another. Birefringent material is characterized by double refractive capabilities IOW. Common examples of birefringent material are table salt, glass, calcite, quartz. Polymers, which are crystal-containing, are found in many, many household items and therefore grant those items a birefringent quality. Examples of these types of birefringent items are plastic baggies, plastic gloves of all types, mailing tape and some craft paints. In its "highest" technical form, birefringent polymers are better known as optic fibers.

    Crystal-based compounds, then, are found everywhere and are not as unique as one would think. Good coroners often refuse to more specifically identify evidence found in autopsies by observation only, but rely on forensic testing of that material. Often they will use general terminology to avoid identifying stuff for the obvious legal reasons.

    Given that birefringent material is such a common element of everyday stuff, I hestitate to quantify just exactly what Meyers was referring to on this point. You make assumptions about addendums to the AR post-lab/forensic analysis and I believe those assumptions are not necessarily accurate. If this birefringent evidence is crucial to the investigation, it would certainly not be released publicly, just as the more extensive toxicology analysis following the autopsy has never been released.

    The birefringent material could be anything frankly because it, by definition, isn't terribly unique. Both guesses we've battered around the forums for years are realistic possibilities, but maybe not probabilities. We just have nothing available to rule in or out anything.

    So we agree on definition, just not source. Until something more specific is disclosed to the public, we will all be stuck in limbo on just exactly what this evidence is.

  12. #48

    Default Layman v expert

    So we agree on definition, just not source. Until something more specific is disclosed to the public, we will all be stuck in limbo on just exactly what this evidence is.
    Just for clarification, Dej, (aside from agreeing to disagree ) mpo is that it's okay for us to look at this evidence as laymen and speculate. The problem I have is that it's the same way the RST looks at the evidence as well as the incompetents running this investigation in the BDA's office. And because they stand back and "assume" that it could be this, that or the other (while at the same time refusing to get the expert opinions necessary to pin down the evidence) the case is stuck in limbo and always will be.

    What this investigation needs are unbiased experts who will go the extra mile to find out exactly what the birefringent material is (for example) so that they can better determine how it got there. That kind of determination can make the difference between sexual child abuse and covering up a murder.

    See where I'm going with this?

    IOW, in the RIGHT hands, ALL the evidence in this case could be determined, instead of people "guessing" that veins are stun gun marks or that fibers caught in the ligature were transferred during a performance of Jesus raising Lazarus!



Similar Threads

  1. Game changer? The "missing" evidence
    By cynic in forum Crimes, Trials & Missing Persons
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: November 27, 2012, 8:32 pm, Tue Nov 27 20:32:14 UTC 2012
  2. One Piece of "Physical" Evidence - Hanging?
    By VP in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: September 2, 2006, 2:38 am, Sat Sep 2 2:38:20 UTC 2006
  3. Debunking the Seven Pieces of "Evidence": #2 - The Duct Tape and The Cord Garotte
    By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 13, 2002, 9:58 am, Fri Sep 13 9:58:37 UTC 2002
  4. Debunking the Seven Pieces of "Evidence" That "Prove" the Intruder Theory.
    By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 10, 2002, 7:34 pm, Tue Sep 10 19:34:10 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •