"Mortal Evidence" Dr.Wecht

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.....

 

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 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.

 

This isn't evidence

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.

 

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!

 

Deja

Thanks for your kudos, Dej, but I have to disagree with your disagreement. :nono: 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.

 

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.

 

Layman v expert

Just for clarification, Dej, (aside from agreeing to disagree :yes: ) 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! :banghead:

 

Well, Sista, I will give you a BIG AMEN to that! LOL Some of this stuff is just common sense, but apparently such sense isn't very common in Boulder. If "they" would just release everything publicly, we could do our own job on it all and come up with more definitive conclusions than "they" have in 7 years, probably sufficiently to file charges (which very well could be why BDA is asleep at the switch). Perhaps the petition presentation planned for the end of this month will do something. I talked to the Vidocq Society, whom I believe would be the PERFECT somebodies to review the entire case, and they will only do so if BDA, BPD or the family requests it. Maybe Owens will.....

 

Dej

Ha! Well let's see...one thing for SURE is that the family certainly isn't going to ask!

And since the family is in cahoots with the incompetents of the BDA, again we can certainly count on the BDA remaining mum and keeping anyone of intelligence out of this case.

That leaves the BPD. There's slim hope there...but slim is better than none. Although I don't think even the BPD could ask for intervention seeing as how they gave the investigation up (or was it hauled away from them?) to the BDA.

Perhaps the ONLY hope is with the Governor. He went out on the ledge once, after the grand jury debacle, and got whiplashed. Would he be willing to take the lead once again?

Maybe Tricia can "persuade" him.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

 

Sorry I missed this post before now, Ginja. I agree, ain't nobody currently handling this case gonna ask Vidocq for help. Yes, yes, yes, Tricia, we could demand that Owens turn the case over to Vidocq once and for all. They would be the perfect "objective investigators" LW and the Rumseys are demanding!

Nous parlons francais, Monsieur Owens, et vouz? http://www.vidocq.org/vidocq.html

 

Furthermore

Hey, remember a few pages ago on this thread when EW et al were discussing PR's sweater fibers entwined in the ligature? Came across this old article today that we'd probably all forgotten. Her histrionic Lazarus performance was nowhere NEAR the ligature!

So much for any "transference" defense for PR!

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_622280,00.html

 

vidocq society

If the Ramsey's are really innocent then maybe they should ask the vidocq society to investigate themselves. I think it would be good for a tabloid to issue that challenge - they have no excuse not to at least ask. They claim that they have paid investigator's alot of money to find the killer of their daughter ( but one of their former investigators said he was really paid to keep them out of jail) then they should be happy to have such a well respected, unbiased group do the investigating for free!

 

Well, well, well

Remember the old stories about Patsy having a lover on the side and that she allegedly spent time with him that night after returning from the Whites?

The pubic hair was on the blanket, wasn't it? Or was it a different blanket?

Very interesting when the Rams claim the pubic hair was transferred by the perp. Wouldn't it be something if Patsy's boyfriend transferred the hair during their little get-together and then SHE transferred it herself.

Guess the Rams knew what they were talking about afterall, eh? :lick:

 

Texan, you are SO right. If the Rams are innocent and they and their RST are SO wanting objective investigators on the case, why haven't THEY contacted the Vidocq Society? Very early in the case, John Douglas previewed the RN at a Vidocq luncheon and came away quite disappointed in their findings. Perhaps that is why the Rs haven't pursued this any farther. Seems the RST considers everyone on the planet as biased against them. Gee, I wonder why?

Ginja, I think the pubic hair was found on the blanket in the suitcase, not on the blanket wrapping the body. But I could be wrong. But what about a 3-some????