Autopsy questions

Imo not even a circumstantial evidence case trial would have brought clarification here. For example, there was no way for the prosecution to prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt which Ramsey delivered the head blow and why (not even the weapon could be determined!) - a big stumbling block for a prosecution team who has to present an offender to the jury.
The ransom note writer and main stager of the scene (the evidence strongly points to Patsy) - need not necessarily have been the killer either - another big stumbling block for the prosecution.

Imo this case was lost at the beginning - when the police failed to arrest the Ramseys as suspects immediately after the body had been found. If their clothing had been collected immediately and if they had been questioned separately before being able to put a story together, - we probably would not be discussing this case today as an 'unsolved case'. I'm not sure about John, but Patsy would have caved in imo.

jmo

 

I have question, heymom: did your son have a contrecoup injury to the brain as a result from the fall?

 

Uh, could you please list those abrasions (plural) on the F A C E?

face 1. the front part of the head, from the forehead to the chin.

"just below the right ear at the right angle of the mandible" is not the face. That is to the side of the face.

 

It verbatim says face/ right side of face in the photos on ACR where the abrasion is shown:

***WARNING - graphic photos! ***

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceathouse.jpg

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceright.jpg

And how do you think she was "strung up"?

 

Where are "they" listed in the autopsy report? Where in the autopsy report does it say face/ right side of the face? It doesn't, and there aren't multiple abrasions.

 

It has the same meaning...mandible means the jaw line. Just by looking at the pictures, whether you define it as mandible, jawline, face or side of face- the abrasions are there in plain view. There is only one there, but other abrasions of the same type are also other places on her body. In all the other locations except her face, the abrasions are in pairs. I have read where some people think there is a very faint second mark on her face, possibly under where the duct tape was, but I really don't see it when I look.

 

No, he didn't. He fell off the board and onto his right side, and I think he rolled a little, because he had some road rash on his shoulders. He had just a small fracture on the part of his skull inside his ear, narrowly missing his hearing structures. If he had hit just a few mm in the other direction, he'd be permanently deaf on that side.

He had some bleeding around the fracture site, which also bled out his ear, right from the start and then until the next day. That was very troubling, but the neurologist said it was good, so I tried to stay calm.

As I understand it, he could have had a contrecoup injury if he'd struck more straight down instead of glancing. It's from the rebound of the brain from one surface to the other, from velocity.

 

Envy

 

Thanks! That is what I thought. A six year old's skull is not as thick as an adults. I have wondered why it was said that a strong man, with a lot of force caused the blow to her head. It wouldn't have taken THAT much force..her skull wasn't made of cement. Anyway, I still believe that she was shoved violently into either the rounded corner of the sink or the tub. I have wondered if her head may have been STILL in the turtleneck portion of the shirt, turned inside out...with Patsy trying (in a moment of rage) jerk it off of her. Maybe, while her head was STILL in the collar, Patsy...tried to pull the shirt off of her, by jerking on the (turned inside out) sleeves....and threw her into something. As another poster described it..like an egg inside of a sock..(and the sock, still in someone's hand...is being swung into a wall). I am trying to give a visual here, but don't know if it is working.

 

I HATE looking at those pictures. I wonder what made that mark on the side of her face?

 

I can get a very good picture of that scenario, Ames. Could be why that turtleneck was there in the sink, and also why looking at it in a crime scene pic made PR cry.
IF ONLY that tub edge, sink, flashlight, bat, etc. had been tested for JBR's DNA- though the bash didn't break the skin, there would still be microscopic traces of her scalp and certainly her hair on whatever caused that fracture.
Then we'd know what caused that horrific hole in her skull.

 

Heymom, how old was your son when this happened? (Does he wear a helmet now?)

 

Rash, I understand what you're saying about various elements of this case that might not be cleared up with a trial, but what I wanted from a trial was to hear DR. MEYER'S testimony. We've never heard what he has to say, and he did the autopsy.

The problem with trying either of the Ramseys for the murder has always been the law in Colorado: the State has to prove WHO did WHAT. It's not legal to indict both Ramseys and make the case "one of them killed her." John and Patsy have always been each other's "beyond a reasonable doubt" card. That's also true of arresting either of them on obstruction of justice: in order to make that case, first someone must be accused of the actual murder.

 

But wouldn't the evidence have been enough to reach the probable cause standard necessary for an arrest?
You gave a good summary of the issue on the "Questions" thread on Feb 19:
(bolding mine):

"Arrest them" had also been the advice of the BPD's DreamTeam lawyers.
Imagine someone like Patsy having to got through the perp walk, with mug shots and all. I can imagine the 'magnolia' mask would have come off her then, and LE would have seen the same raw fury in her which probably made her fly off the handle on that fatal Christmas night also ...

 

Indeed, Dr. Meyer's testimony would have been absolutely pivotal. For what he said to Linda Arndt does not show up in the written version of the autopsy report which has been made public. But then the complete autopsy report contains far more than the condensed nine pages which are accesible via the net.

IIRC, Meyer told Anrndt that the child had been digitally penetrated.
In the autopsy report, it says:

A circumferential hyperemia in that area of the body ('reddish' indicating it had been caused very recently) can't be explained away by bubble bath or underwear wet form urine.
So either JonBenet had indeed been molested on that night, OR the stager of the scene penetrated her digitally (or with the paintbrush) to create a molestation scene with the purpose of misdirecting LE.

Even if it was done 'only' for staging purposes by the parents who already believed her dead - parents callous enough to do this to their own child ad then tie a ligature around her neck are capable of anything imo.

The Ramseys denied JonBenet medical assistance because they did not want to come out what had happened to her. I'm not at all sure anymore if they really thought she was dead. Maybe she was "as good as dead" in their eyes and they did not want to be saddled with a permanently brain-damaged child.
I wouldn't put it past them.

In a way, they did 'sacrifice' Jonbenet, but not to any god imo.
They sacrificed the live of their little daughter because they wanted to save their hide. They mercilessly let their child her perish down there in the dark basement, and when the dead body was brought up, they let her lie there under the Christmas tree like a broken doll beyond repair.

 

ACR is not the autopsy report. Where in the autopsy report does it list abrasions (plural) on the face?

No it is not the same. The position of abrasions can help determine how the body was handled, which can determine the order of wounds, which can determine motive.

 

Here are 4 sources:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9716777/detail.html

same here:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

and here:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html

and here:
http://bsapp.com/forensics_illustrated/forensic_worksheets/Unit 10 Bodies &%

There are multiple mentions of abrasions but they seem to be in various places on poor JonBenet's body.

 

Yes, as Thomas said himself, there was enough evidence for a "probable cause" arrest. But you can't take "probable cause" standard to trial. At trial, the prosecutor must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" which one tied the garrote on the neck and pulled it to strangle her to death. At trial the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt who struck the head blow, or if you will, threw or bashed JonBenet so furiously against "something" it cracked her skull nearly in half.

The fibers from Patsy's jacket are in the knots of the garrote. But she lived there, she interacted with her child on the night in question, and her "story" of underdressing JonBenet that night for bed would include transferring her jacket fibers onto JonBenet's clothes. That could in turn have gotten into the garrote by transference. It's not a done deal by any means in a trial.

It could be argued successfully by even a mediocre defense lawyer that John easily could have had--probably did have--Patsy's jacket fibers on HIS clothes. She was his wife, and it's natural to assume they had contact with each other in various ways that evening. They spent the evening together, after all. He picked up JonBenet, he said, to carry her to bed. Even if that's a lie, there's no way to PROVE he's lying about that. Even if you could prove John is lying about that, a defense lawyer would argue that John killed JonBenet and had Patsy's fibers on his clothes, and that's why they ended up in the garrote. And vice versa on the fibers found on JonBenet's genital area said to be consistent with John's sweater/shirt from that night.

That's what I meant when I said they are each other's best defense. At trial, how could a jury determine beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT which one did what?

Staging the "molestation" with the paintbrush was to cover up prior molestation, IMO. There is no other reason I can imagine anyone, including an intruder, would have used a paintbrush or object on the child in such a manner. Child molesters are child molesters, and they believe they're bringing pleasure to the child, sick as they are. What about a paintbrush insertion would do that? And why would a parent do such a thing? It's unspeakable.

So the only motive that makes sense to me is that the alternative was more horriflying to the perp(s): prison for child molestation and child abuse resulting in death. I don't believe either Ramsey was willing to put themselves into the hand of LE that night, no matter what had to be done to prevent that.

I wonder if the garroting occurred because JonBenet wasn't dying from the head wound as quickly as expected and needed, once the head blow set the nightmare in motion. Remember the Ramseys were expected at the airport, with Archuletta awaiting them that morning at 7 am. The "big kids" were shortly to be on their way to Minnesota to await their pick up in the family plane as well. If cell phone calls were made to key people, perhaps a doctor who was a "family friend" and to a lawyer who would be able to advise them of the law, not much time was left to stage the scene to allow them to get out of the house, the state, and into the hands of their lawyers who would shield them from LE.

Of course, that's one theory, no better or worse than some others. It's all arguable, and we have argued it to death. I'm just throwing out some things to think about here.

Here's what I think I know:

JonBenet was molested before the night she died.

She received a head blow that cleaved her skull in half; the blow shattered and displaced a portion of the skull.

She was strangled from behind with a noose fashioned in a strange way, tied onto her neck, not tied and then looped over her head, in the basement near the cellar room and Patsy's paint tray.

Her mouth was duct taped, her wrists loosely tied, and her body staged in the cellar room on top of a blanket which was wrapped around her, then the door was latched at the top.

At some point in this sequence of events, which may or may not have happened in the order I am listing them, the paintbrush was inserted into her vagina.

Patsy wrote the note: the handwriting is a match, the language is a match, it was clearly staging, as there was no kidnapping. Her pad was used. Her Sharpie pen was used.

It took no less than a couple of hours for all of this activity, probably more.

911 was called.

There were no defensive wounds on JonBenet's body or extreminties.

Patsy's jacket fibers were entwined in the knots of the garrote. John's sweater/shirt fibers were found where JonBenet had been wiped down in her genital area. Patsy's jacket fibers were in the paint tray. Patsy's paintbrush had been broken there and tied onto the garrote as a handle.

She had eaten pineapple within an hour or more of her death which came from the home and was found on the Ramsey table, but which no one admits she ate at the home.

The Bloomies underwear found on her body was so overly large it would have been impossible for her to have worn them while standing without them falling to her feet. (See my icon picture and the link in my signature to a full discussion and Jayelles' model of this.) Yet Patsy claimed JonBenet put them on herself from a pack of Bloomies bought for a child twice JonBenet's size. That pack disappeared after the murder; it then resurfaced five years later...given by Lin Wood to Mary Lacy. The Ramseys claim it was found by their PI when LE missed it during a 10 day evidence collection at the Boulder home, yet they never turned it over to LE during that five years, though Patsy admitted in a 2000 interview with LE she knew it was important evidence.

The Ramseys' home and cell phone records have never been obtained with a subpoena in 11 years. The "blank" cell phone record for the month of Dec. 1996 "voluntarily" turned over to LE a year after the murder is suspicious in the extreme under the circumstances, and I put my money on that cell phone having been used to make calls before the 911 call that morning. The phone records for the months preceeding the murder and after the murder were NEVER obtained nor "volunteered".

Alex Hunter acted with complete and utter corruption when he obstructed the BPD's investigation into the murder from day one, sharing evidence with the prime suspects and denying any subpoena needed by LE for the Ramsey phone records. Lou Smit is equally responsible, though I can't say if he was just ignorant as an investigator, so full of himself he was driven by ego, or actually in on the cover up initially.

I could go on, but I don't have the time now. Feel free to add.

 

And let me say for those who might criticize harping on the "missing" phone records: if nothing was there, THEN THE RAMSEYS SHOULD BE FURIOUS that these records weren't obtained by LE under subpoena, because that would futher clear up suspicions they'll never escape now. But if the records were buried BECAUSE of what they contained, then tampered with to erase that evidence in the year it took to "hand them over", getting those records immediately, WHICH ANY DECENT INVESTIGATOR WOULD HAVE DONE, could have solved this case in the first week.

And that's why I won't forget the importance of those phone records. EVER.

 

This just happened in July of 2007, last summer. He was 13 then. Funny, his initials are JB too...