Hi-Tec crime scene photos

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by koldkase, Sep 27, 2009.

  1. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Hey, Texan, good to see you back, as well.

    I don't pretend to know what the person who used that paintbrush on JonBenet was really thinking, but in the end, it was used.

    We do know time was an issue, so what else would have been used in a rush? How long do you take to look for something while murdering a child and staging the crime scene?

    Also the paintbrush was slender, so while it would present a violation to LE that would cover up previous abuse, the killer thought, at least for a while, it wasn't as violent as using something like a broom handle or similarly shaped item. (Gosh, this is always hard to write about.)
  2. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef


    Remember that Linda Arndt witnessed the autopsy...


    The autopsy of JonBenét Ramsey revealed the 6-year-old had suffered recent and past sexual abuse, according to an investigator who observed the examination.

    "What was seen was not a first-time injury," former Boulder police Detective Linda Arndt said in a television interview broadcast Wednesday.

    "I don't want to speak for the coroner, but not all of her injuries appeared to be recent," she said.

    Boulder County Coroner John Meyer has never said whether JonBenét was sexually assaulted, although some have interpreted his autopsy report to show the former Little Miss Colorado had been abused.

    Arndt told ABC's "Good Morning America" that the coroner found "trauma that would be consistent with injuries seen in sexual assault cases."
  3. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    I can definitely picture Patsy doing whatever it took to point away from herself and that her thinking process during that time included pointing the direction away from a FEMALE as well.

  4. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I always felt that some of the more disgraceful aspects of this case were Mayer's refusal to state in the report that JB showed evidence of sexual abuse that was chronic as well as acute. The way he handled the first examination of the body in the home, not following procedures to determine the TOD (in a murder victim, an unparalleled omission) was also a disgrace, and the use of unsterile clippers on her nails was also a disgrace.
    Det. Arndt's "amnesia" of that day, (the 26th) which she apparently developed when she planned to sue the BPD and write a book (hasn't been written as of this time) is also disgraceful.
    I know her superiors didn't give her adequate help and back-up that day. I know Officer French blew it completely when he allowed unauthorized people to wander all over the crime scene and he also couldn't figure out how to open the WC door, forever eliminating the preservation of the crime scene.
    BUT Arndt had a gun. There were lots of people around, true. But she could have put them all in one room and kept them there until help arrived. Instead, she TELLS JR to "look around" and what happened was an irreversible mistake and turning point in the ability of the police to solve the crime. She claims she was a scapegoat for the BPD's incompetence. I say she was pretty incompetent herself.
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    I agree with everything you're saying here DeeDee! Unbelievable! It was unfortunate for Linda Arndt it was Christmas time with just a skeleton staff at the Police Station. For sure she needed more backup!
  6. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    All true. But the bottom line is that, though she was alone, she had the ability to control the crime scene and she failed to do so. She also moved the body herself, and not only failed to stop an afghan from being put over the body, she herself threw a sweatshirt over her. She violated many protocols for preserving the crime scene. While she was not a homicide expert (she was a rape victims specialist) she got the same training in how to treat a homicide crime scene as every other LE.
    As soon as JR came up from the basement carrying the stiffened body of JB, the crime scene was irrevocably altered. But there were still things she could have done better. For one, she could have had the body moved to a separate room with a door that could be shut and stood guard at that door until help arrived. With the body already moved once, and the chance for LE to see the corpse of a murder victim in situ destroyed, she could still have prevented further contamination, and with poor JB shielded from view, covering the body was not needed. AND it would have prevented Patsy from throwing herself on top of her daughter's body, and eliminated one of Patsy's (and her lawyer's) excuses for why her fibers were on the garrote.
  7. Elle

    Elle Member

    I think Patsy planned to fall on JonBenét's body, DeeDee, because this would account for her DNA being present. I also feel Patsy gave herself away by inviting the contamination party. All part of her plan.

    Yes, I agree with all you're saying about Linda Arndt She really screwed up good and proper. John Ramsey should never have lifted JonBenét up either,
    he should have brought the detective downstairs.

    Forgive me for not using initials DeeDee I'm too used to using their names after all these years.. If they're going to come after me for this, they'll be suing the whole network. the names are all out there on Google. :) I'll just let them know I'm a Senior Senior! I have a migraine trying to sort out all the initials.[​IMG]
  8. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    It's been quite while since I was discussing this elsewhere, but from what I recall, erosion is not necessariy the result of a chronic process.

    From a website:
    What further complicates things is that in the autospy report, Dr. Meyer uses the terms abrasion and erosion when referring to the acute genital wound.

    Compare these parts of the autopsy report:
    "The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen."

    Later, on page 9:
    "the smallest piece of tissue, from the 7:00 position of the vaginal wall/hymen, contain epithelial erosion with underlying capillary congestion."
    Does it say in any source accesible to us to us where exactly this older vaginal injury was? Dr. Meyer mentions the chronic vaginal inflammation but one would not call this an "injury", I think.
    So if there was also a chronic injury (and if Arndt did not mean the chronic vaginal inflammation), then this injury was not mentioned in the autopsy report, at least not in the pages we have access to.
    Do you mean the chronic vaginal inflammation?
    The mountain of evidence implicates the Ramseys as being involved in the JonBenet's violent death, but can we say with certainty that this was a case of chronic sexual abuse? Is the evidence strong enough to rule out Steve Thomas's theory?

    Over the years, like most of us, I have been thinking of all possible scenarios in my 'time lines'; if it was a case of sexual abuse, maybe on that night Patsy surprised John molesting JonBenet and directed her rage against her daughter?
    Since the evidence points to Patsy as the main stager of the scene, I lean toward a scenario where she was also involved, on that fatal night, in the sequence of events resulting in JonBenet's violent death.
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2010
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Rashomon, I usually look at the many sources of expert opinion to decide what I believe about the chronic vaginal inflammation, and IMO, it was an injury caused by repeated sexual abuse.

    Dr. Wecht wrote very specifically from the autopsy report what his opinion is about the evidence. He concludes without hesitation that there was prior sexual abuse. He also spoke to this on a call-in radio interview I found online a couple of years or so ago: same opinion. (It's discussed around here somewhere on a thread.)

    Meyers was a puppet of Alex Hunter in this case, IMO. Not arriving at the crime scene as the coroner until after 8 pm was strange, but the excuse often was made he was awaiting a search warrant. I'm not sure why, since a dead child was lying in plain view, brought up in front of a BPD officer by JR himself. Whatever, that's what happened and then the autopsy wasn't performed until the next morning, further confusing TOD. We've heard rumors through the years that Meyers deliberately left parts of his examination of the body out of the final autopsy, as well. I can believe that, but it is only rumor, so....

    So I also look to the "Bonita Papers" as a source, since it actually has the most detailed report of what the experts consulted by the BPD and Meyers actually concluded about the sexual injuries to the child. While "Bonita" comes to us through a trail of anonymous characters, in the end, it's pretty obvious she had access to the official files when writing her summaries. It might not hold up in a court of law, but it's as good a reading of those actual files as the public is likely to ever get, with the BPD and BDA shutting down access to anyone outside Team Ramsey. But that's another bone to pick...and I've picked it many times.

    At any rate, the only thing that makes sense to me, looking at the evidence and sources we have, is that JonBenet was being molested prior to Dec. 25th and that was the catalyst for her murder, whether it began with an accident or was premeditated from the first blow. Who was committing the sexual abuse is open for argument, obviously. Even if it was from a barbaric douching regiment, punishment for bed-wetting, or straight out lascivious behavior, it was sexual--involving the sexual organs--and it was abuse, IMO.

    But Patsy is always at the heart of the evidence, no matter how you interpret what happened: her refusal to speak with LE for four months, lawyering up and making deals for evidence results instead, yet agreeing to be interviewed by the media the day after the funeral; her clothing fibers tied into the garrote knots; her paintbrush; her handwriting on her pad with her pen; her linguistics; her plethora of lies to LE; her plethora of lies to the public; her history of personal style and character; her words to her friend about JonBenet being too friendly and flirting; her calls to Dr. Beuf; her astonishingly choosey memory about the habits and activities of her own murdered child; her repeated inability to pass a lie detector test without multiple tries with multiple self-sponsored polygraphers, even years after the murder; etc.

    Still, I believe John Ramsey knew what happened as well when he was interviewed by LE; he lawyered up immediately and obstructed the investigation at every turn, blaming the BPD instead of helping them; he hated Steve Thomas far worse than he ever hated "the intruder"; he lied to LE in his interviews--his "story" about breaking into the basement is not even physically possible, not to mention absolutely absurd--and to the public, IMO; he "found" the body and contaminated the crime scene, after leading Fleet White around by the nose in the basement, IMO, hoping White would open that damn door and when he didn't, doing it himself; he can be heard on the 911 tape speaking harshly to someone in the background, IMO; he has done anything BUT look for the killer in 14 years; he even went so far as to feel sorry for the man who made disgusting claims about molesting JR's murdered daughter; his fibers were found on the genitals of the body, according to LE in JR's Atlanta interview; etc.

    Now look at Burke's story: he hid in his bed while he "heard" his mother running around in a disturbing state, pretending to be asleep when his parent(s) came into his room (we don't know which, because that story kept changing, too); he didn't ask questions when told to get up and dress to go to the Whites instead of going on the planned trip to Charlevoix; his primary concern that morning was he wasn't going to Charlevoix after all; according to his parents (NE interview) he never questioned them about JonBenet's death and they never brought it up with him; his voice may be the higher pitched, childlike voice on the 911 call heard in the background, though the Ramseys' story was first that he was asleep at that time, then later changed to he was awake but they didn't know it until his grand jury testimony (NE interview); etc.

    So that's three people who were in the house the night JB was murdered, not one of whom has an alibi--by their own admission--and not one whose story makes sense, as they kept changing them over time. The truth does not change.

    Darnay Hoffman was right about one thing: DA Hunter had no will to prosecute this case. I now believe he willfully aided the Ramseys in covering up the truth in this murder. Whether or not a decent DA, committed to justice for the victim and to doing his or her duty to the People of Boulder, could have convinced a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that any or all of this evidence led to one or more Ramseys, we'll never know. But it proves to me--and I'm not on a jury and have no sway over any outcome at trial or sentencing, so anyone making an argument I shouldn't have an opinion is meeting a deaf ear here--that the three people in that house lied repeatedly about the events of that night and morning, about the evidence, obstructed the investigation, and were one or more involved in the events and/or crimes that led to the death of JonBenet Ramsey.

    I believe there was some deep, moral failure in that family and it spun so out of control, JonBenet became the lightening rod for it. Greed, arrogance, pride, lust, and an expectation of privilege and success somehow combined to set forth a sequence of events that brought them all crashing down on JonBenet's poor body.

    God rest her soul, she did not deserve her fate, no matter how much John Ramsey thinks she was a "handful." What a bastid to speak of his murdered daughter that way on national TV. She was a child, and her behavior was what THEY taught her to be--their sins incarnate.
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2010
  10. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

  11. Karen

    Karen Member

    Perfect KK. For me it is all pretty simple when I boil it down. In addition to all the evidenxe KK just posted about Patsy I'll add this.
    Patsy wore the same outfit to a TV interview the day after ST questioned her. Even my pea sized brain knows, an innocent person would not do this. It would not even be in their mind at the time.
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Good to see you, Karen.

    Yes, that Patsy was always staging scenes, wasn't she? Always thinking how to cover the truth....
  13. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    KK, do you have a theory regarding the sequence of events?
    If JonBenet was sexually abused, who do you believe was her abuser?
    The item of evidence I find difficult to interpret is the Bloomies underwear.
    For if the paintbrush was jabbed into JonBenet' body to stage a sexual assault (the purpose being to cover up signs of chronic sexual abuse), then why did the stager of the scene wipe off the blood and (re)dress the body in underwear and longjohns?
  14. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    I think that you answered your own question there, Rashomon. The person that did the staging knew that the prior molestation would be revealed in the course of JonBenet's autopsy, they attempted to cover-up older evidence by creating fresh evidence. IMO - The wipe down was more intended for washing away any of the many types of evidence that would also be found if it wasn't cleaned up. The washing away JonBenet's blood that was present after the assault with the paintbrush - Hooray for Splinters though - what she bled after she was redressed came from a sterilzed wound. The choice of the longjohns and underwear that was not hers or her size is something that I wish we could have an answer for too...

    John and Patsy both stated that JonBenet was "zonked out" when they arrived home and never awoke when John carried her from the car to her bedroom, when she was undressed and then dressed again for bed. Which parent was it again that claimed to be able to pull off this amazing feat?

    Burke is the only one from the only 4 people in the home that stated that he saw his sister awake and walking into the home. What a Drream Come True that would be if JonBenet's Brother also becomes her Hero...
  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, I don't know, rashomon. Rat came up with some good points. I've had so many theories and sequences of events, I can't remember them.

    For now, I'll say there's no way to know how long or how often JB was sexually molested, without a confession or witness, because it may have begun as a slow process, as often is the case with children that young. If it was an adult doing it, then the experts say that the child is "groomed" for a period of time, as slowly the boundaries are crossed one at a time. Perhaps it never got to full penetration by a male, if it was a male.

    If it was another child, then it's hard to say how long that went on, either. Without JonBenet to speak to the facts of what happened, we will probably never know. I think that's exactly what the murder and cover up were about, essentially, even if it started with an angry head blow and wasn't truly premeditated. And I'm not sure of that, as well.

    What I do think is that she was penetrated enough times to destroy most of her hymen and erode the cervical rim somewhat. With what this was done--again, no way to know, but to speculate the usual ways.

    But Pam Archuleta said that Patsy was upset with JonBenet's behavior before her murder, accusing her of "flirting."

    You know, I need to look a few things up, dates, etc., and I have to run right now, but I'll come back and go through your questions, Rashomon, because you've asked some great questions, and they're worth a considered response.
  16. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    View attachment 5239
    Bumping because of a discussion on another forum.

    In an earlier post I mentioned that they started manufacturing the boot in 1991 for the 500th anniversary of the discovery of America.​

    Attached Files:

  17. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Paula Woodward's book has a photo of what are purported to be Michael Helgoth's HI-TEC boots. In a side-by-side comparison Helgoth's HI-TEC logo looks quite similar to that of the Columbus boot I own. The imprint the Columbus boot produces is shown in the post above. It's reasonable to conclude that the Helgoth boot would produce something very like it.

    How similar would that be to the crime scene imprint? Not very, I think. The crime scene imprint is shown in the first post on this thread.

    I was interested to read what John Ramsey said about the crime scene imprint. When looking at the crime scene photo in '98 he said: I see high [HI], looks like high [HI] something you see in a square block with, I can't tell if it's raised or lettering."

    That square block (really a parallelogram) is well-defined and straight, particularly around the "H." It must reflect a structure like that on the boot and neither the Columbus nor the Helgoth boot have it. Neither one of them would produce that imprint, in my opinion.

    I agree with John Ramsey that logo characters in the crime scene photo look raised, which brings me to a related subject....Woodward's book republishes the photo of the crime scene imprint, but it's been flipped horizontally. Presumably this was done so her readers would see "HI-TEC" rather than its mirror image.

    But something else was done to the photo and because the cross bar on the "T" at the crime scene just looks like a blob of floor debris, it took me a few seconds to realize what that was: the photo is also flipped vertically so that "HI-TEC" is actually upside down on the page. (Draw a mental line through the middle of "HI-TEC" and you'll see that all the characters except the "T" have a horizontal axis of symmetry.)

    Why would you flip the photo vertically? It doesn't make it more readable. But what it does do is make the characters at the crime scene look depressed rather than raised, thus more like something that Helgoth's boot could produce.

    Personally, from looking at the debris surrounding the imprint, I think the logo characters in the imprint are raised, which would make them the product of incised letters on the boot sole. Could be wrong about that. The framing parallelogram is really the key.​
  18. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    Well, a correction is in order: I took a photo of my Columbus boot logo with flash on and, lo and behold, a framing box around the letters pops out. I had intended to do an overlay with the crime scene boot print to see if the logos match up, but I haven't done it so I'll just post the photo I took with the flash on.

    Hi-Tec logo flash.jpg
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice