Let's throw down, jams

Good points.

But it must be said that Patsy wore that jacket all evening, had contact with JonBenet and Burke and John, climbing in and out of their car, could have shed fibers taking a larger coat on and off, if she wore one, etc. That's the weakness of the fibers of hers found--they could have come from JonBenet's clothes, or when Patsy changed her. Even if Patsy were there when the garrote was made, it's possible she didn't make it. Maybe she just watched. Held JonBenet's body down to provide the counterweight.

I think it's far more damning that John's sweater fibers were found in the crotch area where JonBenet was wiped down. Of course, he also had lots of contact with the children, same as Patsy that night. So secondary or tertiary transference is a good defense on this. How can we know which one of them actually did what, when they all lived there and all interacted that night in those clothes at the Whites and at home?

What I wonder is about the concentration of fibers in the crotch area. Were there many? A lot?

And Smit has gone on the record stating the duvet in the suitcase was originally identified as the source for those dark fibers--"being consistent with", allegedly the opinion of the CBI. The FBI had another opinion, we were told, and that is probably the source of what LE said to John about those fibers from John's sweater being the in the genital area, in Atlanta in 2000.

It's just madness. There are no two investigators nor experts who agree on ANYTHING in this case, it would seem.

 

Chronic Erosion........Two more words that I'll NEVER get outta my head.

 

I know, Rat. There's so much I will never get out of my head now, unholy things, like the autopsy photos of a STRANGLED CHILD.

Just a few days now, and it will have been 12 years ago on Christmas night....

 

But what makes the fiber evidence so damaging is that Patsy's jacket fibers were found only in locations connected to the staging of the scene: on the duct tape, in the paint tray from which the brush was taken, in the ligature and on the blanket covering the body.

John's shirt fibers are as damning as Patsy's jacket fibers. The fiber evidence implicates both Patsy and John. They were both involved imo.
As for John's shirt fibers, imo it is not quite clear from the interview whether they were found both on the body and in the crotch area of the underwear, or only in the underwear.

 

On page 4, second paragraph, of the autopsy report it mentions an area of violet discoloration in the vagina. To me, that indicates bruising. Every bruise I have ever seen had violet discoloration. I also do see the reddish-purple abrasion mentioned in the same paragraph. I would probably consider that a bruise because of the coloring, but abrasion signifies that skin cells had been scraped or rubbed off.
That's one of the confusing things about the other "abrasions". There are abrasions mentioned on the back of her legs. Possibly from dragging her into the wineceller? And then there are the mysterious parallel abrasions on her cheek and back.
But internally? For there to be abrasions INSIDE the vagina indicates something scraped INSIDE her vagina. And that means something was inserted in her vagina. And that means sexual assault. And why coroner Mayer did not put that conclusion in his report is very suspect to me.
The vagina of a 6-year old child does not get an abrasion from bubble bath, or from excessing wiping, or from cheap underwear. It gets an abrasion when something foreign is inserted inside and damages the tissue.

 

From the autopsy:
"On the right labia majora is a very faint area of violet
discoloration measuring approximately one inch by three-eighths of
an inch. Incision into the underlying subcutaneous tissue discloses
no hemorrhage. " (end quote)

This discoloration was on the outer genital region, on one of the external labia. The discolaration is described as very faint, so it might have been from an earlier occurrence, whatever it was (sexual abuse, parental rage or vigorous cleaning connected to toileting issues, or - also a theoetical possibility - an older small bruise from playing). The absence of hemorrhage in the subcutaneus tissue could also point to this being an older injury.

JBR autopsy:
"A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral
area of the 1x1 cm hymenal orifice. The hymen itself is represented
by a rim of mucosal tissue extending clockwise between the 2 and
10:00 positions. 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." (end quote)

This seems to be the acute genital wound.

Also importan to note:
"A similar small amount of dried and semifluid blood is present on
the skin of the fourchette and in the vestibule." (end quote)

An M. D. posting on an JBR forum said that "semifluid" indicates JonBenet had lived long enough after the infliction of the wound for the blood to start coagulating (?) - I don't recall the exact wording, so please posters with medical knowledge correct me if have understood anything wrong here.

I'm beginning to doubt that the Ramseys thought JonBenet was already dead when they staged the scene. For how could they, seeing that the vaginal wound bled enough to require wiping the blood off?

Another damaging finding is the reddish circumferential hyperemia:

JBR autopsy:
"Inside the vestibule of the vagina and along the distal vaginal wall is
reddish hyperemia. This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps
more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly.
This hyperemia is circumferential and perhaps
more noticeable on the right side and posteriorly. The hyperemia
also appears to extend just inside the vaginal orifice." (end quote)

The forum M. D. wrote that "reddish" means it was fresh (had it been in the process of healing, it would have been pinkish), and that "circumferential" points to digital penetration.
One doesn't get such circumferential hyperemia from bubble bath or from wet underwear.

Possibly, yes.
Also interesting in this context: her white shirt was not dirty, and had she been dragged into the wine cellar wearing the shirt, dirt marks would have been on it from that dingy basement floor.
It looks like JonBenet was later redressed to fit their story ("put to bed asleep, still wearing the shirt from the Whites' party").

Do you mean those round marks?

ITA, DeeDee.

 

Yes, the round marks were what I meant. The ones that are sometimes inferred as being made by a stun gun.
Interesting thought- my comment about the abrasions on the back of her legs being from dragging her into the wineceller and the fact that her white shirt was not dirty- if JBR was dead at that point, (it would have to be relatively soon after death- livor mortis suggest she was not moved after she'd been dead about 20 minutes or so) - so if she was dead or dying and unconscious, she'd be dead weight (no pun intended- that phrase has a basis in fact. With the complete muscle relaxation that comes with primary flaccidity, she'd feel much heavier than her 40-something pounds. Primary flaccidity happens immediately after death, and lasts briefly until rigor mortis begins forming, about 30 minutes or so after death). I can picture someone pulling her by the arms, with the top of her body not touching the floor, but her legs scraping along the floor. Believable, especially as a parent may not have wanted to actually pick her up at that point. Remember how JR carried her upstairs? Arndt described it as holding her upright and away from his body, the way someone might carry a large doll or mannequin.
Now here's another thought. No mention was made as to whether the leggings were dirty. It is possible that the white blanket was put down on the filthy wineceller floor because they could not bring themselves to leave her on a filthy floor. This is also something an intruder would not care about, I assure you. They'd have skipped the blanket and the redressing and left her. If she'd been dragged wearing the leggings, they would surely have yielded that information. Whether anyone LOOKED for that information or reported it if they did is another matter. I am sure there had to be much more evidence from that basement, dirt, carpet fibers, mold, etc. available to be tested on her clothes and body than we have been told about.
So there exists at least the possiblity that she was dressed after being put on the white blanket. Abrasions on her legs would correspond to a mark of some sort on the leggings, if she'd been wearing them.
I would LOVE to know where she was laying when she was wiped down, because there had to have been blood on that surface. And I can't recall anyone investigating the case wondering about it or if they did, trying to determine where.

 

Good post DeeDee. The part I bolded is something I had never thought of before. Iwonder if that is why LE is so adament there was no stun gun used, because after all we know they still haven't given up all the evidence yet and they really were adament about it.

 

Oh, wow. There is it, brought up by another FFJ brialliant mind!

How does Smit account for that? Does the think the long johns were REMOVED ENTIRELY? Because they'd HAVE to have been, for her to be stunned on the back of her leg--lower, wasn't it? And those marks are in the back.

Just a thought, but remember that LE asked Patsy if JB had nose bleeds. This was during a long period of questions that repeatedly went back to the PILLOW ON THE BED AND THE PILLOWCASE, which was said to have some "stain" on it. I inferred from those questions that it was "watery" with JonBenet's blood, perhaps in mucous, saliva, or...perhaps from that vaginal injury?

Okay, too much to take in on Christmas Eve will all the holiday stuff going on, but DeeDee, rashomon, Karen, et all, I will be reading carefully what you've written as soon as I have a chance. Thank you so much for still being here and doing what you do.... :grouphug:

 

Wouldn't they have to be removed entirely to change her panties into the oversize ones? That would mean, if there were no marks on the long johns, that she was stun gunned at the time her panties were being changed and when her legs were bare. This might be worth exploring by better minds than mine on here. What say the rest of you??

 

Yeah, it's an area we haven't really discussed or probed before, that I remember, anyway, and DON'T bet the farm on my memory anymore. Soon as this holiday is over, maybe we'll have time to really consider this.

 

Yes, her longjohns would have to be completely removed (and not just pulled down) for her panties to be replaced. I am not so sure the lower posterior (back) leg abrasions mentioned in the autopsy are the same kind of abrasions as the round ones on her cheek and lower back. We have seen the back and cheek abrasions, we have never seen the ones on her lower legs. Abrasions are all different. They can be a scratch, a wearing away (like a blister from a shoe) or scraping against something.
Mayer described the cheek abrasion (and possibly the back, I don't recall) as having a "boat-shaped" mark inside. From this, is has been implied that they could have been made by a snap or button or some type. To me, they have always looked like cigarette burns, though if they really were I assume a coroner could have determined that.

 

Koldkase's excellent "epiphany."

Catching up on the threads today, Koldkase, I came upon your “epiphany†post (reference to JBR’s molestation) and your thoughts on the infamous paint brush.
My sense of amazement lingers still as I ponder anew your analytical, brilliant mind. Your in-depth knowledge of the case is mind-boggling. I have never before read such a meticulously written account by anyone on this (or any other) aspect of this convoluted case. I have always thought that, behind all the pseudo-rationale of the RST, the molestation issue looms large as the most poignant (and unexplainable) issue behind the Ram’s bazaar behaviour. It makes their guilt shine through the million dollar masks they adorn for public display. To date, they have danced around this sensitive issue, and, in a sense, it has garnished public sympathy, and kept them from being indicted. We just cannot imagine parents, such as the Ram’s (with no prior record of abuse) sexually abusing (and killing) their child. And, after all, the once great John Douglas officially stated same.
Dear brainy Koldkase, I think that your excellent “epiphany†post should be forwarded to the new Boulder D.A. It may enable him to gain new insight, as to array of possible Ram involvement. If he possesses a molecule of curiosity, and/or displays a real determination to bring forth the culprits, he’ll read your post with great interest.
Closure lies within the mind-set of the D.A. We can only hope that he approaches this case with a determination to uncover the truth, and the courage to risk his reputation, and maybe even his life. Yes, many people in high places share in the guilt of this crime and the subsequent elaborate cover up. If the entire truth is ever known, the public will be shocked, and perhaps even horrified.
I think I speak for most of the FFJ members, as I express my gratitude to KK, for her in-depth research and for her willingness to share so freely with us her creative, succinct, and extraordinary thoughts, reference to this case.
gl

 

There's NO Way that anybody could not be in Full Agreement with your assessment of our KoldKase! I believe that we have have one of Candy's meltdown at Purgatory to Thank for bring KK back down to Guttah Level!

And YOU, Lady - You remember what most have forgot about this case and it's Internet SubCulture as you have been there since the very beginning and have continued to keep JonBenet in your heart after all these years! We would surely suffer without your presence, GL & KK!

 

You're all doing a great job going over all the details Karen. One thing that jumps out at me when I think of JonBenét being placed way down in that filthy cellar floor, is the Ramseys had no choice, they had to place Jonenét in the furthest room from their house to warrant not having heard a sound, and yet as we have all talked about before, the careful handling of wrapping her in a blanket reeks of parental care. No killer would care
how they left their victim.

 

I have to go along with you here, Texan when you state:

I think this is exactly what happened. Too much went into this staging, and I do think the paintbrush was viciously used to hide pevious chronic abuse.

 

KK,

I am catching up on this thread, and I have just read a few of your posts, and I would like to congratulate you like Greenleaf on your courage to openly discuss such a very delicate subject when it comes to a child being sexually molested. You talk about being careful about not being too graphic. I do feel this part does holds many of us back from asking intimate questions.

We don't always agree on absolutely everything, one being the garrote which was a fake sexual tool. This is where I feel Texan's statement of synchronization being screwed up kicks in for me.

Trying not to be too graphic here myself for the life of me I can't bring myself to see John Ramsey in this role, trying to penetrate his little six year old daughter. My mind boggles at the thought of a full grown male and a little six year old girl. It makes me sick. However, heymom was one poster who seemed to know much more about this, if I remember correctly. Maybe she can add more.

I have stated before John Ramsey was a CEO and I'm sure he didn't need to molest his young daughter for sexual satisfaction due to Patsy's illness with cancer. He had to know many women, having had a girlfiend when married to Lucinda, therefore I have trouble seeing John Ramsey in this pedophile role.

The mutilation in JonBenét's vagina with the paintbrush was definitely done to cover previous molestation, that's for sure. There would have been no need to have used this paintbrush shaft for normal every day bathing and cleansing of JonBenét.

Once again, KK, I do admire your courage.

 

Team Ramsey's story always was that JonBenet's underwear had not been changed; neither by them nor by an intruder.
Patsy said when she put her to bed alseep, she removed her black velvet pants and put the longjohns on her.
Good point about there being no marks from a stun gun on the longjohns, Karen.

 

LOL! Well then I guess I and Team Ramsey are even and should call it a draw because i don't think for a minute that Jonbenet was ever stungunned anyway.

rashomon, someone much smarter than I ,way up this thread somehwhere came up with this idea about the stun gun marks on the longjohns. Maybe it was DeeDee? I'm not sure right now and I need to run so I'm going to give the rest of this forum a quick looksee before I go and I don't have time to look for it but I just wanted to give credit where it's really due. Thanks anyway!:cheerful:

 

I understand that it is hard to consider the picture of a father molesting his child. I am not sure it was John Ramsey who did molest JonBenet, but I also cannot rule him out as the source of her previous sexual contact (not penile penetration). There is something unwholesome and unnatural about John Ramsey, in my opinion. I don't know if he would be a classic pedophile, or just a narcissist who found a way to abuse one of the cardboard cutouts who populated his household. That is how I believe narcissists see the world - they are the only real people while the rest of us are merely cardboard cut-outs, put there for their use and pleasure, or knocked out of the way if they are displeased. John's immediate use of his former friends as "bait" for law enforcement proves that he had no guilt whatsoever about using people to accomplish his own ends.

Any time a little girl is as sexualized as JonBenet was, I think sexual abuse. I don't know who in that family was abusing her, and I don't think it had been going on too long - at least not the penetration - but it's as plain as day on the autopsy report. Maybe it was Patsy with the "pageant scrubs," that may have included douching. We've discussed Patsy as a possible victim of sexual abuse herself.

One of the things that keeps bringing me back to John, though, is that nasty habit he has of sticking his entire tongue out as he talks. I was shocked when I first saw him do his lizard imitation. It may seem funny in some ways, but I have said before that exposing such an intimate part of one's body over and over again is a sexual "tell." It's a very unusual tic - and it means something. He can't expose himself in any other way, but I believe his tongue is serving the purpose he wants.

Sick stuff, I know. Sorry.