I am so sorry you’ve gone elvis

[aussiesheila]

I read with sinking heart that last post of yours that lead up to your saying goodbye. I’m sure I am not the only poster who simply loved having you here, not just for your medical knowledge but because you were fun too.

Way back when I was posting at Websleuths I just so wished we had an in house medico who we could refer medical questions to (there is a limit to what you can find out on internet searches). There was a poster there who used to state over and over, and I’m paraphrasing here “the brain was so swollen it had flattened out from pressing on the inside surface of the skull”. Before long everyone was chanting “swollen brain, swollen brain”. I was sure they were wrong but other than referring to the coroner having stated “No inflammation is identified” there was not much else I could do.

So when this medico with the broken ankle appeared in our midst at CourtTV I jumped for joy. I am forever grateful to you for explaining how the “Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri” occurred as well as posting your medical opinion on other points, which I had previously posted about but with no authority.

When I first started posting I felt it was incumbent on me to rebut EVERY incorrect statement put forward as proof of Ramsey guilt with reasoned, considered replies. I soon realized that people didn’t even read them or if they did they simply ignored them or worse still criticized me for making them and then went on repeating the same old pseudo facts. When you came here I could see that a similar thing was happening to you, I would groan inwardly when you launched into yet another reason why there was no great span of time between the strangling and head bashing, as time and time again someone would come up with some absurd reason why it just might possibly have been so. You showed a lot more patience in answering these people than I thought was warranted, but then that is probably just me getting selfish in my old age. I eventually gave up on replying to certain posters when I saw I was getting nowhere, and I realized that some people were going to cling to their beliefs even in the face of logic saying they cannot possibly be true. I think that is a good line to follow. Remember there are still people around who believe the earth is flat.

So you have been attacked personally now too, but with a degree of visciousness that I find appalling as I’m sure most posters here think so too and would like to see that poster banned. I know an attack like this is very hurtful, but it is nevertheless, as I’m sure you well know in your less emotional moments, a sign that your arguments are strong when those who disagree with you have no other recourse but to attack you.

So I for one will miss your presence. And I never did get around to asking you the other question I had which, was why do you think an occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial infiltrate in the thyroid was seen by the coroner in the autopsy examination? I have always wondered if that could possibly have been the result of previous applications of a garotte to her neck on previous occasions of sexual abuse. I would have loved to hear from you whether this is commonly seen in a child’s thyroid and if so, what is the cause.

seeya
aussie

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by aussiesheila

I
So I for one will miss your presence. And I never did get around to asking you the other question I had which, was why do you think an occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial infiltrate in the thyroid was seen by the coroner in the autopsy examination? I have always wondered if that could possibly have been the result of previous applications of a garotte to her neck on previous occasions of sexual abuse. I would have loved to hear from you whether this is commonly seen in a child’s thyroid and if so, what is the cause.

seeya
aussie

Aussie:

I asked this question of Elvislives a long time ago in PM. I am sure she would not mind me sharing her answer.

What that most likely means is that JB suffered from chronic (in md terms chronic means more than 5) ear infections or sinus infections, or possibly allergies. The interstitial thyroid tissue tends to inflame whenever the lymph nodes are swollen--and the lymph nodes in this area will swell whenever the pt gets an upper respiratory infection.
Parathyroid is a tiny (the size of a grain of rice) gland --actually there are 4 of them--that sit behind the thyroid. The ME was just noting it. It is nothing significant. Hope that helps!
Elvis

[bullmoose]

Good-bye, elvislives, your intelligent posting here will be much missed by those of us that appreciated the medical insights you offered. You leave us a little wiser, if not closer to a solution on the resolution of this case. Happy Trails

[Athena]

Originally Posted by Zoey

Aussie:

I asked this question of Elvislives a long time ago in PM. I am sure she would not mind me sharing her answer.

What that most likely means is that JB suffered from chronic (in md terms chronic means more than 5) ear infections or sinus infections, or possibly allergies. The interstitial thyroid tissue tends to inflame whenever the lymph nodes are swollen--and the lymph nodes in this area will swell whenever the pt gets an upper respiratory infection.
Parathyroid is a tiny (the size of a grain of rice) gland --actually there are 4 of them--that sit behind the thyroid. The ME was just noting it. It is nothing significant. Hope that helps!
Elvis

Well she did suffer from allergies and she also had asthma so elvis' answer seems to be spot on and sounds like she was not aware of JBRs medical history. It's posted somewhere on this board. JMO

[SnarkyCow]

I'm sad to see Elvis leave too! I really enjoyed her posts. Hope she'll find her way back here at some point.

[aussiesheila]

Originally Posted by Zoey

Aussie:

I asked this question of Elvislives a long time ago in PM. I am sure she would not mind me sharing her answer.

What that most likely means is that JB suffered from chronic (in md terms chronic means more than 5) ear infections or sinus infections, or possibly allergies. The interstitial thyroid tissue tends to inflame whenever the lymph nodes are swollen--and the lymph nodes in this area will swell whenever the pt gets an upper respiratory infection.
Parathyroid is a tiny (the size of a grain of rice) gland --actually there are 4 of them--that sit behind the thyroid. The ME was just noting it. It is nothing significant. Hope that helps!
Elvis

It's a big help Zoey, thanks a lot.

[shill]

Ironic that every one is seeking the truth, but only a few want to hear it.

[Sharon]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

Good-bye, elvislives, your intelligent posting here will be much missed by those of us that appreciated the medical insights you offered. You leave us a little wiser, if not closer to a solution on the resolution of this case. Happy Trails

Huge 2nd.

However, I dont blame her for leaving. Her time was a valuable gift that she was giving for free. Having her here was indeed a windfall for the board. jmo.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by shill

Ironic that every one is seeking the truth, but only a few want to hear it.

But exactly what IS the truth?
Remember that Dr. Spitz said there were blood clots in JB's brain. Unlike Elvislives and us, he studied about 100 autopsy pictures.
I asked EL how Dr. Spitz can state this if the blood in JB's brain had no time to organize itself - her answer was "I don't know."
And that is the point: we may don't know many things. For we all have only read the written autopsy report and EL was able to translate parts of it to us. The whole autopsy file is probably much larger.
If we sum up what both EL and Dr. Spitz stated about the blood in JB's brain, there seem to be areas where the blood did have time to organize itself (clots) and areas where the blood did not have time to organize itself.

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by rashomon

But exactly what IS the truth?
Remember that Dr. Spitz said there were blood clots in JB's brain. Unlike Elvislives and us, he studied about 100 autopsy pictures.
I asked EL how Dr. Spitz can state this if the blood in JB's brain had no time to organize itself - her answer was "I don't know."
And that is the point: we may don't know many things. For we all have only read the written autopsy report and EL was able to translate parts of it to us. The whole autopsy file is probably much larger.
If we sum up what both EL and Dr. Spitz stated about the blood in JB's brain, there seem to be areas where the blood did have time to organize itself (clots) and areas where the blood did not have time to organize itself.

In Elvislives defense, I don't think she was responding I don't know to your question, per se, I think she may have answered I don't know as in, I don't know why Dr. Spitz would state what he did. Since Elvislives was not Dr. Spitz, she would not know why he answered questions the way he did. I can't find that particular post at the moment by Elvislives, but IIRC, she went on to explain her thoughts about this. I think you are taking the I don't know out of context. IMO.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by Zoey

In Elvislives defense, I don't think she was responding I don't know to your question, per se, I think she may have answered I don't know as in, I don't know why Dr. Spitz would state what he did. Since Elvislives was not Dr. Spitz, she would not know why he answered questions the way he did. I can't find that particular post at the moment by Elvislives, but IIRC, she went on to explain her thoughts about this. I think you are taking the I don't know out of context. IMO.

My question to EL was:
- why did Dr. Spitz (who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures of JB) state that JB had blood clots?

EL's answer: I don't know.

You can read the whole post here (# 445 on the thread)

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showt...280581&page=12

What Dr. Spitz states seems to contradict the inference EL drew from the forensic evidence (= that JB must have died very soon after the head blow).
For if there were in fact blod clots in JB brain, the blood in some areas of her brain must have had enough time to organize itself.
Dr. Spitz is a renowned expert who has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies.

[bullmoose]

Are you absolutely sure about that number of 50,000? An autopsy takes as long as 6 hours, even if Spitz was on an assembly line in a morgue, the number is hard to swallow. At the rate of four a day seven days a week he would have needed 35 years or so to perform such a staggering sum; how in the world could he have found time to review forensic testing in this high-speed McDonald's style morgue? Or eat, or sleep, or have a life outside just cutting and weighing organs and examining an endless line of corpses? Where would he find the time to write up the cases he was whipping out? Or examine information and give opinions on cases like Jonbenet? Come on, give it a thought and admit that the number is inflated; maybe that's the number of autopsies done in his country of origin during his career,but not even a slasher in a horror movie does that many. JMHO

[andU]

Me thinks there are toooo many zeros there.

Dr. Werner Spitz:

http://info.detnews.com/history/stor...gory=locations
Over the years the Wayne County Medical Examiner's Office has pioneered and expanded investigative techniques and the scientific discipline.

In 1972, Dr Werner Spitz became Chief Medical Examiner and immediately instituted controversial reforms at the morgue. During his 16-year reign Spitz built an international reputation by testifying at high-profile trials and congressional investigations. He testified in investigations into the Mary Jo Kopechne drowning, the Oakland County child murders, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the Skid Row Murder trial in Los Angeles. He wrote a textbook that is a standard in medical schools around the world.

Dr. Spitz decreed that bodies were to remain in the facility no longer than 24 hours. He installed closed circuit television to ease the impact of identification on family members. He hired additional staff and trained them to run the morgue more efficiently. For the first time Wayne State University affiliated itself with the morgue. Dr. Spitz set up a private organization to help investigate Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), commonly known as "crib death."

He began sending pituitary glands to outside firms for use in manufacturing Human Growth Hormone, a vital ingredient for children otherwise destined for dwarfism. He even took down the Morgue sign and replaced it with a more benign "Wayne County Medical Examiner" plaque.

Famed Los Angeles Medical Examiner Dr. Thomas Noguchi said of Spritz: "He's probably one of the best there is."

Biography
http://www.norfolkfour.com/index.php...er_u_spitz_md/
Dr. Werner U. Spitz, M.D., one of this country’s most experienced and well-respected forensic pathologists, is a Professor of Pathology at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, Adjunct Professor of Pathology at the University of Windsor in Canada, and a forensic pathologist and toxicologist consultant. He has served as the Chief Medical Examiner for Macomb County, Michigan, the Chief Medical Examiner for Wayne County, Michigan, and the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner in Baltimore, Maryland.
Dr. Spitz has published more than ninety scientific articles in medical journals, as well as a textbook that is considered to be the leading authority on forensic pathology. He has testified numerous times in high-profile cases, including the wrongful death suit against O.J. Simpson, and has testified before the House of Representatives regarding the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Martin Luther King, Jr. During his 52 years as a forensic pathologist, he has either performed or supervised nearly 60,000 autopsies.

As I've said before Rashomon, the Boulder PD was asking for the opinion of other forensic experts. Even before Dr. Meyer had finished his autopsy report, Dr. Henry Lee was consulted (source ST: IRMI). Dr. Spitz got to review the complete autopsy file (source: above referenced article). Dr. McCann and a panel of six other experts in sexual abuse were consulted by the Boulder PD (source: Bonita Papers).

The Boulder PD didn't rely soley on Meyer's autopsy report, they consulted others for their expert opinion. To rely soley on the autopsy report for clues into the exact manner of JB's death (when the investigators closest to the case clearly didn't) is to ignore vital information. Ignoring vital information will not help you form a solid, and substantiated opinion as to the series of events regarding JB's death in this case.

[andU]

Point taken... my bad.

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by rashomon

My question to EL was:
- why did Dr. Spitz (who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures of JB) state that JB had blood clots?

EL's answer: I don't know.

You can read the whole post here (# 445 on the thread)

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showt...280581&page=12

What Dr. Spitz states seems to contradict the inference EL drew from the forensic evidence (= that JB must have died very soon after the head blow).
For if there were in fact blod clots in JB brain, the blood in some areas of her brain must have had enough time to organize itself.
Dr. Spitz is a renowned expert who has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies.

Rashomon,
Thank you for all the information, but I still think you are taking what Elvislives out of context. She is not saying she doesn't know why JB had blood clots or didn't. She is saying she doesn't know why Dr. Spitz says that as she has never spoken to him.

I am not trying to argue with you, so please don't take it that way. I am just saying that you are reading incorrectly what Elvislives meant. IMO

[bullmoose]

The word left out by Rashoman in her description of Dr. Spitz' credentials was 'supervised'. That changes the perspective altogether, as chief medical examiner in Wayne County, IE Detroit, Michigan or Macomb County, which includes Mt. Clemens, Michigan certainly it is no stretch to say that 50 or even 60 thousand autopsies were performed during his 52 years as a forensic pathologist while he held that position and others.He was the boss so he supervised them; he didn't perform all of them, probably not most of them.The information about his work with pituitary glands and HGH is interesting, as my cousin in Detroit was treated with HGH in the 70's and went from 4'6'' at 16 to 5'9'' at 19.JMHO

[andU]

Well, sure, ok... I can that as possible .... he was 'in charge' of that many as Dept. Head; he didn't even know when some of the were scheduled, probably.

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by andU

Well, sure, ok... I can that as possible .... he was 'in charge' of that many as Dept. Head; he didn't even know when some of the were scheduled, probably.

IMHO, probably not even 90 per cent or more; he conducted 50 or 60 thousand autopsies the way Ramses the Great built monuments: he directed the operation from afar, alighting on the scene, when necessary. This is not in any way taking away from what are awesome credentials, it's just trying to understand his credentials better. JMHO

[andU]

Originally Posted by bullmoose

IMHO, probably not even 90 per cent or more; he conducted 50 or 60 thousand autopsies the way Ramses the Great built monuments: he directed the operation from afar, alighting on the scene, when necessary. This is not in any way taking away from what are awesome credentials, it's just trying to understand his credentials better. JMHO

Well spoken!

[aussiesheila]

Originally Posted by rashomon

My question to EL was:
- why did Dr. Spitz (who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures of JB) state that JB had blood clots?

EL's answer: I don't know.

You can read the whole post here (# 445 on the thread)

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showt...280581&page=12

What Dr. Spitz states seems to contradict the inference EL drew from the forensic evidence (= that JB must have died very soon after the head blow).
For if there were in fact blod clots in JB brain, the blood in some areas of her brain must have had enough time to organize itself.
Dr. Spitz is a renowned expert who has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies.

Look rashomon, even if Spitz did look at 100 autopsy photos of JonBenet and identified some dark red areas as clotted blood as opposed to non-clotted blood, he nevertheless thought that both the head blow and the strangulation came very close together.

To believe in the likelihood that an accidental head bash by Patsy came first and the garotting came later as a form of staging (which I think is your theory), any logically minded sleuth would have to postulate that the Ramseys took at least 15 minutes after the head bash to get together the wherewithal for the garotte and then set it all up.

I am absolutely certain that if Spitz was asked about this he would have said no this could not be what happened, because if they took that long to apply the garotte the head wound would have bled much, much more than it did and the brain would have been swollen and it wasn't.


As an aside, I am wondering just how you can justify believing what was said on a television interview by a pathologist who had looked only at photographs before claiming there was evidence of clotting, when the pathologist who searched for the same evidence while examining the body itself for the offical autopsy but saw none, would be the one to have a better appreciation of whether there were clots or not is beyond me.

[shill]

Originally Posted by rashomon

But exactly what IS the truth?

I don't think you have to be a medical expert to figure out that if your skull was bashed in causing an 8 inch crack and a hole that there is going to be some major bleeding.
I've had enough head injuries and others to see how much blood you can spill in a short amount of time with an injury far less sever then JB's cracked skull.
The lack of bleeding and swelling should be obvious to the laymen that something restricted an expected amount of blood flow.
This post is an opinion, which apperantly can't be wrong.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by aussiesheila

Look rashomon, even if Spitz did look at 100 autopsy photos of JonBenet and identified some dark red areas as clotted blood as opposed to non-clotted blood, he nevertheless thought that both the head blow and the strangulation came very close together..

If memory serves, Dr. Spitz did not give a time frame. He only stated that JB was still alive when strangled.

To believe in the likelihood that an accidental head bash by Patsy came first and the garotting came later as a form of staging (which I think is your theory), any logically minded sleuth would have to postulate that the Ramseys took at least 15 minutes after the head bash to get together the wherewithal for the garotte and then set it all up.

Correct. One can't switch gears from rage attack to staging immediately afterward.

But don't forget that it works both ways: how logical is it for a sexual predator to whack JB on the head and then immediately garrote her?

I am absolutely certain that if Spitz was asked about this he would have said no this could not be what happened, because if they took that long to apply the garotte the head wound would have bled much, much more than it did and the brain would have been swollen and it wasn't.

Dr. Spitz's theory is very interesting (it is mentioned ST's book). According to Spitz, JB was probably strangled first (to strangle someone doesn't have to meant this was a planned murder - quite a few domestic violence victims got strangled by an enraged family member), but that this didn't kill her, only sent her into a deep coma.
During the initial strangulation, blood vessels were constricted, which is the reason why JB didn't bleed as much when the later head bash followed. The garrote was applied last for staging purposes.

As an aside, I am wondering just how you can justify believing what was said on a television interview by a pathologist who had looked only at photographs before claiming there was evidence of clotting, when the pathologist who searched for the same evidence while examining the body itself for the offical autopsy but saw none, would be the one to have a better appreciation of whether there were clots or not is beyond me

Dr. Spitz is a famous pathologist who has conducted/supervised/been involved in more that 50,000 autopsies, therefore we can assume he recognizes blood clots in an autopsy picture when he sees them.
But if there were in fact blood clots in JB's brain, then some of the blood in JB's body must have had time to organize itself.

As opposed to that, how do we know how 'thorough' Dr. Meyer was?
For example, instead of using a sterile nail clipper fo each finger, he used one single nail clipper for all ten, thus possibly contaminating forensic evidence.

What is more, sometimes the same fingernail clippers were used in different autopsy projects. (Source: ACandyRose site)

There are a lot of things which were found at the autopsy that are NOT included in Meyer's 9-page report. For example, he does not mentionn a single fiber which was found on JB. But these things from the autopsy report are listed in the so-called 'Bonita papers', the notes of Bonita Sauer. She was the secretary of Dan Hoffman, one of the lawyers the BPD had hired as consultants on the case, and had access to a lot in inside info.

Here is the interview of Dr. Spitz:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/0317200...ndiscovery.htm


Part 1


Discovery News


transcript by listener on 3/18/2000
Narrator Lyn Cannon
Guest Forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz
From handwriting analysis to the autopsy, the lastest twist in what the evidence may reveal about this gruesome crime.
Six year old JonBenet Ramsey is back in the news this week. The girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, are out with a new book that proclaimed their innocence, and offers a psychological profile about who they think killed their daughter. The case has stumped authorities for 3 yrs. One of the most basic questions that has gone unanswered,--- what weapons were used in the murder?
THE WEAPON:
LC: From the day the body was found, investigators knew that Jon Benet Ramsey, suffered a severe blow to the head, as well as strangulatiion with a cord. But which came first? Determining that could tell a great deal about the motive and the killer. Investigators speculate strangulation first could mean a sex crime. If the blow came first, it might point to a kidnapper or a crime of rage. Dr.Werner Spitz has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies. In 1997, he was consulted by the Boulder police investigating the murder. He says he reviewed more than 100 autopsy photos which have never been released to the public. You believe JBR was hit on the head first, and then strangled.
Dr. WS: Yes.
LC: But in reports published this week, a former detective, who also worked on the case, claimed the head wound did not bleed enough to be the first injury, but Spitz says, he can prove his case, and it's believed the Boulder police agree.
Dr.WS: Because there was hemmoraging in the brain.
LC: There was hemmoraging in the brain?
Dr.WS: There was hemmoraging in the scalp, in the skin,in other words,
LC: Spitz says those hemmorages would not have formed if JB was already dead of strangulation when she suffered the head injury.
Dr.WS: She did have a circulation....she did have blood clots, she did have heart beat, she did breathe, for awhile, after the head injury.
LC:Let me say that the noose, made of cord similar to this, was not tied around her neck after death. He believes that she was dying of the head injury while she was strangled. His evidence,...a tell tale pattern of hemmoraging on the internal surface of her eye lids. Petechial or penpoint hemmorages.
Dr.WS: When strangulation occurs, there is a point where the blood vessels to the neck get obstructed. The blood still flows into the head, but it doesn't flow out. LC: That's because veins, which have lower blood pressure, are shut off first. Arteries, with higher blood pressure, keep flowing longer.
Dr.WS: ........?..there is increased pressure above the knees, and tiny little blood vessels in the eyes and around the eyes, may break.
LC: Jon Benet eyes did show this pattern of hemmoraging, indicating, Spitz says, that her heart was still beating when the noose was applied. And there's always then another question: was Jon Benet sexually assaulted, and when? Experts disagree, but Spitz's review tells him that Jon Benet had no history of sexual abuse. But a splinter found during the autopsy tells him she was sexually assaulted at the time of her death, perhaps with the artist's paintbrush tied to the cord around her neck.
Dr.WS: I believe that this..?.pressure occurred at the time that she died, or just before, or during.
LC: But Spitz thinks the sexual assault was an attempt to disguise the crime scene, to make it look like a sex crime.

Remember EL said that in order to get petechiae, a person must be breathing vigorously.
Dr. Spitz explains the petechiae found on JB by blood vessels having been obstructed during the strangulation. So this process would also occur in a person who is in a deep coma and not necessarily breathing 'vigorously'. Spitz also does not say the heart must have been beating vigorously while she was strangled, merely that it was still beating.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by shill

I don't think you have to be a medical expert to figure out that if your skull was bashed in causing an 8 inch crack and a hole that there is going to be some major bleeding.
I've had enough head injuries and others to see how much blood you can spill in a short amount of time with an injury far less sever then JB's cracked skull.
The lack of bleeding and swelling should be obvious to the laymen that something restricted an expected amount of blood flow.
This post is an opinion, which apperantly can't be wrong.

I mentioned Dr. Spitz's theory on that in my prior post.
According to Spitz, JB was probably strangled first (to strangle someone doesn't have to mean this was a planned murder - quite a few domestic violence victims got strangled by an enraged family member), but that this didn't kill her, only sent her into a deep coma.
During the initial strangulation, blood vessels were constricted, which is the reason why JB didn't bleed as much when the later head bash followed. The garrote was applied last for staging purposes.

[shill]

Originally Posted by rashomon

The garrote was applied last for staging purposes.

Strangled, clobbered, strangled for appearance to cover up the first strangulation? Alleged cover up, lies, deception?

IMO she was being strangled with the garrote when she was clobbered and the garrote was left on her. It fits the evidence without a conspiracy theory. A simple explanation.

There are a lot of things which were found at the autopsy that are NOT included in Meyer's 9-page report. For example, he does not mentionn a single fiber which was found on JB.

And since when was it the duty of the person doing the autopsy to gather fiber evidence? Am I just ignorant about what they do in an autopsy because I didn't think that was part of their job?

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by shill

Strangled, clobbered, strangled for appearance to cover up the first strangulation? Alleged cover up, lies, deception?

IMO she was being strangled with the garrote when she was clobbered and the garrote was left on her. It fits the evidence without a conspiracy theory. A simple explanation.


And since when was it the duty of the person doing the autopsy to gather fiber evidence? Am I just ignorant about what they do in an autopsy because I didn't think that was part of their job?

be fair, Shill, I think maybe in German Murder cases, that Das Koronorer has the job of looking for loose
fibers, as I've learned from her posts, things are done very different in Germany. Just my silly opinion,Ja!

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by shill

Alleged cover up, lies, deception?

Yes. The CASKU experts have pointed out that the crime scene was staged.

IMO she was being strangled with the garrote when she was clobbered and the garrote was left on her. It fits the evidence without a conspiracy theory. A simple explanation.

You think while she was bashed on the head, the perp fumbled the garrote contraption together and put it on her neck?

And since when was it the duty of the person doing the autopsy to gather fiber evidence? Am I just ignorant about what they do in an autopsy because I didn't think that was part of their job?

[Bullmoose]be fair, Shill, I think maybe in German Murder cases, that Das Koronorer has the job of looking for loose
fibers, as I've learned from her posts, things are done very different in Germany. Just my silly opinion,Ja!

Shill/Bullmoose
Things are done pretty much the same way during autopsies here in Germany.
The issue is not about gathering fiber evidence in general, but to note fibers or other items which are found on the body. These things are collected and put into evidence.
The fibers found in JB's genitals are listed in the so-called Bonita papers. B. Sauer was the secretary of Dan Hoffman, one of the top-flight lawyers the BPD had hired as consultants on the case. As his secretary, Sauer had a lot of access to inside info.

a white fiber was found on her chin; dark colored hairs were found on the shoulder area of the shirt; dark blue fibers were located on the back of the right shoulder of the shirt; hairs and other trace evidence were located on her shirt underneath both her left and right arms and on the lower part of her shirt; fibers and an eyelash were located on the front of her shirt. All these minuscule items were recovered and placed into evidence. During the vaginal examination, small dark colored fibers were found on JonBenet’s external labia.
....
Dr. Meyer stated that it appeared that JonBenet’s pubic area may have been cleaned, or at least wiped by someone using a towel or piece of clothing. Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area.

Although Dr. Meyer stated that the child appeared to have been wiped, again this does not show up in his nine page autopsy report.
The whole autopsy file is probably much larger that the short nine page report.

[bullmoose]

Good post, Rashoman, good info that I'd forgotten.

[Athena]

Well I believe that JBR's death was a slow, torturous one; she was being strangled slowly to make her suffer, she screamed, the perp based her in the head, and then finished strangling her. A crime of anger and she was just a symbol of the perp's anger towards JR. JMO

[Tober]

Originally Posted by Athena

A crime of anger and she was just a symbol of the perp's anger towards JR. JMO

There is no proof at all that John Ramsey was the target of the crime. That's a fictional scenario developed by two peas in a pod, John Douglas and Lou Smit. Team Ramsey loves that kind of thinking though, because it takes the focus off of JonBenet as the victim and puts forth a substitute victim in her place, namely John Ramsey and through him the family, the idea being that if the Ramseys are the victims (targets), then they can't possibly be the perpetrators. Fortunately, there are many of us who want justice for JonBenet and won't stand for the utterly ridiculous idea that she was anything but the true and actual victim in all of this, and not a symbolic target of an imaginary figure obsessed with John Ramsey, who interestingly, has never targeted John prior to the crime or since, and though so obsessed with John the perp killed his daughter, this world-class obsessive never even called to rub it in. (IMO)

[Athena]

Originally Posted by Tober

There is no proof at all that John Ramsey was the target of the crime. That's a fictional scenario developed by two peas in a pod, John Douglas and Lou Smit. Team Ramsey loves that kind of thinking though, because it takes the focus off of JonBenet as the victim and puts forth a substitute victim in her place, namely John Ramsey and through him the family, the idea being that if the Ramseys are the victims (targets), then they can't possibly be the perpetrators. Fortunately, there are many of us who want justice for JonBenet and won't stand for the utterly ridiculous idea that she was anything but the true and actual victim in all of this, and not a symbolic target of an imaginary figure obsessed with John Ramsey, who interestingly, has never targeted John prior to the crime or since, and though so obsessed with John the perp killed his daughter, this world-class obsessive never even called to rub it in. (IMO)

Ya know what Tober. Those are my thoughts based on what I have read, researched and how I interpreted the ransom note and there is NO proof that it didn't happen for that reason. It was also made up prior to me reading anything about John Douglas. It is my opinion and if you don't like my opinion so be it but it's mine and I'm entitled to to it. ... My theory or thoughts are no less factual than what you purport the facts to be unless of course you killed JBR. MOO

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by Tober

There is no proof at all that John Ramsey was the target of the crime. That's a fictional scenario developed by two peas in a pod, John Douglas and Lou Smit. Team Ramsey loves that kind of thinking though, because it takes the focus off of JonBenet as the victim and puts forth a substitute victim in her place, namely John Ramsey and through him the family, the idea being that if the Ramseys are the victims (targets), then they can't possibly be the perpetrators. Fortunately, there are many of us who want justice for JonBenet and won't stand for the utterly ridiculous idea that she was anything but the true and actual victim in all of this, and not a symbolic target of an imaginary figure obsessed with John Ramsey, who interestingly, has never targeted John prior to the crime or since, and though so obsessed with John the perp killed his daughter, this world-class obsessive never even called to rub it in. (IMO)

I have spent the past 10 year of my life searching for information on this case Tober, and for you to imply that because I feel this crime was committed against JB because someone hated her father so much that I could not possible want justice for JB just down right pisses me off. I want nothing more than justice for that beautiful little girl.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally Posted by Tober

There is no proof at all that John Ramsey was the target of the crime. That's a fictional scenario developed by two peas in a pod, John Douglas and Lou Smit. Team Ramsey loves that kind of thinking though, because it takes the focus off of JonBenet as the victim and puts forth a substitute victim in her place, namely John Ramsey and through him the family, the idea being that if the Ramseys are the victims (targets), then they can't possibly be the perpetrators. Fortunately, there are many of us who want justice for JonBenet and won't stand for the utterly ridiculous idea that she was anything but the true and actual victim in all of this, and not a symbolic target of an imaginary figure obsessed with John Ramsey, who interestingly, has never targeted John prior to the crime or since, and though so obsessed with John the perp killed his daughter, this world-class obsessive never even called to rub it in. (IMO)

Tober's made some excellent points.

There is no proof that this crime was committed to target JR and not JonBenet. The ransom note says so? The ransom note also says this crime is a kidnapping and there are two gentlemen watching over JonBenet, and that wasn't true at all.

People believe that if the Ramseys were the victims, then they couldn't be the perpetrators.

JonBenet was the true and actual victim. She is the one who was bludgeoned and molested and strangled to death. Any trauma to J&P, real or merely perceived, is secondary to what happened to JonBenet.

There is a loyal and determined collection of people who will never allow the fact that JonBenet was the true victim to neglected or forgotten.

This perp, for how much risk he took and as successful as he was, has never followed up on the grudge against JR that caused him to act in the first place.

[Athena]

Follow up what? What more could the perp have rubbed in? He/she killed their precious baby girl, ruined their lives; and the perp obviously wasn't going to admit it. And just to make it clear of course JBR was the victim and deserves justice which is what we're here but what is more important to a parent than their child?

Sure I could be totally wrong but again it is my opinion until proven otherwise.

[zippo]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

Tober's made some excellent points.

There is no proof that this crime was committed to target JR and not JonBenet. The ransom note says so? The ransom note also says this crime is a kidnapping and there are two gentlemen watching over JonBenet, and that wasn't true at all.

People believe that if the Ramseys were the victims, then they couldn't be the perpetrators.

JonBenet was the true and actual victim. She is the one who was bludgeoned and molested and strangled to death. Any trauma to J&P, real or merely perceived, is secondary to what happened to JonBenet.

There is a loyal and determined collection of people who will never allow the fact that JonBenet was the true victim to neglected or forgotten.

This perp, for how much risk he took and as successful as he was, has never followed up on the grudge against JR that caused him to act in the first place.

One thing we will agree on, Nuisanceposter. Tober does make excellent posts.

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by zippo

One thing we will agree on, Nuisanceposter. Tober does make excellent posts.

Thats whats so fun about this board; the total divergence of opinions, which I think is the strength of this board. I, conversely, think that Tober's posts pale beside some of the other RDI's in reasoning; no, I'm not going to name the ones I refer to, as they would probably just be embarassed. JMHO

[Tober]

If John Ramsey was the target of the crime, then why (as stated in the Atlanta 2000 interviews) were his shirt fibers found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area? Consider the following: 1) John alleges he carried JonBenet to bed, but Patsy allegedly undressed her for bed, so that wouldn't account for John's shirt fibers being found there; and 2) JonBenet's private area had been wiped down before she was redressed after the crime; and 3) JonBenet was found wearing brand new, previously unwashed Bloomies from a brand new, previously unopened package. As one can see, when attempting to excuse the fibers on the basis of secondary transfer, we run into some major issues. (IMO)

[Tober]

I might add that John was given opportunity to offer an innocent explanation for his shirt fibers being found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area. He didn't, nor did he at any time after. (IMO)

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by Tober

If John Ramsey was the target of the crime, then why (as stated in the Atlanta 2000 interviews) were his shirt fibers found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area? Consider the following: 1) John alleges he carried JonBenet to bed, but Patsy allegedly undressed her for bed, so that wouldn't account for John's shirt fibers being found there; and 2) JonBenet's private area had been wiped down before she was redressed after the crime; and 3) JonBenet was found wearing brand new, previously unwashed Bloomies from a brand new, previously unopened package. As one can see, when attempting to excuse the fibers on the basis of secondary transfer, we run into some major issues. (IMO)

As Tober Twists things to try to make a talking point out of imaginary fibers, he exposes a certain lack of common sense; one can never excuse fibers that only exist in the minds of a few posters, one cannot explain what does not exist and never did. As Tober knows no explanation of any fibers from John's shirt in Jonbenets panties or crotch area was ever offered, Lin Wood asked for proof that the fibers existed before he would let John answer, because he knew it to be just a trick question, with no basis in fact. The question was just dropped, it wasn't about something real. There are a couple posters here, like Tober that want the fibers to be; IMO they have yet to make them become real.

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by Tober

I might add that John was given opportunity to offer an innocent explanation for his shirt fibers being found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area. He didn't, nor did he at any time after. (IMO)

Its sort of like asking a married man if he has stopped beating his wife and children; there is no right answer to the question, it is a Twisted trick question; by not responding to it the intended victim simply refuses to be roped into a crooked game. John has refused to play the BPD's crooked game.JMHO