One of the only aspects of the case that I've had trouble figuring out is who strangled JBR with the cord. I've never really had a solid theory on it, other than it had to have been one of the three Rs. If BR did this part, did he wear gloves? To my knowledge, his DNA is not on the cord, yet PR's sweater fibers are. Any thoughts?
Me too, OliviaG1996. Youll probably be sorry you posed the question
, but here are a few summarized thoughts.
As you and others likely recall, Kolar believes BR did both the head blow and asphyxiation. It was therefore interesting that Clemente took a different stance in his interview on NBC.
Point Kolar saw all the evidence from the GJ (including BR's taped interviews) and may have read the psychological profile of BR contained within the testimony of friends and BRs teacher, believing the simplest explanation is that BR meant to kill her, perhaps even having planned it. After seeing BRs interview, I, too, can now understand why Kolar believes BR did it all. (BR should never do another interview.)
Counterpoint In Clementes interview on NBC he claims the parents placed a ligature on her, believing she was deceased. The goal was to try to save their remaining family. The fibers from Patsys jacket were found inside the knot and JRs fibers inside the crotch of her panties, which became stained with blood drops. Plus, someone wore gloves in attaching the paintbrush to the ligature. BR would not likely have worn gloves.
Point BR could have used something else to asphyxiate her. (A scarf?) We also cant discount the self-strangulation concept (unless there was a significant amount of time between the head blow and strangulation as per Rorke. {Poster Otg has some sound medical reasons to discount that time frame.)
Counterpoint from JRs interview in 98 with a Delmar England commentary:
LS: ...Just a couple of questions, and these are just miscellaneous questions that I had. In what area of the house do you think that JonBenet received the injuries to her head? That is just from your own....
JR: Well, I guess my impression is that it was in the basement. But that's just purely an assumption. We didn't hear a thing. I think if she had cried out or - you know, we would have heard that. I didn't know she had any head injury at all. It wasn't - I just didn't see....
LS: You had no knowledge?
JR: I don't know. I just, that's something that's been difficult for me to think about it, is what exactly happened.
LS: And where?
JR: And where.
LS: Do you think that the head injury occurred at the same place as the other injuries, say, with the ligature?
JR: I mean, its just no reason to - to know that. I mean, I guess - well, like I say, I just - that's very difficult to think about and imagine, but I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her.
JR is speculating on whether the head injury came first, then strangulation? Of course, this potential doesn't go along with Smit's theory and could really mess it up. Smit want's nothing to do with this idea. He blocks this avenue of inquiry quickly and emphatically:
LS: All right. This is getting way off of that. Do you know who brought JAR to the airport, when he left for Atlanta?
Unlike Mr. Smit, I am very interested in the head injury and strangulation thing and really interested in JR's comments on it. To put things in perspective and see where I'm coming from and why, let's back up a bit and take it from there.
Prior to March, 2000, all I heard or knew about the Ramsey case were occasional sound bites from newscasts. During the Barbara Walters interview in March of 2000, JR said that the autopsy report said that JonBenet died from strangulation. He expressed no doubt then, nor later that I know of. Death by strangulation was the persistent story put out by JR, Smit and others.
However, in reading the NE Police Files, I came across this (from the LS and JR interview in 1998):
JR: "I mean, there's just no reason to - to know that. I mean, I guess - well, like I say - I just, that's very difficult to think about and imagine, but I wondered whether the head injury didn't kill her and after that they strangled her."
Everything that moves leaves tracks. Believe it or not, this applies to thought as well as the physical. No thought exists in isolation. It is always connected to antecedent thoughts. A competent "mind tracker" can usually follow a given thought back to its source and motivation.
I won't take the time to validate by explaining the natural laws of mind operation, but demonstrate sufficiently to provide some insight into John's statement.
In Smit's theory of an intruder, with which John is usually in agreement, JonBenet is "controlled" by the "garrote", then strangled. The blow to the head is the last thing the intruder does according to Smit.
If JonBenet was being "controlled" by the "garrote" in some sexual happening as Smit declares, she was very much alive when she was strangled. If you interject the conclusion that she was dead from the head trauma before the cord was put around her neck, Smit's pedophile intruder story falls apart.
In the foregoing quote, John says you can't know. He speculates that maybe she was dead when the cord was put around her neck. Why would John introduce this thought and speculation which undermines the story of an intruder, hence, jeopardizes the basis for his claim of innocence?
Although it is the basis for the pedophile intruder story and his claim of innocence, for some reason John is uncomfortable with the conclusion that JonBenet was strangled to death. The fact that he utters the forgoing quote casting doubt on the pedophile intruder story, tells there is a very strong emotional motivation for the speculation that maybe JonBenet was dead when she was strangled. Indeed, we can take it a step further.
If he were comfortable with the idea of strangulation first, he would not question it and cast doubt on his defense. This tells me, even if not you, John DESIRES the conclusion that JonBenet was dead from the head trauma before she was strangled. Why?
The intensity of the concern is revealed by the utterance itself which sought assurance that she was dead before strangulation. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that death by head trauma is precisely what they sought to hide, but John sought to establish as fact in direct contradiction. There had to be a very personal and very intense reason for this.
______________
In conclusion, I still dont have a firm conclusion. BR will always be reasonable doubt even if he was not responsible for the asphyxiation. jmho.