John Ramsey's Role

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
And there's still some with a "bead" on JR's participation. Here's a theory from a notable prosecutor - Wendy Murphy - which I hadn't heard before.

http://www.examiner.com/article/bos...suspect-new-investigation?cid=taboola_inbound

Thoughts. . .?

Murphy told the audience that the devastating blow to the head that fractured the youngster's skull was done post-mortem because there was almost no bleeding.

C.Wecht says the same thing


Although a toxicology test was performed and found no drugs, Murphy said the standard drug test would not have picked up Klonopin and Ativan where were found in the house with no explanation from the parents.

Interesting,I had no idea.
 
Found some videos last night while looking up another case of JR promoting his book. I know that is old news. They were short clips from the Anderson Cooper show. Some of JR's comments, already listed in this thread, made me start wondering again. I also found short interrogation footage on PR but none on JR.

Who had the most to lose here? Who would anyone cover up for and why?

JR could have easily done without PR if she did it. He could kick her to the curb and get a new and younger wife.

PR needed JR's money for herself, her love of luxury, her cancer treatments. She knows JR is very well known, wealthy, powerful. He could destroy her. She would not kick JR to the curb.

If BR did it, both parents may cover to avoid the disgrace, the ultimate collapse of JR's money and connections.

JR says some hinky things in these clips. In older clips I notice him look at PR as if in marvelous wonder at how fantastic a job she is doing covering. I was also reminded of that odd lip licking, it seems to happen at the mention of JBR, but I didn't have time to look through all of those old videos last night to confirm.
 
re the last part....I always wondered why the R's if innocent didn't want to exhume her body to prove that those are stun gun marks...maybe they were afraid some other tests will be done?(additional drug tests)
 
Found some videos last night while looking up another case of JR promoting his book. I know that is old news. They were short clips from the Anderson Cooper show. Some of JR's comments, already listed in this thread, made me start wondering again. I also found short interrogation footage on PR but none on JR.

Who had the most to lose here? Who would anyone cover up for and why?

JR could have easily done without PR if she did it. He could kick her to the curb and get a new and younger wife.

PR needed JR's money for herself, her love of luxury, her cancer treatments. She knows JR is very well known, wealthy, powerful. He could destroy her. She would not kick JR to the curb.

If BR did it, both parents may cover to avoid the disgrace, the ultimate collapse of JR's money and connections.

JR says some hinky things in these clips. In older clips I notice him look at PR as if in marvelous wonder at how fantastic a job she is doing covering. I was also reminded of that odd lip licking, it seems to happen at the mention of JBR, but I didn't have time to look through all of those old videos last night to confirm.

the way he enjoys the spot light was and still is a huge red flag for me...if you got away with it at least have the decency to shut up and be smart,fly under the radar...what he does just confirms (to me at least) that he is this creepy individual I always felt him to be and that he is hiding something more sinister (his personality) ...and it shows another thing...he can't control himself when he wants/needs something ...he loves and needs to speak about himself and how he's the real victim in all this...he wouldn't be the first psycho murderer who does it,we've seen plenty...
 
Murphy told the audience that the devastating blow to the head that fractured the youngster's skull was done post-mortem because there was almost no bleeding.

C.Wecht says the same thing


Although a toxicology test was performed and found no drugs, Murphy said the standard drug test would not have picked up Klonopin and Ativan where were found in the house with no explanation from the parents.

Interesting,I had no idea.
Wendy Murphy may very well be a brilliant prosecutor -- I don't know. But she's not a detective, and she's certainly not qualified as a medical expert. What she's done is taken several bits of information, and put them together to come to a wrong conclusion (and in the process, throw in a little unrelated speculation and insinuation).

It is often repeated that there was little bleeding in the skull. But there was more than what most people realize. Besides the often-quoted 1-1/2 teaspoons of subdural hemorrhage (which is the only bleeding that is quantified in the AR), there was also bleeding under the scalp ("an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area"), and "a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere". (Red text is from the AR.) IOW, there were three areas of bleeding in different areas of the layers around the skull. The only one people refer to is the "1-1/2 teaspoons" because it is the only one Meyer quantifies in the AR. If all the medical mumbo-jumbo is confusing (and it is to me as well), let me suggest reading where I tried to break down the AR into understandable language [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9054790&postcount=335"]here[/ame].

Wecht commented at one time on the relatively small amount for this type of injury, and he put into layman's terms an amount we can understand (1-1/2 teaspoons instead of 7 to 8 cc's). I don't think he said that this was an indication that the head blow was inflicted after death (I could be wrong on that), but that it happened after the strangulation. The problem with the amount of bleeding inside her skull is that with the ligature already tight around her neck, the blood flow in and out of her head would be restricted. If there was no strangulation at the moment the head blow happened, there would indeed have been much more bleeding.

The other part that really stands out to me in the article you linked, Maddie, is the bolded part here:
"Murphy told the audience that the devastating blow to the head that fractured the youngster's skull was done post-mortem because there was almost no bleeding. The fracture was done to make it appear as if an intruder had committed the crime said Murphy. The ligature around the young girl's neck, which the autopsy declared was the cause of death, may also have been to hide the actual cause--drug overdose."
Strike a head blow that doesn't show up until the autopsy? How would an assailant with that intent even know it was struck with enough force to cause a fracture if it didn't even bruise the scalp? And the AR did not declare that the ligature was the COD -- it was "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma". And that is where so many people (IMO) get the COD wrong. The two insults (medical sense of the word) worked in conjunction with one another to cause her death. Either one of them could have caused her death separately -- but they didn't. The physiological responses to each one was dependent on the other, and they are obvious. A drug overdose is pure speculation. And as for it being the "real COD", that's pure BS. Even if a test for a specific drug was not done, her death as a result of poisoning would definitely cause other responses in her body which would be evident -- in which case further pharmacological testing would have been done.

All in all, on a BS scale of 0 to 10, I'll give Murphy a 9.9.
 
Oops! I realized after posting that the article was first linked by questfortrue -- not madeleine. Credit where credit is due :seeya:.
 
Wendy Murphy may very well be a brilliant prosecutor -- I don't know. But she's not a detective, and she's certainly not qualified as a medical expert. What she's done is taken several bits of information, and put them together to come to a wrong conclusion (and in the process, throw in a little unrelated speculation and insinuation).

It is often repeated that there was little bleeding in the skull. But there was more than what most people realize. Besides the often-quoted 1-1/2 teaspoons of subdural hemorrhage (which is the only bleeding that is quantified in the AR), there was also bleeding under the scalp ("an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area"), and "a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere". (Red text is from the AR.) IOW, there were three areas of bleeding in different areas of the layers around the skull. The only one people refer to is the "1-1/2 teaspoons" because it is the only one Meyer quantifies in the AR. If all the medical mumbo-jumbo is confusing (and it is to me as well), let me suggest reading where I tried to break down the AR into understandable language here.

Wecht commented at one time on the relatively small amount for this type of injury, and he put into layman's terms an amount we can understand (1-1/2 teaspoons instead of 7 to 8 cc's). I don't think he said that this was an indication that the head blow was inflicted after death (I could be wrong on that), but that it happened after the strangulation. The problem with the amount of bleeding inside her skull is that with the ligature already tight around her neck, the blood flow in and out of her head would be restricted. If there was no strangulation at the moment the head blow happened, there would indeed have been much more bleeding.The other part that really stands out to me in the article you linked, Maddie, is the bolded part here:
"Murphy told the audience that the devastating blow to the head that fractured the youngster's skull was done post-mortem because there was almost no bleeding. The fracture was done to make it appear as if an intruder had committed the crime said Murphy. The ligature around the young girl's neck, which the autopsy declared was the cause of death, may also have been to hide the actual cause--drug overdose."
Strike a head blow that doesn't show up until the autopsy? How would an assailant with that intent even know it was struck with enough force to cause a fracture if it didn't even bruise the scalp? And the AR did not declare that the ligature was the COD -- it was "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma". And that is where so many people (IMO) get the COD wrong. The two insults (medical sense of the word) worked in conjunction with one another to cause her death. Either one of them could have caused her death separately -- but they didn't. The physiological responses to each one was dependent on the other, and they are obvious. A drug overdose is pure speculation. And as for it being the "real COD", that's pure BS. Even if a test for a specific drug was not done, her death as a result of poisoning would definitely cause other responses in her body which would be evident -- in which case further pharmacological testing would have been done.

All in all, on a BS scale of 0 to 10, I'll give Murphy a 9.9.

ITA that they would have done more testing for those drugs, and if an overdose was the COD there would have been other signs.

On the BBM, are you agreeing or disagreeing with Wecht about strangulation coming before the head blow? In your previous post where you linked to your theory I thought you had listed the cord loosely around her neck first, then the head blow, then her weight causing the actual strangulation. :waitasec: I'm confused. (what's new? LOL)
 
ITA that they would have done more testing for those drugs, and if an overdose was the COD there would have been other signs. :thumbs:

On the BBM, are you agreeing or disagreeing with Wecht about strangulation coming before the head blow? In your previous post where you linked to your theory I thought you had listed the cord loosely around her neck first, then the head blow, then her weight causing the actual strangulation. :waitasec: I'm confused. (what's new? LOL)
I guess I'll have to look up exactly what Dr. Wecht said about the sequence, but no, I haven't changed my idea about the sequence. If it did happen as I've theorized, the head blow would have occurred just before the strangulation. But the strangulation would have happened so closely in time as the head blow that it would have prevented the blood accumulation in the brain which would have otherwise been expected from the head blow by itself. Wecht did bring up the "small amount of blood" as being an indication that the strangulation prevented more blood accumulation, so the knee-jerk reaction is to assume that the strangulation had to have happened first. But if in fact the two happened within seconds of one another, it would have the same effect.
 
I guess I'll have to look up exactly what Dr. Wecht said about the sequence, but no, I haven't changed my idea about the sequence. If it did happen as I've theorized, the head blow would have occurred just before the strangulation. But the strangulation would have happened so closely in time as the head blow that it would have prevented the blood accumulation in the brain which would have otherwise been expected from the head blow by itself. Wecht did bring up the "small amount of blood" as being an indication that the strangulation prevented more blood accumulation, so the knee-jerk reaction is to assume that the strangulation had to have happened first. But if in fact the two happened within seconds of one another, it would have the same effect.

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up OTG! I see what you're saying now.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ch-her-killer/2012/03/14/gIQAoIdTES_blog.html


It’s sad that Ramsey now refers to his daughter by a nickname never mentioned in the hoopla after her death. It’s sad that now he offers photos of an authentic-looking 6-year-old, hair tousled, photos never offered to counteract the beauty pageant images of JonBenet.

It’s sad that now he questions the wisdom of dressing up young girls in suggestive outfits and makeup.

Finally, it’s sad that JonBenet’s father considers her criminal case “pretty dead.”

Perhaps if the Boulder police had cleared the crime scene and conducted a thorough search of the Ramsey home on Dec. 26, 1996; perhaps if John and Patsy Ramsey had cooperated with police instead of hiring a defense attorney and talking to CNN less than a week later; perhaps if the family had done more to create a portrait of their daughter beyond beauty pageant queen; perhaps if the public and media focused less on the spectacle and more on the crime. Perhaps, then, a 6-year-old’s murder might be solved.

--

Perhaps John Ramsey’s book will bring him peace. Perhaps it will inspire others going through difficult times.

More likely, it will make a little money and create a little publicity surge around the memory of his daughter’s death.

But of course it won’t bring her back, and it’s unlikely to catch her killer.




it's not sad that he considers his daughters case dead....it's annoying and frustrating how relieved he is by it being dead and nobody wonders why:banghead:
how much time did he spend with his book,a book about HIM,and how much time did he spend to search for the killer of his daughter?
if all these are not behavioral CLUES then I don't know....

he was asked during his deposition something about the reward on their internet site...he had no clue,he said investigators know...he didn't CARE...about anything that has to do with catching the "real killer"...because there was never an intruder....and I am amazed to see how come people still buy the IDI BS and do NOTHING to solve this case.
 
I guess I'll have to look up exactly what Dr. Wecht said about the sequence, but no, I haven't changed my idea about the sequence. If it did happen as I've theorized, the head blow would have occurred just before the strangulation. But the strangulation would have happened so closely in time as the head blow that it would have prevented the blood accumulation in the brain which would have otherwise been expected from the head blow by itself. Wecht did bring up the "small amount of blood" as being an indication that the strangulation prevented more blood accumulation, so the knee-jerk reaction is to assume that the strangulation had to have happened first. But if in fact the two happened within seconds of one another, it would have the same effect.

Wecht's explanation is as follows: "If you inflict a blow like that on someone whose heart is beating," he asserts, "the heart doesn't stop, because the cardiac and respiratory centers are at the base of the brain. You're not damaging that with a blow to the top of the head. It'll become compromised as the brain swells, but initially there's no compromise. They control your heart and lungs. The heart continues to beat. The blood continues to flow. But in the Ramsey case, they got less than a teaspoon and a half of blood. If you have a beating heart and the carotid arteries are carrying blood, this person doesn't die right away. That means that blow was inflicted when she was already dead or dying."
 
thanks for the patience otg...and I can't forget DeeDee...you guys know this stuff...for me it's very hard to understand and follow this medical stuff...have to take baby steps...I remember reading the experts explanations re what came first 100 times and some things still aren't crystal clear to me....:scared:
 
So, strangulation (posted first in the AR) in association with bash (posted second in AR) = being done at relatively the same point in time. Can we allow for a couple of minutes of time passing between the two?

This should toss out:
*PR flinging her against something in her bathroom, then having enough time to do a ligature strangulation. (Strangulation would have to be from some other method, as has been well speculated, with the white cord being applied as a cover-up?)

*PR finding JB with JR and bashing her,unless she had the ligature on (sadistic pedophilia) and fell against the ligature. It would not account for the bash, a reasonable amount of time passing before the decision to strangle her to finish it, right? Then, how is the urine next to the paint tote accounted for?

*BR bashing her, then after a period of time, getting a parent to help.

And, if we are to assume the urine spot on the carpet next to the paint tote was from death release, and the determination she was most likely on her stomach, that the head bash coming to the back, upper right side of her head, could also be in keeping with that position?

If strangulation and blow during that time, either she would have to be passed out, or forcibly held down (with a knee or foot?) maybe a scream happening as she was wrestled into place? What kind of physical strength would that take, and how much wear and tear would that put on the killer's body or clothing?

If this scenario is possible, it's murder with intent to kill, by a person with reasonable physical strength, who either placed her there in an unconscious state or could keep her restrained (including keeping her from yelling or screaming outright during the process = hand over mouth?)
 
So, strangulation (posted first in the AR) in association with bash (posted second in AR) = being done at relatively the same point in time. Can we allow for a couple of minutes of time passing between the two?

As otg pointed out to me a couple weeks ago, the 90 minute interval is one persons opinion, not the consensus of all the experts who've weighed in on the issue. I think we can allow any interval from immediate to 90 minutes.

This should toss out:
*PR flinging her against something in her bathroom, then having enough time to do a ligature strangulation. (Strangulation would have to be from some other method, as has been well speculated, with the white cord being applied as a cover-up?)

For me it's the time required for the mental/emotional transformation from a mom who lost her cool to a murderer. I have trouble seeing that happening within a few minutes. Physically it might be possible to take her to the basement and garrotte her within minutes of the "flinging" but I find it hard to believe the decision was made that quickly.

*PR finding JB with JR and bashing her,unless she had the ligature on (sadistic pedophilia) and fell against the ligature. It would not account for the bash, a reasonable amount of time passing before the decision to strangle her to finish it, right? Then, how is the urine next to the paint tote accounted for?
*BR bashing her, then after a period of time, getting a parent to help.
True. We can also be skeptical of BR bashing her, then getting a parent within minutes because of the sudden transformation from parent to killer.

And, if we are to assume the urine spot on the carpet next to the paint tote was from death release, and the determination she was most likely on her stomach, that the head bash coming to the back, upper right side of her head, could also be in keeping with that position?

If strangulation and blow during that time, either she would have to be passed out, or forcibly held down (with a knee or foot?) maybe a scream happening as she was wrestled into place? What kind of physical strength would that take, and how much wear and tear would that put on the killer's body or clothing?

If this scenario is possible, it's murder with intent to kill, by a person with reasonable physical strength, who either placed her there in an unconscious state or could keep her restrained (including keeping her from yelling or screaming outright during the process = hand over mouth?)
 
Wecht's explanation is as follows: "If you inflict a blow like that on someone whose heart is beating," he asserts, "the heart doesn't stop, because the cardiac and respiratory centers are at the base of the brain. You're not damaging that with a blow to the top of the head. It'll become compromised as the brain swells, but initially there's no compromise. They control your heart and lungs. The heart continues to beat. The blood continues to flow. But in the Ramsey case, they got less than a teaspoon and a half of blood. If you have a beating heart and the carotid arteries are carrying blood, this person doesn't die right away. That means that blow was inflicted when she was already dead or dying."

madeleine,
I take the view she was already dying. I also think Coroner Myer's Autopsy Report's conclusion is deliberately ambiguous.

That leaves room for another interpretation, it is the sequence that matters, an issue Coroner Meyer did not dwell upon.

I think Coroner Meyer had a good idea what killed JonBenet and how, he just did not itemize it in the AR, like any good ME, he was keeping his cards close to his chest.

.
 
Wecht's explanation is as follows: "If you inflict a blow like that on someone whose heart is beating," he asserts, "the heart doesn't stop, because the cardiac and respiratory centers are at the base of the brain. You're not damaging that with a blow to the top of the head. It'll become compromised as the brain swells, but initially there's no compromise. They control your heart and lungs. The heart continues to beat. The blood continues to flow. But in the Ramsey case, they got less than a teaspoon and a half of blood. If you have a beating heart and the carotid arteries are carrying blood, this person doesn't die right away. That means that blow was inflicted when she was already dead or dying."
Thank you, Maddie, for saving me having to search for what Dr. Wecht said. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Wecht. He was the first so-called expert to have come out publicly to say that results of the AR indicated JonBenet had been sexually assaulted not only when she died, but previously in the days/weeks/months leading up to her death. He was roundly criticized by many, but he stuck to his guns because he knew he was right and it was obvious. And he did this before the full unredacted AR was released to the public.

Everything Wecht said in the statement you quoted is correct. But what he left out is that there can be other things that restrict the flow of blood to the brain. I don’t know but that he might have actually added that when he made the statement, and the person quoting him simply left it out. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that, because I’m sure he knows it -- it’s just not included in that quote. A more complete answer is much more complicated than the simple explanation he provided in one paragraph. But if anyone cares to read it, I’ll try to give a little better explanation. I know it’s tough to follow, because we only deal with it when we come here and discuss it. Understand that with what I tell you here, I am not promoting a point of view or trying to get support for my theory of what happened. But if we all understand the mechanics of what happened, we can make more informed opinions on what might have happened. I’ll give you what I know on both sides of the issue. I am in no way any kind of expert or authority in this. I have only read enough though to understand how little I know. This is what I do know:

The circulatory system is very complicated, and even more so in the system that supplies the brain with blood and oxygen. You know, I’m sure, that the main supply of blood to the brain is the carotid arteries (one on either side of the neck), and that the main way that blood exits is through the jugular veins. But these are not the only arteries and veins that provide circulation to the brain through the neck. If these are restricted, there are also smaller vessels which provide what is called “collateral circulation”, making up for some of the loss in circulation. Also the carotid arteries and the jugular veins are split at a point in the lower neck into an internal and an external vessel. A restriction on the neck may have enough force to restrict the external vessels but not the internal (so named because of their proximity to the surface of the neck). Since the arteries supply fresh blood (IOW, being pumped from the heart), they have more pressure than the veins, and therefore require more pressure to shut them off. However the arteries are for the most part protected by the musculature of the neck. Estimates vary, but most references list anywhere from 6 to 12 lbs. of pressure being required to restrict flow in the arteries. This compares to as little as 3 lbs. to restrict blood flow in the veins. (On the other hand, for comparison, it takes as much as 33 lbs. to compress the airway in the neck causing someone to stop breathing.)

And in addition to all this, there is another factor which has to be considered: One of the reflexes in our bodies is centered where the common carotids divide (into the internal and external) and is triggered by a group of nerve cells which make up the “carotid sinus.” These nerve cells have the function of maintaining blood pressure at a steady level. They respond to a decrease in blood pressure (like when you stand up) by constricting arteries and telling the heart to beat harder/faster. Without this, you might pass out every time you stood up suddenly because not enough blood was reaching your brain. (The dizziness many people feel when they stand up suddenly is another way of appreciating how quickly and completely sensitive your brain is to the absence of enough blood). Conversely, the carotid sinus responds to an increase in blood pressure by relaxing the arteries and inhibiting the heart. The problem arises because these pressure-receptor nerves aren’t smart enough to tell the difference between actual internal blood pressure and externally-applied pressure -- such as from a ligature restriction.

Some victims of strangulation will have a swollen (sometimes even bitten) tongue protruding from a bloated blue-gray face with hideously bulging eyes. Others will look livid, or even pale and placid. Some will have (as JonBenet did) small petechial hemorrhages, caused by capillaries leaking (due to the high blood pressure in the absence of oxygen) on the face, eyelids, and/or scalp. Other victims simply don’t have these. So what accounts for all these differences? Mostly, it’s a matter of how quickly and totally the ligature cuts off blood circulation to and from the head. If strangulation is fast and complete, the blood supply both to and from the head will be cut off simultaneously, so there is no excess blood or blood pressure in the head, and thus a more-or-less normal-colored corpse. Similarly, activation of the carotid sinus pressure receptor would cause a decrease in blood flow to the head, leading to paleness in the cadaver (and less bleeding from any broken blood vessels in the brain). If, on the other hand, the pressure on the neck gradually increased as consciousness was lost, it’s probable that the jugular veins were shut off before the carotid arteries, since it requires less pressure to do this. Thus, in this case blood would continue flowing into the head while having no way to leave it, causing engorgement and blue/purple color (and more bleeding from any broken blood vessels in the brain). In any case, respiration stops before the heart, which may continue to beat for about 10 to 15 minutes. But again, with restriction around the neck, blood to the brain would continue to be slowed.

All in all, you can see why it is so complicated, and why it is that so many different experts can’t agree on exactly what happened, or when it happened. Each expert may consider one factor and fail to take into consideration another. Dr. Wecht believes that because of the “small amount” of blood, she must have been dead or near-dead when the head blow was struck. Dr. Rorke-Adams believes that because of the amount of edema and necrosis of brain tissue, she was hit over the head a full 45-minutes to 2-hours before she was strangled. Dr. Kerry Brega said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have any bleeding in the brain. (IMO, this is certainly possible if the concussion is slight enough that it causes no breaking of the blood vessels or capillaries -- but I find it hard to believe that it is “not uncommon”, and certainly not in a case where the fractures are as extensive as JonBenet’s.)

So just like the eternal question of the chicken or the egg -- which came first -- the ligature or the head blow? You tell me. (I won’t even offer my explanation here.)
 
madeleine,
I take the view she was already dying. I also think Coroner Myer's Autopsy Report's conclusion is deliberately ambiguous.

That leaves room for another interpretation, it is the sequence that matters, an issue Coroner Meyer did not dwell upon.

I think Coroner Meyer had a good idea what killed JonBenet and how, he just did not itemize it in the AR, like any good ME, he was keeping his cards close to his chest.

.
Meyer never thought the AR would be released to the public. He had no reason to be deliberately ambiguous. When it was requested, he fought it and was allowed to redact certain portions before it was first released. It wasn't until later that it was released in full and unredacted -- against his wishes.

He wasn't being "like any good ME", "keeping his cards close to his chest". He knew what caused her death, he stated it in the AR: "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma." There is nothing ambiguous about that.
 
Thank you, Maddie, for saving me having to search for what Dr. Wecht said. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Wecht. He was the first so-called expert to have come out publicly to say that results of the AR indicated JonBenet had been sexually assaulted not only when she died, but previously in the days/weeks/months leading up to her death. He was roundly criticized by many, but he stuck to his guns because he knew he was right and it was obvious. And he did this before the full unredacted AR was released to the public.

Everything Wecht said in the statement you quoted is correct. But what he left out is that there can be other things that restrict the flow of blood to the brain. I don’t know but that he might have actually added that when he made the statement, and the person quoting him simply left it out. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that, because I’m sure he knows it -- it’s just not included in that quote. A more complete answer is much more complicated than the simple explanation he provided in one paragraph. But if anyone cares to read it, I’ll try to give a little better explanation. I know it’s tough to follow, because we only deal with it when we come here and discuss it. Understand that with what I tell you here, I am not promoting a point of view or trying to get support for my theory of what happened. But if we all understand the mechanics of what happened, we can make more informed opinions on what might have happened. I’ll give you what I know on both sides of the issue. I am in no way any kind of expert or authority in this. I have only read enough though to understand how little I know. This is what I do know:

The circulatory system is very complicated, and even more so in the system that supplies the brain with blood and oxygen. You know, I’m sure, that the main supply of blood to the brain is the carotid arteries (one on either side of the neck), and that the main way that blood exits is through the jugular veins. But these are not the only arteries and veins that provide circulation to the brain through the neck. If these are restricted, there are also smaller vessels which provide what is called “collateral circulation”, making up for some of the loss in circulation. Also the carotid arteries and the jugular veins are split at a point in the lower neck into an internal and an external vessel. A restriction on the neck may have enough force to restrict the external vessels but not the internal (so named because of their proximity to the surface of the neck). Since the arteries supply fresh blood (IOW, being pumped from the heart), they have more pressure than the veins, and therefore require more pressure to shut them off. However the arteries are for the most part protected by the musculature of the neck. Estimates vary, but most references list anywhere from 6 to 12 lbs. of pressure being required to restrict flow in the arteries. This compares to as little as 3 lbs. to restrict blood flow in the veins. (On the other hand, for comparison, it takes as much as 33 lbs. to compress the airway in the neck causing someone to stop breathing.)

And in addition to all this, there is another factor which has to be considered: One of the reflexes in our bodies is centered where the common carotids divide (into the internal and external) and is triggered by a group of nerve cells which make up the “carotid sinus.” These nerve cells have the function of maintaining blood pressure at a steady level. They respond to a decrease in blood pressure (like when you stand up) by constricting arteries and telling the heart to beat harder/faster. Without this, you might pass out every time you stood up suddenly because not enough blood was reaching your brain. (The dizziness many people feel when they stand up suddenly is another way of appreciating how quickly and completely sensitive your brain is to the absence of enough blood). Conversely, the carotid sinus responds to an increase in blood pressure by relaxing the arteries and inhibiting the heart. The problem arises because these pressure-receptor nerves aren’t smart enough to tell the difference between actual internal blood pressure and externally-applied pressure -- such as from a ligature restriction.

Some victims of strangulation will have a swollen (sometimes even bitten) tongue protruding from a bloated blue-gray face with hideously bulging eyes. Others will look livid, or even pale and placid. Some will have (as JonBenet did) small petechial hemorrhages, caused by capillaries leaking (due to the high blood pressure in the absence of oxygen) on the face, eyelids, and/or scalp. Other victims simply don’t have these. So what accounts for all these differences? Mostly, it’s a matter of how quickly and totally the ligature cuts off blood circulation to and from the head. If strangulation is fast and complete, the blood supply both to and from the head will be cut off simultaneously, so there is no excess blood or blood pressure in the head, and thus a more-or-less normal-colored corpse. Similarly, activation of the carotid sinus pressure receptor would cause a decrease in blood flow to the head, leading to paleness in the cadaver (and less bleeding from any broken blood vessels in the brain). If, on the other hand, the pressure on the neck gradually increased as consciousness was lost, it’s probable that the jugular veins were shut off before the carotid arteries, since it requires less pressure to do this. Thus, in this case blood would continue flowing into the head while having no way to leave it, causing engorgement and blue/purple color (and more bleeding from any broken blood vessels in the brain). In any case, respiration stops before the heart, which may continue to beat for about 10 to 15 minutes. But again, with restriction around the neck, blood to the brain would continue to be slowed.

All in all, you can see why it is so complicated, and why it is that so many different experts can’t agree on exactly what happened, or when it happened. Each expert may consider one factor and fail to take into consideration another. Dr. Wecht believes that because of the “small amount” of blood, she must have been dead or near-dead when the head blow was struck. Dr. Rorke-Adams believes that because of the amount of edema and necrosis of brain tissue, she was hit over the head a full 45-minutes to 2-hours before she was strangled. Dr. Kerry Brega said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have any bleeding in the brain. (IMO, this is certainly possible if the concussion is slight enough that it causes no breaking of the blood vessels or capillaries -- but I find it hard to believe that it is “not uncommon”, and certainly not in a case where the fractures are as extensive as JonBenet’s.)

So just like the eternal question of the chicken or the egg -- which came first -- the ligature or the head blow? You tell me. (I won’t even offer my explanation here.)

:clap: :clap: That was a great expanation OTG!! Thank you for taking the time to put it into terms "the rest of us" can understand. I think I have a much better understanding of the medical aspect of her injuries now, and how they might have affected each other.
 
:clap: :clap: That was a great expanation OTG!! Thank you for taking the time to put it into terms "the rest of us" can understand. I think I have a much better understanding of the medical aspect of her injuries now, and how they might have affected each other.
I hope everyone can understand it -- at least as much as the so-called experts. I don't claim to be that knowledgeable, but unlike DeeDee, I BOOKMARK:giggle: , so I can refer to it when I need it. DD is the one with all knowledge, and (fortunately for us) a Rolodex mind.

It really is easy to see though why so many experts can disagree if they only pick and choose which facts they want to consider. (And I still have a very hard time with the time estimate of Dr. Lucy.)
 
I hope everyone can understand it -- at least as much as the so-called experts. I don't claim to be that knowledgeable, but unlike DeeDee, I BOOKMARK:giggle: , so I can refer to it when I need it. DD is the one with all knowledge, and (fortunately for us) a Rolodex mind.

It really is easy to see though why so many experts can disagree if they only pick and choose which facts they want to consider. (And I still have a very hard time with the time estimate of Dr. Lucy.)


And this is science, or at least reasonably close to it. Imagine the aspects of the case in which expert opinion isn't really based science.

Thanks for the explanation.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
2,880
Total visitors
3,056

Forum statistics

Threads
603,411
Messages
18,156,106
Members
231,724
Latest member
Marisa_breanna97
Back
Top