Even then, it'd be hard to punch a hole like that in the thickest part of a skull. Possibly being SLAMMED (not just pushed or shoved into or falling on) into a faucet of the type that has protruding handles. But being bashed with something heavy is the most likely.
Clever or Lucky?
- Thread starter BBB167893
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Even then, it'd be hard to punch a hole like that in the thickest part of a skull. Possibly being SLAMMED (not just pushed or shoved into or falling on) into a faucet of the type that has protruding handles. But being bashed with something heavy is the most likely.
Yes, I agree--slammed is a better word than pushed or shoved. Angles and physics can combine to do odd things. We'll have to agree to disagree on being bashed with something heavy being "most likely" versus what I believe are results of being manhandled (or woman handled).
BOESP,
Curiously, I think most of us agree that JonBenet was sexually assaulted first?
So what happened next?
Without parsing all the details over again. It appears there was a head injury and asphyxiation.
The slamming of JonBenet's head onto anything in the context of a sexual assault seems out of place.
Given the force applied, regardless of its origin, it looks to me as if someone was deliberately attempting to kill JonBenet? That is, it was no accident.
Unless someone can do the maths, and they can be done, e.g. potential energy, body mass, height from floor, adding up to the force when she hit either the floor or some other object, taking torque, or angle into account, since this can also reduce the impact. Then comparing this with any other fall, e.g. Basement Stairs, from a chair, a bed etc, showing a marked degree of difference. Then I'm going to assume someone whacked JonBenet with either the flashlight or the baseball bat found outdoors?
So I can see two interpretations of the evidence that seem to fit.
1. Sexual asssult, then manual strangulation, JonBenet becomes comatose, followed by deliberate staging, or covering up, by inflicting the head injury, then the ligature strangulation.
2. Sexual asssult, then head injury inflicted either accidentally or intentionally, JonBenet becomes comatose, followed by ligature strangulation.
2. seems the most obvious explanation, but with the reservation: why would you whack JonBenet on the head with such force, in the context of a sexual assault?
This is why I turn to 1. and recognise since we are dealing with a staged crime-scene, that it could be possible that her head injury was a failed attempt at offering a visible cause of her death. With this failure, the ligature was applied, including the piece of paintbrush-handle.
.
UKGuy, I see what you are saying. I am just looking at the autopsy report and photos and coming to a conclusion based on what I see in the photos and read in the report. Her skull injuries appear, to my eye and understanding, to be low velocity/high pressure (relatively speaking). I admit there are so many variables that several scenarios are possible.
When the JonBenet forum first opened on Websleuths, within days of JonBenet's death, a friend of mine from Child Protective Services (in a southern state) said she would go to her grave believing John was caught molesting JonBenet and the mother made a displaced hit with a swung object toward John that hit JonBenet instead. My friend has seen a lot of this type thing. My friend's thoughts always nag at the back of my mind.
When the JonBenet forum first opened on Websleuths, within days of JonBenet's death, a friend of mine from Child Protective Services (in a southern state) said she would go to her grave believing John was caught molesting JonBenet and the mother made a displaced hit with a swung object toward John that hit JonBenet instead. My friend has seen a lot of this type thing. My friend's thoughts always nag at the back of my mind.
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 195
(snipped and bbm)
I'm, curious, UKG, if you feel that manual strangulation was ever used. And if so, what evidence do you see that points you to that?
.
eileenhawkeye
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 8,755
- Reaction score
- 132
I didn't know that WS opened that soon after JonBenet died. I always thought that it opened after the Boulder News Forum shut down, which I think was around Summer 1997. Also, your post makes it sound like WS already existed, and then JonBenet's case came along, but I thought WS was specifically created to talk about JBR?
I don't remember when WS opened and I don't remember the Boulder News Forum. I don't know whether or not WS was specifically created to talk about JBR either.
Here's what I said: "When the JonBenet forum first opened on Websleuths, within days of JonBenet's death, a friend of mine from Child Protective Services (in a southern state) said...."
It was within days of JonBenet's death that my friend made the comment.
The important part of my original post was the comment my friend made within days of JonBenet's death and the content of that comment.
Hope that clears up things or have I missed your point?
otg,
The trauma beneath the circumferential furrow, is diverse enough so to represent a prior manual strangulation, with the application of the ligature designed to obsfucate this?
This would also represent the idea that two parties were involved, e.g. the person who sexually assaulted JonBenet and the person who staged the wine-cellar crime-scene? That is both were attempting to, naively, stage her death?
.
BOESP,
Yes your scenario is entirely possible. But then why all the trauma on the neck from attempts at strangulation?
If you accidentally whack JonBenet on the head, and she is comatose, then you know she is injured. If you decide to kill her, why not whack her again? Why bother with a ligature etc?
.
I just do not see any evidence of manual strangulation on her neck at all. None. The ligature furrow is deep and red, and there is the expected purplish bruising at the furrow too, but when a person is strangled manually, there are very different marks. These can be seen in a Google search, I am sure. The coroner would not have missed that.
However, if there had been some type of ligature applied for other reasons (sex game, just to drag her around, or the type of thing kids might do (make a "leash" or something, if they were "playing kitty"- BTW, Patsy said that "Playing kitty- where JB and her friends would pretend they were kittens, is something that JB used to like to do)- then an unintentional compression of the vagus nerve would have resulted in cardiac arrest. If that had happened, there would then be a ligature mark to "cover up". So the ligature would have been reapplied. There was more than one red furrow. And one white one (postmortem).
I think it was likely less gross and less personal to put a ligature around her neck than purposely inflicting a head injury. The act of purposely smashing that baby's skull repulses me (not that the strangulation doesn't) and putting a ligature in place, to put it bluntly, seems the lesser of two evils and, possibly, an effort to hide a previous injury.
I think the ligature offered a method that insured a nearly immediate death. The head trauma didn't kill her the first time and I don't think the offender wanted JonBenet to suffer in death throes any further than she already had.
The ligature, in the mind of the stager, probably looked more like a realistic means an Intruder might employee.
It is nearly impossible to suggest motives for such actions for someone who is not functioning in a normal state of mind.
OpenMind4U
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 733
- Reaction score
- 12
Agree! In addition, (for me!), 1 1/2 hours gap in time between the head blow and strangulation makes a lot of sense. Why? I always wanted to add to the famous 'Perfect Murder, Perfect Town' title another phrase: 'Perfect Baby'. IMO, PR was so much in show-off 'perfection' that I couldn't see her dealing with the comotose, 'damaged', near the death of her 'perfect baby'. (remember? when JBR was only 3 years old, PR went to COSMETIC doctor to find out if JBR need any surgical help to 'fix' her after BR, by assuming accident, hit JBR? PR wants to make sure no scar will be on JBR face and was willing to put her 'under the knife' just to 'fix' it. IMO, it's not the normal reaction of the mother who has 3 year old toddler!). PR knows very well at that time that she wouldn't be able to 'fix' JBR. She was waiting and waiting but JBR condition was probably getting worse. And she understood: nothing can be done to 'fix it', to make her baby the 'perfect' again. And she wouldn't accept nothing less....plus, like you stated, her mind wasn't functioning in normal state. Among 3 of them - she was the one with the 'damaged' psycho. Just my opinion.
ILikeToBendPages
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 29,144
- Reaction score
- 75,353
If one head bash didn't kill her, what if the second one might not either? You're face with beating her head in or strangle her to death that would be quick, painless (to them) and final.
You could possibly explain an accident of one head bash but not two.
ILikeToBendPages,
uh uh, so how would the perpetrator intend to explain an asphyxiation? Similar conclusion, different method.
If its not evident to everyone, someone really wanted JonBenet dead, and regardless of how it was done, she was going to be killed!
Its not an accident, its not a coincidence, or a side effect of abuse, someone really wanted JonBenet dead!
I reckon its largely staging, otherwise you have to attribute murderous intentions to the remaining R's which I do not think they held?
.
icedtea4me
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- 557
In her 1996 Christmas letter, Patsy revealed that John's real love was a new boat [young girl] made to look older than she really was and not Miss America [Patsy]. She also mentioned an outrageous birthday bash and JonBenet's head was bashed in on the celebration of Jesus's birthday. She also admitted to seeing JonBenet in a coffin when she opened up the My Twinn doll box.
icedtea4me,
I do not doubt that Patsy employed allegory as a means of explaining JonBenet's death. This I reckon was largely lost on the BPD.
What has to be distinguished is allegory employed as a method of misinformation and that of incorrect mental recollection.
Pasty had a degree in literature so was well aware of its ability to frame a discourse, so for Patsy to offer a narrative that includes Jean Brody, Jesus and the My Twinn Doll, well for me that makes perfect sense?
But it does not follow its all true!
.
Hindsight is 20/20 so it is always easy to take something that was written and twist it to suit your own means. I highly doubt that patsy was planting clues for friends and family to find in a Christmas letter. If anything, she was concerned with keeping those secrets buried forever.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
icedtea4me
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- 557
But messages from the subconscious have ways of making themselves known.
I understand your point but the way I look at it, if Patsy was the ideal mother she tries to portray herself as, why wouldn't she have said something when she discovered her husband was molesting their 6 year old daughter? I'm not saying John didn't molest her (I don't know) but if he did and was in fact the evil molesting murderer, why would Patsy cover for him? The evidence here supports the idea that both of them played a part in this crime, so to try and portray Patsy as an innocent pawn really doesn't make much sense.
She was no innocent pawn- I think we all know that. But it has to be considered that maybe it wasn't her husband who was the molester but her son(s). In that case she WOULD certainly try to cover it up.