Let_Forever_Be
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 264
- Reaction score
- 16
Let_Forever_Be,
One of the R's abused JonBenet that fateful night, then she was whacked on the head, then she was strangled, wiped down, redressed and placed into the wine-cellar. I can think of only one reason why there was collusion to fake an abduction.
.
Thanks for the reply.
I personally disagree with that order of events. Whilst I try to look at other viewpoints, I'm still firmly committed to the strangulation first then head-blow.Of course, that's only my opinion and is not an absolute fact on the case.
Of course, I agree there was a sexual element to the death.Perhaps I just take a differing view.
Here's some reservations from me:
If JonBenet was hit over the head with say, the flashlight by the mother, it requires so much speculation. We need to speculate that there was an incident to which Patsy got so annoyed that she used a flashlight and struck JonBenet with such force to crack her skull and render her dead (at least to the eyes of the perpetrator). We have no quantifiable proof that Patsy would behave like this or that she did. We also have to invent an incident for which to base these assumptions on.
Additionally, after the child has been hit on the head 'accidentally', say by Patsy, why weren't the police called? It was an accident after all. Further, instead of calling the police, Patsy (and John) decide upon 'staging' to create the myth of the intruder. And they decide to make the death appear very sexual what with the garrotte etc. Their 6 year old little girl is dead from an accident and they spend a fair amount of time tying ropes around her dead/dying body.
So, JonBenet was being molested that night, then got hit over the head for whatever reason and then the garrotte was added for staging.
I really have trouble buying this. But my previous post where I postulate a hypothetical scenario for the head-bash first scenario was an attempt to try to envision it.
Also, the lack of blood found in the brain is not what is normally expected if the head-blow came first. It's not to say that such anomolies don't occur i.e relatively low amounts of blood recovered after serious head-bash, but it's not the expected outcome.
The reasons why I personally think the evidence is more congruent with the strangulation first scenario is:
-The lack of blood found in the brain after such a horrific skull trauma is totally in keeping with the fact that had the heart had stopped beating as a result of the vagus nerve being pressed too hard little or no blood was likely to be in the brain. We don't need any speculations whatsoever here -- hardly any blood was recovered and a garrotte was actually found on the body. These things actually did exist.
- JonBenet was both acutely and chronically abused. This in conjunction with the garrotte appears to support the sex-game gone wrong theory. The fact a piece of apparatus was found that had a sexual connotation aswell as the fact that sexual abuse had occurred seems pretty compelling.
- The very likely weapon used to inflict the head injury -- the flashlight -- was wiped down and placed in the kitchen, almost begging to be found. I think the flashlight was 'put on show' because the Ramseys wanted it found because it was the weapon used to 'stage' the crime after the initial strangulation. It had significance.
-JonBenet had bruising to her temporal lobes -- this most likely occurred from JonBenet being shaken. I believe that, after she 'died' or went unconscious to the perpetrator, they panicked and did what anyone, on finding such a thing would do -- they shook the body to try to revive it. But JonBenet was dead/dying. Hence why bruises formed exactly where bruises would form in such an instance.
-Markings on the skin (little haemorrhages) testify to the fact that the garrotte was placed on her neck and tightened when she was still technically alive. I find it more plausible that these marks exist because the garrotte was added first and the strangulation was the primary cause of death (later the head-blow). To view the other way, we need to imagine the hypothetical and unproven incident with which caused someone to be so angry they hit the child on the head and 'killed' them. And then, before she was 'fully' dead, the perpetrators had the gusto to think up and execute the whole garrotte thing in just enough time so that the tell tale marks on the skin appeared to show asphyxiation had occurred whilst she was still 'alive' in technical terms.
My theory is this: ongoing sexual abuse > garrotte part of sex games > sex game goes wrong > head wound inflicted to make the crime appear horrific and add to intruder theory > ransom note further staging to embellish intruder theory.
I think it's easier to make one hit to head after an accidental asphyxiation as part of some staging exercise than it is to stage a garrotte/kinky sex game incident after an accidental head-bash. The former scenario is less traumatic for the perp to do and easier. The latter scenario is more time consuming more emotionally arduous for the perp considering all the body contact they would need with their dead kid.It's also less likely since it takes more time, and we know there's only a limited amount of time after a body dies until certain tell tale signs show that certain actions occurred wither before or after total death of the body.
However, I'm still left with many questions. There's things I can't resolve.
Some of my queries:
1. Who was the perpetrator in the strangulation scenario. Was it the same person who wrote the ransom note? And if not, why would the author of the ransom note involve themselves into the crime when such a heinous act had been done to their child?
2. Did 2 perpetrators do the crime hence they both acted to save each others skin?
3. If the strangulation came first, and was done by the dad, why would he leave the garrotte on when it might set alarm bells of in his wife's head when she found out? Did she know what was going on?