For the last time, BURKE DIDN'T DO IT!!

[DocWatson]

And the minimal bleeding from the head wound is explained how? Good sleuths take into account ALL of the evidence, not just the cherry-picked evidence that supports their preconceived notion of who did it. TAKEN TOGETHER, the petechiae and minimal bleeding STRONGLY suggest strangulation preceded the head wound and it is NOT, as you imply, a matter of just flipping a coin. [If "it could just as easily have been caused by convulsions" this implies a 50:50 chance--an extremely misleading statement on your part]. This is a common sense conclusion--one that you would see easily if you would just take off the blinders you've placed on that filter out all non-RDI evidence.

 

[aRnd2it]

And the minimal bleeding from the head wound is explained how?

Once again, feel free to read the TRUTH and weep:

JonBenét Head Wound Debated
Smit says the large head wound on JonBenét would have caused more bleeding if the blood to her head had not been cut off by the garrote cord around her neck.

But Kerry Brega, chief neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center, said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have any bleeding.

"We see a lot of people with skull fractures without bleeds in the brain, and they didn't all get strangled on the way in," she said. "So it is actually possible to get a skull fracture without getting an underlying bleed in the brain."
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/2001/03lrams.html


What were you saying about good sleuths taking in all the evidence?

 

[sissi]

I'm not sure what you want to come out of your posts, Arnd2it? Do you want to say she was hit over the head before she was strangled? If so, then you must agree that she threw up her cracked crab during those "convulsions" you are referring to? Myself I believe she threw up under the stress of being tormented by her killer, however either way dismisses the pineapple "theories" .
I have no doubts that there is a neurologist in some community health center that given only a "bit" of information replied in the manner reported. He needed to see the deep furrow , the petechial hemorrhages on her skin both above and below the cord line, the petechiae in the whites of her eyes, and on her lower inner lids. What he needed to make the comment he made was only this, "have you ever seen little bleeding in a skull fracture". It is really a limited response he gave given limited information. Very poor source, IMO it points to "knowing your audience" by the media and giving them what they want, certainly not scientific or thorough.

 

[Seeker]

Moved to JBR Parking Lot by JBRMod2

 

[aRnd2it]

I'm not sure what you want to come out of your posts, Arnd2it? Do you want to say she was hit over the head before she was strangled? If so, then you must agree that she threw up her cracked crab during those "convulsions" you are referring to?

Sissi, the time of death could have been 11-midnight. That would have given about 6-hours for the crab to digest, and around 2-hours for the pineapple to leave her stomach. There would have been nothing in her stomach to throw-up.

The petechiae could easily have been caused by the convulsions from the head blow which came first. Not that I believe ST's theory, but that is the conclusion he came to after talking to Meyer and others or his "accident in the bathroom" wouldn't work at all. But again, the main point is that Smit doesn't know what he's talking about--his "petechiae" proves nothing, neither does his "lack of blood flow" claim.

Remember that Dr. Spitz saw evidence of a prior strangulation which could have caused the petechial hemorrhages on the neck which the garrote was used to cover up. And let's not forget that the garrote cord didn't do any damage at all to the internal organs of her neck. Ligiture strangulation always damages the strap muscles and tongue.

I'm sure if you questioned dozens of chief neurologists, they (like Dr. Brega) would tell you that not all fractured skulls bleed. In fact, I'll bet they would point out to you that her scalp was not ruptured and that is where much of the bleeding from a head wound occurs.

Also take a look at this page Sissi, which deals with skull fractures in children. Look closely at the diagram. Notice how the duramater where a sub/extra-dural hemorrhage occurs is recessed into the brain in the middle of the head? It's possible to crack a childs head right down the center (like JonBenet) and not damage the recessed dural layer:
http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/factsheets/families/F010502/

 

[BlueCrab]

JonBenet most likely died by strangulation, and not only because that's what the autopsy report said was the cause of death, and not only because of the petechial hemorrhages on the neck that were above and below the ligature, but MAINLY because the device around JonBenet's neck was put there for masturbation purposes -- not for a killing purpose. The device was for erotic asphyxiation sex.

If she had died from the blow on the head, why would the killer have taken the time and trouble to construct such an elaborate ligature consisting of a generous amont of cord, a stick, and several unusual knots, just for staging?

Dr. Cyril Wecht, who is both a forensic pathologist and an attorney, isn't afraid to tell it like it is, and he is convinced the device was for sexual purposes. He says JonBenet's death was the result of a sex game gone awry. The December 13, 2004 edition of the Globe, which came out on the stands yesterday, just got a new and very interesting quote from Wecht:

"The ligature around the neck was to bring her in and out of consciousness, for someone's sexual kicks. It was a game that had been played before, although from the medical evidence alone, it's impossible to say who did it."

The interesting part of Wecht's quote is "IT WAS A GAME THAT HAD BEEN PLAYED BEFORE". So Wecht is saying that erotic asphyxiation games had been played with JonBenet prior to the night of the murder.

JMO

 

[Britt]

If she had died from the blow on the head, why would the killer have taken the time and trouble to construct such an elaborate ligature consisting of a generous amont of cord, a stick, and several unusual knots, just for staging?

Yes. That's why it's called "staging" - to divert attention away from what really happened (bashed on the head) and invent an intruder (a terrorist type that would use a "garrote").

What other staging options did the stagers have that would hide the head injury and create an intruder? I suppose they could've stabbed her or something, but that's too messy and would result in too much potential physical evidence with all that external blood.

 

[sissi]

Spitz is involved in a case now, where he is stepping over his area of expertise and arguing digestion times. I will tell you this, it is almost an impossible area to draw a time line, digestion varies in each individual given the same meal on a daily basis, digestion is complicated by factors such as illness and stress, extreme stress will shut off the pyloris and in effect stop the process. If for example, as you believe ,this child suffered a severe head wound and was kept alive for the time it took to construct a staging (not sure if this is where you are going) there would have most likely ,most probably, no digestion taking place after that point.
Food, such as crab in sauce is a fatty meal, the sauce alone is almost 90% fat, of course the crab itself is lower in fat content, a fatty meal by most estimations will slop around in a stomach for about four hours, if it wasn't there, and she ate it around seven or so, where is it, that is my question, where is it? You suggest she ate it at six, (she didn't get there until about six did she?)this would normally suggest the meal was leaving the stomach and entering the small intestine around 10, if for some reason she digested more quickly the meal would still be in that small intestine for several more hours. Instead, there was pineapple in that intestine. It would be very safe to consider the pineapple being in her stomach until nine if she ate it at five before leaving the house, and safer still to agree it would be in her small intestines from nine until the time of death. I agree with you on this, the head injury, or the stress of the violent acts perpetrated on this child, either could have made her throw up.
IMO The ransom note is THE important piece of evidence, it is telling who the perpetrator was. It was a person who knew how much John Ramsey received for his bonus, it was a person who had some contact however minimal with Mr.Ramsey, it seems unlikely a stranger. Patsy is creative, I'll give her that, but she is not savvy enough to not ask for a million or more for her child. That bonus amount is a "dig" , a "dig" to indicate they knew the fatcat had gotten a big present and wasn't sharing. They felt cheated in some way.

Emotions rise at Christmas, people who feel left out feel it more at the holidays, people who can't make ends meet get angry at those that they believe could have made it better for them. We do not know who among their aquaintances could have felt this, we do know Santa worked for free that night, did he expect a "bonus", we do know that LHP begged for a loan, did her family think she was "due" this amount? We don't know of others who may have felt slighted, we don't know if there were families in the Ramseys' employment who struggled through the holidays while knowing the Ramseys were enjoying a more than opulent lifestyle and unlike many rich , they were not sharing.

 

[aRnd2it]

Food, such as crab in sauce is a fatty meal, the sauce alone is almost 90% fat, of course the crab itself is lower in fat content, a fatty meal by most estimations will slop around in a stomach for about four hours

Sissi, you're making the assumption that it was some kind of crab in sauce. Where did you get the recipe?
I don't know any young child that is a fan of seafood sauces. The plate that was fixed for JB was probably just plain crab.

It's no wonder you can't see the Ramseys involvement in this crime when you keep assuming all these variables (vomit, sauce, etc...) that aren't even part of the case.

 

[aRnd2it]

What other staging options did the stagers have that would hide the head injury and create an intruder? I suppose they could've stabbed her or something, but that's too messy and would result in too much potential physical evidence with all that external blood.

Right on Britt. The staging of the body was done for the same reason the ransom note was written - to point the crime outside the house and away from a family member.

 

[BlueCrab]

Sissi, you're making the assumption that it was some kind of crab in sauce. Where did you get the recipe?
I don't know any young child that is a fan of seafood sauces. The plate that was fixed for JB was probably just plain crab.

It's no wonder you can't see the Ramseys involvement in this crime when you keep assuming all these variables (vomit, sauce, etc...) that aren't even part of the case.

Rndt2,

I agree with you. There is NO evidence of JonBenet throwing up, and the seafood meal and the pineapple snack are exactly where they would expected to be in the digestive system.

According to information in the police interviews the best estimates are the Ramseys got to the Whites at around 4:30, and had dinner around 6:30. According to the autopsy report JonBenet's dinner was in her large intestine, where it would expected to be if she died about 1:30 A.M., seven hours after eating it. The pineapple was at the very beginning of the small intestine, where it would expected to be if she ate it about one hour or so before she died.

There was no food in JonBenet's stomach because it had been passed on to the intestines by the time of her death.

JMO

 

[sissi]

Sissi, you're making the assumption that it was some kind of crab in sauce. Where did you get the recipe?
I don't know any young child that is a fan of seafood sauces. The plate that was fixed for JB was probably just plain crab.

It's no wonder you can't see the Ramseys involvement in this crime when you keep assuming all these variables (vomit, sauce, etc...) that aren't even part of the case.

I do believe it was you who has been suggesting convulsions/vomiting over the last few days? Or did you suggest Jonbenet experienced all of the associated sequelae from head injury "except" vomiting?
Yes, cracked crab is never served "straight up", I've never seen it done that way, it would be like boiled fish, no one would eat it. It is served with a butter dipping sauce. Bluecrabs ,however, can be steamed in old bay and be quite delicious "straight up". Cracked crab is dungeness crab, and you need something to put on this rather dry bland meat, usually a mayo or butter type sauce, although I've seen it served in soups and pastas it was said to be left over from the night before and was described as "seafood and cracked crab".

 

[sissi]

Rndt2,

I agree with you. Sissi should stop tossing misinformation into this crime story. There is NO evidence of JonBenet throwing up, and the seafood meal and the pineapple snack are exactly where they would expected to be in the digestive system.

According to information in the police interviews the best estimates are the Ramseys got to the Whites at around 4:30, and had dinner around 6:30. According to the autopsy report JonBenet's dinner was in her large intestine, where it would expected to be if she died about 1:30 A.M., seven hours after eating it. The pineapple was at the very beginning of the small intestine, where it would expected to be if she ate it about one hour or so before she died.

There was no food in JonBenet's stomach because it had been passed on to the intestines by the time of her death.

JMO

If you can get a dinner served at six-thirty into a large intestine between 10 and 1 you are amazing!

 

[BlueCrab]

If you can get a dinner served at six-thirty into a large intestine between 10 and 1 you are amazing!

Sissi,

When I was overseas I saw guys eat dinner at 6:30 and by 7:30 could pierce a screen wire 30 paces away.

JMO

 

[DocWatson]

JonBenet most likely died by strangulation, and not only because that's what the autopsy report said was the cause of death, and not only because of the petechial hemorrhages on the neck that were above and below the ligature, but MAINLY because the device around JonBenet's neck was put there for masturbation purposes -- not for a killing purpose. The device was for erotic asphyxiation sex.

JMO

Were Delmar England's claims found to be false? He claimed that the ligature was constructed in such a way that it could NOT have been used for AEA or even as a conventional strangulation device, since the loop never would have gotten smaller as the cord was pulled, given how the knot was constructed. That suggests the ligature itself was 'staged.' Moreover, the fact that hair was embedded in the knot suggests it was tied while already on JBR, whereas normally one would expect the loop device to have been constructed in advance (e.g., like a lassoe), leading England to conclude both that ther person who did this was NOT an expert used to doing it and that its whole purpose was just for staging. (his inference was that the strangulation was done "the old fashioned way" by just pulling on both ends of the cord to tighten it and the knot being tied only after JBR was already dead etc.)

Clearly, what class of theories make sense (JDI, BDI or even certain intruder theories) depends a whole lot on whether the ligature was genuine and really could functionally serve as an AEA and/or strangulation device or whether instead it was a very amateurish device made to LOOK like something more sophisticated than it really was.

 

[aRnd2it]

the fact that hair was embedded in the knot suggests it was tied while already on JBR, whereas normally one would expect the loop device to have been constructed in advance

The hair being "embedded in the knot" is just a case myth started by Internet posters. It appears embedded when viewing photos of the garrote, but the hair could have just been pulled into the folds of the knot when the garrote was jerked. The only way to tell if the hair was really tied into the knot would be to untie it--and if LE untied the knot that information has never been released or leaked to the public.

 

[DocWatson]

The hair being "embedded in the knot" is just a case myth started by Internet posters. It appears embedded when viewing photos of the garrote, but the hair could have just been pulled into the folds of the knot when the garrote was jerked. The only way to tell if the hair was really tied into the knot would be to untie it--and if LE untied the knot that information has never been released or leaked to the public.

If you'll read page 3 of the autopsy report, you'll see a reference to "hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick." So your claim about this being a case myth is DEAD WRONG. Moreover, while your scenario may be plausible regarding the "neck knot" it makes NO sense WRT to the knot around the stick especially since there was a 17" distance between the two.

Furthermore, it evidently escaped your notice that this is secondary evidence in support of England's claim. His primary evidence is that the knot itself doesn't function as a slip knot, hence the loop around the neck doesn't grow smaller as the handle was pulled. A standard ligature is designed to easily allow the loop size to decrease or increase as desired by the perp, as in AEA.

So I repeat my original question: were England's claims accurate or were they subsequently proven to be inaccurate? I'm sure it won't surprise you that I found some skeptical postings about England's claims over "there" but none of these focused on the most pertinent issue of whether the ligature used a fixed knot (indicating it was just for staging) or a genuine slip knot (suggesting a perp who knew what they were doing and perhaps had even done it before on JBR).

 

[BlueCrab]

.

Furthermore, it evidently escaped your notice that this is secondary evidence in support of England's claim. His primary evidence is that the knot itself doesn't function as a slip knot, hence the loop around the neck doesn't grow smaller as the handle was pulled. A standard ligature is designed to easily allow the loop size to decrease or increase as desired by the perp, as in AEA.

So I repeat my original question: were England's claims accurate or were they subsequently proven to be inaccurate? I'm sure it won't surprise you that I found some skeptical postings about England's claims over "there" but none of these focused on the most pertinent issue of whether the ligature used a fixed knot (indicating it was just for staging) or a genuine slip knot (suggesting a perp who knew what they were doing and perhaps had even done it before on JBR).

DocWatson,

England was wrong. The intent of the ligature device was for erotic asphyxiation.

The ligature on JonBenet's neck was definitely a slip knot, at least originally. The autopsy photos clearly show the ligature part of the cord going through the center of the "double knot in the midline of the posterior neck".

The problem is that, although the slipknot (the double knot) was loose at one time, when the ligature was eventually pulled so violently tight that it imbedded itself into the skin it also tightened up the slipknot, shrinking it in size, and pulling hair into it. The slipknot, which had been functioning as a cord device around the neck that could be easily tightened and loosened during EA, with one horrendous pull became a tight double knot that had to be cut off JonBenet's neck.

The ligature device was obviously designed for EA (with a partner) and AEA (by one's self) masturbation sex. The killer, after finishing what he wanted to do with it sexually, then used it as a killing device.

JMO

 

[DocWatson]

DocWatson,

The problem is that, although the slipknot (the double knot) was loose at one time, when the ligature was eventually pulled so violently tight that it imbedded itself into the skin it also tightened up the slipknot, shrinking it in size, and pulling hair into it. The slipknot, which had been functioning as a cord device around the neck that could be easily tightened and loosened during EA, with one horrendous pull became a tight double knot that had to be cut off JonBenet's neck.

The ligature device was obviously designed for EA (with a partner) and AEA (by one's self) masturbation sex. The killer, after finishing what he wanted to do with it sexually, then used it as a killing device.

JMO

Thanks. But if what you say is true, then the sheer brutality of what you describe (especially when coupled with the head blow) would seem to belie the possibility of an "accidental EA death" whether caused by John, Burke or an invited friend of Burke's. Without re-explaining your entire scenario, could you please focus on this one aspect:
in the scenario you imagine, how did it go from an X-rated game of doctor (with Burke either the active participant or merely an observer) to one in which JBR was quite BRUTALLY slain? And in the context of the scenario you describe, do you REALLY think it is credible that the parents would cover it up--ESPECIALLY if the active participant was the invited guest?

This is the problem I have always had with your theory. It does nicely in fitting many of the stray facts, and properly accounts for the evidence that too many RDI theorists ignore (the weight of the evidence exonerates J and P as RN writers) but IMHO it doesn't square with a plausible theory of human motivation. To all appearances, JBR was the Ramsey's "precious child" (if anything apparently "favored" more than Burke). I can ALMOST understand a cover-up of an accidental death, but can you imagine an older teen/young adult saying "I'm terribly sorry, we were just having a little fun, but things got out of hand. I realize I've made a mistake. I hope you'll be good Christians and help me cover this up?"

Multiply my incredulity by 10 if the scenario above entailed replacing the "got out of hand" with "I flew into an uncontrolled murderous rage."

 

[aRnd2it]

If you'll read page 3 of the autopsy report, you'll see a reference to "hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick." So your claim about this being a case myth is DEAD WRONG. Moreover, while your scenario may be plausible regarding the "neck knot" it makes NO sense WRT to the knot around the stick especially since there was a 17" distance between the two.

I've read the autopsy.

It's a case myth.

If I have a large knot of cord in my hand and I grab a hand full of your hair, it's going to become "entwined" in the knot. The harder I pull, the more the hair will be pulled into the depths of the knot until eventually the only way to tell if it was PULLED in or TIED in would be to untie the knot and find out.

Your point about there being 17" distance cancels itself out. With that length, why would you assume the knot would have been tied on top of her head instead of 17" away?

Again...It's a case myth until the knot is actually untied and the truth documented. Nobody here can say if that has ever been done.