WARNING! GRAPHIC PICTURES OF JONBENET AT MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE.
The garotte, the cord, and the paintbrush.
The garotte. Is it a complicated knot that makes the garotte or is it a simple knot that anyone can do.
The cord. Where did it come from? Where did the rest of the cord go? Was there more cord?
The paint brush handle. It was broken to make the garotte. It came from Patsy's paint tote.
Was the garrote, the ligatures around JonBenet wrists, all part of staging? Was this staging done by someone trying to think like a criminal?
There are two great places to look into the garrote. One place is our own thread started in 2006 on Websleuths.
CLICK here to read the thread
As always acandyrose.com has extensive coverage of the garotte, paintbrush, and cord.
CLICK HERE
There is so much to discuss here. Let's put all of these things to rest in this thread by explaining each piece of evidence.
Below are some pictures of the garotte and the crime scene. WARNING GRAPHIC pictures of JonBenet at the medical examiner's office.
Given all the questions arising from gaps in the timeline, evasive answers, clothing, food, marks on the body... this, the strangulation, is still the "part" that confuses me the most. For me, it's the most important question because this is the business end. In legal terms this is what killed JBR. Whoever did this is the killer.
Even if they thought JBR was dead - thus lacking
mens rea for murder - the cord being tightened around the neck ended JBR's life (irrespective of whether the garotte was a "staging" or not).
And I genuinely struggle with resolving this, mainly due to the 45mins-2hours gap between the blow to the head and the strangulation.
If BR... if he is responsible for both... the time gap undermines the notion of an initial angry lashing out. Yes, there could be a period of panic, of indecision. But to stay with her and do what? Or go away and plan, or return later to inspect and decide to act... The combination of behaviours would indicate a much darker psyche than an angry child hitting out.
If PR... the forensics is there, can't argue with that. The reasons for it are up for debate, but not the reality of the evidence being there. Yet tightening that cord - even using the garotte to distance herself from the act - I just struggle with it. I've tried to think through "mercy killing", and my head immediately goes to a pillow and suffocation, but could that be achieved from "behind" without having to face the child - I guess so? But strangulation was chosen. Plus, mercy killing supposes that it was known something horrific had happened to her head and brain, and that was not evident until autopsy. So if I accept PR could find "mercy killing" within herself, then it must follow that she was capable of "protect the other child" killing and ultimately "protect myself" killing. In which case, as with BR, if she did both, the time gap means we have to make the leap from angry force with unintended consequences to calculated murder.
If JR... I may be odd, I truly hope I'm not just being sexist, but this "sits" best for me. Perhaps I'm being squeamish when addressing what the other Rs may be capable of. I believe he could have made that decision and carried it out. But the I have difficulty with JR and the torch blow. There is no known history of sudden violence. On the contrary, we see control and planning. However, if JR carried out the strangulation as a mercy killing, the provisos still apply. He had to be able to approximate what was wrong.
If you find a child unconscious, perhaps also gasping for air, perhaps also fitting, you call an ambulance.
So, whoever hit her also strangled her.
Or whoever hit her did say "I hit her with the torch" so another/s could reasonably guess at brain injury despite the lack of visual damage.
Or whoever hit her was witnessed doing so by another/s.
Apologies for the stream of consciousness approach, but I wanted to show my "workings out" so someone can point out if/where I've missed something.
Well, that's where I am at on the "strangulation", when considering it alone, without reference to everything else we know. But that might be my error, in that nothing should be considered in isolation. When I link it with what else is known, I get to a solution that appears to tick most boxes. But this still niggles away...
I know some of you (e.g.
otg) are very knowledgeable in respect of the medical aspects of the case so I'm going to search for your posts. Meanwhile, all wisdom in respect of the "time gap" between injuries (or my gaps in thought process) will be gratefully received!