Albert, I am looking at the autopsy picture right now. and the crack appears connected to me, meaning it looks like it happened as a result of the large wound. It is not disconnected at all? I would like to see other angles of this. Do you know if there are any? I don't think so.UKGuy said:
Head blow vs strangulation
- Thread starter santos1014
- Start date
Yes, the crack does emanate from the area that took the brunt of the blow. I was suggesting experts should be able to determine something about how the blow occurred just by looking at the damage done. The ability to do that kind of analysis has probably advanced a lot since 1996 but I doubt that knowledge has been applied to this case.
If they could determine a likely angle of the blow then it might tell them something. If it came from a certain angle (high) it would most likely be she was struck with something. A different angle (low) would suggest her head struck something and then there would be a middle ground that could be both.
Of course that type of analysis would require them to put the dna down and actually investigate the case.
If they could determine a likely angle of the blow then it might tell them something. If it came from a certain angle (high) it would most likely be she was struck with something. A different angle (low) would suggest her head struck something and then there would be a middle ground that could be both.
Of course that type of analysis would require them to put the dna down and actually investigate the case.
coloradokares
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,391
- Reaction score
- 5
I for one am all for that. I'd like to know once and forall was she struck and most likely with what or pushed/shoved hard and fell ......what did this to JonBenet precious little head. You see its easier for me to believe anything besides someone swinging violently at her head and making that level of impact with what became a weapon. That level of rage would be intentional murder even if not necessarily premeditated.Albert18 said:
Colorado: I was looking at the autopsy pictures and I have changed. I believe she was struck with that Maglight Flashlight. I think it was rage but in looking at that picture - it is just so severe - it almost looks like she was shot in the head, the wound is so bad. Someone hit her with that flashlight. I know Ames spoke of this before and UK and he said then why leave the flashlight out, it is redundant. That is too large a piece of evidence for Patsy and John to have just forgotten about and it is wiped clean. It has to be intentionally left out so the police could find it and it is wiped clean - the reason being obvious, one of them used it on her. So then the staging - they have to make this look like a sexual predator came and did it and he also hit her on the head with the flashlight which he left and cleaned off before he did. I think it was left there intentionally. I mean if they put it back in the drawer and it has not prints on it, that is going to look strange. Why does your flashllight have no prints and we are going to look at it and oh by the way it fits perfectly in the wound. No, they are leaving it out for the police to find it, right in the kitchen. And they will say, that is funny, that is usually in the drawer.coloradokares said:
UK says she was hit on both sides of the head also. Cyril Wecht believes this was from shaking her, but if you shake someone, you hold the child in front of you and you shake her to and fro, not side to side. I am still not sure if UK is right about that one.
Colorado, someone hit her over the head with this flashlight in such a rage that they cracked her skull in half almost. They heard the crack and then they realized what they had done.
But you have to be really out of your mind to hit a child with a maglight flashlight and not know it will kill her or be so angry you don't care at the moment.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED ANYMORE. I just know and feel that either Patsy or John did it. I am more inclined to go with Patsy.
coloradokares
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,391
- Reaction score
- 5
It took me a long time to look at that picture. I had difficulty eating for a few days after the first time. It took something mighty powerful to do that. That flashlight.....a bat. And it took powerful anger rage or momentary intent. I am not sure she was struck just once either. I agree about shaking her. I can't think that I ever shook our kids. Or anything else for that matter. But it seems the natural course would be front and back not side to side. But I suppose the brain can ricochet off the skull in being slapped or struck on the sides of the head. I agree 200% with you you'd have to be totally out of your mind to hit a child that alone hit the child with a maglite or any other thing and not have the comprehension that it would hurt them beyond belief. Even kill them. Anger and rage of that level though is at least momentary temporary insanity. I'd think it'd have to come out of only 2 possibilities. Mental Illness or in protection of your beloved child. Would you strike out like that against another human to protect someone you love? In example and I am only thinking......what if one of the parents walked in on something pretty horrible and parental instinct kicked in and they swung with all their might and missed their intended target and connected with JonBenet? I know the rage to me makes more sense. But the other scenario is the only other possibility I can think of. I'd strike out in blind fury if someone was hurting one of my children. Which begs another question, howcould anyone live with themselves after something like that. HOW? How could you not confess it? And I think in many ways Patsy did. To Pam Griffin..... we didnt mean for this to happen.....And many other slight slips across the years. I think a woman could have wrote the note. On and on the fruedian slips. And inconsistencies. Someone wrote a book on that, name escapes me right now. I think it might be an interesting read.Solace said:Colorado: I was looking at the autopsy pictures and I have changed. I believe she was struck with that Maglight Flashlight. I think it was rage but in looking at that picture - it is just so severe - it almost looks like she was shot in the head, the wound is so bad. Someone hit her with that flashlight. I know Ames spoke of this before and UK and he said then why leave the flashlight out, it is redundant. That is too large a piece of evidence for Patsy and John to have just forgotten about and it is wiped clean. It has to be intentionally left out so the police could find it and it is wiped clean - the reason being obvious, one of them used it on her. So then the staging - they have to make this look like a sexual predator came and did it and he also hit her on the head with the flashlight which he left and cleaned off before he did. I think it was left there intentionally. I mean if they put it back in the drawer and it has not prints on it, that is going to look strange. Why does your flashllight have no prints and we are going to look at it and oh by the way it fits perfectly in the wound. No, they are leaving it out for the police to find it, right in the kitchen. And they will say, that is funny, that is usually in the drawer.
UK says she was hit on both sides of the head also. Cyril Wecht believes this was from shaking her, but if you shake someone, you hold the child in front of you and you shake her to and fro, not side to side. I am still not sure if UK is right about that one.
Colorado, someone hit her over the head with this flashlight in such a rage that they cracked her skull in half almost. They heard the crack and then they realized what they had done.
But you have to be really out of your mind to hit a child with a maglight flashlight and not know it will kill her or be so angry you don't care at the moment.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED ANYMORE. I just know and feel that either Patsy or John did it. I am more inclined to go with Patsy.
coloradokares said:
coloradokares,
I have reviewed the research on child head injuries and apparently JonBenet's is not your average type, most head injuries are either Contrecoup or linear skull fractures, her injury rates as severe on the Glasgow Coma Scale. it is also a depressed fracture not uncommon, but not the kind of injury commonly presented at paediatric hospitals. The most common cause of head injury in a child is a vehicle accident followed by falling from a height, generally neither of these yield depressed fractures, but there is always the exception, and it is usually babies that have fallen or been dropped somehow, which place this as 2nd in the ratings.
If you read the autopsy report Coroner Meyer itemises the following:
Note all the contusions and abrasions on her right side, e.g. right cheek,
right shoulder , the craniocerebral injuries are mainly on her right side, although some are temporal.
Now add in the Ligature strangulation injuries including the neck compression, and I would ask anyone to demonstrate how these multiple injuries could be the result of an accident?
JonBenet was asphyxiated, and clubbed to death, resulting in a depressed fracture, imo it was intentional!
.
"JonBenet was asphyxiated, and clubbed to death, resulting in a depressed fracture, imo it was intentional!"
I think for that to be true then you have to be talking intruder.
Six year old children are not a threat to their parents. JonBenet was learning to read, she wasn't a 30 year old women coming home for Christmas to confront her parents.
John was a very intelligent successful businessman, he played with the big boys, I can't see him living in fear of a 6 year old child.
JonBenet was what Patsy lived for. Her dreams for JonBenet wouldn't be fulfilled until JonBenet was old enough to be Miss Colorado. Why would she end her dream that night.
These were not two destitute drunkards stumbling through life.
If you say she was killed to keep her quiet or something along that line, then you are saying these two very intelligent people thought it would be easier to explain a murdered JonBenet in a closed house, then explain something she might say.
I think for that to be true then you have to be talking intruder.
Six year old children are not a threat to their parents. JonBenet was learning to read, she wasn't a 30 year old women coming home for Christmas to confront her parents.
John was a very intelligent successful businessman, he played with the big boys, I can't see him living in fear of a 6 year old child.
JonBenet was what Patsy lived for. Her dreams for JonBenet wouldn't be fulfilled until JonBenet was old enough to be Miss Colorado. Why would she end her dream that night.
These were not two destitute drunkards stumbling through life.
If you say she was killed to keep her quiet or something along that line, then you are saying these two very intelligent people thought it would be easier to explain a murdered JonBenet in a closed house, then explain something she might say.
I do believe that JonBenet was hit with the top side of a maglite flashlight. You can try this yourself if you have one. Draw a rectangle with 1 3/4 in x 1/2 in. Lay the top of the flashlight over the rectangle. It fits perfectly. Link to measurements of Maglite if you don't have one with description of the depressed fracture from the autopsy report:
http://www.maglite.com/anatomy_spare_D.asp
At the superior extension of the is area of hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area forward tot he right frontal area across the parietal skull. In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch.
http://www.maglite.com/anatomy_spare_D.asp
At the superior extension of the is area of hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area forward tot he right frontal area across the parietal skull. In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch.
It's funny that people say that the Ramsey fiber evidence is easy to explain away, because the Ramseys were never able to do that!
Don't believe me? I didn't think you would. So I came prepared.
Aug. 2000: Atlanta interview. Patsy and John are made aware of this evidence. Neither offers an explanation.
Oct. 2002: Patsy claims that her fibers transferred during a moment of body-on-body contact with her daughter. A claim totally at odds with what John wrote in DOI, where he said that the second blankey had already been placed over the body. OOPS!
(Isn't it interesting how they had two years to think about it, and that lame-*advertiser censored* story is the best they can do?)
Nov. 2002: Lin Wood claims, totally without reference, that John's fibers were never there, an intentional lie by prosecutors.
Oh, yeah?
I can go all night!
Don't believe me? I didn't think you would. So I came prepared.
Aug. 2000: Atlanta interview. Patsy and John are made aware of this evidence. Neither offers an explanation.
Oct. 2002: Patsy claims that her fibers transferred during a moment of body-on-body contact with her daughter. A claim totally at odds with what John wrote in DOI, where he said that the second blankey had already been placed over the body. OOPS!
(Isn't it interesting how they had two years to think about it, and that lame-*advertiser censored* story is the best they can do?)
Nov. 2002: Lin Wood claims, totally without reference, that John's fibers were never there, an intentional lie by prosecutors.
Oh, yeah?
I can go all night!
Albert18 said:
Albert18,
Look at the forensic evidence, your resume of John and Patsy's aspirations, their financial status, has nothing to do with JonBenet's death.
We can talk intruder any time at all, just put some forensic evidence on the table.
JonBenet was killed because her survival meant she would talk, and the subject would likely be sexual abuse, lots of it too, incorporating pageant routines that would make uncomfortable reading.
All the violence inflicted upon JonBenet's corpse tells you, those involved really wanted to make sure that she was dead, this was no accident, and to date the only known intruder may be Pam Paugh?
.
Unfortunately while what is written may be true, prosecutors as interrogators lie all the time to make suspects believe they have more evidence than they actually do and in an attempt to coerce confessions. If they do it in a court of law that is when they can be sanctioned or if serious enough disbarred.SuperDave said:
Just do a google search for "prosecutorial misconduct" and you will find cases where this has happened more times than anyone would care to admit.
Nuisanceposter
Remembering Little Miss Christmas
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 1,399
- Reaction score
- 24
Not only is Levin known to be an honest and forthright attorney, but there's nothing about that interview to indicate Levin was lying to coerce a confession from the Rs. They had made exceptional allowances with the Rs, which basically slanted the interviews in their favor, and if you read how Levin is questioning JR, he's hardly making an aggressive stance to make JR break down and confess. All Levin is asking for is an innocent explanation of how JR's shirt fibers could be found in JonBenet's underwear, and JR has no answer - he replies by becoming indignant and questioning Levin's questions, and then Wood interjects.
Why doesn't JR have any innocent explanation for why his shirts fibers are in his daughter's underwear and on her pubic area, after she was wiped down by the redresser? I'd have a less suspicion about JR's involvement had he been able to give some kind of explanation...instead he completely dodges the question and avoids answering by becoming outraged.
Why doesn't JR have any innocent explanation for why his shirts fibers are in his daughter's underwear and on her pubic area, after she was wiped down by the redresser? I'd have a less suspicion about JR's involvement had he been able to give some kind of explanation...instead he completely dodges the question and avoids answering by becoming outraged.
Innocent explanation? Maybe because they weren't his short fibers and that is why he became outraged. Personally if he did not become outraged over what was being implied -- I would question it. No proof that was Levin said is true. If JR's shirt fibers were definitely found he shoud have been arrested. How did the fibers found in her labia go from blue to black anyway. It was believed she was wiped down with a blue cloth, even thinkiing it may have been a blue bathrobe; that didn't work so they throw everything they could out hoping something stuck. Read Beckner's depo of 2001 no mention of these fibers either.Nuisanceposter said:
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
You sound like me...I have no idea what happened anymore, either. At first, I didn't think it could have been the flashlight....I thought that she was thrown against the tub....but, I don't know how that would explain the fact that the flashlight fit perfectly into her head wound. You cannot just explain that fact away. But whether she was pushed into the tub, or hit with a flashlight...contrary to popular belief, it wouldn't have had to have been an extremely hard hit, because children's skulls are only 1/8 as thick as an adults...I found a website, and posted that, on one of these threads. One website I found, was talking about bike helmets...and it said that a child can crack their skull, with a fall from TWO FEET from the ground...because their skull is thinner and softer than an adults. To me, that says that JB wouldn't have had to have been hit as hard as we previously thought, for Patsy (or an "intruder") to have caused that head wound. We are not talking about a grown man's skull....we are talking about a six year old girls skull.Solace said:Colorado: I was looking at the autopsy pictures and I have changed. I believe she was struck with that Maglight Flashlight. I think it was rage but in looking at that picture - it is just so severe - it almost looks like she was shot in the head, the wound is so bad. Someone hit her with that flashlight. I know Ames spoke of this before and UK and he said then why leave the flashlight out, it is redundant. That is too large a piece of evidence for Patsy and John to have just forgotten about and it is wiped clean. It has to be intentionally left out so the police could find it and it is wiped clean - the reason being obvious, one of them used it on her. So then the staging - they have to make this look like a sexual predator came and did it and he also hit her on the head with the flashlight which he left and cleaned off before he did. I think it was left there intentionally. I mean if they put it back in the drawer and it has not prints on it, that is going to look strange. Why does your flashllight have no prints and we are going to look at it and oh by the way it fits perfectly in the wound. No, they are leaving it out for the police to find it, right in the kitchen. And they will say, that is funny, that is usually in the drawer.
UK says she was hit on both sides of the head also. Cyril Wecht believes this was from shaking her, but if you shake someone, you hold the child in front of you and you shake her to and fro, not side to side. I am still not sure if UK is right about that one.
Colorado, someone hit her over the head with this flashlight in such a rage that they cracked her skull in half almost. They heard the crack and then they realized what they had done.
But you have to be really out of your mind to hit a child with a maglight flashlight and not know it will kill her or be so angry you don't care at the moment.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED ANYMORE. I just know and feel that either Patsy or John did it. I am more inclined to go with Patsy.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
Here is another site that I found on this subject....
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/EP/ep90-01.htm
"Generalization of the experience with adults to children is inappropriate because of the differences in anatomy and physiologic response to cerebral trauma.4 Children are more predisposed than adults to head injury because their head:body ratio is greater, their brains are less myelinated and thus more prone to injury, and their cranial bones are thinner. Although children have a lower incidence of mass lesions than adults they are more likely to suffer from a unique form of brain injury called "malignant brain edema"5. In addition, children may lose relatively large amounts of blood from scalp lacerations and subgaleal hematomas and present in hemorrhagic shock. "
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/EP/ep90-01.htm
"Generalization of the experience with adults to children is inappropriate because of the differences in anatomy and physiologic response to cerebral trauma.4 Children are more predisposed than adults to head injury because their head:body ratio is greater, their brains are less myelinated and thus more prone to injury, and their cranial bones are thinner. Although children have a lower incidence of mass lesions than adults they are more likely to suffer from a unique form of brain injury called "malignant brain edema"5. In addition, children may lose relatively large amounts of blood from scalp lacerations and subgaleal hematomas and present in hemorrhagic shock. "
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=14410&folder_id=300
.Most parents and kids dont understand just how fragile the brain is, and that a fall from a little as two feet can cause a skull fracture. No parent or child should have to learn such a painful lesson.
A fall from as little as TWO FEET can cause a skull fracture!!! Okay, this is just another point that I have been trying to make, about the blow to JB's head, not having to be as severe as previously thought. This tells me, that it didn't HAVE to be a very forceful blow, for it to have cracked, and displaced her skull. I believe that it WAS a hard blow...but not as hard as we all think. Yes, this kind of blow could have been made from a throw into the side of the tub (the rounded corners, the part that you have to step over, to get INTO it)....OR by an enraged WOMAN with a flashlight. The reason that I posted this, is because some people discount the theory that Patsy slung JB into the side of the tub, or sink...because her head injury was so severe.....the info. on this website and the website that I posted in the post above this one, regarding children's skulls being thinner than adults....proves otherwise.
"No parent or child should have to learn such a painful lesson." Yes, and Patsy learned the hard way. I don't believe that she realized that it didn't take much for a child's skull to fracture. This is why I don't think that she intended to do JB the harm that she caused.
.Most parents and kids dont understand just how fragile the brain is, and that a fall from a little as two feet can cause a skull fracture. No parent or child should have to learn such a painful lesson.
A fall from as little as TWO FEET can cause a skull fracture!!! Okay, this is just another point that I have been trying to make, about the blow to JB's head, not having to be as severe as previously thought. This tells me, that it didn't HAVE to be a very forceful blow, for it to have cracked, and displaced her skull. I believe that it WAS a hard blow...but not as hard as we all think. Yes, this kind of blow could have been made from a throw into the side of the tub (the rounded corners, the part that you have to step over, to get INTO it)....OR by an enraged WOMAN with a flashlight. The reason that I posted this, is because some people discount the theory that Patsy slung JB into the side of the tub, or sink...because her head injury was so severe.....the info. on this website and the website that I posted in the post above this one, regarding children's skulls being thinner than adults....proves otherwise.
"No parent or child should have to learn such a painful lesson." Yes, and Patsy learned the hard way. I don't believe that she realized that it didn't take much for a child's skull to fracture. This is why I don't think that she intended to do JB the harm that she caused.
Hi Ames: Thank you for posting what you did on injuries and how a child's head is much more delicate. I know there was so much bull put out by the pro Ramseys or even the Ramsey team themselves that it would take a 250 pound man to inflict that kind of an injury.Ames said:
You know newspeople are not even embarrassed to report that bull$h#@ anymore because hardly anyone ever calls them on it. I remember watching a reporter on fox who said to Cyril Wecht that because there was unsourced DNA that the Ramseys did not do it.
He looked at her like she just said humans have three eyes and then he said and I am paraphrasing "I don't mean to appear argumentative here but I have never, ever heard anywhere that you could deduct something like that just because you have unsourced DNA", but she was trying to insist and he eventually got through and finally (very nastily) said "I get it, I get it".
Another one (and she I know you have seen her, but I forget her name) said, after John Karr was arrested, that Patsy passed the lie detector tests with flying colors. Total falsehood and then it turns out that Karr is a liar.
So thank you for posting what you did.
We are never going to find out what exactly happened that night and it is driving me crazy. I have to go to the gym in the a.m. Definitely.
Ames, how does someone pick up a Maglight and hit their kid with it and not know it is going to kill them. I can see them doing it if they are out of their minds with rage. But you have to be out of your mind. Do they call it temporary insanity - and then you regain and decide to stage. What???
You are comparing apples to oranges. There are different degrees of skull fractures. JobBenet would NOT have sustained an injury such as she did from a two foot fall nor would it have cracked the skull like an eggshell.Ames said:
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
Yep, that would be called temporary insanity. The insanity part comes from Patsy's rage, a rage that lasted only temporarily.....she snapped out of it, as soon as she realized what she had done. Temporary insanity.....Solace said:
I am still waffling between a bathtub wound, and a flashlight wound....I bounce back and forth....it drives me nuts. But, as I have stated before, when I was little, my mom got mad at me for not sitting still, while she did my hair, and she whacked me hard on the head with a brush...and it hurt. Say, for example....if that brush had of been a Maglight....I wouldn't be here today, probably....or posting on this board. Whether JB was shoved into the tub, or hit with a flashlight...I just don't think that Patsy, was thinking. IMO..she did not realize, in her rage filled mind....just how hard the hit, or the shove was...and didn't realize that it would harm JB, to the point of no return. She..IMO..didn't mean to kill her....I believe that she was just really, REALLY , REALLY pissed at JB for some reason.