Head blow vs strangulation

[kaykay]

kaykay,

Strangling someone is not such an easy thing to do. Now lets assume JonBenet's asphyxiation was not planned, otherwise why would her killer conveniently have nylon cord to hand?

It has been speculated that the ligature furrow on her neck and the swelling are postmortem, this is what makes the ligature appear convincing?

Those tiny prick marks may be Petechial hemorrhages which are mentioned in the autopsy?


.

UK,
Assume? Isn't this what this all about?
Unless you have some proof that the rest of us aren't aware of.

Are you saying the perp brought the nylon cord with him/her?

If that's all the perp/s thought they needed then it looks like to me they went shopping after they got there. Pineapple, bowl, spoon, paper, pen, flashlight,
paintbrush, underware, extra clothes and what ever else was used..

kaykay

JMO

 

[UKGuy]

UK,
Assume? Isn't this what this all about?
Unless you have some proof that the rest of us aren't aware of.

Are you saying the perp brought the nylon cord with him/her?

If that's all the perp/s thought they needed then it looks like to me they went shopping after they got there. Pineapple, bowl, spoon, paper, pen, flashlight,
paintbrush, underware, extra clothes and what ever else was used..

kaykay

JMO

kaykay,

We all have to make assumptions, even the police and investigators have to make assumptions, we and they, were not there at the crime-scene, only JonBenet's killer(s) has the luxury of certainty.

The question was intended to be rhetorical. If JonBenet was Ligature strangled as Coroner Meyer suggests in his Autopsy Report, does this mean her death was pre-planned with her killer arriving complete with nylon cord?


Although it may not be possible to prove everything, some theories or important aspects of them may be shown to be at variance with the forensic evidence.

e.g. Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory is inconsistent with the final staging.

Lou Smit's Intruder theory is inconsistent on many points, not least is the staging, or the ransom note, never mind the absence of any intruder forensic trace elements.

One inconsistency does not make a theory wrong, but two or three and it starts to look shaky.


.

 

[Solace]

kaykay,

We all have to make assumptions, even the police and investigators have to make assumptions, we and they, were not there at the crime-scene, only JonBenet's killer(s) has the luxury of certainty.

The question was intended to be rhetorical. If JonBenet was Ligature strangled as Coroner Meyer suggests in his Autopsy Report, does this mean her death was pre-planned with her killer arriving complete with nylon cord? Why would you assume that?


Although it may not be possible to prove everything, some theories or important aspects of them may be shown to be at variance with the forensic evidence. And some are extremely far fetched.

e.g. Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory is inconsistent with the final staging. I know you have said that before.

Lou Smit's Intruder theory is inconsistent on many points, not least is the staging, or the ransom note, never mind the absence of any intruder forensic trace elements.

One inconsistency does not make a theory wrong, but two or three and it starts to look shaky.


.

I agree UK, and your points are starting to look shakey to me. You are assuming that is a thumb print on JB's neck and also it is not that easy to strangle someone. I think it might be beyond easy to strangle someone of JonBenet's stature. Beyond easy.

Why is rage inconsistent with the final staging. This time it would be great if you would actually answer the question. Thank you.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

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.

I believe that was the point I was trying to make. He certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to do it on tape.

If JR's shirt fibers were definitely found he shoud have been arrested.

No argument!

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

Well, until rashomon decides to educate us, I'll step up to the plate and theorize that it's easy to mistake black and navy. Done it myself once or twice.

Read Beckner's depo of 2001 no mention of these fibers either.

Was he asked?

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.

A problem throughout this case.

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.

Has anyone heard the adage "a hit dog barks."

 

[UKGuy]

I agree UK, and your points are starting to look shakey to me. You are assuming that is a thumb print on JB's neck and also it is not that easy to strangle someone. I think it might be beyond easy to strangle someone of JonBenet's stature. Beyond easy.

Why is rage inconsistent with the final staging. This time it would be great if you would actually answer the question. Thank you.

Solace,

I know you have said that before.

I rest my case, please review my previous posts on these topics.


.

 

[Toltec]

I really think it would, and there aren't any bruises or abrasions at all. I just don't see how anyone could strangle a healthy 6 year old girl to death, while conscious, without her trying to remove her hands from restraints to fight off the cord and the killer, injuring herself in the struggle. She'd be yanking at her hands as hard as she could to try to prevent strangling to death - and she'd do it without even thinking about it, by instinct.

I recently read an article that said that claw marks were found on people who committed suicide by hanging, because the brain instinctively tells the person to struggle to survive...even when they meant to die by strangling. So how did the killer prevent JonBenet from doing so? It wasn't by those slack wrist restraints that would never have restrained a living child.

There are no defense wounds on JonBenet at all. None. Not on her hands, arms, feet, or shins. Nothing to show that she tried to offer any kind of struggle whatsoever with who tied the cord around her neck and tightened it until she died. And considering her long johns and underwear were urine-stained in the front and in the crotch, I think she was strangled while lying facedown on the floor, which could have caused some of the injuries to her face. I think she was completely unconscious when the cord was tied and tightened.

You are soooo right in that "instinct" draws a person to grab the object which is strangling them, i.e. rope, cord, wire.

And the other thing I believe the cord was placed on JonBenet while she was unconcious....the right side of her hair is entangled in the FRONT OF HER NECK...which suggests to me that she was lying unconcious on her left side, causing her hair to come forward.

Look at how much hair is entangled in the cord. No way no how a 6 year old is going to allow ANYONE to pull her hair let alone strangle her.

 

[Albert18]

Nothing in this case is inconsistent with this starting as an accident. The evidence also fits an intentional murder, but for intentional you need a motive.

 

[UKGuy]

I really think it would, and there aren't any bruises or abrasions at all. I just don't see how anyone could strangle a healthy 6 year old girl to death, while conscious, without her trying to remove her hands from restraints to fight off the cord and the killer, injuring herself in the struggle. She'd be yanking at her hands as hard as she could to try to prevent strangling to death - and she'd do it without even thinking about it, by instinct.

I recently read an article that said that claw marks were found on people who committed suicide by hanging, because the brain instinctively tells the person to struggle to survive...even when they meant to die by strangling. So how did the killer prevent JonBenet from doing so? It wasn't by those slack wrist restraints that would never have restrained a living child.

There are no defense wounds on JonBenet at all. None. Not on her hands, arms, feet, or shins. Nothing to show that she tried to offer any kind of struggle whatsoever with who tied the cord around her neck and tightened it until she died. And considering her long johns and underwear were urine-stained in the front and in the crotch, I think she was strangled while lying facedown on the floor, which could have caused some of the injuries to her face. I think she was completely unconscious when the cord was tied and tightened.

Nuisanceposter,

There are no defense wounds on JonBenet at all. None. Not on her hands, arms, feet, or shins.

Those alleged stun-gun marks may have been recieved while she was defending herself?

And considering her long johns and underwear were urine-stained in the front and in the crotch, I think she was strangled while lying facedown on the floor, which could have caused some of the injuries to her face. I think she was completely unconscious when the cord was tied and tightened.

Thats if she wore the longjohns when she was killed , the urine release may be postmortem.

If she was strangled face down, what accounts for the red compression marks on the front of her neck?

And so many people think this was all an accident?



.

 

[UKGuy]

You are soooo right in that "instinct" draws a person to grab the object which is strangling them, i.e. rope, cord, wire.

And the other thing I believe the cord was placed on JonBenet while she was unconcious....the right side of her hair is entangled in the FRONT OF HER NECK...which suggests to me that she was lying unconcious on her left side, causing her hair to come forward.

Look at how much hair is entangled in the cord. No way no how a 6 year old is going to allow ANYONE to pull her hair let alone strangle her.

Toltec,

So do you reckon her assailant decided to make sure she was dead, and proceeded to strangle her?


.

 

[UKGuy]

Nothing in this case is inconsistent with this starting as an accident. The evidence also fits an intentional murder, but for intentional you need a motive.

Albert18,

So if

Nothing in this case is inconsistent with this starting as an accident.

why would it be staged as a homicide?



.

 

[Albert18]

"why would it be staged as a homicide?"

Before I answer that I want to clarify something.

When you say intentional, are you meaning something happened that night and somebody decided she needed to die or are you thinking her death was planned before that night?

My guess is you are saying it was intentional but it was spur of the moment, correct? But you are not saying somebody got frustrated with her and pushed her or hit her with something in a moment of rage?

 

[rashomon]

Solace,

Sorry, but you don't know that. You are going only by an autopsy report which doesn't address the purpose of the wrist ligatures.

John Meyer, who performed the autopsy on JonBenet, reported exactly what he saw on the table in front of him and he correctly documented it in his autopsy report. The right wrist had a cord ligature on it and the left wrist had no ligature on it at all. But Meyer did not see what JonBenet's wrist ligatures looked like prior to John Ramsey bringing her upstairs from the basement.

A ligature is tight while pressure from a heavy object is pulling on it, but usually loosens up when the weight of the heavy object is removed.

John Ramsey, while still in the basement, admitted he tried to untie the wrist ligatures on JonBenet but they were too tight. John finally got one of the knots loose (or he may have cut the cord but denies it). This loosened the ligatures on both wrists as the pressure on the knots was released. When he carried JonBenet upstairs she still had the ligature on the right wrist, but the ligature on the left wrist fell off and was dangling as he carried her.

IMO JonBenet had been strung up by the wrists, probably while in a sitting position, and John had to cut her down to release the pressure on the ligatures. The wrist ligatures were not staging.

BlueCrab

No way did John Ramsey cut the cord. Haven't you seen the pictures of the wrist ligatures on the ACR site?

 

[rashomon]

BlueCrab:

What is your take on the EA device. Normally a device like that is used on self to enchance the sexual experience. here you suggest that it was used on another person i.e. JB. Why? Do you think it was used to force her into a sexual response?

No one can 'force' EA on another person. In addition, the injuries inflicted to JB's genitals don't mesh with an EA scenario either.
And what is more, the double knot which was tied on JB' neck would exclude any EA scenario too, for a fixed knot makes any "breath control device" a technical impossibility.
In short, the EA theory is in no way backed up by the forensic evidence found at the crime scene.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

No way did John Ramsey cut the cord. Haven't you seen the pictures of the wrist ligatures on the ACR site?

And where did he get a sharp implement to cut any cords with? Did it magically appear in his hand when he found JonBenet?

Otherwise he'd have to take the time to find something to cut with, and there has never been any mention of that whatsoever - in fact, other than on JBR boards, no one has ever said her hands were hanging suspended by the wrist restraints, including JR himself.

I also don't think the livor mortis supports the idea of JonBenet being in a sitting position.

 

[BlueCrab]

No way did John Ramsey cut the cord. Haven't you seen the pictures of the wrist ligatures on the ACR site?

rashomon,

I've spent more hours studying the pictures of that cord than I care to estimate.

The white nylon cord had frayed unraveled ends; which happens when a cord is cut, especially when the cord is supporting weight of some kind.

IMO the nylon cord on the wrists and around the neck was likely one piece until John cut it to get JonBenet down, resulting in two separate pieces.

IOW, JonBenet had been posed after death, probably in an obscene slouched sitting position to gain maximum shock value. The livor mortis settling in the dorsal area supports this. John doesn't want to admit it, but enough info from him slipped out during the police interviews to suggest it is probably what happened.

For instance, when John allegedly found JonBenet in the basement he said she was wrapped papoose style:

MIKE KANE: "Do you remember, was her head exposed? Were her feet exposed?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Possibly."

MIKE KANE: "But not the rest of her?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "I mean, yeah, I think her feet were exposed. But her head was. Her head was tilted to one side. I was trying to hold her head."

Why was John trying to hold her head if she was lying flat on her back on the floor? It appears from his comment that she was not lying flat on the floor, but instead she was in a slouched sitting position. IMO he was trying to hold her head as he cut the cord so that the upper torso and head wouldn't fall over and hit the floor after the cord was cut.

BlueCrab

 

[Nuisanceposter]

What was JR using to cut the cord with, and where did he get it from?

 

[kaykay]

rashomon,

I've spent more hours studying the pictures of that cord than I care to estimate.

The white nylon cord had frayed unraveled ends; which happens when a cord is cut, especially when the cord is supporting weight of some kind.

IMO the nylon cord on the wrists and around the neck was likely one piece until John cut it to get JonBenet down, resulting in two separate pieces.

IOW, JonBenet had been posed after death, probably in an obscene slouched sitting position to gain maximum shock value. The livor mortis settling in the dorsal area supports this. John doesn't want to admit it, but enough info from him slipped out during the police interviews to suggest it is probably what happened.

For instance, when John allegedly found JonBenet in the basement he said she was wrapped papoose style:

MIKE KANE: "Do you remember, was her head exposed? Were her feet exposed?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Possibly."

MIKE KANE: "But not the rest of her?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "I mean, yeah, I think her feet were exposed. But her head was. Her head was tilted to one side. I was trying to hold her head."

Why was John trying to hold her head if she was lying flat on her back on the floor? It appears from his comment that she was not lying flat on the floor, but instead she was in a slouched sitting position. IMO he was trying to hold her head as he cut the cord so that the upper torso and head wouldn't fall over and hit the floor after the cord was cut.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

I'm not sure I understand...How was BJ wrapped in a blanket papoose style
if she was in a sitting position? How would the blanket stay up around her
with her arms above her head. Wouldn't the blanket slide down?

BC <quote> IOW, JonBenet had been posed after death, probably in an obscene slouched sitting position to gain maximum shock value.

Please explain how JB could be posed wrapped in a blanket. Do you think JB
wasn't wrapped in a blanket?

kaykay

 

[UKGuy]

"why would it be staged as a homicide?"

Before I answer that I want to clarify something.

When you say intentional, are you meaning something happened that night and somebody decided she needed to die or are you thinking her death was planned before that night?

My guess is you are saying it was intentional but it was spur of the moment, correct? But you are not saying somebody got frustrated with her and pushed her or hit her with something in a moment of rage?

Albert18,

Yes, more or less, and the bolded part, there are many instances of children who are sexually assaulted then they are killed by their assailant so to silence them, usually they dump the childs corpse away from the murder location, sometimes staging an accident of sorts. Then 911 is phoned reporting the child missisng.

The bolded part assumes an accident, yet JonBenet's antemortem injuries are so severe and multiple this notion is effectively canceled out.


.

 

[UKGuy]

What was JR using to cut the cord with, and where did he get it from?

Nuisanceposter,

BlueCrab's theory has John making an interim morning visit to the wine-cellar, he may expand upon this further?


.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

I'm not sure I understand...How was BJ wrapped in a blanket papoose style
if she was in a sitting position? How would the blanket stay up around her
with her arms above her head. Wouldn't the blanket slide down?

BC <quote> IOW, JonBenet had been posed after death, probably in an obscene slouched sitting position to gain maximum shock value.

Please explain how JB could be posed wrapped in a blanket. Do you think JB
wasn't wrapped in a blanket?

kaykay

kay kay,

John lied. IMO JonBenet wasn't wrapped papoose style when he found her in the basement. She was sexually posed horribly when John found her some time around 2 to 4 AM; and the Ramseys re-staged the scene to give JonBenet a measure of dignity in death by wrapping her lovingly papoose style.

Please remember that the Ramseys lied boldly when they came out of the starting gate at 5:52 AM with a fake 911 call ; nothing they said about what happened that morning can be considered credible. Their lies are documented on the 911 tape and in the numerous inconsistencies in their stories during the formal police interviews of 1997, 1998 and 2000.

BlueCrab