Questions you'd like answers to...

[Miz Adventure]

, I still think it would have been somewhat difficult to strangle someone with a ligature as thin as a shoe lace -- as it would have been hard to grip with both hands.

Which is probably why the paintbrush handle was inserted into it - to tighten it.

She was already unconscious at this time so hopefully didn't feel a thing.

This is mainly the reason why the IDI theory doesn't work for me. It only works if you turn the facts around and say JBR was strangled BEFORE her skull was broken. The IDI theorists like to say it was some kind of sado masochistic sexual thing.

 

[Userid]

Which is probably why the paintbrush handle was inserted into it - to tighten it.

She was already unconscious at this time so hopefully didn't feel a thing.

This is mainly the reason why the IDI theory doesn't work for me. It only works if you turn the facts around and say JBR was strangled BEFORE her skull was broken. The IDI theorists like to say it was some kind of sado masochistic sexual thing.

Yes, with the paintbrush handle, less force would be needed since one wouldn't have to grab the thin ligature with each hand.

Honestly, I don't quite know what to make of the garrote. If it was used for staging, then that's feasible to me. If it somehow was used by an intruder (which I don't believe, but I digress), this is also feasible. That's what makes it such an effective staging tool: it makes sense for an intruder to use and it makes sense for a person staging the crime to use. A family member would not have to face the victim, or use his/her own hands; and an intruder could have more control of the victim and prolong the suffering by tightening and un-tightening the apparatus.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Yes, with the paintbrush handle, less force would be needed since one wouldn't have to grab the thin ligature with each hand.

Honestly, I don't quite know what to make of the garrote. If it was used for staging, then that's feasible to me. If it somehow was used by an intruder (which I don't believe, but I digress), this is also feasible. That's what makes it such an effective staging tool: it makes sense for an intruder to use and it makes sense for a person staging the crime to use. A family member would not have to face the victim, or use his/her own hands; and an intruder could have more control of the victim and prolong the suffering by tightening and un-tightening the apparatus.

Well there are problems with that theory. The strangulation came AFTER the head trauma.

There would be no point in asphyxiating someone for kicks if they are unconscious.

The strangulation (garrotting) was not part of the staging, even James Kolar stated this. It was part of the strangeness of the person doing it.

This is why I am convinced now that it was BR who clobbered JBR (probably with the flashlight) and then strangled her. He may not have wished to kill her. To find the exact reasons for the strangulation we would need to get inside his mixed up head.

The parents covered this up in the best way they knew. They had a few hours to come up with something but there must have been total panic in that household on that morning.

 

[Userid]

^ A 9 year old isn't capable of all of this. A 9 year old doesn't even know what a garrote is, let alone how one functions.

Also, I never said in my previous post that the strangulation came before or after the head blow -- I simply said, whether it was used for staging or whether it was indeed used for sadistic purposes, in either scenario, it works.

Where there would be a point in the strangulation of someone unconscious is if the killer(s) thought she was already dead when she was simply unconscious.

 

[otg]

Yes, with the paintbrush handle, less force would be needed since one wouldn't have to grab the thin ligature with each hand.

Honestly, I don't quite know what to make of the garrote. If it was used for staging, then that's feasible to me. If it somehow was used by an intruder (which I don't believe, but I digress), this is also feasible. That's what makes it such an effective staging tool: it makes sense for an intruder to use and it makes sense for a person staging the crime to use. A family member would not have to face the victim, or use his/her own hands; and an intruder could have more control of the victim and prolong the suffering by tightening and un-tightening the apparatus.

The ligature that was found on JonBenet would not tighten and un-tighten with ease. The knot closest to her neck was too tight.

No one is taking into consideration the other ligature mark: the white line below the ligature furrow that goes upwards toward the back of her neck. That white line (common enough in strangulation deaths that forensic pathologists refer to it as an "argent line") was created from the cord when she was dead, during the "blanching phase" of hypostasis. Some (many actually) still try to tie that thin, white line to twisting of her shirt collar while she was alive. Unless twisting her shirt collar caused bruising, there would be no sign left of it after death -- certainly not a thin, white, argent line.

The stick was most likely tied to the end of the cord after she was already dead because it had her hair entwined in the knot. Since this is the case, the so-called "garrote" did not function as it would appear. Tying the middle portion of the paint stick to the end of the cord (after she was already dead) accomplished two things:

1. It changed the way investigators thought the cord was actually used.
2. It obfuscated what the paintbrush had been used for previously (the sexual assault).

(Note: All of the above is my opinion based on what is actually known.)

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

It says it was taken January 1997?

Thanks, I'm on my phone so I wasn't able to see that, is it in the video description?

Anyway, I really meant, what was the occasion when this was taken? I thought this was them leaving after the funeral but that would be before Jan 1997. I've also seen speculation that this is footage of the Rams leaving the house on the 26th but I don't think that there would have been cameras there that early.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miz Adventure]

^ A 9 year old isn't capable of all of this. A 9 year old doesn't even know what a garrote is, let alone how one functions.

Also, I never said in my previous post that the strangulation came before or after the head blow -- I simply said, whether it was used for staging or whether it was indeed used for sadistic purposes, in either scenario, it works.

Where there would be a point in the strangulation of someone unconscious is if the killer(s) thought she was already dead when she was simply unconscious.

I would say that a 9 year old boy (2 weeks off his 10th birthday) was capable of tying those ligatures. He may have been interested in knots - his family were sailors, his father had two 34ft yachts, and BR was in the Scouts.

Some kids have an interest in macabre stuff.

 

[Userid]

^ Respectfully disagree. He was capable of tying the knots -- yes -- but again, he wouldn't have known what a garrote was, let alone how one would function and/or its purpose. The internet was a relatively new concept then and it's something a kid wouldn't see in a horror movie or anywhere else. A garrote is ridiculously specific.

 

[Userid]

The ligature that was found on JonBenet would not tighten and un-tighten with ease. The knot closest to her neck was too tight.

No one is taking into consideration the other ligature mark: the white line below the ligature furrow that goes upwards toward the back of her neck. That white line (common enough in strangulation deaths that forensic pathologists refer to it as an "argent line") was created from the cord when she was dead, during the "blanching phase" of hypostasis. Some (many actually) still try to tie that thin, white line to twisting of her shirt collar while she was alive. Unless twisting her shirt collar caused bruising, there would be no sign left of it after death -- certainly not a thin, white, argent line.

The stick was most likely tied to the end of the cord after she was already dead because it had her hair entwined in the knot. Since this is the case, the so-called "garrote" did not function as it would appear. Tying the middle portion of the paint stick to the end of the cord (after she was already dead) accomplished two things:

1. It changed the way investigators thought the cord was actually used.
2. It obfuscated what the paintbrush had been used for previously (the sexual assault).

(Note: All of the above is my opinion based on what is actually known.)

Then how was the chord actually used? It just seems somewhat unnecessary to create the "garrote" if she was strangled all the same. I'd also assume that there was no evidence the paint brush was used in the assault and that police would have found such evidence, even if the knot was still in tact, but I could be wrong.

 

[Miz Adventure]

I agree with otg that it wasn't a garrote. The stick was placed in the cord to make it look as though it had been used for sexual purposes.

And you underestimate 9 or 10 year olds. Boys of that age are capable of all kinds of stuff.

I am in Britain and one case that springs to mind is Jamie Bulger. He was abducted and killed (horribly) by two other children, one 9 and one 10. Kids of that age can be very inventive.

 

[Userid]

^ I know the Bulger case. Nothing there proves that a ten year old would know what a garrote is or how to use one, as there was no sophisticated device (such as a garrote, etc.) used. It proves that a ten year old is capable of utter evil -- granted -- but it ends there.

 

[Alchemist]

After following the JFK assassination and reading books espousing probably 100 different conspiracy theories, am 100% confident who killed JFK. So, for me, it would be JB.

Who killed JFK?

 

[kanzz]

^ Respectfully disagree. He was capable of tying the knots -- yes -- but again, he wouldn't have known what a garrote was, let alone how one would function and/or its purpose. The internet was a relatively new concept then and it's something a kid wouldn't see in a horror movie or anywhere else. A garrote is ridiculously specific.

BBM

OK. I think we can agree. Because that thing was not a garrotte.

It was a simple snare that utilized a basic slip-knot, and then it became a ligature device.

It was probably the media (I don't know, really) that sensationalized the term by throwing out the word "garrotte".
A garrotte has two handles. This was not a garrotte.

 

[otg]

Then how was the chord actually used? It just seems somewhat unnecessary to create the "garrote" if she was strangled all the same.

Anyone can agree or disagree with me, but if you disagree you still have to be able to account for what caused the white line. I believe she was accidentally suspended (hanged, if you'd rather call it). This accounts for the white line, the angle at which it is apparent, the petechiae between the two lines (they are NOT fingernail scratches), and the abrasion on her right shoulder. The paintbrush was added after-the-fact to throw investigators off from what actually happened (IMO).

I'd also assume that there was no evidence the paint brush was used in the assault and that police would have found such evidence, even if the knot was still in tact, but I could be wrong.

There is more than enough evidence to prove that the paintbrush was used for the sexual assault -- more than (unfortunately) I have time to list here now. I'm sure others can point you in the right direction, or you can read some of the books on the subject.

 

[kanzz]

Originally Posted by kanzz
Nah - this doesn't give IDI's any ammo. It's how I thought it went down all along. Even that maybe the paintbrush handle could have been added after the death... ergo, PR's fibers entangled in the knot.

The length of the cord alone would have been sufficient to have ligature strangled her, especially since she was likely unconscious and near dead already. The paintbrush handle was not really necessary and might have been part of the staging. Tying it into the cord was probably done in a hurry and the hair probably became entangled accidentally. jmo

That thing wasn't a garrotte. A garrotte has two handles. This was... I don't know.. a simple cord with a slip-knot. That was turned into a ligature. gah

Just so I'm understanding you right, are you saying that the strangulation was done first, with just the ligature....and that, after the strangulation was completed (and the ligature was still around her neck), then the paintbrush was tied onto the other end?

I always thought the handle was necessary because of the type of noose that was used, but I could be wrong. Although not impossible like you say, I still think it would have been somewhat difficult to strangle someone with a ligature as thin as a shoe lace -- as it would have been hard to grip with both hands.

No. I am absolutely not saying that the strangulation was first. It know it wasn't. I only said that the paintbrush handle could have been added after the death. Could have been. Possibly.

It would have been simple and easy to pull that cord with just one hand, especially if it was wrapped around the hand once.. in fact, more difficult to do it with both hands. It was a snare type of device.. just one end of it was loose. The other end of the cord was down near the knot at the neck area. I'll post a video in a few.

 

[otg]

^ I know the Bulger case. Nothing there proves that a ten year old would know what a garrote is or how to use one, as there was no sophisticated device (such as a garrote, etc.) used. It proves that a ten year old is capable of utter evil -- granted -- but it ends there.

There is nothing in JonBenet's case that shows "what a garrote is or how to use one, as there was no sophisticated device (such as a garrote, etc.) used." It was a ligature with a piece of stick tied on the end. It didn't function as a "garrote."

 

[Userid]

There is nothing in JonBenet's case that shows "what a garrote is or how to use one, as there was no sophisticated device (such as a garrote, etc.) used." It was a ligature with a piece of stick tied on the end. It didn't function as a "garrote."

All this talk about whether or not it was, technically, a garrote or not is splitting hairs in all honesty.

Whether you want to call it "a garrote" or not, it was a sophisticated "object" nonetheless, and the fact the ligature was knotted around her neck is also a "sophisticated" way to strangle someone. If a child was going to kill another child, he wouldn't have thought to knot the ligature around the neck; he would simply wrap the ligature around and pull.

I guess that's the one thing I don't get about BDI'ers. You'd pretty much have to assume that this child was essentially a mastermind who got away with murder with just a minimal amount of help (tying the other end of the garrote and writing the note) scott free. I simply don't believe that. I don't discount the theory that he was somewhat involved (i.e. the head blow) or that he knew more than he has ever let on, but to assume he was involved to this degree in far-fetched for me.

 

[Userid]

Anyone can agree or disagree with me, but if you disagree you still have to be able to account for what caused the white line. I believe she was accidentally suspended (hanged, if you'd rather call it). This accounts for the white line, the angle at which it is apparent, the petechiae between the two lines (they are NOT fingernail scratches), and the abrasion on her right shoulder. The paintbrush was added after-the-fact to throw investigators off from what actually happened (IMO).


There is more than enough evidence to prove that the paintbrush was used for the sexual assault -- more than (unfortunately) I have time to list here now. I'm sure others can point you in the right direction, or you can read some of the books on the subject.

With regard to the first paragraph, I agree: those are not fingernail marks. Also, I find it ironic how you mention she could have been "suspended" in some way because I've been thinking this also.

I'll try to investigate the paint brush further, but from what I've ever seen (which pales in comparison to what others have seen, granted), it has never been mentioned that the "garrote" part of the paint brush was used in the assault as well. I've only seen that there is a missing part of the brush (the top), and that this is the part that many believe was used in the assault (and disposed of in some manner). The bottom was recovered near the paint tray in the boiler room, the middle was used for the "garrote," and the top of the brush was never found.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Whether you want to call it "a garrote" or not, it was a sophisticated "object" nonetheless, and the fact the ligature was knotted around her neck is also a "sophisticated" way to strangle someone. If a child was going to kill another child, he wouldn't have thought to knot the ligature around the neck; he would simply wrap the ligature around and pull.

I guess that's the one thing I don't get about BDI'ers. You'd pretty much have to assume that this child was essentially a mastermind who got away with murder with just a minimal amount of help (tying the other end of the garrote and writing the note) scott free. I simply don't believe that. I don't discount the theory that he was somewhat involved (i.e. the head blow) or that he knew more than he has ever let on, but to assume he was involved to this degree in far-fetched for me.

I don't think it was 'sophisticated'. Chef Beckner stated that it was quite a simple thing to make. (I'll try and dig out the link later).

BR didn't have to be a 'mastermind' - he did all of it while his parents were doing other things - his father was in bed and his mother was probably packing for the trip the following day.

When his parents discovered what he had done to his sister, instead of facing the music and getting their son the professional help he needed, they covered for him. They whisked him away and basically wrapped him in cotton wool, figuratively speaking (where I suspect he's been for the last 20 years).

The R's had connections, they knew the right people and had enough money to hire the best lawyers.

Innocent parents of a murdered child do not need lawyers. And it's rather telling that they all had separate lawyers Presumably JR knew that if it came down to it, and Patsy cracked under pressure she might put the blame on him and he would have to be prepared to fight. Or in legal terms 'there could be a conflict of interests'.

 

[UKGuy]

All this talk about whether or not it was, technically, a garrote or not is splitting hairs in all honesty.

Whether you want to call it "a garrote" or not, it was a sophisticated "object" nonetheless, and the fact the ligature was knotted around her neck is also a "sophisticated" way to strangle someone. If a child was going to kill another child, he wouldn't have thought to knot the ligature around the neck; he would simply wrap the ligature around and pull.

I guess that's the one thing I don't get about BDI'ers. You'd pretty much have to assume that this child was essentially a mastermind who got away with murder with just a minimal amount of help (tying the other end of the garrote and writing the note) scott free. I simply don't believe that. I don't discount the theory that he was somewhat involved (i.e. the head blow) or that he knew more than he has ever let on, but to assume he was involved to this degree in far-fetched for me.

Userid,

but to assume he was involved to this degree in far-fetched for me.

That was me four or five years ago. BDI, no way, too complicated for a nine year old.

There is nothing about JonBenet's homicide that BR could not have accomplished himself. In fact Kolar thinks he did it all, and he has seen evidence neither I or you have ever viewed or possibly knew about.

I guess that's the one thing I don't get about BDI'ers. You'd pretty much have to assume that this child was essentially a mastermind who got away with murder with just a minimal amount of help ...

Nope this is your misapprehension. BR allegedly sexually assaulted JonBenet, whacked her on the head and asphyxiated her, then cleaned her up, redressing her in the size-12's and his long johns.

Along came the parents who added the paintbrush and fashioned the ligature with knotting, allegedly assaulted JonBenet internally with the paintbrush to mask what went before, possibly leaving the missing piece inside her? Then she was redressed in the white gap top, wrapped in the white blanket and placed in the wine-cellar, following which the RN was authored.

No mastermind required for that sequence of events, other than Patsy covering for BR over the size-12's and his long johns.

BDI is simple, Burke killed JonBenet and the parents staged it to look like an Intruder Did it.

Simples.

.