Simple question...

[Holdontoyourhat]

The strangulation could have been done with intent to kill...

Of course there was intent to kill. Taken all together, the headbash plus the strangulation, somebody wanted JBR dead thats for sure. I wouldn't look at it any other way, not for a second.

I'm rather surprised anybody could! I want to keep an open mind, but not so open blah blah blah blah.

To consider the headbash AND the asphyxiation as both being separate accidents as your post suggests, is somewhere beyond irrational.

There are enough facts to demonstrate there was intent to kill on the part of the garrote operator. There are no facts to support any accidents.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The headbash can most certainly have been an accident. It could have also been intentional. We don't know which. The strangulation could have been done with intent to kill, but as IDI has suggested, it could have been sex play.

This is unbelievable.

Now BOTH the headbash AND the asphyxiation could be separate accidents! What's next? JBR wrote the note?

 

[cynic]

HOTYH, I am going to assume that by your silence regarding the Janelle Patton homicide (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1)
you are admitting that there can be an innocent explanation for the DNA evidence in the JBR case.

 

[DeeDee249]

This is unbelievable.

Now BOTH the headbash AND the asphyxiation could be separate accidents! What's next? JBR wrote the note?

Don't play games. This wasn't meant to suggest BOTH. It was an either-or. This is hypothetical and you know it. Don't confuse "accidental" with non-intentional. The head bash could have been the result of her being slammed into something in a rage. Still criminal, but not the same as intentionally smashing a heavy flashlight into her skull.
The strangulation may NOT have been intended to kill her. It could have been intended to make her LOOK like she had been strangled to death. Still criminal, different intentions.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The strangulation may NOT have been intended to kill her. It could have been intended to make her LOOK like she had been strangled to death. Still criminal, different intentions.

This is patently false, misleading disinformation. An obfuscation plain and simple.

There was petechial hemorrhaging on her neck. Therefore, she was alive when strangled. It looked like she had been strangled to death BECAUSE SHE WAS.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This is hypothetical and you know it.

I'll say!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, I am going to assume that by your silence regarding the Janelle Patton homicide (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/norfolk-island/news/article.cfm?l_id=500686&objectid=10395220&pnum=1)
you are admitting that there can be an innocent explanation for the DNA evidence in the JBR case.

Sure it could be a mix of JR and PR DNA, right?

DNA mathematics: JR + PR = mystery DNA owner in CODIS. How conveeeeenient

You and your random placement of unrelated DNA, like we're all using the neighborhood laundromat or something. You won't be finding any DNA mixed with blood on MY underwear, I'll tell you that.

 

[cynic]

Sure it could be a mix of JR and PR DNA, right?

DNA mathematics: JR + PR = mystery DNA owner in CODIS. How conveeeeenient

You and your random placement of unrelated DNA, like we're all using the neighborhood laundromat or something. You won't be finding any DNA mixed with blood on MY underwear, I'll tell you that.

Nice try.
I ask again, how do you explain matching DNA in several locations on Janelle Patton.

 

[DeeDee249]

This is patently false, misleading disinformation. An obfuscation plain and simple.

There was petechial hemorrhaging on her neck. Therefore, she was alive when strangled. It looked like she had been strangled to death BECAUSE SHE WAS.

It could still have been a staged strangulation. She was alive when strangled- we do know that. But there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence that strangulation alone killed her, that's why the coroner states it was associated with the head bash.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It could still have been a staged strangulation. She was alive when strangled- we do know that. But there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence that strangulation alone killed her, that's why the coroner states it was associated with the head bash.

OMG we KNOW something.

I'll slow way down...

When someone (a child) is alive, and you strangle them, what do you call that??

But, I'm pretty sure I'm talking to myself here.

 

[Ravyn]

May I ask a question, since strangulation is first in the autopsy report, could the coroner believe this to be what killed her and the head truama helped it along....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Nice try.
I ask again, how do you explain matching DNA in several locations on Janelle Patton.

Maybe would it help to know which of JP's injuries was the one that killed her first? Maybe the other injuries were staged or helped it along?

 

[cynic]

Maybe would it help to know which of JP's injuries was the one that killed her first? Maybe the other injuries were staged or helped it along?

The question is straightforward. was the unidentified DNA deposited innocently or not?
Here are some autopsy details:

A forensic pathologist has told a Norfolk Island court that Janelle Patton suffered a sustained and extremely violent assault when she was killed in 2002.
Dr Allen Kahler carried out the autopsy on Ms Patton's body.
He listed by number the 35 injuries that, in combination, killed the 29-year-old.
He told the court that some of the wounds were worse than others, and that a stab wound to the chest was the most serious.
...
The court has also been told that none of McNeill's DNA was found on Ms Patton's body or at the crime scene

http://abc.gov.au/news/stories/2006/08/08/1709563.htm?site=news

 

[Ravyn]

Since petechial hemorrhaging was found on her neck,Im just wondering if the head truama could had came while she was being strangled...Cause I'm still trying to understand the swelling of her brain...If not alot then could this mean just matter of minutes or seconds before she died...And the reason I asked is page 254 in Steve Thomas's book that he got from forensics expert Dr. Werner Spitz ....

First there had been a manual strangulation, by twisting the collar of the shirt, with the perpetrators knuckles causing the neck abrasion.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm able to characterize the crime.

Aren't we all?

It was brutal, and the experts say it was atypical of filicide.

The experts ALSO say that it was made to LOOK brutal, among other things. I could go down quite a list with you.

I'd therefore be embarrassed to suspect the little old lady across the street, or a child...

For starters, I never suspected Burke for a minute. Moreover, for you to liken the Rs to the "little old lady" is ASTONISHING to me on a whole lot of different levels. As I have often said, these were decidedly NOT typical people. It took me a long time, but I finally saw what kind of people "Ozzie and Harriet" were. And it made me sick.

..and, I'm surprised you don't get a toothache thinking about the R's more than a few minutes.

HOTYH, you have no idea what kind of pain I get thinking about the Rs for more than a few minutes!

 

[BBB167893]

I'd never draw parallels to other filicides in this case, because there are none.

Oh, no?

Don't take my word for it:

I won't. That's nothing personal, either. I always go by what Ronald Reagan said: "trust but verify."

"I mean, the whole thing is totally bizarre. I've never, in my 35-year career, seen anything like this." --Robert Ressler, 1997

"In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of 12, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present: JonBenet Ramsey. "


-----------------------------

There's something to be said for providing full context. You're awfully selective about what quotes from the profilers you use and which ones you dont.

I suggest re-reading RDI theories, where the brutality that JBR experienced and the coroner actually confirmed, plus the brutality of the RN, is sugar-coated and glossed over as mere 'staging'.

There's just one little problem: it's not RDI theories that do that. It's the very same experts you have recently discovered new use for. W didn't come up with this, THEY did.

And it's not "sugarcoating." It's telling real from phony, which is what these people a TRAINED to do.

So MY suggestion to you would be to reread those RDI theories with that in mind.

The idea that JBR's skull fracture was accidental, or that the deep furrow in her neck was applied when she was nearly dead, are both examples of dumbing-down the brutality.

Except, AGAIN, it wasn't us who came up with either of those. It was the forensic pathologists and the profilers. Werner Spitz, Tom Henry, Henry Lee, Ronald Wright, Norm Early, CASKU, etc.

I hope I'm not talking to myself here!

RDI might be better off to incorporate the actual brutality and intent to kill that is clearly evident to all.

Well, that's kind of the problem, HOTYH: it's NOT evident to all. Quite the reverse, actually. If ANYONE is in denial, it's the IDIs. And I know that from personal experience.

 

[BBB167893]

You're discounting the coroner's findings, case facts, to further an archaic idea that has since been effectively destroyed by the DNA.

Don't you wish.

 

[BBB167893]

I wouldn't look at it any other way, not for a second. I'm rather surprised anybody could!

That is why you fail.

I want to keep an open mind, but not so open blah blah blah blah.

Watch your step. That one I DO own!

 

[BBB167893]

Don't play games. This wasn't meant to suggest BOTH. It was an either-or. This is hypothetical and you know it. Don't confuse "accidental" with non-intentional. The head bash could have been the result of her being slammed into something in a rage. Still criminal, but not the same as intentionally smashing a heavy flashlight into her skull.
The strangulation may NOT have been intended to kill her. It could have been intended to make her LOOK like she had been strangled to death. Still criminal, different intentions.

Yes, I think there is a misunderstanding as to what it meant by "accident." When we say "accident," we mean that it was unintentional. Obviously, it's not like burning the toast.

Perhaps the word "mistake" should be used instead. Just spitballing.

Other than that, terrific post!

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi cynic.

Ty for the link re the Andrea Petrosky case.
Chilling.



"The type of bipolar disorder Petrosky was diagnosed with, referred to as bipolar disorder II, is not always apparent to the families and friends of the person who has it, but can be more severe when it reaches psychotic levels."




Family fails to recognize symptoms, and PR had those swings in temperament, ie LKL interview with ST, clips of her testimony in CW case, the religious delusions mentioned in DOI, even her appearance on the Christian network was 'amplified'....

The footage says a lot.


PR wasn't a centered person, imo,
something's quite off about PR, imo
but what she endured in the last years of her life;
she was a fighter.