Stungun marks

[Ivy]

I don't think her death was the result of an accident, but I don't think it was intentional either.

Does anyone here think JonBenet's death was the result of an accident?

 

[Toth]

Premeditated murder by unknown intruder. No accident. No "kidnapping gone bad".
No parental involvement, knowledge or cover-up.

 

[Shylock]

Evidence gathered during the autopsy is consistent with the inference that she struggled to remove the garrote from her neck.
The strangulation occurred before the blow to the head!

There is NO evidence that she "struggled to remove the garrote". That was pure BS the SwampSkank came up with years ago. There was NO skin under her nails--neither her own or anyone elses.

And nobody can positively prove which came first, the strangulation or the head blow. In fact, the marks created by the garote have all the indications of being POST-mortem. There no absolutely NO damage to the internal organs in her neck--an impossibility for a ligature strangulation.

 

[Nehemiah]

I don't think her death was the result of an accident, but I don't think it was intentional either.

Does anyone here think JonBenet's death was the result of an accident?

I think if the family were involved, then it was an accident followed by a cover-up. If an intruder, then I think it was premeditated.

 

[BlueCrab]

There is NO evidence that she "struggled to remove the garrote". That was pure BS the SwampSkank came up with years ago. There was NO skin under her nails--neither her own or anyone elses.

And nobody can positively prove which came first, the strangulation or the head blow. In fact, the marks created by the garote have all the indications of being POST-mortem. There no absolutely NO damage to the internal organs in her neck--an impossibility for a ligature strangulation.

Not so. There are petechial hemorrhages above and below the ligature, as well as on her left eyelid, indicating blood was being pumped when the ligature was tightened. Therefore the strangulation was likely first. The hyoid bone in children is soft and doesn't break easy, so a child can be "gently" strangled without causing internal damage.

The extreme tightening of the ligature, imbedding it into the skin, was probably done post-mortem -- as was the hit on the head. The hit on the head split her skull in two and would have been fatal if it had been
delivered while she was still alive. In other words, if the hit on the head was first there wouldn't be any petechial hemorrhages around the ligature. Dead people can't produce petechial hemorrhages.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[sissi]

There is NO evidence that she "struggled to remove the garrote". That was pure BS the SwampSkank came up with years ago. There was NO skin under her nails--neither her own or anyone elses.

And nobody can positively prove which came first, the strangulation or the head blow. In fact, the marks created by the garote have all the indications of being POST-mortem. There no absolutely NO damage to the internal organs in her neck--an impossibility for a ligature strangulation.

This information was given by Carnes,after reviewing details of the autopsy report. We ONLY have the system to give us the answers,I suggest we let it play out in the courts as they tend to base their conclusions on evidence not she says /he says garbage. Whether you like it or not,this is the American system,we have no other. Many,myself included,have understood this case based on leaked information to the media,I choose now to trust the system to separate the truth from "rumor". I suggest reading all of the depositions and court transcripts,there is more truth in these than in anything else available.
JMO IMO

 

[Shylock]

Not so. There are petechial hemorrhages above and below the ligature, as well as on her left eyelid, indicating blood was being pumped when the ligature was tightened. Therefore the strangulation was likely first. The hyoid bone in children is soft and doesn't break easy, so a child can be "gently" strangled without causing internal damage.

The problem BlueCrab, is that there is NO indication the LIGATURE caused the indicators you mentioned. In fact, the LIGATURE caused NO bruising to the strap muscles, and her tongue showed NO indication of ligature strangulation. If strangluation indeed caused the petechial hemorrhages you mention, they were not caused by the LIGATURE but by a different method of strangulation that the garrote was applied post-mortem to cover up.

Additionally, the head-blow could have very easilly come first and whatever method of strangulation that caused the petechial hemorrhages done at a near-death state--as in Thomas' PDI theory.

 

[Shylock]

I suggest we let it play out in the courts as they tend to base their conclusions on evidence not she says /he says garbage. I suggest reading all of the depositions and court transcripts,there is more truth in these than in anything else available.

As I previously stated to you in another post, you can't trust the court system because it can only base its conclusions on evidence presented. And that system is heavily biased against a moron presenter.

IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

The problem BlueCrab, is that there is NO indication the LIGATURE caused the indicators you mentioned. In fact, the LIGATURE caused NO bruising to the strap muscles, and her tongue showed NO indication of ligature strangulation. If strangluation indeed caused the petechial hemorrhages you mention, they were not caused by the LIGATURE but by a different method of strangulation that the garrote was applied post-mortem to cover up.

Additionally, the head-blow could have very easilly come first and whatever method of strangulation that caused the petechial hemorrhages done at a near-death state--as in Thomas' PDI theory.

First of all, that's not a garrote on JonBenet's neck. Garrotes look nothing like that and must have TWO handles to be a garrote. Garrotes are a simple length of rope, or chain, or wire, etc., with a handle on each end. The usual purpose of a garrote is to sneak up from behind on a victim, throw the rope over his head, and pull like hell til he's dead.

IMO the device around JonBenet's neck was for erotic asphyxiation, which employs a gentle form of asphyxiation to enhance the orgasm while being masturbated by a second person. The device around the neck is controlled by the second person, and the hands of the person being masturbated are usually tied over the head to keep him or her from involuntarily pulling the device from the neck and spoiling the orgasm. The body involuntarily fights to keep breathing, so the hands must be bound.

I think JonBenet could have died accidentally because the person in control of the device around her neck was young and inexperienced.

The extreme tightening of the EA device around her neck and the head blow was post-mortem as part of the staging to make it look like a foreign terrorist kidnapper killed her, as described in the fake ransom note.


Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Nehemiah]

Interesting, BC. Why the use of a stungun, in your opinion, of course?

 

[BlueCrab]

Interesting, BC. Why the use of a stungun, in your opinion, of course?

Good question Nehemiah. As you know, there's dozens of different directions a theory can go and still be based on the evidence as we know it, or perceive it. Here's one way I can read the evidence presuming a stun gun and erotic asphyxiation was used on JonBenet:

IMO, because of the marks on JonBenet, a stun gun was used on her. This makes the crime sadistic, featuring torture.

Because of the design of the device wrapped around JonBenet's neck and the autopsy's description of the relative gentleness of the asphyxiation I also believe erotic asphyxiation was used on JonBenet, and is what killed her, perhaps accidentally. Even John Ramsey believes the perp used EA.

Usually EA is consensual, but the combination of the two (stun gun and EA) makes it a sadistic non-consensual sex crime.

Normally an intruder would be considered the perp in this kind of vicious crime, but the Ramseys are lying and obfuscating and engaged in an obvious coverup. They wouldn't do this to protect an adult intruder. Since one parent also wouldn't do this to protect the other parent, I think they're protecting Burke, and perhaps another boy.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[little1]

There are serious matters that need to be addressed in this investigation. If Kenady's
information concerning Helgoth was completely rebuffed and not investigated ,it again would point not to an inept effort but a deliberate effort to avoid looking at evidence that could point to an intruder. I recall the hi-techs and stun gun were given to the police,and would hope the current investigators will give these things a "fresh" look.
The Ramseys were investigated under a microscope ,the same amount of "dollars and effort" should be allowed to hunt for an intruder.
IMO JMO

Most PD's run dual investigations when there is a case like this. One for the family memeber or friend who they think committed the the crime, and one for the "Bushy Headed Stranger." There didn't seem to be any evidence thet the BPD did it.

 

[little1]

First of all, that's not a garrote on JonBenet's neck. Garrotes look nothing like that and must have TWO handles to be a garrote. Garrotes are a simple length of rope, or chain, or wire, etc., with a handle on each end. The usual purpose of a garrote is to sneak up from behind on a victim, throw the rope over his head, and pull like hell til he's dead.
BlueCrab

The definitions of garrote that I have just looked at said nothing of the fact that a garrote must have 2 handles. If not a garrote on her neck, then what?

 

[BlueCrab]

The definitions of garrote that I have just looked at said nothing of the fact that a garrote must have 2 handles. If not a garrote on her neck, then what?

Yes, little 1 -- a garrote must have two handles or it won't work. It's a tool made specifically for killing by sneaking up behind a person and violently strangling him. It consists of almost any kind of material long enough to suddenly wrap around a person's neck and pull hard until they're dead. The victim will violently fight back, so without handles of some kind on each end of the garrote the victim would likely be able to break free.

The device around JonBenet's neck had a handle on just one end, and a ligature (loop and slip knot) on the other end. It was way overdesigned to be a garrote and therefore wasn't a tool to carry out a surprise attack from behind. The burker would have needed cooperation from the victim just to get the ligature positioned around the neck. The device was, IMO, a tool for erotic asphyxiation sex.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[little1]

Yes, little 1 -- a garrote must have two handles or it won't work. It's a tool made specifically for killing by sneaking up behind a person and violently strangling him. It consists of almost any kind of material long enough to suddenly wrap around a person's neck and pull hard until they're dead. The victim will violently fight back, so without handles of some kind on each end of the garrote the victim would likely be able to break free.

The device around JonBenet's neck had a handle on just one end, and a ligature (loop and slip knot) on the other end. It was way overdesigned to be a garrote and therefore wasn't a tool to carry out a surprise attack from behind. The burker would have needed cooperation from the victim just to get the ligature positioned around the neck. The device was, IMO, a tool for erotic asphyxiation sex.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

Yes, I think that it was used for auto erotic asphyxiation. BTW, would the strangling associated with AEA be considered "gentle?" I know that one of the motives of AEA is to revive the victim after they become unconcious.....any theories?

 

[BlueCrab]

Yes, I think that it was used for auto erotic asphyxiation. BTW, would the strangling associated with AEA be considered "gentle?" I know that one of the motives of AEA is to revive the victim after they become unconcious.....any theories?

Yes, IMO the strangulation death of JonBenet was "gentle" because it took place during EA. In EA the ligature is tightened just enough to temporarily stop the flow of air and blood to the brain during the orgasm -- it has nothing to do with trying to hurt the principal.

Sometimes the principal does pass out during the intensity of the situation, but that isn't the goal because of the danger of not being able to revive him or her.

From the evidence as I see it, someone was performing or trying to perform involuntary erotic asphyxiation sex on JonBenet and they accidentally asphyxiated her.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

 

[Nehemiah]

Yes, IMO the strangulation death of JonBenet was "gentle" because it took place during EA. In EA the ligature is tightened just enough to temporarily stop the flow of air and blood to the brain during the orgasm -- it has nothing to do with trying to hurt the principal.

Sometimes the principal does pass out during the intensity of the situation, but that isn't the goal because of the danger of not being able to revive him or her.

From the evidence as I see it, someone was performing or trying to perform involuntary erotic asphyxiation sex on JonBenet and they accidentally asphyxiated her.

Just my opinion.

BlueCrab

So, do you think the EA was for the perp's pleasure alone, or was he naive enough to think that JB would derive "pleasure" from the act, thus vicariously stimulating himself? Make sense what I'm trying to ask?

 

[BlueCrab]

So, do you think the EA was for the perp's pleasure alone, or was he naive enough to think that JB would derive "pleasure" from the act, thus vicariously stimulating himself? Make sense what I'm trying to ask?

There's no way to tell. All I can be reasonably sure of is the device around JonBenet's neck was for erotic asphyxiation purposes and, since there's evidence of a stun gun having been used, the sexual assault was involuntary.

The perp obviously didn't know what he was doing or JonBenet wouldn't have been asphyxiated accidentally during the act. According to the autopsy report there was blood in the vagina but there were no white blood cells -- suggesting she died during the sexual assault. White blood cells won't arrive at the scene of an injury after the body has died.

Since it appears one or more male chiildren were involved, I think they were experimenting with something they had learned from an older male -- EA.

JMO

 

[Toth]

There was nothing accidental about this crime. Nothing at all.

 

[BlueCrab]

There was nothing accidental about this crime. Nothing at all.

Toth, since there's evidence of a stun gun having been used on JonBenet, you could be right.

But since it appears children were involved who didn't know what they were doing with regard to EA, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they killed JonBenet by accident.

The likely use of a stun gun, and the full-blown coverup to protect Burke, bothers the hell out of me though.

JMO