What's eating you alive re this case?

[Ellie9]

I want to know what really happened!
Which came first: the head blow or the strangulation?

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of experts concluded the head blow came first. I think enough expert opinions weighed in on this that we can virtually call it fact.

 

[Justice4JB]

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of experts concluded the head blow came first. I think enough expert opinions weighed in on this that we can virtually call it fact.

Well I strongly believe that the head blow came first too but I wouldn't call it a fact just yet..
Its true that many experts concluded that the head blow came first but there are also some who said that the hemorrhage in Jonbenet's skull would have been a lot more if the head blow really came first, suggesting that the blood circulation was already stopped when the head blow came..
Plus when JMK falsely confessed to the murder he said that she was strangled before he hit her on the head, and with all the things that he said that was opposed by actual evidence, nobody said that this specific piece of information was opposed by facts or actual evidence which means that we still can't consider that a fact..

 

[THE BUNK]

Well I strongly believe that the head blow came first too but I wouldn't call it a fact just yet..
Its true that many experts concluded that the head blow came first but there are also some who said that the hemorrhage in Jonbenet's skull would have been a lot more if the head blow really came first, suggesting that the blood circulation was already stopped when the head blow came..
Plus when JMK falsely confessed to the murder he said that she was strangled before he hit her on the head, and with all the things that he said that was opposed by actual evidence, nobody said that this specific piece of information was opposed by facts or actual evidence which means that we still can't consider that a fact..

The fact that the bludgeon weapon cannot be found tells the tale. The killer had no problem leaving the strangle weapon, yet he went to some lengths to hid or keep the bludgeon weapon.

 

[otg]

Well I strongly believe that the head blow came first too but I wouldn't call it a fact just yet..
Its true that many experts concluded that the head blow came first but there are also some who said that the hemorrhage in Jonbenet's skull would have been a lot more if the head blow really came first, suggesting that the blood circulation was already stopped when the head blow came..
Plus when JMK falsely confessed to the murder he said that she was strangled before he hit her on the head, and with all the things that he said that was opposed by actual evidence, nobody said that this specific piece of information was opposed by facts or actual evidence which means that we still can't consider that a fact..

It amazes me that this point continues to baffle people, and that people continue to point to the “fact” that there was little blood in her skull from the head blow as evidence that the head blow might have come after the strangulation. I would point out what the ME said in the autopsy report:

Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.
​

While no one has been any more critical of Meyer’s first missteps in spending less than ten minutes on the initial examination and failing to take certain measurements that would have helped establish an estimated TOD, I recognize that his specialty was pathology and he was qualified to determine COD. The problem is that we laypeople often don’t realize what he actually spells out unequivocally in the above statement. Think about it -- there are two parts to his statement. The first part says, “Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation.” There it is, that’s all we need to read to know what the COD was -- it was “asphyxia”, and the method was “by strangulation”. The contributing factor was “craniocerebral trauma” (brain injury) because Meyer states that the COD was “associated with” this other injury.
As for the “little (or small) amount of blood” from the head blow that is often repeated, that is simply not true. I’ve pointed this out several times before, so I won’t repeat it all again here (this really isn’t the right thread for that discussion anyway). If anyone hasn’t read this before and is interested, I’ll list a few links from here and at FFJ (the last link also talks about the “fingernail marks” that some posters try to associate with JonBenet’s autopsy photos):

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...kull-Fractures-The-Weapon&p=194988#post194988
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?7469-John-Ramsey-s-Role&p=9570391#post9570391
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...G!-AUTOPSY-PHOTOS!***&p=10953354#post10953354
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...G!-AUTOPSY-PHOTOS!***&p=10931908#post10931908
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...!-*READ-FIRST-POST*-2&p=11110524#post11110524

 

[otg]

The fact that the bludgeon weapon cannot be found tells the tale. The killer had no problem leaving the strangle weapon, yet he went to some lengths to hid or keep the bludgeon weapon.

Or... the investigators didn't know what the weapon they were looking for looked like. The search warrant they were working from for this was an addendum issued to the original SW. It was added the following day after results of the autopsy showed she had been hit over the head. The only thing the SW tells them to look for is a "bludgeon". Read the SW for yourself, and you can read the inventory of items that were collected:

http://www.acandyrose.com/12271996warrant.htm

 

[SCHMAE]

I don't think we will ever know .......

 

[Justice4JB]

It amazes me that this point continues to baffle people, and that people continue to point to the “fact” that there was little blood in her skull from the head blow as evidence that the head blow might have come after the strangulation. I would point out what the ME said in the autopsy report:

Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.
​

While no one has been any more critical of Meyer’s first missteps in spending less than ten minutes on the initial examination and failing to take certain measurements that would have helped establish an estimated TOD, I recognize that his specialty was pathology and he was qualified to determine COD. The problem is that we laypeople often don’t realize what he actually spells out unequivocally in the above statement. Think about it -- there are two parts to his statement. The first part says, “Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation.” There it is, that’s all we need to read to know what the COD was -- it was “asphyxia”, and the method was “by strangulation”. The contributing factor was “craniocerebral trauma” (brain injury) because Meyer states that the COD was “associated with” this other injury.
As for the “little (or small) amount of blood” from the head blow that is often repeated, that is simply not true. I’ve pointed this out several times before, so I won’t repeat it all again here (this really isn’t the right thread for that discussion anyway). If anyone hasn’t read this before and is interested, I’ll list a few links from here and at FFJ (the last link also talks about the “fingernail marks” that some posters try to associate with JonBenet’s autopsy photos):

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...kull-Fractures-The-Weapon&p=194988#post194988
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?7469-John-Ramsey-s-Role&p=9570391#post9570391
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...G!-AUTOPSY-PHOTOS!***&p=10953354#post10953354
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...G!-AUTOPSY-PHOTOS!***&p=10931908#post10931908
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...!-*READ-FIRST-POST*-2&p=11110524#post11110524

What I pointed out in my previous post was just that the term "FACT" is not applicable, as least not yet..
As I said I also believe that the head blow came first and the strangulation took place because the killer (who is very close to JB ) couldn't stand seeing her suffer after the head blow as she may have been having seizures and vomiting while unconscious because of the blow, so he finished what he started by strangling her..
Horrible scenario but unfortunately it is the most logical, since there were also no fingernail marks on her neck which are typically seen on strangulation victims, which means she couldn't resist or try to remove the rope with her hand as an instinctive action..
Too awful, to imagine that she had to go through the whole thing, to feel the pain and the pressure of the garrote while can't do anything about it with her hands or anything, just HORRIBLE..
I don't know about it medically, but does an unconscious person feel pain? like in this case did JB suffer during her strangulation if she was already unconscious from the head blow?

 

[CorallaroC]

The fact that the bludgeon weapon cannot be found tells the tale. The killer had no problem leaving the strangle weapon, yet he went to some lengths to hid or keep the bludgeon weapon.

I intend to PAUSE and reflect on what you just said Bunk... what you are saying makes logical sense. Not even some sort of excuse of "the killer didn't realize the forensics" can not explain this away.

VERY GOOD POINT. thank you!

 

[Ellie9]

I don't know about it medically, but does an unconscious person feel pain? like in this case did JB suffer during her strangulation if she was already unconscious from the head blow?

An unconscious person feels no pain. They feel nothing at all, they don't even feel the sense of time passing, they don't even dream. It's about the same as being on anaesthesia for medical purposes. One second you are there, the next thing you know you're somewhere waking up, no memories, no pain, no suffering. The only pain would be if a person woke up.

 

[andreww]

The fact that the bludgeon weapon cannot be found tells the tale. The killer had no problem leaving the strangle weapon, yet he went to some lengths to hid or keep the bludgeon weapon.

The flashlight?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BOESP]

Originally Posted by THE BUNK The fact that the bludgeon weapon cannot be found tells the tale. The killer had no problem leaving the strangle weapon, yet he went to some lengths to hid or keep the bludgeon weapon.




andreww posted:
The flashlight?


BOESP's response:
A bathroom fixture? Portion of a bed's headboard? A doorknob?

 

[UKGuy]

Originally Posted by THE BUNK The fact that the bludgeon weapon cannot be found tells the tale. The killer had no problem leaving the strangle weapon, yet he went to some lengths to hid or keep the bludgeon weapon.




andreww posted:
The flashlight?


BOESP's response:
A bathroom fixture? Portion of a bed's headboard? A doorknob?

BOESP,
Sure, or as per Kolar, falling backwards whilst sitting on a chair, or being struck from behind in the same position?

.

 

[Justice4JB]

An unconscious person feels no pain. They feel nothing at all, they don't even feel the sense of time passing, they don't even dream. It's about the same as being on anaesthesia for medical purposes. One second you are there, the next thing you know you're somewhere waking up, no memories, no pain, no suffering. The only pain would be if a person woke up.

Well I hope you are right... that she didn't suffer at all that night..
But still I think there might be a difference between anesthesia where pain receptors are completely blocked and unconsciousness from a head trauma..
I don't think that such huge amount of damage like the one done on JB by the strangulation can't be felt, even by an unconscious person..
Not sure though..
Even if she didn't physically suffer, I believe that the mental suffering that she had at that night was above all..
That horrifying scream that the neighbor said she heard speaks alot..

 

[BOESP]

Quote BOESP's response:
A bathroom fixture? Portion of a bed's headboard? A doorknob?

BOESP,
Sure, or as per Kolar, falling backwards whilst sitting on a chair, or being struck from behind in the same position?

.

In relation to the post about a possible missing bludgeon yet the ligature device staying with the body, maybe there was no bludgeon. Maybe it was blunt force trauma that didn't involve a weapon that required removal from the crime scene.

 

[Cmessier]

First post here.....and JB is the the whole reason I signed up.

What eats me alive is that the world lost an adorable little girl. I have a 6 year old daughter that even looks a bit like JB. My little one is larger than life. Funny. Smart. Mischevious. Sweet. Much how Ive heard JB described.

Know what really got me? The photo of the heart on that tiny little lifeless hand. That and the photo of her leaning in cheek to cheek with PR and she has that huge adorable grin on her face. That photo makes me wish we could go back in time and prevent this and hug that poor kid.

Thats what eats at me. After reading so much about her....I almost feel like I know what she would have been like...what eats me alive is that that poor child had to suffer and that her life ended. And theres no closure. That nothing can change it and that it doesnt seem like anyone will ever even have to answer for it.

 

[UKGuy]

Quote BOESP's response:
A bathroom fixture? Portion of a bed's headboard? A doorknob?



In relation to the post about a possible missing bludgeon yet the ligature device staying with the body, maybe there was no bludgeon. Maybe it was blunt force trauma that didn't involve a weapon that required removal from the crime scene.

BOESP,
Assuming Kolar is correct and that it all kicked off at the breakfast bar, then we have JonBenet falling backwards, with her head hitting something either on the way down or when she hits the floor seems plausible to me?

Getting Real: Kolar thinks BR is a sociopath and that he planned JonBenet's death, right down to the ligature asphyxiation, with that in mind, its possible JonBenet was whacked from behind say by the flashlight or some similar blunt force weapon?

Ted Bundy had a similar MO: a whack on the head with a tire lever or a plaster cast, etc, followed by either manual or ligature asphyxiation, ending with a sexual assault. Now that latter part is especially important, particularly if you think there was a post mortem sexual assault on JonBenet?

.

 

[Foreign Faction]

Basically, I am haunted by the fact that we will never know the precise sequence of events.

 

[singularity]

Basically, I am haunted by the fact that we will never know the precise sequence of events.

Me too. Even if someone confessed(John on his death bed, Burke or JAR telling the world what happened years from now) there will always be unanswered questions.

One thing that also "eats me alive" is how we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle. Even if they are mentioned, they are not asked to elaborate unless sections of the transcripts have major redactions.

Here are some things I'd like more info on...

LOU SMIT: I think I'm going to just switch gears right now, unless you have any other
questions. One thing I did want to show you on picture 147 here; this again is photographs of the
wine cellar. There's a series of them: 146, 147, 148 and 149. Again, photographs of the wine cellar
after the search warrant was obtained. And I'd like to just show them to you, Mr. Ramsey,
and see what you observe on these photographs, whether they're in place or out of place or if
there's anything that seems to be different? And what you remember?

JOHN RAMSEY: Well, in terms of the pictures, this cigar box is different, certainly.

LOU SMIT: And what do you mean by that?

JOHN RAMSEY: Well, in terms of versus the other picture, it's kind of resting on its bottom here, more or less. Here it's a different box.

LOU SMIT: So you had more than one box of cigars?

JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember that box, Romeo and Juliets. I remember this. The Cubans.

LOU SMIT: (INAUDIBLE) the same box?

JOHN RAMSEY: No, I don't remember that box.

LOU SMIT: Okay. That's it?

I'd like to know more about this second cigar box and John's attempt to distance himself from it.

TOM HANEY: Do one or both of you smoke cigars?

PATSY RAMSEY: No one does.

Patsy lying about this and also trying to distance herself from it makes it even more interesting.

TRIP DEMUTH: What is the red and black item?

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I can't tell. I don't know.

TOM HANEY: Go ahead.

PATSY RAMSEY: I was going to say, do you have a picture of it blown up?

TOM HANEY: No, we don't.

PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.

TOM HANEY: Can you tell us, identify the other items that are in there.

PATSY RAMSEY: I can't. This (inaudible). John Andrew did (inaudible), that he would hang up.
Looks like just clothes in there. Can't tell.

What is this red and black item?

TOM HANEY: And 285.

PATSY RAMSEY: That is a makeup bag, like a video and video. Can't tell what it is. I don't know
where it is. A wooden something.

TOM HANEY: There is no previous photo that kind of --

PATSY RAMSEY: Goes with that.

TOM HANEY: Yeah.

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know where it is.

TOM HANEY: Okay. And 286 would be next.

PATSY RAMSEY: This is the John Andrew's room again, that fabric.

TRIP DEMUTH: Do you know what piece of furniture that is that the fabric is on?

PATSY RAMSEY: I can't tell. A chair covering it when they were tossing pillows and the dust
ruffle and the draperies coming down. (Inaudible). I don't know. A little purple bow or something.

What's this "wooden something"? What's so interesting about the fabric?

TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. 387 may be nothing more than just miscellaneous laundry, but I want you to look at it. Tell us if there is anything in there that sticks out.

PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible).

TRIP DEMUTH: We don't need you to identify anything. I want you to look at the photo. The same
with -- I think it would be, let's make sure, it is buried, 388. Look at it, but look at the photo.

PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible).

TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. 389, I believe we looked at that from another angle before. Anything you want
to add?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

These (inaudible)'s come across as redactions here.


This is interesting as well. The mention of "cotton" which later on is insinuated it came from their Santa beard.

TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. 400 we've looked at before, a different angle.

PATSY RAMSEY: Right. That is down in the basement. It is like cotton or something.

TRIP DEMUTH: Do you know what that is?

PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know why cotton would be there.

TRIP DEMUTH: You don't recognize it?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TRIP DEMUTH: It doesn't mean anything to you?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. Tom.

TOM HANEY: Do you ever remember seeing it in there?

PATSY RAMSEY: No.

and then:

TRIP DEMUTH: Did you have any Santa suits?

PATSY RAMSEY: I had Santas. I did have a Santa suit. I stuffed the Santa sometimes.

TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. Where was that?

PATSY RAMSEY: That should have been back in the Christmas room back, you know, in the shower back in there.

TRIP DEMUTH: If you walked past the laundry room, the shower to the storage room is at the end of
that hallway, the room it would be in.

PATSY RAMSEY: Right there would be kind of a beard, but I don't know it was made out of cotton. It
was kind of more like synthetic.

TRIP DEMUTH: That was -- the Santa suit was never in the window sill.

PATSY RAMSEY: Not to my knowledge.

List goes on and on.....




This is totally off topic but John should have been arrested for admitting smuggling the Cuban cigars through customs. I would have arrested him right after the interview ended. While not a major crime, technically he admitted to a felony. Give him a small taste of a jail cell on an unrelated charge and maybe something would have happened.

edit: I voted 'How did it happen'.

 

[DeDee]

It is amazing to read something as the person who wrote it was thinking and discovering clues inside their thoughts. A prime example:

My original thought is that the Ramsey's would be much less likely to be critically questioned and possibly arrested on the spot after JB's body was found if the Ramsey's were surrounded by sympathetic friends and supporters. I think this is the real reason why these people were called over. Imagine if there had been no one else there after JR brought JB's body from the basement. In that case, it is going to be very uncomfortable for the Ramsey's. Having these other people there, along with the fake RN, protected the Ramsey parents from immediately being arrested. So they did this on purpose. Also, this makes it apparent why the RN was written in the first place, which was also to protect the Ramsey's. If you remove the RN, all suspicion for the murder falls 100% onto the Ramsey's. So the RN and the other people there were both shields for the Ramsey's. But this still fails to explain why the parents would add that part about 'if you contact a dog, she dies' and then completely ignore it.

Most respectfully snipped and bolded for focus

Also, your mention about being willing to consider conspiracies, and why the Ramsey's would contradict the ransom note and incite their friends round... Does the ransom note statements "if you tell anyone about your situation" or "talk to a stray dog" etc sound like one Ramsey warning or threatening the other not to tell anyone the truth about what happened? Which might be a separate issue for the Ramsey's than inviting people over?

If the friends were invited for protection, could they also know something about the situation, or be part of some kind of group with the Ramsey's? I don't know what, only vague thoughts, and I know their friends were all cleared as suspects... I just thought it odd that apparently John was heard apologising to his friends, saying "I'm so sorry..." I would have thought it should be the other way round, and his friends should have been saying that to him, as in: "We're so sorry this awful this has happened to you"?

Here's an idea. What if the friends and folks that were called over the same morning as the 911 call was placed, were called so they could all read and comprehend the RN? Each one was warned: do not "talk to a stray dog" and "if you tell anyone about your situation" she dies. The RN could have also served as a dire warning to the group arriving that morning. In fact, I'm sure the friends were taken aback by the strong warnings found within the RN.

 

[reintarnation]

The bizarre nature of the RN has always bothered me, and the insights from DeDee, Anyhoo, and Scandigirl above are helpful.

I've always leaned toward the RN being (1) the only piece of evidence that points outside the home and (2) how they could explain her being murdered. But that still doesn't fully explain why it is so darn long! Yes, PR has a flair for the dramatic, but that explanation never fully satisfied me. As much as I can see PR getting off on tricking people, I believe that JBR's death was initially accidental and that PR was genuinely devastated by it. That always made me think that the length of the RN had to have a purpose specific to the cover up.

PR always claimed (obviously falsely), even during her 911 call, that she only the read the very beginning of the note and JR was reading it on the floor when she called 911. She called their friends right after she called 911. The first page only mentions that they need to comply with the ransom demands if they want JBR to live to see 1997, while page two and three include the threats to JBR's life if they seek outside help.

Maybe this was why PR made the RN so long-winded? The plan could have been that PR would say she only read the first page/part and called 911 and friends before she was aware of the rest. Thus, PR could say that she didn't realize that she was putting her daughter's life in jeopardy. I don't know that PR ever said as much, but maybe she never really needed to. It could be her just planting seeds, similar to JR mentioning the broken window in the train room right away, but allowing others to surmise that's where the intruder must have entered. I believe PR and JR were clever enough for this - don't be a dumb criminal and tell LE what you want them to believe, but leave bread crumbs and let them connect the dots themselves.

I think the extraordinary amount of references to JBR's death is also meaningful:
- "She dies" x 4
- "immediate execution"
- "denied her remains for proper burial"
- "being beheaded"
- "99% chance of killing your daughter"
- "don't think that killing will be difficult"

To me, that is PR's way of making sure no one would be surprised to find JBR dead. This could lead LE to believe that the "foreign faction" intended to kill JBR regardless (not shocking with terrorism), so provides yet another reasonable explanation for why she was killed and not actually kidnapped. In fact, maybe this is why PR decided to point to a "foreign faction" in the first place - terrorists are considered to be more ruthless than your run-of-the-mill kidnapper who is actually after money. And maybe that's why the amount requested was so small - the real motive for would be revenge against JR and his business with no intent to ever collect a ransom.

So wow...this really got me thinking! Maybe PR was brilliant after all. With the RN she provided several explanations for finding JBR dead in the house while pointing to a source outside the home. But so smart she was stupid - the RN became a contradictory piece of evidence even for IDI theories, and this was the first and (still?) only case of a child being ransomed and their dead body found in their home in the same day.