No prob, Chief. Are you a "fence-sitter?" If you are, I can sympathize. If you check out the "scoping out the house" thread, you'll see how my journey has progressed with regard to this case. You can look or not. Just trying to help out.
Okay:
"Re the pendant: wasn't there supposedly a cross (crucifix) attached to the necklace originally?"
Yes, I believe there was.
"Is damage usually done to the tongue, larynx or hyoid bone in the course of ligature strangulation? I'm aware that one or more of these is sometimes damaged during manual strangulation."
With the tongue and larynx, there's always some damage. See, when I say the tongue was undamaged, you have to imagine trying to strangle a living, struggling person. The tongue will have multiple bite marks from the fight. JB's didn't. The larynx and windpipe had hardly been touched. It's likely that the vagus nerve, which helps control respiration, was compressed, and that played a large role.
"To what do you attribute the "limited" petechial hemorrhaging? Would you say that it indicates that the heart continued to beat for some period of time while the noose was in place; or was the child dead when it was installed; or, to put it another way--was ligature strangulation a factor which contributed to the child's death?"
Okay, here you go: I attribute it to JB being barely alive when it was applied, having been rendered near death from a previous injury, such as the blow to the head. The ligature strangulation was a factor only in that the killer or killers did not know that JB was still technically alive and were in haste to stage a scene. You don't have to take my word for it, either. Here's a quote from Werner Spitz, a forensic pathologist who was brought in on the case:
"Someone went to a lot of trouble to stage strangulation, all after she was unconscious."
Norm Early, Denver DA, said something similar.
"In addition to the 'big' triangular abrasion there is a least one long abrasion (I recollect) which might have been inflicted by means other than the cord. It's similar in appearance to some photos which I have seen of abrasions on the necks of other victims of strangulation where the ligature was not found at the scene."
I don't think so. By that, I mean that when a chain like hers is dragged along the skin, this happens.
"You say that it appears that the perp had no knowledge of what the ligature staging should look like. What should it look like?"
Well, take how it was found. A true garrote is a cord with a handle on either end. It's the weapon of assassins. It's quick, quiet and easy to use. If you've ever seen Luca Brasi's death or Carlo Rizzi's murder in "The Godfather," that's fairly accurate in showing what it looks like. This ligature was completely inefficient. It was tied like a dog leash around the neck, and merely wrapped around the stick many times with a length of almost a foot-and-a-half between it and the loop around the neck. That greatly reduces the leverage that a kneeling person (and he would have to be kneeling for optimum "performance" during the killing) For a garrote to work like the RST says, it would have been much easier and more intelligent to take the cord, loop it all the way around the neck, then tie both ends to the cord, then place his hand in between the knots. That way, he can control it all he wants.
"There should be no necklace nor hair caught up in the ligature?"
"Caught up" is one thing. JB's hair was tied into the knots. No real killer is stupid enough to tie a ligature onto a fighting victim, certainly not one who was smart enough to elude cops for ten years!
"Can not one in haste intend to actually strangle rather than to stage strangulation?"
Like I said: this person didn't know the person wasn't dead. Here's what Norm Early said: that when someone has been killed, you think, with no outward signs, you don't want the coroner to come back and say, "this strangulation couldn't kill someone."
"Would the child's parent/s be in such haste under the circumstances?"
I believe they would. They'd want to get it over with, especially if there was a plan to dump the body before daylight.
"1.) the stick was added (for what purpose, I'm not sure) after the fact of the strangulation;"
You're making MY case, Chief! What would be the purpose of an intruder who's already strangled her to do that?
"(2.) the apparatus in it's entirety, as found at the scene, was applied while the child lay unconscious from the blow or perhaps from being stunned and thus immobilized"
That's what most of the investigators think happened. It's what I think happened.
"What do you make of the one fiber, consistent with the cord fibers, found on the child's bed? Some say this suggests that one or more of the cords was/were installed at that location."
Could be. Doesn't conclusively prove that it was an intruder. It suggests to me that the staging began there.
"If the neck cord were installed at that location, would that be suggestive of kidnapping?"
Not necessarily.
"Does one first strangle a child before whisking her away?"
Maybe, but the bed was suspiciously well-kept. I never left a bed that neat when I was six, no matter what. Besides, if that were the case, why didn't he take the body?
"When I say that the abrasions on the front of the neck, whether many or few in the eyes of the beholder, are suggestive of a struggle, I mean they suggest that the child hadn't been immobilized prior to infliction of the neck trauma, and the mere fact of the abrasions suggest that the neck trauma may have been inflicted during an attempt--whether successful or not--to subdue the child."
Well, the majority of pathologists and investigators said no, that's not what happened. All we have is their expertise.
"I'm trying to understand what happened; trying to account for all the injuries; I consider a neck abrasion an injury. If I saw no abrasions on the front of the neck (total absence) I would be more inclined to suspect staging, unless I had an explanation for the abrasions which accommodated staging."
it's the LACK of injuries that scream staging, Chief. Those abrasions are actually petechial hemorrhages. The autopsy report suggests that. There's your explanation.
"I'm bothered (not satisfied that I understand them) by these abrasions. I believe at least one expert saw evidence that the child clawed at the noose."
That expert was not closely involved with the case. Those that were say there were no scratch marks.
"there was no mention in the AR of damage to the fingernails; in fact it was mentioned that they were long enough to need clipping (or words to that effect)".
I don't remember reading about fingernail damage, Chief. In fact, I just read it again. No mention of damage. Yes, he does say sufficient length for clipping, but that's just an observation.
"As you know, often when the victims of strangulation claw frantically at a ligature, there is nail and even sometimes finger damage."
Except that didn't happen, Chief. If it had, there would have been mounds of skin under the nails. There wasn't. Not even close.
"Permit me two last questions: (1.) has the foreign DNA under the nails been matched in any degree to the foreign DNA in the underwear?"
No. NuisancePoster is right:
"but only one comment about the DNA matching, and that came from Team Ramsey people."
And I don't trust them as far as I can throw them, if for no other reason than John Ramsey confessed that the lawyers and PIs were hired to keep him out of prison, not to follow leads or find the killer. One of them actually quit over that.
Maybe this article will help:
"DNA may not help Ramsey inquiry
Samples found on JonBenet's clothing may be from factory
Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture.
In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened 'control' samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.
If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination - perhaps stemming from something as innocent as a worker's cough - then the genetic markers obtained from JonBenet's underpants are of absolutely no value in potentially excluding any suspects in the unsolved Boulder slaying.
'There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling,' said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.
'You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there,' Kane said, 'whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them.'
Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, 'We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence.'
snip
Wood also pointed out that unidentified DNA was also recovered from beneath JonBenet's fingernails on both hands. But investigators have long said that contamination problems render those samples of little value."
"(2.) how do two (2) drops of blood in the underwear equate to the "several red areas of staining" mentioned in the autopsy report?"
Several means more than one, Chief. That's all.
Hope I was helpful.
"The marks beneath the ligature cord appear to be caused by manual strangulation."
Could be, like from twisting a shirt collar.
Okay:
"Re the pendant: wasn't there supposedly a cross (crucifix) attached to the necklace originally?"
Yes, I believe there was.
"Is damage usually done to the tongue, larynx or hyoid bone in the course of ligature strangulation? I'm aware that one or more of these is sometimes damaged during manual strangulation."
With the tongue and larynx, there's always some damage. See, when I say the tongue was undamaged, you have to imagine trying to strangle a living, struggling person. The tongue will have multiple bite marks from the fight. JB's didn't. The larynx and windpipe had hardly been touched. It's likely that the vagus nerve, which helps control respiration, was compressed, and that played a large role.
"To what do you attribute the "limited" petechial hemorrhaging? Would you say that it indicates that the heart continued to beat for some period of time while the noose was in place; or was the child dead when it was installed; or, to put it another way--was ligature strangulation a factor which contributed to the child's death?"
Okay, here you go: I attribute it to JB being barely alive when it was applied, having been rendered near death from a previous injury, such as the blow to the head. The ligature strangulation was a factor only in that the killer or killers did not know that JB was still technically alive and were in haste to stage a scene. You don't have to take my word for it, either. Here's a quote from Werner Spitz, a forensic pathologist who was brought in on the case:
"Someone went to a lot of trouble to stage strangulation, all after she was unconscious."
Norm Early, Denver DA, said something similar.
"In addition to the 'big' triangular abrasion there is a least one long abrasion (I recollect) which might have been inflicted by means other than the cord. It's similar in appearance to some photos which I have seen of abrasions on the necks of other victims of strangulation where the ligature was not found at the scene."
I don't think so. By that, I mean that when a chain like hers is dragged along the skin, this happens.
"You say that it appears that the perp had no knowledge of what the ligature staging should look like. What should it look like?"
Well, take how it was found. A true garrote is a cord with a handle on either end. It's the weapon of assassins. It's quick, quiet and easy to use. If you've ever seen Luca Brasi's death or Carlo Rizzi's murder in "The Godfather," that's fairly accurate in showing what it looks like. This ligature was completely inefficient. It was tied like a dog leash around the neck, and merely wrapped around the stick many times with a length of almost a foot-and-a-half between it and the loop around the neck. That greatly reduces the leverage that a kneeling person (and he would have to be kneeling for optimum "performance" during the killing) For a garrote to work like the RST says, it would have been much easier and more intelligent to take the cord, loop it all the way around the neck, then tie both ends to the cord, then place his hand in between the knots. That way, he can control it all he wants.
"There should be no necklace nor hair caught up in the ligature?"
"Caught up" is one thing. JB's hair was tied into the knots. No real killer is stupid enough to tie a ligature onto a fighting victim, certainly not one who was smart enough to elude cops for ten years!
"Can not one in haste intend to actually strangle rather than to stage strangulation?"
Like I said: this person didn't know the person wasn't dead. Here's what Norm Early said: that when someone has been killed, you think, with no outward signs, you don't want the coroner to come back and say, "this strangulation couldn't kill someone."
"Would the child's parent/s be in such haste under the circumstances?"
I believe they would. They'd want to get it over with, especially if there was a plan to dump the body before daylight.
"1.) the stick was added (for what purpose, I'm not sure) after the fact of the strangulation;"
You're making MY case, Chief! What would be the purpose of an intruder who's already strangled her to do that?
"(2.) the apparatus in it's entirety, as found at the scene, was applied while the child lay unconscious from the blow or perhaps from being stunned and thus immobilized"
That's what most of the investigators think happened. It's what I think happened.
"What do you make of the one fiber, consistent with the cord fibers, found on the child's bed? Some say this suggests that one or more of the cords was/were installed at that location."
Could be. Doesn't conclusively prove that it was an intruder. It suggests to me that the staging began there.
"If the neck cord were installed at that location, would that be suggestive of kidnapping?"
Not necessarily.
"Does one first strangle a child before whisking her away?"
Maybe, but the bed was suspiciously well-kept. I never left a bed that neat when I was six, no matter what. Besides, if that were the case, why didn't he take the body?
"When I say that the abrasions on the front of the neck, whether many or few in the eyes of the beholder, are suggestive of a struggle, I mean they suggest that the child hadn't been immobilized prior to infliction of the neck trauma, and the mere fact of the abrasions suggest that the neck trauma may have been inflicted during an attempt--whether successful or not--to subdue the child."
Well, the majority of pathologists and investigators said no, that's not what happened. All we have is their expertise.
"I'm trying to understand what happened; trying to account for all the injuries; I consider a neck abrasion an injury. If I saw no abrasions on the front of the neck (total absence) I would be more inclined to suspect staging, unless I had an explanation for the abrasions which accommodated staging."
it's the LACK of injuries that scream staging, Chief. Those abrasions are actually petechial hemorrhages. The autopsy report suggests that. There's your explanation.
"I'm bothered (not satisfied that I understand them) by these abrasions. I believe at least one expert saw evidence that the child clawed at the noose."
That expert was not closely involved with the case. Those that were say there were no scratch marks.
"there was no mention in the AR of damage to the fingernails; in fact it was mentioned that they were long enough to need clipping (or words to that effect)".
I don't remember reading about fingernail damage, Chief. In fact, I just read it again. No mention of damage. Yes, he does say sufficient length for clipping, but that's just an observation.
"As you know, often when the victims of strangulation claw frantically at a ligature, there is nail and even sometimes finger damage."
Except that didn't happen, Chief. If it had, there would have been mounds of skin under the nails. There wasn't. Not even close.
"Permit me two last questions: (1.) has the foreign DNA under the nails been matched in any degree to the foreign DNA in the underwear?"
No. NuisancePoster is right:
"but only one comment about the DNA matching, and that came from Team Ramsey people."
And I don't trust them as far as I can throw them, if for no other reason than John Ramsey confessed that the lawyers and PIs were hired to keep him out of prison, not to follow leads or find the killer. One of them actually quit over that.
Maybe this article will help:
"DNA may not help Ramsey inquiry
Samples found on JonBenet's clothing may be from factory
Investigators in the JonBenet Ramsey case believe that male DNA recovered from the slain child's underwear may not be critical evidence at all, and instead could have been left at the time of the clothing's manufacture.
In exploring that theory, investigators obtained unopened 'control' samples of identical underwear manufactured at the same plant in Southeast Asia, tested them - and found human DNA in some of those new, unused panties.
If investigators are right about possible production-line contamination - perhaps stemming from something as innocent as a worker's cough - then the genetic markers obtained from JonBenet's underpants are of absolutely no value in potentially excluding any suspects in the unsolved Boulder slaying.
'There is always a possibility that it got there through human handling,' said former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation which yielded no indictments in the case, now almost six years old.
'You have to ask yourself the possible ways that it got there,' Kane said, 'whether it was in the manufacture, the packaging or the distribution, or whether it was someone in the retail store who took it out to look at them.'
Another investigator with expertise on forensic issues, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the theory that the underwear DNA might be the result of point-of-production contamination.
And, wherever it came from, that investigator said, 'We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence.'
snip
Wood also pointed out that unidentified DNA was also recovered from beneath JonBenet's fingernails on both hands. But investigators have long said that contamination problems render those samples of little value."
"(2.) how do two (2) drops of blood in the underwear equate to the "several red areas of staining" mentioned in the autopsy report?"
Several means more than one, Chief. That's all.
Hope I was helpful.
"The marks beneath the ligature cord appear to be caused by manual strangulation."
Could be, like from twisting a shirt collar.
