Christmas Morning Picture of Burke and JB...

[BOESP]

One of the things about this murder that sticks out was the absence of damage to the internal structures of the neck. In that sense this was not a true garroting, if you will. the Hyoid bone was intact if she had been truley with purpose garroted vs that being part of the staging, damage would have been much worse in my opinion.

How true, CK!

There is no way that by twisting that cord using the attached paintbrush handle JonBenet could have been strangled. There was, if memory serves me, approximately 15 inches of cord between the paintbrush handle and the lashing-type knot that secured the rope around JonBenet's neck. The only way it would have worked would to have held JonBenet down by some means then pulled the rope using the paintbrush handle. That would have left bruising and appropriate abrasions indicating she was held down or showed other signs of struggling. Even someone trussed up would struggle against the wrist ligatures and JonBenet's wrists show no sign of struggling.

GROSS POST WARNING IN THIS PARAGRAPH: The autopsy photos may appear gross in the sense of glaringly reddish purple but the rope is barely embedded and injuries, even slight injuries, appear gross after death. A true strangulation by that method would likely show swollen bruising up and over the chin area and, probably, bulging eyes and tongue protrusion. None of that is indicated in the autopsy.

I suspect the head wound came first and it appeared JonBenet was dead yet she was not truly clinically dead. She was obviously alive when her head was injured else there would have been no bleeding beneath the scalp. I suspect the responsible party thought a staged strangulation would take care of the problem and everyone would think she was strangled (which, in reality, did contribute to her clinical death). Instead, to me, it indicates staging at best or, perhaps, a mercy killing if the killer did, indeed, know JonBenet was in the throes of dying.

It makes no sense to wound someone on the head then strangle them or vice versa, strangle them then whack them over the head. Either one alone would have accomplished the same thing - death. This is where I think Lou Smit got way off -- now why in the world would you hit someone to finish them off when all you had to do was just hold the ligature tightly another minute or two?

Staging is the most logical explanation for the ligature, in my opinion.

 

[coloradokares]

How true, CK!

There is no way that by twisting that cord using the attached paintbrush handle JonBenet could have been strangled. There was, if memory serves me, approximately 15 inches of cord between the paintbrush handle and the lashing-type knot that secured the rope around JonBenet's neck. The only way it would have worked would to have held JonBenet down by some means then pulled the rope using the paintbrush handle. That would have left bruising and appropriate abrasions indicating she was held down or showed other signs of struggling. Even someone trussed up would struggle against the wrist ligatures and JonBenet's wrists show no sign of struggling.

GROSS POST WARNING IN THIS PARAGRAPH: The autopsy photos may appear gross in the sense of glaringly reddish purple but the rope is barely embedded and injuries, even slight injuries, appear gross after death. A true strangulation by that method would likely show swollen bruising up and over the chin area and, probably, bulging eyes and tongue protrusion. None of that is indicated in the autopsy.

I suspect the head wound came first and it appeared JonBenet was dead yet she was not truly clinically dead. She was obviously alive when her head was injured else there would have been no bleeding beneath the scalp. I suspect the responsible party thought a staged strangulation would take care of the problem and everyone would think she was strangled (which, in reality, did contribute to her clinical death). Instead, to me, it indicates staging at best or, perhaps, a mercy killing if the killer did, indeed, know JonBenet was in the throes of dying.

It makes no sense to wound someone on the head then strangle them or vice versa, strangle them then whack them over the head. Either one alone would have accomplished the same thing - death. This is where I think Lou Smit got way off -- now why in the world would you hit someone to finish them off when all you had to do was just hold the ligature tightly another minute or two?

Staging is the most logical explanation for the ligature, in my opinion.

Exactly!!

 

[rashomon]

How true, CK!

There is no way that by twisting that cord using the attached paintbrush handle JonBenet could have been strangled. There was, if memory serves me, approximately 15 inches of cord between the paintbrush handle and the lashing-type knot that secured the rope around JonBenet's neck. The only way it would have worked would to have held JonBenet down by some means then pulled the rope using the paintbrush handle. That would have left bruising and appropriate abrasions indicating she was held down or showed other signs of struggling. Even someone trussed up would struggle against the wrist ligatures and JonBenet's wrists show no sign of struggling.

GROSS POST WARNING IN THIS PARAGRAPH: The autopsy photos may appear gross in the sense of glaringly reddish purple but the rope is barely embedded and injuries, even slight injuries, appear gross after death. A true strangulation by that method would likely show swollen bruising up and over the chin area and, probably, bulging eyes and tongue protrusion. None of that is indicated in the autopsy.

I suspect the head wound came first and it appeared JonBenet was dead yet she was not truly clinically dead. She was obviously alive when her head was injured else there would have been no bleeding beneath the scalp. I suspect the responsible party thought a staged strangulation would take care of the problem and everyone would think she was strangled (which, in reality, did contribute to her clinical death). Instead, to me, it indicates staging at best or, perhaps, a mercy killing if the killer did, indeed, know JonBenet was in the throes of dying.

It makes no sense to wound someone on the head then strangle them or vice versa, strangle them then whack them over the head. Either one alone would have accomplished the same thing - death. This is where I think Lou Smit got way off -- now why in the world would you hit someone to finish them off when all you had to do was just hold the ligature tightly another minute or two?

Staging is the most logical explanation for the ligature, in my opinion.

Great post, BOESP!
That whole 'ligature-garrote scene' just screams staging. Every single element of it.

jmo

 

[coloradokares]

Great post, BOESP!
That whole 'ligature-garrote scene' just screams staging. Every single element of it.

jmo

Exactly ! As I said to BOESP the Hyoid bone remained intact even

 

[BOESP]

Great post, BOESP!
That whole 'ligature-garrote scene' just screams staging. Every single element of it.

jmo

Yes, I certainly agree. Another element that suggests staging is John states JonBenet's eyes were closed when he found her in the wine cellar. That's very unusual unless someone closed them for her after death and more unbelievable if she were strangled. Pedophiles and kidnappers aren't apt to care if a victim's eyes are left open or not. It is really odd John mentioned the eyes being closed.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

The loudest Smoking Gun is that JonBenet was wiped down, removing forensic evidence relating to her sexual assault. Now why would a sexually motivated intruder who also garroted his victim bother to wipe his victim down then redress her in underwear that only Patsy had direct knowledge of?

.

Exactly. No intruder would have done that. There was no intruder. But a parent trying to hide the fact that there had been vaginal bleeding and/or assault would certainly have.

 

[DeeDee249]

One of the things about this murder that sticks out was the absence of damage to the internal structures of the neck. In that sense this was not a true garroting, if you will. the Hyoid bone was intact if she had been truley with purpose garroted vs that being part of the staging, damage would have been much worse in my opinion.

Of course. But the Rs are not forensic pathologists. THEY didn't know that without damage to those structures it's likely the garroting would have not caused death. They just wanted her body to have a VISIBLE means of death, something that to the eye says "That's what killed her". The head bash was not visible. And the extent of that, too, was only discovered on autopsy, and was a surprise to the coroner. He had to pull back the scalp to see it. Now if he didn't feel the hole in her skull without doing that, it's unlikely the Rs felt it. They needed LE and coroner to see the body and say "Aha! Ligature strangulation! That's what killed her". Because they felt they would not be suspected of doing something like that. But the head bash? That could happen by accident. THAT is something that they could be perceived as having done. Or it could have happened in a rage attack. But a ligature strangulation doesn't at first look scream "Parent did it".

 

[coloradokares]

Of course. But the Rs are not forensic pathologists. THEY didn't know that without damage to those structures it's likely the garroting would have not caused death. They just wanted her body to have a VISIBLE means of death, something that to the eye says "That's what killed her". The head bash was not visible. And the extent of that, too, was only discovered on autopsy, and was a surprise to the coroner. He had to pull back the scalp to see it. Now if he didn't feel the hole in her skull without doing that, it's unlikely the Rs felt it. They needed LE and coroner to see the body and say "Aha! Ligature strangulation! That's what killed her". Because they felt they would not be suspected of doing something like that. But the head bash? That could happen by accident. THAT is something that they could be perceived as having done. Or it could have happened in a rage attack. But a ligature strangulation doesn't at first look scream "Parent did it".

That is exactly right .

 

[JMO8778]

Of course. But the Rs are not forensic pathologists. THEY didn't know that without damage to those structures it's likely the garroting would have not caused death. They just wanted her body to have a VISIBLE means of death, something that to the eye says "That's what killed her". The head bash was not visible. And the extent of that, too, was only discovered on autopsy, and was a surprise to the coroner. He had to pull back the scalp to see it. Now if he didn't feel the hole in her skull without doing that, it's unlikely the Rs felt it. They needed LE and coroner to see the body and say "Aha! Ligature strangulation! That's what killed her". Because they felt they would not be suspected of doing something like that. But the head bash? That could happen by accident. THAT is something that they could be perceived as having done. Or it could have happened in a rage attack. But a ligature strangulation doesn't at first look scream "Parent did it".

but would the ligature have been enough to cut off some of her air supply? b/c the cornoner listed it,along with the head bash,'associated with',as the cause of death. (even though JR lies in DOI and says she died of ligature strangulation).

 

[coloradokares]

but would the ligature have been enough to cut off some of her air supply? b/c the cornoner listed it,along with the head bash,'associated with',as the cause of death. (even though JR lies in DOI and says she died of ligature strangulation).

They knew if they did not wish to be arrested for murder it had to leave bruising etc. In otherwords it had to appear to be the way Jon Benet died. It is my belief they did not realize that she was alive when they enacted the ligature strangulation. I think they reasoned she was gone already from the head injuries. So they did what they had to do to save their own skin. I think it was as stated earlier they thoought that would cover the need to determine cause of death other than strangulation. It goes without saying this is my humble opinion based on the evidence of that night

 

[BOESP]

They knew if they did not wish to be arrested for murder it had to leave bruising etc. In otherwords it had to appear to be the way Jon Benet died. It is my belief they did not realize that she was alive when they enacted the ligature strangulation. I think they reasoned she was gone already from the head injuries. So they did what they had to do to save their own skin. I think it was as stated earlier they thoought that would cover the need to determine cause of death other than strangulation. It goes without saying this is my humble opinion based on the evidence of that night

CK, I have the same take on the strangulation that you state above. The killer(s) already thought she was dead or nearly so and it would not have taken much to strangle an already dying child. The autopsy and photos, as horrible as this is going to sound, show only minor effort at using that ligature. I agree, it was enough to cut off breathing and produce evidence of asphyxiation, but the photos don't show gross strangulation. The wording in the autopsy pretty much states that her death was from two different events, which is clinically correct. The final blow was the death blow and that was the event that cut off her air passage.

 

[coloradokares]

CK, I have the same take on the strangulation that you state above. The killer(s) already thought she was dead or nearly so and it would not have taken much to strangle an already dying child. The autopsy and photos, as horrible as this is going to sound, show only minor effort at using that ligature. I agree, it was enough to cut off breathing and produce evidence of asphyxiation, but the photos don't show gross strangulation. The wording in the autopsy pretty much states that her death was from two different events, which is clinically correct. The final blow was the death blow and that was the event that cut off her air passage.

When I think of how that baby suffered . All I can say is there is a God and this shall not stand.

 

[BOESP]

When I think of how that baby suffered . All I can say is there is a God and this shall not stand.

It is disturbing that no one had to answer for this here on this earth. My belief is it was accidental. I can almost understand an accidental death and be forgiving about it. What I can't understand is the subterfuge to hide the truth. That is what I can not forgive.

 

[coloradokares]

It is disturbing that no one had to answer for this here on this earth. My belief is it was accidental. I can almost understand an accidental death and be forgiving about it. What I can't understand is the subterfuge to hide the truth. That is what I can not forgive.

That is the truth..Do you remember the LKL interview with Steve Thomas Where forgivness was brought up and John was literally yelling that is not true that is not true? I felt an icy chill and thought right there, they will never acnowledge the truth or take accountibility. I was totally speechless! disturbing is the understatement of the decade! For those of you who in their hearts think they are innocent, so be it. Ill leave judgement to God.

 

[BOESP]

That is the truth..Do you remember the LKL interview with Steve Thomas Where forgivness was brought up and John was literally yelling that is not true that is not true? I felt an icy chill and thought right there, they will never acnowledge the truth or take accountibility. I was totally speechless! disturbing is the understatement of the decade! For those of you who in their hearts think they are innocent, so be it. Ill leave judgement to God.

Oh yes, I remember the LKL interview. I don't know who I wanted to smack first: Patsy, John, or Larry King. :furious:

 

[coloradokares]

Oh yes, I remember the LKL interview. I don't know who I wanted to smack first: Patsy, John, or Larry King. :furious:

This is unusual for me but in this smacking order John for saying and believing it. Larry King for not doing something besides being a wimp. Patsy for more than obvious reasons and Rev. Rol Hoverstock for not preaching the truth and and letting them know accountibility. And the DA for extreme dereliction of his duties and responsibilities to the citizens of Boulder County and the residents of the state of Colorado for the extreme embarrasment we suffer every time the Ramsey case is discussed!! I could go on and this is just regarding the interview .....that alone!!

 

[Brefie]

As long as we are having a smack fest....can I have Susan Stine??

 

[coloradokares]

As long as we are having a smack fest....can I have Susan Stine??

There is a line :doh: for that one. However jump on in !!

 

[Ames]

In a year 2000 chat, Steve Thomas was asked what JB wore to the party:

Link to the chat:
http://jfjbr.tripod.com/truth/stchat.html

If only he had been asked there too what kind of hairstyle JonBenet was wearing at the Whites' party!! :banghead:

But if the red turtleneck was UNDER the white gap shirt...then he wouldn't have been able to see it....depending on the collar of the gap shirt, if it was a crew neck then the red turtleneck collar would have been hidden. I can't remember what sort of neck the gap shirt had. I am sure that its in her autopsy photos, though.

 

[Ames]

I think you are right.
And about the med. supply drawer--are there pictures of it? I KNOW Patsy used something from that drawer that night. I just don't know what. Could have been rubbbing alcohol, or rubber gloves or ????
Any other thoughts?

Rubbing alcohol and rubber gloves...would be MY guess, too....and gauze.