Coincidences
- Thread starter MurriFlower
- Start date
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
LOL, I know someone who always attributes her (negative) feelings and thoughts to other people. She might say something like "Oh, Mrs X said that dress looked dreadful on you"............
Pretty much one of the recurring themes in Mark Fuhrmans book.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
In the words of Ruth Rendell's Inspector Wexford:
"But we don't like coincidences, do we? We know that when events happen in sequence or according to a pattern those events are most likely linked."
"But we don't like coincidences, do we? We know that when events happen in sequence or according to a pattern those events are most likely linked."
ziggy
Active Member
Respectfully snipped...
There is always a first time in crimes too - at the time no one could have ever imagined a perp hiding in the home - but it happens. And too, no one could have imagined a child could be killed in the home while the parents slept through it, but it has happened (Stephanie Crowe and others).
The cackle has been that there's never been a ransom note left when a perp has left the subject of the ransom dead at the scene.
There is always a first time.
I'd also like to add that the marks that garotte made on that poor baby's neck is not staging. When the cause of death can't really be determined between strangulation with the garotte and the skull fracture, that garotte is not staging.
I believe JonBenet died a violent death by the hands of the kind of sick perverted criminal that we've come to know exists and that these things can happen. This was no accidental rage brought on by a parent.
There is always a first time in crimes too - at the time no one could have ever imagined a perp hiding in the home - but it happens. And too, no one could have imagined a child could be killed in the home while the parents slept through it, but it has happened (Stephanie Crowe and others).
The cackle has been that there's never been a ransom note left when a perp has left the subject of the ransom dead at the scene.
There is always a first time.
I'd also like to add that the marks that garotte made on that poor baby's neck is not staging. When the cause of death can't really be determined between strangulation with the garotte and the skull fracture, that garotte is not staging.
I believe JonBenet died a violent death by the hands of the kind of sick perverted criminal that we've come to know exists and that these things can happen. This was no accidental rage brought on by a parent.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
Agreed!! This whole scenario was a one off. Quoting statistics in these cases (% of parents who murder children) is misleading. I agree that the garrote was a murder weapon (one of them), not a 'prop'. We don't know what weapon inflicted the head blow, but I believe it was a pistol butt, due to the shape of the dislodged fragment, and also the abrasion on the neck shows the outline of a pistol muzzle.
So it was not a random killing, but planned and executed by more than one person (perhaps several). To what purpose?
The outline on the neck does not show the outline of a pistol muzzle. You THINK it looks like the outline of a pistol muzzle. That's not the same thing. In reality, there are photos available online (which have been posted on this forum) showing other strangulation victims with exactly the same kind of triangular red mark, which is blood pooling under the skin at the pressure point where the garrote pressed most deeply into the flesh.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
And that, of course, is YOUR OPINION.
Yes, of course it is.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 58
But, yet leaves no evidence at all behind. But manages to spread Patsy's sweater fibers all over the crime scene...including entwining them in the garotte. Man, he sure was clever!!!
ziggy
Active Member
Seriously? Your remark lacks a complete basis in fact.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 58
Really?? So does yours....
"I'd also like to add that the marks that garotte made on that poor baby's neck is not staging. When the cause of death can't really be determined between strangulation with the garotte and the skull fracture, that garotte is not staging."
At least we KNOW that Patsy's fiber's from the sweater/jacket that she wore that night....were found all over the crime scene, including entwined in the garrotte..and on the sticky side of the tape covering JB's mouth. The Touch DNA....on the longjohn waist band....who KNOWS when that was left there...or who left it?
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
No, we actually know that only four red fibers consistent with her jacket were found on the tape. You are being disingenuous to state that they were 'all over the crime scene'. Likewise, I could say that unknown male DNA was 'all over the crime scene', and if all the items were tested for touch DNA, then this may well be true. We do KNOW however that unsourced fibers WERE entwined in the garrote.
The fibers weren't unsourced. They came from Patsy's jacket.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
Oh really? The brown cotton fibers were from where?
I'm not aware of any other fibers entwined in the garrote at all. The only brown fibers I've ever heard of were in the paint box, and even then I'm not 100%.
ziggy
Active Member
Ames: "no evidence at all" and "all over the crime scene" are what I'm talking about. Murri's right that's a bit disingenuous and it's simply not factual.
I believe staging means: arranged: deliberately arranged for effect only...it's meant to be a deceptive practice to fool someone into thinking something other than what happened, happened.
I keep hearing people say the garotte was "staging" but JonBenet was strangled with that cord enough to cause a deep furrow that encircled her entire neck and cause petechial hemorrhaging and enough for the coroner to rule her death as caused by strangulation.
So if you believe PR did it, then you must follow that JB was either bashed in the skull hard and then while she lay possibly dying, instead of calling 911, she got John, they wrote a lengthy note, gathered up some tape and cord, got a paintbrush from the paint box, broke it, tied some fancy knots and then strangled their daughter, sexually violated her, and disposed of the other end of the paintbrush, the rest of the tape, the rest of the cord, but left a practice note.
The fibers from PR's clothing being in her things, on JB and in the house in general is not unusual because she lived there. So that can be explained and it's good evidence if everything else fits, but so many other things do not fit so standing on it's own it's a featherweight.
But there were other fibers that they were unable to match and those may or may not be important too but they offer some possibility that they may have belonged to a perpetrator that was not a Ramsey. Standing on their own they too don't mean much.
In fact neither side has really super duper solid evidence but I think the DNA is weightier and I think as time has gone by an intruder theory has become more plausible than the scenario above and that is why the tide has turned slightly.
I believe staging means: arranged: deliberately arranged for effect only...it's meant to be a deceptive practice to fool someone into thinking something other than what happened, happened.
I keep hearing people say the garotte was "staging" but JonBenet was strangled with that cord enough to cause a deep furrow that encircled her entire neck and cause petechial hemorrhaging and enough for the coroner to rule her death as caused by strangulation.
So if you believe PR did it, then you must follow that JB was either bashed in the skull hard and then while she lay possibly dying, instead of calling 911, she got John, they wrote a lengthy note, gathered up some tape and cord, got a paintbrush from the paint box, broke it, tied some fancy knots and then strangled their daughter, sexually violated her, and disposed of the other end of the paintbrush, the rest of the tape, the rest of the cord, but left a practice note.
The fibers from PR's clothing being in her things, on JB and in the house in general is not unusual because she lived there. So that can be explained and it's good evidence if everything else fits, but so many other things do not fit so standing on it's own it's a featherweight.
But there were other fibers that they were unable to match and those may or may not be important too but they offer some possibility that they may have belonged to a perpetrator that was not a Ramsey. Standing on their own they too don't mean much.
In fact neither side has really super duper solid evidence but I think the DNA is weightier and I think as time has gone by an intruder theory has become more plausible than the scenario above and that is why the tide has turned slightly.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
"24 Q. How about brown cotton fibers that
25 were found on the duct tape, the cord and
416
1 her body that were consistent but no source
2 found? Is that accurate?
3 A. That were consistent with what?
4 Q. They were consistent with each
5 other, those fibers, the brown cotton fibers
6 that were consistent with fibers found on
7 duct tape, cords and her body?
8 A. That's beyond the scope of what I
9 know and just to educate you, if you allow
10 me.
11 Q. Sure.
12 A. Anything hair and fiber related,
13 Trujillo knows.
14 Q. I think we've already talked about
15 it was a large number of fibers that were
16 never sourced, right, while you were there?
17 A. In the house, yes.
18 Q. There was a pubic hair, or what
19 was believed to be a pubic hair, that may
20 have turned out to be an ancillary hair, but
21 that hair has never been sourced, as you know
22 it?
23 A. As far as I know.
25 Q. And, you know, without going and I
246
1 guess we could do it if we need to, maybe
2 we'll do it later but let's just for a
3 moment see if we can't generally agree, that
4 there were a considerable number of fibers
5 found on JonBenet Ramsey's body and articles
6 of clothing that were not in fact sourced by
7 the investigation, true?
8 A. Whether artifact or evidence, yeah,
9 there were a number of hair and fiber pieces
10 in this case that I know they, Trujillo and
11 CBI, were trying to source.
12 Q. And as of August of '98 had not
13 been able to do so, true?
14 A. That's my understanding.
"
Similar threads
