Cords, Knots, and Strangulation Devices

[otg]

Ok, here's a couple to start with:

Was the cord of sufficient length to have been tied to each of her arms and her neck and also to go over the pipe on the ceiling of the basement some 7-8ft high?

Boy, Murri, when you ask a good question, you really know how to get to the heart of whether or not someone knows what they’re talking about. So here goes. I’ll answer as best I can.

I don’t think anyone is really going to care much to follow along with the elaborate calculations involved in figuring this, but I’ll go through it since you asked -- just for the record. Not knowing some measurements, lengths, or distances, I’ll have to estimate some things. I don’t know JonBenet’s exact height, so for this I’ll estimate about four and half feet (1.37 metres for you ). There are pipes running throughout the basement, so we don’t know exactly how high any one particular pipe might be from the floor. We do know that most doors are about 6’, so take a look at these photos and see if you’ll allow me to use 6’ for my estimate of a possible distance from the floor.

Okay, let’s go through the calculations with some rough estimates:

Height of pipe from floor = ~6’ (1.8m) (see above photo of top of door to ceiling, and relative height of pipe)
Height of JBR = ~4.5’ -- my estimate (1.4m)
Distance from top of head to neck = ~8” -- my estimate (0.7m)
Length of cord coming from neck knot = 17” -- from AR (0.4m)
Length of cord from left wrist knot = ~4” -- estimated from photo (0.1m)
Wraps around 5/8” paintbrush = ~10 -- estimated from photo
Length of cord around paintbrush = 0.625” x 3.1415 x 10 = ~19.5” (0.5m)
Excess cord cut off paintbrush knot when completed = unknown (This could be anywhere from 1” to even as much as 2’, because once the cut cord was wrapped around the paintbrush and tied off, the excess was simply cut off.)
Total length of cord coming from neck knot to left wrist knot if one piece = 4” + 17” + 19.5” + at least 1” to 24 excess at paintbrush knot = at least 41.5” to 65” (~3.5’ to 5.5’, or one to 1.5 meters)

So if the neck of a child standing at 4.5’ was ~3’-10” from the floor, an overhead pipe would have to be twice the distance away of the length of the cord for it to be long enough to double over the pipe (6’ - 3’-10” = 2’-2”; 2’-2” x 2 = 4’-4”). So this 4’-4” is about halfway between the calculated length of cord needed to satisfy the possibility of it being used as I suggest. Add a few inches to that if you’d like to figure that her left wrist was probably a little below her neck when restrained.

If her left arm was raised by her fall and the wrist knot tightened, was there any mark left on her skin by the full weight of her body pulling down whilst her arm was being pulled up?

That’s an excellent point, but her full weight would not have been pulling on her wrist if she was standing on the floor and the cord was over a pipe. Approximate weight of body minus legs = ~3/4?, and that weight would be divided by two to evenly distribute it between the two sides of cord. So, 0.75 x 45-lbs. = ~33-34 lbs., divided by two would put ~15 to 17 pounds pulling on the left wrist. The knot on the left wrist was not a slip knot, so there would be no tightening of the ligature around her wrist, only half the total weight of about 34 lbs. on the one side of wrist. It would only be anyone’s guess as to whether or not there should have been any noted damage (which we know, there was not on the AR). Also, you have to take into consideration that it was probably tied around the sleeve of her blouse which would act as a pad against any bruising or abrasive type injury, and the pulling of her arm would prevent it from being a sudden jolt or jerk of the cord.

Would a blow from the golf putter to her head by a small stature boy be consistent with the location, shape and displaced section of skull?

Yes, absolutely! Take a look at the many types of putters available (LINK). There were at least two sets of golf clubs in the house. John had a Ping (brand name) set according to Patsy, but then, many golfers have a separate brand/type of putter because of a personal preference. So we don’t know what type of putter was available, or might have been used. Most putters weigh less than one pound, but understand the principle of total weight concentration in a small area (back tip of putter). Imagine a 12” x 12”, square cube weighing ten pounds placed on your stomach. You would hardly even feel it because of the distribution of the weight. However, if you were to balance that ten pounds on its corner on top of your stomach, the full ten pounds would be concentrated in that one small corner, and it would be very uncomfortable. That’s because of the distribution of the weight. So if the full ~3/4-lb. weight of a putter were swung through the air hitting someone on the head, it would do almost unimaginable damage in one small area, and yes, it would have the potential to displace a small oblong section of skull without so much as a scrape on the surface of the scalp if it hit straight on.

Also, I don’t have to remind anyone here that Burke had used a putter once before on his sister, requiring her be treated at the doctor’s office. (And where did that injury happen on her?)

Was evidence of the putter being used as a weapon found and was it found to be consistent with the injury?

John (from reports, at least) specifically asked that his golf clubs be brought to him after he had left his home. Steve Thomas wrote that when he heard that John had asked for them, he questioned why a man whose daughter had just been killed would be wanting to play golf in the dead of winter.

As to the second part of the question, see above answer.

Murri, I congratulate you, and I thank you. Those were very good questions, and to tell you the truth, I hadn’t gone through an actual calculation of the length of cord required to see if it would work. I just pictured in my mind that it was within the realm of possibility without actually having to take a hard look at the specifics.

Anything else?
.

 

[otg]

Could it not be that Burke WAS just playing doctor with her when she screamed (most likely because something he did to her hurt) and then he hits her with the flashlight to shut her up? Then he has to get his parents as he knows he has hurt her very badly. What evidence is there then that would keep John Ramsey from being the one who tied those knots? I very much believe BR was involved in this from the get-go, but I don't believe he did the staging. The staging and the rn are John and Patsy, all the way. To define staging: everything that happened after the head-bash, including the sexual assault with a foreign object and ending with the wiping down, re-dressing, and ransom note. Burke was a nine year old boy with all the curiosity that comes with that. We have no way of knowing just how curious he was, but he did have older friends that very well could have put ideas in his head (especially if they had seen JB in her "sexy" pageant clothing). With all the stories of eight and nine year olds raping little girls in the news these days, this theory is not all that far-fectched.

Beck, I can't say that it couldn't have been a flashlight that caused the head injury. I always thought it strange that the Ramsey's flashlight had been wiped clean of any fingerprints even down to the batteries inside, and that they then tried to deny that it was theirs. To me, that screams of guilt somehow -- not proof, mind you, but definitely suspicious.

I still tend to lean toward thinking a golf putter caused it, but that's probably something we'll never know the answer to, and we'll be debating it for as long as we are around.

As to the staging, Burke was incapable of doing any of that. That had to be adult.
.

 

[otg]

I know someone will question my statement about nine year olds being involved in rape cases, so here is a link:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14635513/detail.html

BTW, it is only coincidence that this one happened in Atlanta.

I'm not going to comment on any theories but if you need more info on what pre-teen children are capable of just look up the James Bulger case.

I'm not sure I believe that BDI, however i don't think anyone can say that he wasn't capable of doing anything to JBR or that he never showed violent tendencies or whatever, because we simply have no idea about what B was like or what his general personality and behaviour was like.

Sadly, folks, this world is not the same world we grew up in. Just take a look at what is on TV nowadays. Do you remember the day that feminine hygiene products or treatments for erectile dysfunction would never have been allowed? Barbara Eden had to have plaster put in her navel before being filmed in "I Dream of Jeannie" because it was considered too risque'. Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore couldn't even have one bed shown in their bedroom -- it had to be two twin beds. And I think it's hilarious, but have you ever watched "Two and a Half Men"? And this is just what we allow kids nowadays to see in our living rooms. Take a look sometime at some of the video games they play.

I'm not a prude by any stretch, but I am a realist about what young people are exposed to. Not that any of this is proof of anything in the Ramsey case; but wake up, if you think that young children in today's world are not capable of unimaginable things because of the world we have given them.
.

 

[otg]

(edited by otg for brevity)
What I do strongly believe is that some kind of sexually-related 'game' has been unexpectedly (accidently) ended by the hard blow to JBR head. So, we agreed on the most important ground. Here is not my theory but rather cord-related analysis.

And because I do believe that at this unfortunate night the sexual game has been played...and 'how' this game was played can point us to 'who' play it. Therefore, your 'cords and knots' discussion was very important to me. Why? I see this 'game' as the 'barbie doll' game. If you ever bought the 'barbie dolls' or any other dolls (by having two daughters myself, you can imagine how many dolls I've been purchased, you've been noticed how dolls are attached to the box (usually, their head and hands are fastened by the wire-type and twisted on the back of the box).

Again, this is just my vision of 'how'...and 'hence' here is the explanation of hearing the metal scratching sound by the neighbor across...and here is your possibility of falling down and accidently 'hanging/strangulation'..abrasions and urine leakage on-front and many other things...just a scenario without any forensic evidence...is it possible?

Who am I to say if it is possible, OpenMind4U. I have never claimed to be any kind of expert, and I try to point it out often.

But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that someone was playing a game (as in, acting out a fantasy?) based on making JonBenet like a Barbie Doll. So if that is what you are saying, I would ask the following questions:

What was the purpose in the game?
Was it sexual gratification of some sort?
How did the unexpected/accidental head blow happen; and who did it, and why?
Was it part of the game you imagine?

I can't say I agree with you on any of it, but I think I see where you are going with it.
.

 

[MurriFlower]

Oh, no? How much time have you got, Murri? I'd need a separate thread for this.

Actually, I've decided to limit myself to 20 items just so we're not here the rest of the week:

Here goes:

• 1) Fibers from the sweater Patsy Ramsey was known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth, inside the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped up in, and were found inside the little box that Patsy Ramsey kept her art supplies in. She cannot account for this in a coherent way.
  
  2) Patsy claimed that she saw the ransom letter on the spiral staircase and stepped over it before turning to see what it was. The police later conducted an experiment where they tried to recreate her story. None of the police officers could do it without falling. Again, her story makes no sense.
  
  3) The police went over Patsy Ramsey's credit card records. The records said that she had made some purchases from McGuckin's in the weeks leading up to the killing. The prices on the items matched the prices of the tape and the cord.
  
  4) Burke Ramsey mentioned that whoever killed JonBenet took out a knife. At the time, that was not a publicly released fact. But a knife was involved. Burke Ramsey had a Swiss army knife, but he had a habit of whittling with it inside the house and leaving wood shavings all over, so Linda Hoffman-Pugh, the family housekeeper, took it away from him and put in a cabinet in the basement where he couldn't get to it. Only Burke, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, and Patsy knew where it was. The knife was not used as a weapon on JonBenet, but it was found near her body.
  
  5) JonBenet's body was treated tenderly after death, wrapped in a blanket like a papoose with her favorite nightgown inside with her.
  
  6) The garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim. It also allows for not touching the victim's body.
  
  7) The autopsy report noted that JonBenet's wrists were tied with the same kind of cord that the ligature was made out of. It lists the length of cord between each wrist as 15-1/2 inches long. That's over a foot of space. Her arms were not tied together. They weren't tied behind her. The extra length wasn't attached to anything. There was over a foot of space between her arms! You're telling me that would have restrained her? Not only that, the cuffs on her wrists were so loose that they left no marks. One of them slipped right off of her arm when John Ramsey carried her up the stairs.
  
  8) JonBenet had tape on her mouth when she was found. I guess this was supposed to give the impression that she had been gagged, but again, whoever did it did a lousy job. For one thing, it was not tied around her head. It wasn't even a long strip. It was a small square of tape. Thomas, in his book, describes what the forensic technicians found on the tape. They discovered that it contained a perfect print of JonBenet's lips. She had not made any attempt to fight against it. It also had bloody mucous from JonBenet's nose under it. The logical conclusion is that it had been put on after JonBenet was dead.
  
  9) The ransom note contains motives that conflict with the crime and with each other. Pedophiles don't leave ransom notes.
  
  10) When Patsy Ramsey greeted police on the morning after Christmas, she had on the same red sweater and black pants that she had worn to the party the night before. Her explanation has always been that since she wore them for only a short time, they were perfectly good to wear again. This does not jibe with what others have claimed. The family housekeeper, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, has claimed that the idea of wearing the same clothes twice in a row was repellent to Patsy. She had a full closet full of clothes and was described by her stepson, John Andrew Ramsey, as "flashy." Apparently, word reached her ears that the police were looking askance at this little fact, because she showed up to an interview wearing the same outfit she'd worn at a television appearance the day before. I forget specifically when this was, but Det. Thomas describes it in his own book. Her wearing the same clothes suggests she never went to sleep that night. Denver Post columnist Chuck Green wrote in December of 2006 that the investigators, having inspected her bedroom, felt "that her side of the Ramsey bed hadn't been slept in."
  
  11) Of all the examiners who studied the ransom note, not one could eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author. Several highly-respected examiners, OTOH, said flat-out that she is the writer. Her own mother and sisters said it looked like her writing, as well.
  
  12) The cord around JonBenet's neck had a fair amount of slack in it between where it was tied to the cord and where it met her neck. To use it effectively, the person would have to pull the cord up over their head almost; or wrap it around their arm. Not a very practical job, on the whole. The autopsy photos present a grim and grisly image of JonBenet's neck squeezed into an hourglass from the strangulation. To the eye, it looks horrific. But the autopsy reveals that there were no marks on JonBenet's tongue or on the inside of her mouth that would indicate her to have fought her killer. The report also reveals that the larynx, the strap muscles of the neck and the hyoid bone were all undamaged. Also, the little girl's hair was tied into both the neck knot and the handle knot. This means that the garrote was made on her body, not prepared ahead of time.
  
  13) The vast majority of pathologists claim that JB's head was smashed long before any strangulation occurred. It makes no sense for an intruder to hang around to stage sexual assault and strangulation after that.
  
  14) JonBenet was most likely assaulted vaginally with the paintbrush handle, but the damage to her vagina was minimal. A true sexual predator would have done FAR more damage.
  
  15) The profilers claimed that the person who wrote the ransom note was either a female or a very genteel male, 35-45 years-old, who grew up and went to school in the American South in the 1960s and 1970s. The note contains several grammatical touches that are not common among younger writers, such as putting periods between the letters of acronyms, which Patsy was known to do. The note also contains phrases like "fat cat" and "use good Southern common sense," which were known to be spoken to John Ramsey by Nedra Paugh, Patsy's mother.
  
  16) In 1997, a picture of JonBenet in the now-legendary Showgirl outfit turned up and it showed JonBenet with a huge, angry-looking bruise on her arm. In June 1998, a photo of Patsy and JonBenet was shown where Patsy could be seen holding JonBenet's arm so hard that her fingernails were digging into the arm.
  
  17) No less than eight child abuse experts independently concluded that JonBenet had been abused sexually over a period of time. They pointed to specific issues like hymen damage, tissue erosion, and toughening, known as scarring. She also had severe bed-wetting and soiling problems, which are often a sign of an abused child.
  
  18) Fibers from the Israeli-made black shirt John Ramsey was wearing at Fleet White's party were found in a rather compromising area: JonBenet's underwear.
  
  19) JonBenet was redressed after she was killed. What intruder would CARE about that?
  
  19) Pineapple was found inside JonBenet's small intestine at the autopsy. The average rate of digestion for pineapple is two hours. Now, the Ramseys have always said that JonBenet fell asleep in the car on the way home and remained asleep until she was killed, but she would have had to have eaten it sometime after they got home.
  
  20) The Ramseys' stories are filled with inconsistencies. Most notably, about the heart drawn on JB's hand, Burke's voice on the 911 tape, and the ability to hear sounds within the house. The spiral iron staircase, for example, was horrendously noisy.

Oh, no? How much time have you got, Murri? I'd need a separate thread for this.

Actually, I've decided to limit myself to 20 items just so we're not here the rest of the week:

Here goes:
· 1) Fibers from the sweater Patsy Ramsey was known to have worn that night were found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth, inside the blanket that JonBenet was wrapped up in, and were found inside the little box that Patsy Ramsey kept her art supplies in. She cannot account for this in a coherent way.
·
· 1a) There is only evidence of 4 red fibers having been found on the tape that are ‘consistent with’ the red/black/grey jacket/sweater she was wearing. Given an opportunity to do so, the defence may be able to prove that this evidence is either inconclusive, flawed or indeed incorrect. That we have never seen the lab report or any evidence that one exists, is telling.
·
· That morning she was wearing the sweater she had on the previous evening. JR removed the tape from JBR’s mouth, FW picked it up and examined it and presumably (we don’t know for sure) dropped it again. It is not inconceivable that they both comforted (hugged) her at some time and a small number of fibers were transferred to their hands and clothes.
·
· The blanket JBR was wrapped in was on her bed the previous night (and probably for several nights) and as PR wore that sweater the previous evening fibers could easily have been transferred. In fact, if given the opportunity to closely examine this jacket it may well be discovered that it is of a type that freely sheds and it is not inconceivable that fibers from it could be in many locations within the house and on her possessions. She does not need to account for fibers from her clothes being in her own house, this is nonsense and in no way is evidence of her guilt.
·
· On the other hand, fibers that are in positions on the body and at the crime scene for which are unable to be sourced to anything in the house are more likely to indicate the possibility of an unknown person having been involved.
·
2) Patsy claimed that she saw the ransom letter on the spiral staircase and stepped over it before turning to see what it was. The police later conducted an experiment where they tried to recreate her story. None of the police officers could do it without falling. Again, her story makes no sense.
·
· 2a) Think about it--to me someone would avoid stepping on paper placed on a step, as you are likely to slip. It is not easily possible to bend down and pick up paper from the step below where you feet are placed. You would avoid that step, go to the next step and turn and pick it up. How hard would that be? If a Police officer could not re-create her story, perhaps they either weren’t trying or they had the story wrong. Nonsense and no evidence of guilt.

3) The police went over Patsy Ramsey's credit card records. The records said that she had made some purchases from McGuckin's in the weeks leading up to the killing. The prices on the items matched the prices of the tape and the cord.

· 3a) As they do not know what tape and cord was used, this is just speculation. If they thought it was evidence that would stand up in Court they would have used it. This is an invention of a tabloid ably assisted by ST. It does not explain why these items were not found in the house or having been used for any other purpose (unless you are suggesting they were purchased by PR specifically for murdering her daughter!!)
·
4) Burke Ramsey mentioned that whoever killed JonBenet took out a knife. At the time, that was not a publicly released fact. But a knife was involved. Burke Ramsey had a Swiss army knife, but he had a habit of whittling with it inside the house and leaving wood shavings all over, so Linda Hoffman-Pugh, the family housekeeper, took it away from him and put in a cabinet in the basement where he couldn't get to it. Only Burke, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, and Patsy knew where it was. The knife was not used as a weapon on JonBenet, but it was found near her body.
·
· 4a) I do not believe we have a quote from BR anywhere. There might be a third party quote (probably ST or LHP – LOL) to that effect though. How would BR know “whoever killed Jonbenet took out a knife”??
·
· We’ve been over this SAK before, and the one BR owned had his initials on it. Did the small knife with the broken ornament attached (that was taken into evidence) have his initials. Even if it WAS the same knife, it does not provide evidence of guilt.

5) JonBenet's body was treated tenderly after death, wrapped in a blanket like a papoose with her favorite nightgown inside with her.
·
· 5a) Anyone could have wrapped her for whatever reason. This is interesting but is not evidence AGAINST the Rs.

6) The garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim. It also allows for not touching the victim's body.
·
· 6a) Boy, a lot of assumptions here. Earlier someone from RDI was saying she had been killed like this so the killer COULD see her eyes. Whoever killed her though wasn’t averse to touching her body, as they did so in a very intimate way. No evidence here against the R’s either.

7) The autopsy report noted that JonBenet's wrists were tied with the same kind of cord that the ligature was made out of. It lists the length of cord between each wrist as 15-1/2 inches long. That's over a foot of space. Her arms were not tied together. They weren't tied behind her. The extra length wasn't attached to anything. There was over a foot of space between her arms! You're telling me that would have restrained her? Not only that, the cuffs on her wrists were so loose that they left no marks. One of them slipped right off of her arm when John Ramsey carried her up the stairs.
·
· 7a) I’ve addressed this previously. It was most likely that her arms were crossed in front of her and the ligature attached to each wrist and then behind her back in “straightjacket style”. This would have restrained her more than adequately, without the knots needing to be tied tightly and left 15 ½ inches between the knots. The arms were subsequently pulled above her head when she was lifted or dragged to the WC.

8) JonBenet had tape on her mouth when she was found. I guess this was supposed to give the impression that she had been gagged, but again, whoever did it did a lousy job. For one thing, it was not tied around her head. It wasn't even a long strip. It was a small square of tape. Thomas, in his book, describes what the forensic technicians found on the tape. They discovered that it contained a perfect print of JonBenet's lips. She had not made any attempt to fight against it. It also had bloody mucous from JonBenet's nose under it. The logical conclusion is that it had been put on after JonBenet was dead.
·
· 8a) There is no evidence of the size of the strip on her mouth. There is a strip of grey tape on the blanket shown in one of the photos (purportedly from her mouth – but this is not conclusive) that looks around 6-8” long. There was a picture of a very similar sized and shaped piece of tape posted, purporting to be the tape from her mouth. There is no perfect lip print on this tape. As well as this, in his deposition, ST admits that it was the conclusion of his fellow investigators (not forensics) that there was ‘a perfect set of lip prints’ on the tape. Likewise it cannot be concluded that the tape was applied after death. The tape issue is as yet unresolved on this forum. JR said the tape he was shown was not the tape on her mouth. This is no evidence of the R’s guilt regardless.

9) The ransom note contains motives that conflict with the crime and with each other. Pedophiles don't leave ransom notes.
·
· 9a) The RN contains many things that are inconsistent with the crime and with the Rs having written it. It is not evidence of their guilt.

10) When Patsy Ramsey greeted police on the morning after Christmas, she had on the same red sweater and black pants that she had worn to the party the night before. Her explanation has always been that since she wore them for only a short time, they were perfectly good to wear again. This does not jibe with what others have claimed. The family housekeeper, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, has claimed that the idea of wearing the same clothes twice in a row was repellent to Patsy. She had a full closet full of clothes and was described by her stepson, John Andrew Ramsey, as "flashy." Apparently, word reached her ears that the police were looking askance at this little fact, because she showed up to an interview wearing the same outfit she'd worn at a television appearance the day before. I forget specifically when this was, but Det. Thomas describes it in his own book. Her wearing the same clothes suggests she never went to sleep that night. Denver Post columnist Chuck Green wrote in December of 2006 that the investigators, having inspected her bedroom, felt "that her side of the Ramsey bed hadn't been slept in."
·
· 10a) As far as I am aware, it is not a crime to wear the same clothes two days running, or I would be in for a long stretch. How could Police tell if she slept in her bed or not? Perhaps she straightened it after arising or she might just be a ‘tidy’ sleeper. It is not evidence of their guilt.

11) Of all the examiners who studied the ransom note, not one could eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the author. Several highly-respected examiners, OTOH, said flat-out that she is the writer. Her own mother and sisters said it looked like her writing, as well.
·
· 11a) Source of the sisters comments pls? We’ve been over this note many times and many examiners have NOT concluded it was her writing, so this is not evidence of her guilt.

12) The cord around JonBenet's neck had a fair amount of slack in it between where it was tied to the cord and where it met her neck. To use it effectively, the person would have to pull the cord up over their head almost; or wrap it around their arm. Not a very practical job, on the whole. The autopsy photos present a grim and grisly image of JonBenet's neck squeezed into an hourglass from the strangulation. To the eye, it looks horrific. But the autopsy reveals that there were no marks on JonBenet's tongue or on the inside of her mouth that would indicate her to have fought her killer. The report also reveals that the larynx, the strap muscles of the neck and the hyoid bone were all undamaged. Also, the little girl's hair was tied into both the neck knot and the handle knot. This means that the garrote was made on her body, not prepared ahead of time.
·
· 12a) With JBR on the floor and 15” between the knot on her neck and the stick, how can you say the killer needed to” wrap it around their arm”. Nothing here indicates evidences of their guilt.

13) The vast majority of pathologists claim that JB's head was smashed long before any strangulation occurred. It makes no sense for an intruder to hang around to stage sexual assault and strangulation after that.
·
· 13a) The lack of bleeding inside the skull indicates otherwise. This is not evidence of their guilt.

14) JonBenet was most likely assaulted vaginally with the paintbrush handle, but the damage to her vagina was minimal. A true sexual predator would have done FAR more damage.
·
· 14a) There is nothing to indicate she was assaulted with a paintbrush handle. No tissue or blood on the stick as far as we know. This indicates the killer’s motive was most likely not primarily sexual. This is not evidence of the Rs guilt.

15) The profilers claimed that the person who wrote the ransom note was either a female or a very genteel male, 35-45 years-old, who grew up and went to school in the American South in the 1960s and 1970s. The note contains several grammatical touches that are not common among younger writers, such as putting periods between the letters of acronyms, which Patsy was known to do. The note also contains phrases like "fat cat" and "use good Southern common sense," which were known to be spoken to John Ramsey by Nedra Paugh, Patsy's mother.
·
· 15a) And a profiler could be completely incorrect. Another equally or better qualified profiler might have a different view. How many profilers are accurate in their assessments? What is their strike rate? We are yet to see evidence that the phrases “fat cat” and “use good southern common sense” were in common use in the household. This is not evidence against the Rs.

16) In 1997, a picture of JonBenet in the now-legendary Showgirl outfit turned up and it showed JonBenet with a huge, angry-looking bruise on her arm. In June 1998, a photo of Patsy and JonBenet was shown where Patsy could be seen holding JonBenet's arm so hard that her fingernails were digging into the arm.
·
· 16a) A photo could be “doctored” by a tabloid eager for increased circulation. The photo has not been checked for authenticity nor has it been ascertained that it was a bruise. Children injure themselves all the time. There is no history of abuse. This is not evidence of the Rs guilt.

17) No less than eight child abuse experts independently concluded that JonBenet had been abused sexually over a period of time. They pointed to specific issues like hymen damage, tissue erosion, and toughening, known as scarring. She also had severe bed-wetting and soiling problems, which are often a sign of an abused child.
·
· 17a) See my post on this issue. Bedwetting is not evidence of abuse. As far as we know, the soiling was due to poor wiping technique. This is not evidence of the Rs’ guilt.

18) Fibers from the Israeli-made black shirt John Ramsey was wearing at Fleet White's party were found in a rather compromising area: JonBenet's underwear.
·
· 18a) Fiber evidence was not substantiated. This is not evidence of the R’s guilt.

19) JonBenet was redressed after she was killed. What intruder would CARE about that?
·
· 19a) The intruder who killed JBR. This is not evidence of the Rs guilt.

19) Pineapple was found inside JonBenet's small intestine at the autopsy. The average rate of digestion for pineapple is two hours. Now, the Ramseys have always said that JonBenet fell asleep in the car on the way home and remained asleep until she was killed, but she would have had to have eaten it sometime after they got home.
·
· 19a) Possibly she did. This doesn’t indicate her parents killed her.

20) The Ramseys' stories are filled with inconsistencies. Most notably, about the heart drawn on JB's hand, Burke's voice on the 911 tape, and the ability to hear sounds within the house. The spiral iron staircase, for example, was horrendously noisy.
· 20a) All I will say in answer to this is “The plural of anecdote is not evidence”

 

[BOESP]

my bold

There is no evidence against any of the Rs. Simply being in the house does not automatically implicate the Rs in the death. This is the same as saying the neighbours would be the next suspects in line due to proximity.

I respectfully disagree as to "no evidence against any of the" Ramseys. We've been over the evidence for that many times. I'd be interested in knowing what examples of evidence you would consider to be so.

Actually, the neighbors would be close to being next in line, especially if they were friends as well. As far as is known, alll neighbors immediately cooperated with the investigation.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,

Well said. IDI theory is so full of holes, it requires abuse denial, invented evidence, eventually painting any IDI into a corner where they start citing nonsense in support of their theory.

Most of it is pretty familiar to me.

 

[BBB167893]

·1a) There is only evidence of 4 red fibers having been found on the tape that are ‘consistent with’ the red/black/grey jacket/sweater she was wearing. Given an opportunity to do so, the defence may be able to prove that this evidence is either inconclusive, flawed or indeed incorrect. That we have never seen the lab report or any evidence that one exists, is telling.

I'll tell you what's telling:

MR. LEVIN: I can state to you, Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of the scientific examination of fibers, that, based on the state of the art technology,
that I believe, based on testing, that fibers from your client's coat are in the paint tray.
MR. WOOD: Are you stating as a fact that they are from the coat or is it consistent with? What is the test result terminology? Is it conclusive? I mean, I think she is entitled to know that when you ask her to explain something.
MR. KANE: It is identical in all scientific respects.
MR. WOOD: What does that mean? Are you telling me it is conclusive?
MR. KANE: It is identical.
MR. WOOD: Are you saying it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: You can draw your own conclusions.
MR. WOOD: I am not going to draw my own conclusions.
MR. KANE: I am saying it is identical.
MR. WOOD: Well, what you are saying in terms of how you interpret a lab result may or may not be the lab result. If you have it, let's see it. I would be glad to let her answer a question about it, but I don't want to go into the area of where we are dealing with someone's interpretation of something that may not be a fact and have her explain something because she can't explain something that might be someone's opinion or someone's interpretation. She can try to answer something if you are stating it as a matter of fact.
MR. LEVIN: Well, I believe that Mr. Kane's statement is accurate as to what
the examiner would testify to.
MR. WOOD: Will he testify that it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: Yes.

That's all I need.

·That morning she was wearing the sweater she had on the previous evening. JR removed the tape from JBR’s mouth, FW picked it up and examined it and presumably (we don’t know for sure) dropped it again. It is not inconceivable that they both comforted (hugged) her at some time and a small number of fibers were transferred to their hands and clothes.

PR's own words dug her deeper. Instead of using the possiblities you list, she came up with a story that her own book (which I assume she had a chance to read beforehand) contradicts. I hope she asked her lawyer for her money back if she gave him any.

·The blanket JBR was wrapped in was on her bed the previous night (and probably for several nights) and as PR wore that sweater the previous evening fibers could easily have been transferred. In fact, if given the opportunity to closely examine this jacket it may well be discovered that it is of a type that freely sheds and it is not inconceivable that fibers from it could be in many locations within the house and on her possessions.

Except it DIDN'T. That's my whole point: since the fibers were only found in the areas I mentioned, it's safe to assume that they got there through direct contact during the commission of the crime.

She does not need to account for fibers from her clothes being in her own house, this is nonsense and in no way is evidence of her guilt.

We're not ASKING her to account for fibers "in her own house." We're asking her to account for fibers that were ONLY FOUND on things she claimed were never IN her house before that night and were taken out immediately afterwards. If you don't see the problem there, I'm at a loss to explain it to you.

·On the other hand, fibers that are in positions on the body and at the crime scene for which are unable to be sourced to anything in the house are more likely to indicate the possibility of an unknown person having been involved.

IF you could somehow prove they were depositied THAT NIGHT. See, that's one thing PR's fibers have over everything else: we KNOW they were there that night.

2a) Think about it--to me someone would avoid stepping on paper placed on a step, as you are likely to slip. It is not easily possible to bend down and pick up paper from the step below where you feet are placed. You would avoid that step, go to the next step and turn and pick it up. How hard would that be? If a Police officer could not re-create her story, perhaps they either weren’t trying or they had the story wrong. Nonsense and no evidence of guilt.

I don't think you quite understand. This was not a regular staircase; this was a narrow, steep spiral staircase. Several different police officers tried to recreate her story, and everyone of them failed.

3a) As they do not know what tape and cord was used, this is just speculation.

You have a point. It's possible no tape or cord was bought from that store.

If they thought it was evidence that would stand up in Court they would have used it.

Don't forget who you're talking about. This is the Boulder DA. He'd need a video of the crime just to file charges.

This is an invention of a tabloid ably assisted by ST.

You're wasting my time with that.

It does not explain why these items were not found in the house or having been used for any other purpose (unless you are suggesting they were purchased by PR specifically for murdering her daughter!!)

I'm not suggesting that (although there are people who have).

4a) I do not believe we have a quote from BR anywhere.

If I remember correctly, it was in one of his early interviews.

How would BR know “whoever killed Jonbenet took out a knife”??

That's EXACTLY what the cops wanted to know!

We’ve been over this SAK before, and the one BR owned had his initials on it.

According to who?

Did the small knife with the broken ornament attached (that was taken into evidence) have his initials. Even if it WAS the same knife, it does not provide evidence of guilt.

It provides evidence of guilt in that whomever did it knew where the knife was. And according to LHP, only she, Patsy and Burke knew.

5a) Anyone could have wrapped her for whatever reason.

Even if I were to agree with that, the most obvious answer is usually the right one. And the most obvious answer is an emotional attachment to the victim.

This is interesting but is not evidence AGAINST the Rs.

Like hell! It's a CLASSIC sign of parental remorse. That's not just my opinion, either. That's what the FBI told the cops.

6a) Boy, a lot of assumptions here. Earlier someone from RDI was saying she had been killed like this so the killer COULD see her eyes.

You'll have to remind me who that was.

Whoever killed her though wasn’t averse to touching her body, as they did so in a very intimate way.

You'll have to be more specific, because I'm not sure what you mean.

7a) I’ve addressed this previously.

Yeah, and I doubt you'd like what I have to say about it!

It was most likely that her arms were crossed in front of her and the ligature attached to each wrist and then behind her back in “straightjacket style”. This would have restrained her more than adequately, without the knots needing to be tied tightly and left 15 ½ inches between the knots. The arms were subsequently pulled above her head when she was lifted or dragged to the WC.

I don't figure that AT ALL. Talk about a lot of assumptions. Since the knots were so loose, it doesn't wash that she was dragged or anything of the sort. Also, where were the marks from the cord on her wrists?

8a) There is no evidence of the size of the strip on her mouth. There is a strip of grey tape on the blanket shown in one of the photos (purportedly from her mouth – but this is not conclusive) that looks around 6-8” long.

YOU say. I don't see that at all.

There is no perfect lip print on this tape. As well as this, in his deposition, ST admits that it was the conclusion of his fellow investigators (not forensics) that there was ‘a perfect set of lip prints’ on the tape.

Except they probably DID test it. I did an experiment where I tested the results of duct tape applied without struggling vs. struggling. The results were elightening to say the least.

Likewise it cannot be concluded that the tape was applied after death.

Oh, no? Aside from the undisturbed lip prints, it had bloody mucus from JB's nose UNDER it. If you have an explanation for that, I'd sure like to hear it.

The tape issue is as yet unresolved on this forum.

Only for you.

JR said the tape he was shown was not the tape on her mouth.

I'm sure he did.

9a) The RN contains many things that are inconsistent with the crime

My point exactly.

and with the Rs having written it.

Such as?

10a) As far as I am aware, it is not a crime to wear the same clothes two days running, or I would be in for a long stretch.

That's a little more information than I needed, Murri. No one is saying that it's a crime to do that. But WHY would she do it when the idea was so repulsive to her UNLESS she never went to sleep.

How could Police tell if she slept in her bed or not? Perhaps she straightened it after arising or she might just be a ‘tidy’ sleeper.

I suppose you could ask them.

11a) Source of the sisters comments pls?

Ask and ye shall receive!

"..the other woman who rushed to Patsy's side that morning, Priscilla White, was also suspicious, said Polly. Priscilla had been seen copying Patsy's Daytimer calendar, and Polly said that might explain how someone's handwriting might be duplicated, perhaps on a ransom note." (Thomas 2000:137-138).

We’ve been over this note many times and many examiners have NOT concluded it was her writing, so this is not evidence of her guilt.

They didn't conclude it with COURTROOM CERTAINTY. They eliminated everyone else. I'm reminded of Sherlock Holmes right now...

12a) With JBR on the floor and 15” between the knot on her neck and the stick, how can you say the killer needed to” wrap it around their arm”.

That's what Werner Spitz said about it. He said that for the killer to hold her down with one arm, if they were pulling on it with the handle, it would be totally impractical and inefficient. You'd have to get closer to the loop to be effective. More to the point, this is where IDI totally F's themselves, because they would have us believe that the killer was strangling JB with one hand while they molested her with the other. They'd need THREE HANDS! Plus she was supposed to be struggling while this was going on. Last I checked, I didn't have the word "stupid" branded on my forehead!

13a) The lack of bleeding inside the skull indicates otherwise.

Excuse me? No matter how many times I hear that "lack of bleeding" garbage, it never ceases to GALL me. You DID read the autopsy report, did you not? It describes THREE SEPARATE areas of bleeding, one of which was the size of a chair doily.

Werner Spitz: "someone took time to stage strangulation and sexual assault when she was unconscious."

Tom Henry: "basically a blood clot in the brain."

Henry Lee: "head wound was fully developed."

Ronald Wright: "She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled; 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation."

Even IF you were right, even massive head wounds are known to bleed very litte:

Kerry Brega, chief neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center, said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have any bleeding. "We see a lot of people with skull fractures without bleeds in the brain, and they didn't all get strangled on the way in," she said. "So it is actually possible to get a skull fracture without getting an underlying bleed in the brain."

It's not just the bleeding in the brain. It was the lack of defensive injuries as well. I'll tell you what, Murri: the next time Ames comes around here, why don't you ASK her what being strangled does to you?

14a) There is nothing to indicate she was assaulted with a paintbrush handle.

Oh, no?

John McCann: "the injury appeared to have been caused by a relatively small, very firm object which, due to the area of bruising, had made very forceful contact not only with the hymen, but also with the tissues surrounding the hymen. McCann believed that the object was forcefully jabbed in – not just shoved in. Although the bruised area would indicate something about the size of a finger nail, he did not believe it was a finger, because of the well demarcated edges of the bruise indicating an object much firmer than a finger. McCann also noted that in children of this age group the labia, or vaginal lips, remain closed until literally manually separated. In order for there to be an injury to the hymen without injuring the labia, the labia would have to be manually separated before the object was inserted.

No tissue or blood on the stick as far as we know.

Not on the part that was found, anyway.

This indicates the killer’s motive was most likely not primarily sexual.

That's SOMETHING we can agree on!

15a) And a profiler could be completely incorrect. Another equally or better qualified profiler might have a different view.

Just telling you what they said.

How many profilers are accurate in their assessments? What is their strike rate?

The ones I mentioned (Ressler, DePue, McCrary) have a pretty good rate, from what I understand.

We are yet to see evidence that the phrases “fat cat” and “use good southern common sense” were in common use in the household.

I could have sworn we just went over that not too long ago.

16a) A photo could be “doctored” by a tabloid eager for increased circulation.

Murri, you disappoint me. I expect so much better than conspiracy theories!

The photo has not been checked for authenticity nor has it been ascertained that it was a bruise.

Have you SEEN it?

Children injure themselves all the time.

Sure. Hey, when I was a kid, I was always getting into trouble. You don't seem to get what I'm saying though. There is a connection here.

There is no history of abuse.

We'll get to that. Don't you worry.

17a) See my post on this issue.

I have. Didn't think much of it, for a lot of different reasons.

Bedwetting is not evidence of abuse.

maybe not by itself, HINT HINT.

As far as we know, the soiling was due to poor wiping technique.

Well, this is from Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, stating she had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of the investigation; in 2006 she stated: "There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith....While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions."

18a)Fiber evidence was not substantiated.

Sure it was! JR nearly s*** his pants when he found out! Like my father used to say, "a hit dog barks."

19a) The intruder who killed JBR.

Hardy-*ing-har! I'm glad you find this so amusing. I assure you, I do not.

19a) Possibly she did. This doesn’t indicate her parents killed her.

It indicates they lied. Thus, we have to ask: "what ELSE are they lying about?"

20a)All I will say in answer to this is “The plural of anecdote is not evidence”

Neither is anything you've provided.

I admit, you do a good job of arguing the points individually. But that's kind of my point. I think the FBI said it best: "taken alone, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evidentiary granite."

I was like you once, Murri. But not anymore!

 

[OpenMind4U]

Who am I to say if it is possible, OpenMind4U. I have never claimed to be any kind of expert, and I try to point it out often.

But if I understand you correctly, you are saying that someone was playing a game (as in, acting out a fantasy?) based on making JonBenet like a Barbie Doll. So if that is what you are saying, I would ask the following questions:

What was the purpose in the game?
Was it sexual gratification of some sort?
How did the unexpected/accidental head blow happen; and who did it, and why?
Was it part of the game you imagine?

I can't say I agree with you on any of it, but I think I see where you are going with it.
.

OTG,

Yes, you did understand me correctly. I believe cords and knots were used in a sexually-controlled 'fantasy' game. And it's not necessarily that her hands and neck were 'attached' to the screen door...they could have been attached to any other vertical surface (for example, to the ladder) as long as the cord attachments can be pulled horizontally to control JBR into standing still position.

'What was the purpose in the game?'
I call it the 'Barbie Doll' game because it's exactly how PR has ‘shaped’ and promoted JBR in the eyes of the ‘player’: the glamorous clothing, sophisticated hats, overused cosmetics, grown-up postures, and sexual gestures. This is what PR ‘accepted’ as the ‘norm’. JBR was the child Doll who has been transformed into "sexy Barbie". In my theory, the person who plays this 'game' that night (and possibly other times), wasn't playing it with JBR-child but rather with JBR-Barbie-woman. Pedophile? Nope. IMO, this was not the satisfaction-by-asphyxiation driven act but simply CONTROL-punishment game which can provide 'the sexual gratification of some sort' to some kind of attention deprived, low self-esteem, weak, angered and jealous individual. And it was done by facing JBR to see the result of his control.

'How did the unexpected/accidental head blow happen?
The game was getting rough, inflicting pain; JBR screams…the ‘player’ hit JBR (not on the head, just poke her on the cheek with the ‘missing’ part of the paintbrush which just has been used for other purpose, leaving round abrasion on her right side). JBR is losing control, the ladder (or metal screen, or other supportive ‘box’) has been fallen right on the top of the metal cans. JBR's head hits hard on the edge of metal paint can. The wooden ‘garrote’ has been stocked into a ladder/screen ‘box’, the knot loop tides her neck and she hangs upside down, strangled and unconscious.

Who did it, and why? JBR and her brother Burke just played their usual Barbie game, in their usual WC ‘hidden’ place. It was an accident.
Therefore, the floor in WC has been so clean…no footprints from housekeeper and/or her husband…nothing, like people had never walked into this closet for years(not possible)…The Act II is ‘staging’.
Sorry, I probably should post this in the ‘theory’ discussion folder. Above is JMO based on ‘wild’ imagination…

 

[MurriFlower]

OTG,

Yes, you did understand me correctly. I believe cords and knots were used in a sexually-controlled 'fantasy' game. And it's not necessarily that her hands and neck were 'attached' to the screen door...they could have been attached to any other vertical surface (for example, to the ladder) as long as the cord attachments can be pulled horizontally to control JBR into standing still position.

'What was the purpose in the game?'
I call it the 'Barbie Doll' game because it's exactly how PR has ‘shaped’ and promoted JBR in the eyes of the ‘player’: the glamorous clothing, sophisticated hats, overused cosmetics, grown-up postures, and sexual gestures. This is what PR ‘accepted’ as the ‘norm’. JBR was the child Doll who has been transformed into "sexy Barbie". In my theory, the person who plays this 'game' that night (and possibly other times), wasn't playing it with JBR-child but rather with JBR-Barbie-woman. Pedophile? Nope. IMO, this was not the satisfaction-by-asphyxiation driven act but simply CONTROL-punishment game which can provide 'the sexual gratification of some sort' to some kind of attention deprived, low self-esteem, weak, angered and jealous individual. And it was done by facing JBR to see the result of his control.

'How did the unexpected/accidental head blow happen?
The game was getting rough, inflicting pain; JBR screams…the ‘player’ hit JBR (not on the head, just poke her on the cheek with the ‘missing’ part of the paintbrush which just has been used for other purpose, leaving round abrasion on her right side). JBR is losing control, the ladder (or metal screen, or other supportive ‘box’) has been fallen right on the top of the metal cans. JBR's head hits hard on the edge of metal paint can. The wooden ‘garrote’ has been stocked into a ladder/screen ‘box’, the knot loop tides her neck and she hangs upside down, strangled and unconscious.

Who did it, and why? JBR and her brother Burke just played their usual Barbie game, in their usual WC ‘hidden’ place. It was an accident.
Therefore, the floor in WC has been so clean…no footprints from housekeeper and/or her husband…nothing, like people had never walked into this closet for years(not possible)…The Act II is ‘staging’.
Sorry, I probably should post this in the ‘theory’ discussion folder. Above is JMO based on ‘wild’ imagination…

Yes, you certainly seem to have a very active imagination!!

 

[MurriFlower]

Duplicated post, sorry folks!

 

[MurriFlower]

I'll tell you what's telling:

MR. LEVIN: I can state to you, Mr. Wood, that, given the current state of the scientific examination of fibers, that, based on the state of the art technology,
that I believe, based on testing, that fibers from your client's coat are in the paint tray.
MR. WOOD: Are you stating as a fact that they are from the coat or is it consistent with? What is the test result terminology? Is it conclusive? I mean, I think she is entitled to know that when you ask her to explain something.
MR. KANE: It is identical in all scientific respects.
MR. WOOD: What does that mean? Are you telling me it is conclusive?
MR. KANE: It is identical.
MR. WOOD: Are you saying it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: You can draw your own conclusions.
MR. WOOD: I am not going to draw my own conclusions.
MR. KANE: I am saying it is identical.
MR. WOOD: Well, what you are saying in terms of how you interpret a lab result may or may not be the lab result. If you have it, let's see it. I would be glad to let her answer a question about it, but I don't want to go into the area of where we are dealing with someone's interpretation of something that may not be a fact and have her explain something because she can't explain something that might be someone's opinion or someone's interpretation. She can try to answer something if you are stating it as a matter of fact.
MR. LEVIN: Well, I believe that Mr. Kane's statement is accurate as to what
the examiner would testify to.
MR. WOOD: Will he testify that it is a conclusive match?
MR. KANE: Yes.

That's all I need.



PR's own words dug her deeper. Instead of using the possiblities you list, she came up with a story that her own book (which I assume she had a chance to read beforehand) contradicts. I hope she asked her lawyer for her money back if she gave him any.



Except it DIDN'T. That's my whole point: since the fibers were only found in the areas I mentioned, it's safe to assume that they got there through direct contact during the commission of the crime.



We're not ASKING her to account for fibers "in her own house." We're asking her to account for fibers that were ONLY FOUND on things she claimed were never IN her house before that night and were taken out immediately afterwards. If you don't see the problem there, I'm at a loss to explain it to you.



IF you could somehow prove they were depositied THAT NIGHT. See, that's one thing PR's fibers have over everything else: we KNOW they were there that night.

THE FIBERS

1. Mr Levin states that he believes fibers from PR's coat are in the paint tray.
2. Mr Kane states they are identical "in all scientific respects".
3. Mr Wood asks to see the lab report.
4. Mr Levin says he believes Mr Kane's statement that the lab technician would testify that it was a conclusive match.
5. Mr Wood asks if the lab technician will testify that it was a conclusive match.
6. Mr Kane replies "yes".

Cute!!

No lab report was produced. No evidence.

If the fibers were only found in one area, as you assert, (and if this is a fact) means that they either may have been in other areas but were not found, or not looked for. It doesn't mean they weren't there.

The only place we know of that had fibers consistent with her coat (that were on an item they didn't own) were the four (4) red fibers on the tape. As discussed, two people who handled the tape also handled the coat, so this is not evidence.

In any event, had they been charged and gone to trial, there would have been an opportunity for the defence to have their own lab technicians look at the fibers and more than likely testify that there was no conclusive match. It would then be up to the jury to decide which 'expert' they were prepared to believe.

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes, you certainly seem to have a very active imagination!!

Once again, we agree!

 

[MurriFlower]

Boy, Murri, when you ask a good question, you really know how to get to the heart of whether or not someone knows what they’re talking about. So here goes. I’ll answer as best I can.

I don’t think anyone is really going to care much to follow along with the elaborate calculations involved in figuring this, but I’ll go through it since you asked -- just for the record. Not knowing some measurements, lengths, or distances, I’ll have to estimate some things. I don’t know JonBenet’s exact height, so for this I’ll estimate about four and half feet (1.37 metres for you ). There are pipes running throughout the basement, so we don’t know exactly how high any one particular pipe might be from the floor. We do know that most doors are about 6’, so take a look at these photos and see if you’ll allow me to use 6’ for my estimate of a possible distance from the floor.

Okay, let’s go through the calculations with some rough estimates:

Height of pipe from floor = ~6’ (1.8m) (see above photo of top of door to ceiling, and relative height of pipe)
Height of JBR = ~4.5’ -- my estimate (1.4m)
Distance from top of head to neck = ~8” -- my estimate (0.7m)
Length of cord coming from neck knot = 17” -- from AR (0.4m)
Length of cord from left wrist knot = ~4” -- estimated from photo (0.1m)
Wraps around 5/8” paintbrush = ~10 -- estimated from photo
Length of cord around paintbrush = 0.625” x 3.1415 x 10 = ~19.5” (0.5m)
Excess cord cut off paintbrush knot when completed = unknown (This could be anywhere from 1” to even as much as 2’, because once the cut cord was wrapped around the paintbrush and tied off, the excess was simply cut off.)
Total length of cord coming from neck knot to left wrist knot if one piece = 4” + 17” + 19.5” + at least 1” to 24 excess at paintbrush knot = at least 41.5” to 65” (~3.5’ to 5.5’, or one to 1.5 meters)

So if the neck of a child standing at 4.5’ was ~3’-10” from the floor, an overhead pipe would have to be twice the distance away of the length of the cord for it to be long enough to double over the pipe (6’ - 3’-10” = 2’-2”; 2’-2” x 2 = 4’-4”). So this 4’-4” is about halfway between the calculated length of cord needed to satisfy the possibility of it being used as I suggest. Add a few inches to that if you’d like to figure that her left wrist was probably a little below her neck when restrained.




That’s an excellent point, but her full weight would not have been pulling on her wrist if she was standing on the floor and the cord was over a pipe. Approximate weight of body minus legs = ~3/4?, and that weight would be divided by two to evenly distribute it between the two sides of cord. So, 0.75 x 45-lbs. = ~33-34 lbs., divided by two would put ~15 to 17 pounds pulling on the left wrist. The knot on the left wrist was not a slip knot, so there would be no tightening of the ligature around her wrist, only half the total weight of about 34 lbs. on the one side of wrist. It would only be anyone’s guess as to whether or not there should have been any noted damage (which we know, there was not on the AR). Also, you have to take into consideration that it was probably tied around the sleeve of her blouse which would act as a pad against any bruising or abrasive type injury, and the pulling of her arm would prevent it from being a sudden jolt or jerk of the cord.



Yes, absolutely! Take a look at the many types of putters available (LINK). There were at least two sets of golf clubs in the house. John had a Ping (brand name) set according to Patsy, but then, many golfers have a separate brand/type of putter because of a personal preference. So we don’t know what type of putter was available, or might have been used. Most putters weigh less than one pound, but understand the principle of total weight concentration in a small area (back tip of putter). Imagine a 12” x 12”, square cube weighing ten pounds placed on your stomach. You would hardly even feel it because of the distribution of the weight. However, if you were to balance that ten pounds on its corner on top of your stomach, the full ten pounds would be concentrated in that one small corner, and it would be very uncomfortable. That’s because of the distribution of the weight. So if the full ~3/4-lb. weight of a putter were swung through the air hitting someone on the head, it would do almost unimaginable damage in one small area, and yes, it would have the potential to displace a small oblong section of skull without so much as a scrape on the surface of the scalp if it hit straight on.

Also, I don’t have to remind anyone here that Burke had used a putter once before on his sister, requiring her be treated at the doctor’s office. (And where did that injury happen on her?)




John (from reports, at least) specifically asked that his golf clubs be brought to him after he had left his home. Steve Thomas wrote that when he heard that John had asked for them, he questioned why a man whose daughter had just been killed would be wanting to play golf in the dead of winter.

As to the second part of the question, see above answer.

Murri, I congratulate you, and I thank you. Those were very good questions, and to tell you the truth, I hadn’t gone through an actual calculation of the length of cord required to see if it would work. I just pictured in my mind that it was within the realm of possibility without actually having to take a hard look at the specifics.

Anything else?
.

I've worked out through tedious calculation (only to have my post lost) that there was around 7ft of cord at most. JBR was 4ft high, the pipe is at least 6ft 8" (door height) above the ground. There is not enough cord to go be tied to JBR, go over the pipe and back and tied to JBR again. She could have been tied with one string going over the pipe, or she could have been standing on the chair.

BTW, the picture you posted is of the storeroom adjacent to the laundry. The supposed (but now debunked) theory of where she was killed was in the hallway off the wine cellar.

 

[MurriFlower]

Murriflower:
2a) Think about it--to me someone would avoid stepping on paper placed on a step, as you are likely to slip. It is not easily possible to bend down and pick up paper from the step below where you feet are placed. You would avoid that step, go to the next step and turn and pick it up. How hard would that be? If a Police officer could not re-create her story, perhaps they either weren’t trying or they had the story wrong. Nonsense and no evidence of guilt.

Superdave: I don't think you quite understand. This was not a regular staircase; this was a narrow, steep spiral staircase. Several different police officers tried to recreate her story, and everyone of them failed.

I understand perfectly, I think it's you who are having a problem.

Please stand on a step and pick up something from the step below where you are standing. How do you do it? With difficulty?

Now, step over the next step and turn around and pick up something from the step above where you are standing. Easier?

Here's a good party trick, folks. Kneel on the floor with a pencil in one hand. Use the other hand, made into a fist, with the elbow against one knee, place the pencil against your knuckles (make like a T). Now, without changing your position, put both hands behind your back and lean forward and touch your nose to the pencil.

Please let me know the results.

 

[MurriFlower]

My responses in blue.

Murriflower: 3a) As they do not know what tape and cord was used, this is just speculation.

SuperDave: You have a point. It's possible no tape or cord was bought from that store.

Finally!! A credit card for an amount does not equal evidence of the purchase of some incriminating items. You know it and they knew it.
MurriFlower:If they thought it was evidence that would stand up in Court they would have used it.

SuperDave: Don't forget who you're talking about. This is the Boulder DA. He'd need a video of the crime just to file charges.

Don't give me that. Simpletons would be able to see that it would be laughed out of a courtroom

MurriFlower: This is an invention of a tabloid ably assisted by ST.

SuperDave: You're wasting my time with that.

I believe that it's true, although sadly I don't have time to find the quote at present. One of the tabloids got hold of their credit card statements and went to the hardware store (and probably everywhere else they had purchased stuff) and found some tape and cord that came to the amount of one of the charges and then gave the information to ST who went all out to try to prove it -- unsuccessfully.


MurriFlower: It does not explain why these items were not found in the house or having been used for any other purpose (unless you are suggesting they were purchased by PR specifically for murdering her daughter!!)

SuperDave: I'm not suggesting that (although there are people who have).

Hmm. Well, ST had this charge that he thought was for the tape and cord purchased at the hardware store. How long was it purchased before the murder? Was it used anywhere else? You usually don't just go and buy cord and tape and then leave it in the package, you get them in order to use them for some particular purpose. It's been suggested that the tape was on her pictures, but it proved to have been put there by the picture framer and was of a different type to that on her mouth, but made for good skuttlebutt.

 

[MurriFlower]

My responses in blue

4a) I do not believe we have a quote from BR anywhere.

If I remember correctly, it was in one of his early interviews.

I've never seen one of his interviews. Where can I access them?
Quote:
How would BR know “whoever killed Jonbenet took out a knife”??

That's EXACTLY what the cops wanted to know!

Hmmm, that's a weird answer.

Quote:
We’ve been over this SAK before, and the one BR owned had his initials on it.

According to who?

His mother described it in an interview.

Quote:
Did the small knife with the broken ornament attached (that was taken into evidence) have his initials. Even if it WAS the same knife, it does not provide evidence of guilt.

It provides evidence of guilt in that whomever did it knew where the knife was. And according to LHP, only she, Patsy and Burke knew.

My question is, IS IT THE SAME KNIFE, not who knew where BRs knife was? If so it will have his initials on it.

 

[MurriFlower]

My responses in blue.

5a) Anyone could have wrapped her for whatever reason.

Even if I were to agree with that, the most obvious answer is usually the right one. And the most obvious answer is an emotional attachment to the victim.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. It doesn't take an emotional attachment to regret one's action when the heat of the moment passes.

Quote:
This is interesting but is not evidence AGAINST the Rs.

Like hell! It's a CLASSIC sign of parental remorse. That's not just my opinion, either. That's what the FBI told the cops.

Oh, come on, an IDI could have had an emotional attachment, real or in his own mind, it may have even been the reason for the murder. We've also discussed the fact that the wrapping may have been done by an accomplice.

 

[otg]

I've worked out through tedious calculation (only to have my post lost) that there was around 7ft of cord at most. JBR was 4ft high, the pipe is at least 6ft 8" (door height) above the ground. There is not enough cord to go be tied to JBR, go over the pipe and back and tied to JBR again. She could have been tied with one string going over the pipe, or she could have been standing on the chair.

BTW, the picture you posted is of the storeroom adjacent to the laundry. The supposed (but now debunked) theory of where she was killed was in the hallway off the wine cellar.

I only posted two pictures to show that there are at least some pipe running at about the same level as the top of the door. There are at least several other basement pictures floating around that show overhead pipes running all over the place. I don’t know exactly where she died, or what was overhead wherever that was; and I certainly don’t know all of the measurements of the ceiling and door heights of that particular basement or the different rooms in it. Nor do I know for certain (though it was my guess) that she was not standing on anything. If she was, I don’t think it would have been anything very high, or there would have been more damage to her throat internally. Also, as I stated to start, I didn’t know JonBenet’s exact height. You say it was 4’ -- I’ll take your word for that because you seem certain of it.

I guess what it all comes down to is that there is a lot that we don’t know with certainty that can make a difference one way or another. You asked if the cord would be long enough to do what I felt the evidence was saying, and I tried to calculate it with as much information as I had, and I noted where I had to estimate. I still feel that with what we know (and what we know that we don’t know), there would be enough cord to make my theory of how it happened plausible -- even if most people don’t even want to consider the possibility. I’m not married to a theory, and I won’t try to slant what I know in an attempt to change the outcome. I believe in letting the evidence speak for itself even if we don’t have enough evidence to be right. I’m just looking at the best information we have and telling you what I think it means. And though you and I may disagree on many things, I’ll listen to candid and logical disagreement any time, and consider the alternatives with an open mind. Who knows -- you may convince me one day to agree with you, or I may convince you to agree with me. Wouldn’t that be great?!

One more thing (I feel like Columbo now)... I don’t think the supposed spot where JonBenet died was really “debunked”, it was only identified as “questionable” because the “urine stain” came from only one source apparently, and somehow got accepted as a fact over the years. That doesn’t make it not true -- just not confirmed. Just goes to show how hungry we all are for information we can use, eh?
.

 

[MurriFlower]

My responses in blue

6a) Boy, a lot of assumptions here. Earlier someone from RDI was saying she had been killed like this so the killer COULD see her eyes.

You'll have to remind me who that was.

Can't remember, one of you RDIs.

Quote:
Whoever killed her though wasn’t averse to touching her body, as they did so in a very intimate way.

You'll have to be more specific, because I'm not sure what you mean.

I'm referring to the person who undressed her, tied her up, strangled her, bashed her head in and digitally penetrated her, redressed her, moved her to the wine cellar and wrapped her in a blanket. I'm thinking there was a bit of touching going on here.