Forensic linguistics, weapon of the JIDI knight

[Holdontoyourhat]

Photos of other strangulation victims have exactly the same marks. Abrasions can also be rubs- they don't have to be a scrape.

The ligature strangulation was authentic and not staged. Thats why there are abrasions AND petechial hemorrhaging on the anterior surface of her neck, at the exact location of the ligature furrow.

 

[BBB167893]

All I can say is...you and your examiners have a go at it then.

And what is that supposed to mean?

I can't really justify any of my own personal time on theories where the ligature was applied to an unresponsive person, because of the large abrasions and under-the-skin hemorrhaging on her neck.

I can, and I'll be glad to help you out.

If you choose to that's obviously your right. Its too bad though because you have a lot of case knowledge accumulated.

Don't patronize me, HOTYH.

 

[BBB167893]

Its one thing if you believe abrasions aren't abrasions. Its quite another for a professional to believe they dont exist.

Boy, talk about putting words in the mouths of others! None of the pros EVER said the abrasions don't exist. If that's what your hang-up was, I'm glad we got it out of the way!

How embarrassing for them. Had they never read the autopsy report or what?

Quite the contrary, HOTYH. I KNOW they read the autopsy report. Some of them even conducted their own experiments.

BTW what do you suppose caused all these abrasions (scrapes) on JBR's neck, at the exact site of the ligature?

Are you kidding? I'd expect the ligature to leave a mark where it was drawn taut, if for no other reason than the skin bulging around it. As for the large one in front (assuming DD's wrong), as I said before, JB was wearing a gold chain. When the ligature was drawn tight, it most likely dragged it across the throat.

And why did you call them minor?

Because compared to the marks found on people who were strangled to death while they WERE conscious and fighting, they WERE.

I suggest you pay attention to what DD says, HOTYH. She's got a lot to say.

 

[BBB167893]

According to John Douglas it didn't match.

"According to John Douglas." That's all I need to hear. You're awfully quick to take the word of someone who made a decision without having access to any evidence, CathyR.

At least not enough to say undoubtedly.

The problem, CathyR, is that document examiners often can't say undoubtedly even when there IS a match. It's the nature of the beast.

If it was a match they would not have need to consult a linguist.

It's a fair bit more complicated than that, CathyR. At the time, linguistics were the big thing while handwriting analysis was on the decline. It was considered only wise to have both. That's why they went for it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Are you kidding? I'd expect the ligature to leave a mark where it was drawn taut, if for no other reason than the skin bulging around it. As for the large one in front (assuming DD's wrong), as I said before, JB was wearing a gold chain. When the ligature was drawn tight, it most likely dragged it across the throat.

A mark? You mean like one mark, right? I can only suggest that you reread the autopsy report which states several abrasions and petechial hemorrhaging both large and small, exactly above, below, and beneath the ligature furrow on the anterior surface of her neck.

How do you justify summarizing all those injuries to JBR's neck as a single mark?
This is going to be interesting.

BTW it is not 'most likely' that a chain caused the 1 1/2" scrape on her neck.

 

[BBB167893]

A mark? You mean like one mark, right?

I didn't stutter.

Would you please read the autopsy report which states several abrasions and petechial hemorrhaging both large and small, exactly above, below, and beneath the ligature furrow on the anterior surface of her neck.

I did.

How do you justify summarizing all those the injuries to JBR's neck as a single mark?

I DON'T! I was describing the uniformly horizontal mark on JB's neck from the cord. I addressed the other ones separately.

This is going to be interesting.

Sorry to disappoint you.

BTW it is not 'most likely' that a chain caused the 1 1/2" scrape on her neck.

Why the he** not? What do YOU think it was?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Are you kidding? I'd expect the ligature to leave a mark where it was drawn taut, if for no other reason than the skin bulging around it. As for the large one in front (assuming DD's wrong), as I said before, JB was wearing a gold chain. When the ligature was drawn tight, it most likely dragged it across the throat.

"I'd expect the ligature to leave a mark" OK thats one mark.
"As for the large one in front." OK thats two marks.

But the autopsy doesn't talk about two "marks". It talks about several abrasions and petechial hemorrhages.

Why are you mimizing the injuries to JBR's neck, characterizing them only as two "marks" instead of abrasions?
And further characterizing their cause as "most likely" incidental. Do you really get people to buy this?

 

[BBB167893]

"I'd expect the ligature to leave a mark" OK thats one mark.
"As for the large one in front." OK thats two marks.

But the autopsy doesn't talk about two "marks". It talks about several abrasions and petechial hemorrhages.

(As Lieutenant Dan): Yes, I know that.

Why are you mimizing the injuries to JBR's neck, characterizing them only as two "marks" instead of abrasions?

I'm taking them one at a time. I'm not minimizing anything. If anything, I'm waiting for an explanation as to why you're minimizing and ignoring the head wound and the professionals.

And further characterizing their cause as "most likely" incidental.

I don't remember saying it was incidental.

Do you really get people to buy this?

Number one, HOTYH, you have it just the other way around. This is what LE has gotten ME to believe. Number two, as for whether or not I get people to believe it, you'd have to ask them.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There's proof JBR was alive when strangled: petechial hemorrhaging.
There's proof of resistance against the cord: multiple abrasions large and small in several places on the anterior neck surface, exactly at the ligature site.

Without the abrasions and petechiae, prima facie says JBR was strangled to death in a deliberate act. The abrasions, petechiae, knotted cord, and her hair entwined are mutually corroborative, and thus provide adequate proof that the ligature was not staging, but instead used to kill JBR.

Its not my fault if you believe "most likely' a chain got in the way of someone fixing a ligature on an unconscious person.

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[BBB167893]

There's proof JBR was alive when strangled: petechial hemorrhaging.

Yes, we've established that. I'm not arguing that.

There's proof of resistance against the cord: multiple abrasions large and small in several places on the anterior neck surface, exactly at the ligature site.

If that's your proof, I wish you the best. I'm going to need a bit more than that, and I've told you what would help.

Without the abrasions and petechiae, prima facie says JBR was strangled to death in a deliberate act.

Of course the ACT was deliberate. The question is, "what was it intended to do?"

The abrasions, petechiae, knotted cord, and her hair entwined are mutually corroborative,

I'm afraid you'll have to explain how.

and thus provide adequate proof that the ligature was not staging, but instead used to kill JBR.

What we have here is failure to communicate, HOTYH. Yes, we know it KILLED her. But was that the intent? If I might make a small recommendation: you're looking at this in black-and-white a little too much. Either JB was already dead, and that's the only way it could be staging, because if she were alive, she'd be fighting. But that's not necessarily how it goes. She could have been alive, yes, but would have appeared to be dead to the person. That would still count as staging. Think about it, man.

Its not my fault if you believe "most likely' a chain got in the way of someone fixing a ligature on an unconscious person.

I never said it was your fault. There are several reasons for me to believe that, and you aren't one of them.

You can lead a horse to water...

Don't I know it!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If that's your proof, I wish you the best.

Yes it is, and thank you.


I have to say I don't wish RDI the best because these RDI claims mischaracterize, redirect, and water down ALL the evidence. Do you really believe you're going to have your way with everything?

IOW you can't win them ALL:

Multiple petechial hemorrhages large and small on neck and eyelids. RDI: she was 'barely' alive.
Several abrasions both large and small on her neck and elsewhere. RDI: there was no resistance. A mark, and a minor incidental scrape from the neck chain.
Multiple DNA deposits on multiple items from the same unknown male. RDI: innocent.
Ransom note foreign faction reference. RDI: bogus.
Skull fracture with displaced fragment. RDI: accident.
neck ligature. RDI: not used as a murder weapon.
RN author and PR spelled words differently. RDI: not important.
No consensus on the major RDI points of handwriting and prior abuse. RDI: whats a consensus?

 

[BBB167893]

Yes it is, and thank you.

You're welcome.

I have to say I don't wish RDI the best

You don't say!

because these RDI claims mischaracterize, redirect, and water down ALL the evidence.

That's utter nonsense, HOTYH. I could easily make the same assertion about IDI.

Do you really believe you're going to have your way with everything?

No, I don't. Even Tom Haney said there will always be things that don't fit. That's not the issue here. I just don't think you truly understand what I'm trying to say here.

IOW you can't win them ALL:

Never said you could. Never expected to, either.

Multiple petechial hemorrhages large and small on neck and eyelids. RDI: she was 'barely' alive.
Several abrasions both large and small on her neck and elsewhere. RDI: there was no resistance. A mark, and a minor incidental scrape from the neck chain.
Multiple DNA deposits on multiple items from the same unknown male. RDI: innocent.
Ransom note foreign faction reference. RDI: bogus.
Skull fracture with displaced fragment. RDI: accident.
Neck ligature. RDI: not used as a murder weapon.
RN author and PR spelled words differently. RDI: not important.
No consensus on the major RDI points of handwriting and prior abuse. RDI: whats a consensus?

Very amusing. I'd be perfectly happy to go over any or all of those with you, but I'd rather take this approach Let's see how you like it, HOTYH. I have a list of my own:

1) No internal damage to JB's neck and mouth, no scratches on her neck from her hands, no defensive wounds. IDI: she was alive and fighting.
2) Massive skull fracture with a giant blood clot in the scalp. IDI: there was hardly any blood. She was hit last.
3) Foreign DNA was degraded much more than JB's own. IDI: DNA is proof that trumps everything else.
4) Numerous visual similarities between PR's writing and RN writing. IDI: nothing to get excited about.
5) A top-flight panel of experts concludes prior vaginal abuse. IDI: they're all greedy hacks. (Actually, that's IDI's boilerplate response anytime a professional goes against them!)

Have I made my point, or shall I continue?

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't think anyone here thinks the strangulation was not a real strangulation so of course, there are petechiae and ligature furrows, etc. She WAS REALLY strangled. What is a matter of dispute is whether she was strangled deliberately to KILL her, as part of a sex game, or to stage a bludgeon death to look like a strangulation (this last one also requires an actual strangulation).

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Very amusing. I'd be perfectly happy to go over any or all of those with you, but I'd rather take this approach Let's see how you like it, HOTYH. I have a list of my own:

1) No internal damage to JB's neck and mouth, no scratches on her neck from her hands, no defensive wounds. IDI: she was alive and fighting.
2) Massive skull fracture with a giant blood clot in the scalp. IDI: there was hardly any blood. She was hit last.
3) Foreign DNA was degraded much more than JB's own. IDI: DNA is proof that trumps everything else.
4) Numerous visual similarities between PR's writing and RN writing. IDI: nothing to get excited about.
5) A top-flight panel of experts concludes prior vaginal abuse. IDI: they're all greedy hacks. (Actually, that's IDI's boilerplate response anytime a professional goes against them!)

Have I made my point, or shall I continue?

In bold are claims only, not to be confused with facts.

I like it just fine because your statements are simple claims.

1. All abrasions on her body both large and small incuding her neck are defensive wounds, except for possibly the circular ones which could be offensive on the part of the perp. JBR's hands would have to be free to produce the evidence you expect. We already know her hands were restrained by a ligature because one was found on her wrist, remember? That it was too loose when she was found or left few marks is meaningless because you don't know how it was tied. I suggest reading Murriflowers take on the 2nd ligature as it makes perfect sense.
2. IDI doesn't rely on the headbash coming first, last, or in between. For all I know, idiot intruders tried to 'knock her out' like in the movies and instead caused this massive skull fracture. Seeing that JBR was no longer a suitable kidnap victim because of the accidental head bash, they strangled her.
3. Your claim that the foreign DNA is degraded is false. The touch DNA isn't LCN DNA and was processed the same way as blood or semen. I suggest checking the Bode website where they clearly explain the process. The DNA recovered from the waistband isn't degraded. You're obviously presenting an archaic argument. Degraded was a term BPD used on the very first DNA sample, which is not the same DNA that went into CODIS. The FBI found the better DNA within BPD's evidence locker.
4. Numerous visual similarities is false. There are very few similarities. Would numerous visual similarities escape a document examiner that works for the US Treasury Dept? Or a university professor of linguistics and stylistics?
5. A conclusion of prior abuse doesn't implicate JR or PR. Maybe an intruder had been previously abusing JBR. Maybe its soap irritation. There was no scarring, in fact the coroner went out of his way to state in his report that there were no signs of prior abuse.

 

[madeleine]

There's proof JBR was alive when strangled: petechial hemorrhaging.

Not only that but they are red.If you apply a cord on someones neck after he/she dies the mark/marks are white.
So ITA with this one,she was alive when strangled AND when sexually assaulted.

 

[DeeDee249]

Actually. NONE of the marks on her body are defensive wounds. I am sure the coroner would have noted any of there had been. Petechiae are not defensive wounds, neither is the ligature furrow or any of the abrasions.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Quoted by HOTYH

1. IDI doesn't rely on the headbash coming first, last, or in between. For all I know, idiot intruders tried to 'knock her out' like in the movies and instead caused this massive skull fracture. Seeing that JBR was no longer a suitable kidnap victim because of the accidental head bash, they strangled her. End Quote

How in the world do you claim JB defended herself after the head bash? She was not consience after the bash. More than likely, she was officially brain dead. You cannot have it both ways just to fit your theory. And as someone has already said, none of the marks on her neck are defense wounds. Defense wounds would be deep scratches going up and down and they would be very obvious to the coroner. Did you read one word in his report about "defense wounds"? Sorry, I sometimes forget that IDI does not have to consider anything said by a professional in this case.
Sometimes I get the feeling that some people on the board think all RDI's are just total idiots that will eat anything fed to them. NOT SO. JonBenet did NOT defend herself, she was unable and not one single piece of evidence that you have sited proves otherwise. You can believe it if you want to, but some of us can see and read the evidence quite clearly.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Quoted by HOTYH

1. IDI doesn't rely on the headbash coming first, last, or in between. For all I know, idiot intruders tried to 'knock her out' like in the movies and instead caused this massive skull fracture. Seeing that JBR was no longer a suitable kidnap victim because of the accidental head bash, they strangled her. End Quote

How in the world do you claim JB defended herself after the head bash? She was not consience after the bash. More than likely, she was officially brain dead. You cannot have it both ways just to fit your theory. And as someone has already said, none of the marks on her neck are defense wounds. Defense wounds would be deep scratches going up and down and they would be very obvious to the coroner. Did you read one word in his report about "defense wounds"? Sorry, I sometimes forget that IDI does not have to consider anything said by a professional in this case.
Sometimes I get the feeling that some people on the board think all RDI's are just total idiots that will eat anything fed to them. NOT SO. JonBenet did NOT defend herself, she was unable and not one single piece of evidence that you have sited proves otherwise. You can believe it if you want to, but some of us can see and read the evidence quite clearly.

Except the DNA evidence which points directly at an intruder. RDI is gone.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Actually. NONE of the marks on her body are defensive wounds. I am sure the coroner would have noted any of there had been. Petechiae are not defensive wounds, neither is the ligature furrow or any of the abrasions.

Semantics. How can JBR provide the wounds you're talking about if her arms are restrained? What do you think the abrasions are? Think about it. Abrasions are scrapes, happened because JBR was moving against the ligature. They can't be from anything else.

I know RDI wants to sugar coat the crime, but really it was a brutal murder.

 

[DeeDee249]

Semantics. How can JBR provide the wounds you're talking about if her arms are restrained? What do you think the abrasions are? Think about it. Abrasions are scrapes, happened because JBR was moving against the ligature. They can't be from anything else.

I know RDI wants to sugar coat the crime, but really it was a brutal murder.

As I said, they can be rubs. If I rub against something rough, it can make an abrasion. It doesn't have to be a defensive wound.