Forensic linguistics, weapon of the JIDI knight

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

Its OK to call them abrasions. That way RDI doesn't have the appearance of sidestepping or being evasive.

If there were no abrasions, then it would help the staging argument. But there were many abrasions, which contradicts staging.

The presence of abrasions tells us that the ligature was used to knowingly kill JBR and not used for staging only. Thats because the force required to create the abrasions would indicate JBR was very much alive at the time.

 

[DeeDee249]

Its OK to call them abrasions. That way RDI doesn't have the appearance of sidestepping or being evasive.

If there were no abrasions, then it would help the staging argument. But there were many abrasions, which contradicts staging.

The presence of abrasions tells us that the ligature was used to knowingly kill JBR and not used for staging only. Thats because the force required to create the abrasions would indicate JBR was very much alive at the time.

The point I was making is that not all of them are scrapes and not all abrasions/scrapes/rubs are defensive.
The ligature WAS used to kill JB. (along with the head blow) and neither may have been INTENDED to kill her. But one of my theories is that when the head blow DID kill her (or seemed to) the strangulation followed as a means of providing an visual means of death and adding to the kidnapping-gone-wrong scene. Maybe it happened that way, maybe it didn't.
But from all evidence in the autopsy she was not moving when she was strangled, though she was definitely alive. The abrasions didn't happen because SHE was moving. And lets be clear about where they were.
The ligature furrow was not an abrasion, but was caused by the cord being wound tight around her throat.
The petechiae above and below the ligature furrow are the expected results of being strangled and they are not abrasions either, but tiny burst blood vessels.
The large, uneven triangular mark on the front (but off-center) of her throat, above and below the ligature, called an "abrasion" in the autopsy, is something that is often seen in a strangulation victim. Blood pools under the skin there, in response to pressure, and the "parchment-like" look and feel happens after death with postmortem skin changes. It may have been caused by something pressing there, but not necessarily something that was the shape of the mark. The mark formed in response to pressure, either from the tightening of the cord or the twisting of a softer ligature that may have been used first and which is unknown. (a scarf perhaps? There was one found in the basement- in the laundry area, I believe- tight outside the WC.)
So this leaves the small, round abrasions that are mystifying to us all. The one on her cheek near her ear, and the two parallel ones on her back. These are also classified as abrasions in Mayer's report, though he made no attempt to determine what made them. Even to an untrained eye, the two parallel marks on her back look like stun gun marks, and Mayer had to think the same thing when he saw them, so it is very frustrating that he did not determine of they were burns (electrical as in a stun gun or otherwise as in a cigarette burn). WHAT could possibly have made them??? The answer (which we will never have) would tell a lot about what happened that night.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The abrasions didn't happen because SHE was moving.

Of course they happened because she was moving. How else are abrasions produced? There were multiple abrasions, both large and small on ner neck. You can see them in the photos on the left side (JBR's right side on the front of her neck). The ONLY WAY to produce those abrasions is by JBR's movement against the cord.

What you dont understand is that all the injuries on JBR's neck are on the anterior surface of her neck. There are no injuries on the posterior surface. This indicates force applied from the rear, with enough force to create these injuries. If the cord was placed on JBR without resistance, there would be no injuries, just the ligature furrow and petechiae.

If you're simply going to make up your own versions of the evidence, the reports, and the crime itself, then I can't help you.

 

[DeeDee249]

Of course they happened because she was moving. How else are abrasions produced? There were multiple abrasions, both large and small on ner neck. You can see them in the photos on the left side (JBR's right side on the front of her neck). The ONLY WAY to produce those abrasions is by JBR's movement against the cord.

What you dont understand is that all the injuries on JBR's neck are on the anterior surface of her neck. There are no injuries on the posterior surface. This indicates force applied from the rear, with enough force to create these injuries. If the cord was placed on JBR without resistance, there would be no injuries, just the ligature furrow and petechiae.

If you're simply going to make up your own versions of the evidence, the reports, and the crime itself, then I can't help you.

I don't need help. thanks. She was still as a stone. The ligature furrow was circumferential and every expert opinion on that report indicates she was still when the garrote was applied . Just think about this- if you stand perfectly still and something rubs/scrapes against you it will make an "abrasion". YOU don't have to move. Whatever caused the abrasions on JB she didn't have to be moving to have them on her.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't need help. thanks. She was still as a stone. The ligature furrow was circumferential and every expert opinion on that report indicates she was still when the garrote was applied . Just think about this- if you stand perfectly still and something rubs/scrapes against you it will make an "abrasion". YOU don't have to move. Whatever caused the abrasions on JB she didn't have to be moving to have them on her.

my bold.

If JBR never moved then there would be no difference between the posterior and anterior neck surfaces. Instead there are injuries on the anterior side.

She was still as a stone.

No, actually this is you making stuff up and stating it as if it were fact. Mischaracterizing the evidence, calling abrasions pooled blood or rubs. Was JR pulling the cord up and down her neck while she was still as a stone? What caused those abrasions?

 

[DeeDee249]

my bold.

If JBR never moved then there would be no difference between the posterior and anterior neck surfaces. Instead there are injuries on the anterior side.



No, actually this is you making stuff up and stating it as if it were fact. Mischaracterizing the evidence, calling abrasions pooled blood or rubs. Was JR pulling the cord up and down her neck while she was still as a stone? What caused those abrasions?

When the cord was pulled as she lay on her stomach, there is a space, or gap, that occurs on the opposite side. If you look at the autopsy photos Where we see her laying on her side, her back to the camera, there IS a ligature mark there. I don't need to make up anything, unlike IDI. I just read the reports and look at the photos. You'd be surprised how many people on the forums have never seen them.

 

[CathyR]

I thought I'd ask you DEE DEE or Super Dave.

Urine was found outside of the WC door.
Was it fresh and was it human?
The reason I ask is Thomas states that Jacques the dog peed all over the house.

I hate to think we have been hotly debating the urine when it could have been from the dog.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

When the cord was pulled as she lay on her stomach, there is a space, or gap, that occurs on the opposite side. If you look at the autopsy photos Where we see her laying on her side, her back to the camera, there IS a ligature mark there. I don't need to make up anything, unlike IDI. I just read the reports and look at the photos. You'd be surprised how many people on the forums have never seen them.

This didn't answer my question at all.

I asked what caused the abrasions on the anterior surface of her neck. The abrasions that are missing from the posterior side. How did JR create abrasions on one side of her neck and not the other??

As for me it is unfortunately simple. The ligature was pulled with force from the rear. Force that would not be necessary if she were still as a stone, as you put it.

 

[BBB167893]

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

Only the IDI's claims!

All abrasions on her body both large and small including her neck are defensive wounds, except for possibly the circular ones which could be offensive on the part of the perp.

Give me a break.

JBR's hands would have to be free to produce the evidence you expect.

Lou Smit couldn't even keep THAT straight!

We already know her hands were restrained by a ligature because one was found on her wrist, remember?

Oh, I remember all right! I remember a few other things about it, too!

That it was too loose when she was found or left few marks is meaningless because you don't know how it was tied.

Are you kidding me? Meaningless, my a**! It tells us EVERYTHING!
Are you honestly trying to tell me that someone would use it to restrain her legit THEN decide not to leave it as it was?

I suggest reading Murriflowers take on the 2nd ligature as it makes perfect sense.

Only to YOU. I HAVE read it, and all it proves is that IDI has a double standard when it comes to theorizing. If YOU guys do it, it's wise and insightful; if WE do it, it's petty and ignorant. Well, that don't go.

IDI doesn't rely on the headbash coming first, last, or in between.

Oh, yes it does! It's their main point of argument. Or it used to be, anyway.

Your claim that the foreign DNA is degraded is false.

The he** it is! it took several generations of improvements in DNA testing methods and technology just to get a readable sample. You don't fool me.

The touch DNA isn't LCN DNA and was processed the same way as blood or semen.

That might mean something if not for a few things: one, this touch DNA process hasn't been shown to me to be all it's cracked up to be. Have any convictions been made with it? A faulty process applied correctly is still faulty. There's more, but that will do for now.

I suggest checking the Bode website where they clearly explain the process.

I have. They got awfully tight-lipped when I came around!

The DNA recovered from the waistband isn't degraded.

Only because the technology is so much more advanced.

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.

The DNA you speak of only had nine-and-a-half markers, not the full 13. There's a reason why partial DNA profiles are in disfavor. And they had to AMPLIFY it to get THAT many.

Numerous visual similarities is false.

Oh, YEAH?! Have you ever SEEN them? The ones that RiverRat, voynich and Madeleine have supplied are only a very small sample. I trust my own eyes, HOTYH.

There are very few similarities.

You have GOT to be kidding. Aside from my own eyes, which is all I need, we have people saying that they found upwards of 200. I could ignore one, five or even ten, but not THAT many!

Would numerous visual similarities escape a document examiner that works for the US Treasury Dept?

If he didn't have a complete set of examples to work with, yes!

Or a university professor of linguistics and stylistics?

You're wasting my time with that. Some egghead who never worked on the case at all (and who doesn't STUDY visual similarities) is supposed to be given precedent over the people who DID? No way, man.

A conclusion of prior abuse doesn't implicate JR or PR.

THAT I'll agree with. But it sure limits the field, don't it?

Maybe an intruder had been previously abusing JBR.

Maybe.

Maybe its soap irritation.

No way. I can't believe you'd even waste my time with that old nonsense.

There was no scarring,

A lot of abuse doesn't LEAVE scarring, HOTYH. It need not be violent.

in fact the coroner went out of his way to state in his report that there were no signs of prior abuse.

You must have been reading a different report than I was! Because not only did he NOT go "out of his way" as you said, he used very specific language: "chronic" "erosion" and the like. That's not even COUNTING the top-flight people I mentioned (which I notice you avoided. I certainly don't blame you!)

 

[BBB167893]

How in the world do you claim JB defended herself after the head bash? She was not conscious after the bash. More than likely, she was officially brain dead. You cannot have it both ways just to fit your theory.

:clap:

Sorry, I sometimes forget that IDI does not have to consider anything said by a professional in this case.

Yeah, lucky for them!

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.

Isn't that a coincidence? I got the same feeling.

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.

:clap:

 

[BBB167893]

RDI is gone.

Not on your life.

I know RDI wants to sugar coat the crime

You're kidding, right? IDI are the ones trying to turn this into a simple good-vs.-evil story. How are RDI sugarcoating ANYTHING?

 

[BBB167893]

But there were many abrasions, which contradicts staging.

Not in the least. It only contradicts it if we were claiming that she was already dead.

Thats because the force required to create the abrasions would indicate JBR was very much alive at the time.

How does the force of it indicate ANYTHING of the sort?

 

[BBB167893]

Of course they happened because she was moving. How else are abrasions produced?

By something moving against HER, not HER moving against something. That's simple!

The ONLY WAY to produce those abrasions is by JBR's movement against the cord.

Even IF you're right (and I hold strong reservations), isn't it not likely that the movement was caused by JB's body reflexively spasming when the cord was drawn tight?

What you dont understand is that all the injuries on JBR's neck are on the anterior surface of her neck.

Which makes sense if she's face-down. Gravity would play a role.

If the cord was placed on JBR without resistance, there would be no injuries, just the ligature furrow and petechiae.

There are ALWAYS injuries when a ligature is pulled around a neck, HOTYH.

If you're simply going to make up your own versions of the evidence, the reports, and the crime itself, then I can't help you.

Isn't that funny? I was just about to tell you the same thing!

 

[BBB167893]

I thought I'd ask you DEE DEE or Super Dave.

Urine was found outside of the WC door.
Was it fresh and was it human?
The reason I ask is Thomas states that Jacques the dog peed all over the house.

I hate to think we have been hotly debating the urine when it could have been from the dog.

It's been brought to my attention recently, Cathy, that there may not have been a urine stain outside the door. The source for that was not what I would call reliable. But you make a good point.

 

[BBB167893]

As for me it is unfortunately simple. The ligature was pulled with force from the rear.

Yeah, I think we agree on that. (DD's right, BTW. Every word of that post.)

Force that would not be necessary if she were still as a stone, as you put it.

You might get some argument, HOTYH. As Norm Early said, even a fake strangulation is going to be pretty powerful, if for no other reason than it has to look convincing.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Even IF you're right (and I hold strong reservations), isn't it not likely that the movement was caused by JB's body reflexively spasming when the cord was drawn tight?

And then JR would know she was alive and not dead like he thought. Instead of saving her he knotted the back of the garrote?

Murder, not accident. Thats what the abrasions tell.

 

[DeeDee249]

This didn't answer my question at all.

I asked what caused the abrasions on the anterior surface of her neck. The abrasions that are missing from the posterior side. How did JR create abrasions on one side of her neck and not the other??

As for me it is unfortunately simple. The ligature was pulled with force from the rear. Force that would not be necessary if she were still as a stone, as you put it.

I have TRIED to answer you- you just don't like the answer. As far as I see it, the ONLY abrasion on the anterior neck is the large triangular one, and that may have been caused by the pulling of the cord from the rear. The other marks are petechiae and the ligature furrows.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I have TRIED to answer you- you just don't like the answer. As far as I see it, the ONLY abrasion on the anterior neck is the large triangular one, and that may have been caused by the pulling of the cord from the rear. The other marks are petechiae and the ligature furrows.

Your post describes one (1) singular abrasion on the anterior neck.

From the report:

The area of abrasion and petechial hemorrhage of the skin of the anterior neck includes on the lower left neck, just to the left of the midline, a roughly triangular, parchment-like rust colored abrasion which measures 1.5 inches in length with a maximum width of 0.75 inches. This roughly triangular shaped abrasion is obliquely oriented with the apex superior and lateral. The remainder of the abrasions and petechial hemorrhages of the skin above and below the anterior projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right, and left areas of the anterior neck.

Dr. Meyer describes not one but several abrasions. There it is in black and white, RDI mischaracterizing the evidence.

See, I'm never able to reconcile RDI claims with the evidence. I'm just not going to bother anymore.

 

[BBB167893]

And then JR would know she was alive and not dead like he thought.

I had a feeling you'd say that. And I came prepared for it. Frankly, HOTYH, he would NOT have necessarily known. It's fairly common knowledge that newly dead corpses tend to spasm for reasons not entirely understood. And maybe that was the key here: maybe they convinced themselves that's all it was.

I'll give you an example: a few decades ago in my home state, a midwife was charged with negligent homicide. The mother she was helping to deliver experienced difficulties and appeared to have suffered a fatal stroke. The midwife, not trained as a doctor, believed the woman to be dead and performed an emergency C-section with a kitchen knife. At her trial, the DA's expert argued that the woman was still alive but had passed out due to overstress. Here's where this ties in: when the midwife stabbed the knife into the woman's abdomen, her body flinched. The midwife convinced herself at the time that it was just a reflex, but later in life she started to second-guess herself.

You getting all of this, HOTYH? I hope like he** I didn't just type all of that for nothing!

Instead of saving her he knotted the back of the garrote?

Like I said, HOTYH: how would he know she was alive? But just for the sake of argument, let's say your right. Let's say--purely for purposes of discussion--that he realized she was still alive What was there to save?

Murder, not accident. Thats what the abrasions tell.

Staging. I said it and I mean it.

See, I'm never able to reconcile RDI claims with the evidence.

Not to seem insensitive or anything HOYTH, but that's YOUR problem. Still, admittance is the first step to recovery.

I'm just not going to bother anymore.

What do you mean "anymore?" I wasn't aware that you had EVER tried!

 

[madeleine]

This is one theory I will NEVER agree with.
That they didn't know she was still alive and strangled(killed) her when trying to stage the crime.
This is so far fetched IMO.
You would have seen some signs of guilt or something.
How would you feel knowing it was your hand that killed your child in a stupid attempt to cover up for an accident?I would kill myself.Pls think about it.
No remorse makes sense if it was premeditated.