Head blow vs strangulation

[Solace]

The point I want to make is the "wiping down" of JonBenet Ramsey. Let's presume she had not wiped properly Christmas day. Most children do have a bowel movement once a day. Having said that, JonBenet was found wiped down...even the labia....meaning one thing: a woman wiped her down.

Patsy wiped JonBenet down. Whether it was before the scuffle or after death...

Bear with me, but tell me how they know she was wiped down.

 

[rashomon]

No that was not a conclusion that was possible since there was no reference to plural objects in the photograph. What you could infer was that the object in the photo was either underwear or trousers, the latter was what I assumed e.g.

UkGuy,

the reason for this is a linguistic one, since both ('trousers/pants' and 'panties' are plural words, therefore Patsy's reference to "those" ("I think JB would have put on those") does not make it clear what exacty she is talking about - trousers or/and underpants.
BUT: remember that the investigator points out to Patsy that whatever garment was lying on the floor (jeans or underpants) was soiled.
So you think JB was wearing soiled trousers with no underpants in them?
Isn't it more likely that a pair of underpants was found inside those trousers?

If there had been a soiled pair of underwear on the bathroom floor, we would have heard about from Steve Thomas, imo soiled anything on bathroom floor is inconsistent with a Toilet Rage theory, also the underwear would have been itemized as soiled in the search warrant list.

See above: the interviewer did mention that the the garment which was lying on the floor was in fact soiled.

I agree, when alive JonBenet was sexually assaulted, it was also Coroner Meyer's opinion that she had been digitally penetrated. That is hard physical forensic evidence then expanded upon by a pathologist.

Interesting that this 'hard physical evidence' is not documented in the autopsy report. If memory serves, we only have Linda Anrnd'ts talking about this.
As has been pointed out in prior posts, Dr. McCann contradicted the assumption that the child was digitally penetrated. McCann said that the object which was jabbed into JBs vagina was very hard, much firmer that a finger. So it probably was something like a stick (the paintbrush maybe) - do you really believe John Ramsey sadistically assaulted JB like that?

The garrote is staging to mask the manual asphyxiation as is her wipe-down

The forensic evidence does not support that the child was manually asphyxiated first. For the two furrows around her neck are each perfectly circumferential. It is possible that the knot was tied around the neck first, and when the remainder of the cord was then wrapped around the stick, the ligature was pulled upward, creating the second furrow.

The death of JonBenet was not an unintended accident, nor did it result from the lustful intentions of a sociopathic intruder, it was the culmination of long term sexual abuse.
....
there was two deliberate attempts to kill her, one by asphyxiation and the second by a head blow, then there is her sexual assault perpretated prior to her death, all this does not add up to an accident, its 1st Degree Murder!

This is pure speculation presented as fact.

In Delmar England's opinion, the whole staged crime scene from the note on through smacks of an out-of-touch-with-reality mind on confused "auto pilot", and there are numerous items that have no evidentiary significance except as what they imply about the mental state and ineptness of the perpetrator.

 

[UKGuy]

UkGuy,

the reason for this is a linguistic one, since both ('trousers/pants' and 'panties' are plural words, therefore Patsy's reference to "those" ("I think JB would have put on those") does not make it clear what exacty she is talking about - trousers or/and underpants.
BUT: remember that the investigator points out to Patsy that whatever garment was lying on the floor (jeans or underpants) was soiled.
So you think JB was wearing soiled trousers with no underpants in them?
Isn't it more likely that a pair of underpants was found inside those trousers?
See above: the interviewer did mention that the the garment which was lying on the floor was in fact soiled.
Interesting that this 'hard physical evidence' is not documented in the autopsy report. If memory serves, we only have Linda Anrnd'ts talking about this.
As has been pointed out in prior posts, Dr. McCann contradicted the assumption that the child was digitally penetrated. McCann said that the object which was jabbed into JBs vagina was very hard, much firmer that a finger. So it probably was something like a stick (the paintbrush maybe) - do you really believe John Ramsey sadistically assaulted JB like that?

The forensic evidence does not support that the child was manually asphyxiated first. For the two furrows around her neck are each perfectly circumferential. It is possible that the knot was tied around the neck first, and when the remainder of the cord was then wrapped around the stick, the ligature was pulled upward, creating the second furrow. This is pure speculation presented as fact.

In Delmar England's opinion, the whole staged crime scene from the note on through smacks of an out-of-touch-with-reality mind on confused "auto pilot", and there are numerous items that have no evidentiary significance except as what they imply about the mental state and ineptness of the perpetrator.

rashomon,

the reason for this is a linguistic one, since both ('trousers/pants' and 'panties' are plural words, therefore Patsy's reference to "those" ("I think JB would have put on those") does not make it clear what exacty she is talking about - trousers or/and underpants.
BUT: remember that the investigator points out to Patsy that whatever garment was lying on the floor (jeans or underpants) was soiled.

If that was the only source regarding underwear soiled or not then possibly what you suggest may be correct, but as we have Steve Thomas' book who does not mention underwear lying on the bathroom floor, nor are they itemised in the search warrant, nor does the officer who revealed JonBenet's underwear drawer was fulled of prior soiled but washed underwear, mention anything about actual soiled underwear lying on the bathroom floor, in fact I think nobody does?

As has been pointed out in prior posts, Dr. McCann contradicted the assumption that the child was digitally penetrated. McCann said that the object which was jabbed into JBs vagina was very hard, much firmer that a finger. So it probably was something like a stick (the paintbrush maybe) - do you really believe John Ramsey sadistically assaulted JB like that?

Dr. McCann was not present at the autopsy Coroner Meyer was his opinion carries more weight imo. You are either negelcting or failing to take into account both opinions e.g. they are not contradictory. That is Coroner Meyer stated, paraphrasing, that JonBenet prior to her death had been the victim of sexual activity, he also stated that she was the victim of an acute sexual assault, both could occur either independently or in tandem. I do not know definitively who sadistically sexually assaulted JonBenet prior to her death, evidently it was a resident of that household, and many people know who is at top of the probability list.

The forensic evidence does not support that the child was manually asphyxiated first. For the two furrows around her neck are each perfectly circumferential. It is possible that the knot was tied around the neck first, and when the remainder of the cord was then wrapped around the stick, the ligature was pulled upward, creating the second furrow. This is pure speculation presented as fact.

FINAL DIAGNOSIS:
I. Ligature strangulation
A. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow
of neck
B. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages, neck
C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and
skin of face

In Coroner Meyer's final autopsy he only itemises one ligature furrow, not two, if there had been two furrows this would have merited comment in the autopsy, and there is none!

Also if you review the autopsy photographs particularly those showing the rear view of her neck, which unambiguously shows one furrow!

Delmar England's opinion, is not without interest, but does not represent forensic evidence.

All your points of rebuttal rest upon an absence of evidence, whereas mine rely upon available forensic evidence. I would suggest you are guilty of filling in this percieved absence of evidence, with the evidence that would most suit your favorite theory. In common parlance its described as joining up the dots.

The facts speak for themselves, prior to her death JonBenet was the victim of a sexual assault, both Coroner Meyer, and Dr McCann conclude that there was prior chronic sexual abuse. She was asphyxiated and suffered a severe depressed head fracture, either of which, alone, were capable of resulting in her death. All three of these physical assaults cannot be presented as an accident, a 6-year old girl is not accidently sexually assaulted then accidently has her head smashed along with an accidental strangulation, how common is this occurrence?



.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
If that was the only source regarding underwear soiled or not then possibly what you suggest may be correct, but as we have Steve Thomas' book who does not mention underwear lying on the bathroom floor, nor are they itemised in the search warrant, nor does the officer who revealed JonBenet's underwear drawer was fulled of prior soiled but washed underwear, mention anything about actual soiled underwear lying on the bathroom floor, in fact I think nobody does?

UkGuy,
in that case, an officially documented L.E. interview where the suspect Patsy Ramsey was shown photos of the crime scene and actually confirmed what the interviewer said has far more credibility than anything written in a book about the case, with the author of the book not even having been present at the crime scene on on that first day.
The garment lying on the floor and shown to Patsy was either a pair of soiled trousers or soiled underwear or soiled underwear inside trousers. And Patsy confirmed that (whatever garment it was) it was soiled. Period.

The search warrants only listed the clothing items retrieved, and not the location from where they were collected.
And it was not a police officer who noted the soiled inderwear in JB'd drawers on the first day, but a sexual abuse expert later consulted on the case by the BPD.

McCann was not present at the autopsy Coroner Meyer was his opinion carries more weight imo. You are either negelcting or failing to take into account both opinions e.g. they are not contradictory. That is Coroner Meyer stated, paraphrasing, that JonBenet prior to her death had been the victim of sexual activity, he also stated that she was the victim of an acute sexual assault, both could occur either independently or in tandem. I do not know definitively who sadistically sexually assaulted JonBenet prior to her death, evidently it was a resident of that household, and many people know who is at top of the probability list.

Where to begin? You have mixed up things again:

Nowhere did Dr. Meyer state that JB prior to her death had been the victim of sexual activity (for it was Dr. McCann who suggested this), and in terms of the acute vaginal injury, Dr. Meyer simply noted what he had found - he did not speculate as to whether the vaginal wound was inflicted for sexual gratification or for mere staging purposes.

In Coroner Meyer's final autopsy he only itemises one ligature furrow, not two, if there had been two furrows this would have merited comment in the autopsy, and there is none!
Also if you review the autopsy photographs particularly those showing the rear view of her neck, which unambiguously shows one furrow!

I went by this autopsy picture: http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceright.jpg

But if according to Dr. Meyer, there was only one perfectly circumferential furrow around JB's neck, this blows any previous manual strangulation theory out of the water anyway.
Dr. Meyer verbatim mentions in his final diagnosis ligature strangulation. Not one word about manual strangulation. Don't you think Dr. Meyer, who had performed many autopsies, would have recognized any signs of manual strangulation if they had been there?

Delmar England's opinion, is not without interest, but does not represent forensic evidence.

Does your opinion represent forensic evidence? You claim that there was manual strangulation when the autopsy report does not mention one word of it?

All your points of rebuttal rest upon an absence of evidence, whereas mine rely upon available forensic evidence. I would suggest you are guilty of filling in this percieved absence of evidence, with the evidence that would most suit your favorite theory. In common parlance its described as joining up the dots

Sorry UKGuy, but in view of what you have posted to make your point, I'm afraid that it is you who fill in the blanks of your theory by constructing forensic evidence which just does not exist.

 

[UKGuy]

UkGuy,
in that case, an officially documented L.E. interview where the suspect Patsy Ramsey was shown photos of the crime scene and actually confirmed what the interviewer said has far more credibility than anything written in a book about the case, with the author of the book not even having been present at the crime scene on on that first day.
The garment lying on the floor and shown to Patsy was either a pair of soiled trousers or soiled underwear or soiled underwear inside trousers. And Patsy confirmed that (whatever garment it was) it was soiled. Period.

The search warrants only listed the clothing items retrieved, and not the location from where they were collected.
And it was not a police officer who noted the soiled inderwear in JB'd drawers on the first day, but a sexual abuse expert later consulted on the case by the BPD.

Where to begin? You have mixed up things again:

Nowhere did Dr. Meyer state that JB prior to her death had been the victim of sexual activity (for it was Dr. McCann who suggested this), and in terms of the acute vaginal injury, Dr. Meyer simply noted what he had found - he did not speculate as to whether the vaginal wound was inflicted for sexual gratification or for mere staging purposes.
I went by this autopsy picture: http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceright.jpg

But if according to Dr. Meyer, there was only one perfectly circumferential furrow around JB's neck, this blows any previous manual strangulation theory out of the water anyway.
Dr. Meyer verbatim mentions in his final diagnosis ligature strangulation. Not one word about manual strangulation. Don't you think Dr. Meyer, who had performed many autopsies, would have recognized any signs of manual strangulation if they had been there?


Does your opinion represent forensic evidence? You claim that there was manual strangulation when the autopsy report does not mention one word of it?
Sorry UKGuy, but in view of what you have posted to make your point, I'm afraid that it is you who fill in the blanks of your theory by constructing forensic evidence which just does not exist. [/color][/font][/color][/font]

rashomon,

in that case, an officially documented L.E. interview where the suspect Patsy Ramsey was shown photos of the crime scene and actually confirmed what the interviewer said has far more credibility than anything written in a book about the case, with the author of the book not even having been present at the crime scene on on that first day.
The garment lying on the floor and shown to Patsy was either a pair of soiled trousers or soiled underwear or soiled underwear inside trousers. And Patsy confirmed that (whatever garment it was) it was soiled. Period.

Sure And Patsy confirmed that (whatever garment it was) it was soiled. Period. Thats a long way from concluding it was soiled underwear, my original assertion stands, no conclusion was available! You cannot magick up a plural state of affairs just because nobody has mentioned it!

Where to begin? You have mixed up things again:

mmm

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

rashomon you are not only selective with the evidence you wish to present, but you wish to represent the absence of evidence as evidence of existence of proof of some kind, which is spurious. I cannot have a rational discussion on the merits of this or that theory if you invent things like two circumferential furrows, or soiled underwear inside pants lying on the bathroom floor, or that Coroner Meyer never opined that JonBenet had been the victim of sexual activity.



.

 

[Toltec]

Bear with me, but tell me how they know she was wiped down.

There were dark fibers found around her genital area...including between the labia....the fibers were never matched to anything in the home.

Michael Kane told John Ramsey that they found fibers from his shirt on JB's genitalia.

John replies..."Thats bulls**t!"

Whether Kane was tellling the truth or not...who knows?

 

[Nuisanceposter]

As I understand it, the urine stains on JonBenet's clothes do not have corresponding urine stains on her skin - as if someone wiped off the urine off her skin and pulled her urine-soaked clothes back in place. I'm not sure how accurate this is, though.

 

[UKGuy]

As I understand it, the urine stains on JonBenet's clothes do not have corresponding urine stains on her skin - as if someone wiped off the urine off her skin and pulled her urine-soaked clothes back in place. I'm not sure how accurate this is, though.

Nuisanceposter,
Here is the source for her being wiped down, its the same as for Coroner Meyer remarking that JonBenet had been the victim of sexual activity.

Ramsey warrant dated January 30, 1997

Det. Arndt told Your Affiant that she personally observed Dr. John Meyer examine the vaginal and pubic areas of the deceased, Dr. Meyer stated that he observed numerous traces of a dark fiber.

...

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the childs body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the childs body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the childs public area having been wiped by a cloth.

That is, which is important for those who promote Toilet Rage theories, it was not the absence of urine, but of blood, which suggested to Coroner Meyer that JonBenet had been wiped down.

She was left wearing her urine-soaked longjohns which is hardly consistent with hiding the possibility that she wet the bed?




.

 

[rashomon]

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

Detective Arndt has told a lot of strange things. In her deposition for example, she stated that she did a great ob at the crime scene. Priceless.
She was convinced that John Ramsey had killed his daughter, but later gladly accepted flowers from Patsy and John, happily showing them to Steve Thomas. Are you sure that someone like that understood correctly what the coroner told her?

rashomon you are not only selective with the evidence you wish to present, but you wish to represent the absence of evidence as evidence of existence of proof of some kind, which is spurious. I cannot have a rational discussion on the merits of this or that theory if you invent things like two circumferential furrows, or soiled underwear inside pants lying on the bathroom floor, or that Coroner Meyer never opined that JonBenet had been the victim of sexual activity.

I did not invent anything. The possibility of there being two furrows has been discussed here quite often since there is one autopsy picture (to which I gave you a link) where it looked as if there were two furrows. There are other pictures where it looks like only one furrow, and since Dr. Meyer only mentioned only one furrow too, I corrected my assumption in my last post to you.
I also wrote that Dr. Meyer does not mention with one word that JB was manually strangled, but instead verbatim says it was a ligature strangulation.
Why do you invent forensic evidence of manual strangulation here?

 

[UKGuy]

Detective Arndt has told a lot of strange things. In her deposition for example, she stated that she did a great ob at the crime scene. Priceless.
She was convinced that John Ramsey had killed his daughter, but later gladly accepted flowers from Patsy and John, happily showing them to Steve Thomas. Are you sure that someone like that understood correctly what the coroner told her?
I did not invent anything. The possibility of there being two furrows has been discussed here quite often since there is one autopsy picture (to which I gave you a link) where it looked as if there were two furrows. There are other pictures where it looks like only one furrow, and since Dr. Meyer only mentioned only one furrow too, I corrected my assumption in my last post to you.
I also wrote that Dr. Meyer does not mention with one word that JB was manually strangled, but instead verbatim says it was a ligature strangulation.
Why do you invent forensic evidence of manual strangulation here?

rashomon,

There are not two circumferential furrows on JonBenet's neck, Coroner Meyer itemises only one, and only one is plainly visible in the photographs!

Beneath the circumferential furrow are compression abrasion marks, well known to result from manual strangulation, they are a standard item in any forensics manual. Also they are not circumferential, they are mainly on the left and right of the front of her neck, with none at the rear.

The cord that caused the itemised cirumferential furrow, is too thin to account for the lower compressed abrasion marks, so some other theory is required to explain this e.g. BlueCrab's EA, or the twisting of a shirt?

I also wrote that Dr. Meyer does not mention with one word that JB was manually strangled, but instead verbatim says it was a ligature strangulation.
Why do you invent forensic evidence of manual strangulation here?

rashomon Coroner Meyer is declaring what he considers is the cause of death, he is not stating that she was not manually strangled, in fact he also states:

CLINICOPATHLOGIC CORRELATION: Cause of death of this six year old
female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral
trauma.

That is the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation which I consider to be deliberately vague, he may be playing the staging game, as per the period when the autopsy findings were not to be released, and if called as a witness he may expand more fully on the role of the ligature etc?

So Coroner Meyer did not cite the cause of death as asphyxia by ligature strangulation which is exactly the opposite of what you are seeking to establish.

Whatever the accuracy of Detective Arndt's statements, they are better than mere speculation, and are always open to correction either by Coroner Meyer, or any other participant at the autopsy.


.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon Coroner Meyer is declaring what he considers is the cause of death, he is not stating that she was not manually strangled, in fact he also states:


That is the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation which I consider to be deliberately vague, he may be playing the staging game, as per the period when the autopsy findings were not to be released, and if called as a witness he may expand more fully on the role of the ligature etc?

So Coroner Meyer did not cite the cause of death as asphyxia by ligature strangulation which is exactly the opposite of what you are seeking to establish

UkGuy,
Dr. Meyer made it perfectly clear in his final diagnosis on the first page of the autopsy report what was the cause of death: ligature strangulation associated with a head injury. You should read your own sources through more thoroughly before quoting them.

 

[Toltec]

UkGuy,
Dr. Meyer made it perfectly clear in his final diagnosis on the first page of the autopsy report what was the cause of death: ligature strangulation associated with a head injury. You should read your own sources through more thoroughly before quoting them.

The Autopsy Report and the Coroners notes on the autopsy are different in that Dr. Meyer wrote more of his observations and possibly observations from other specialists on the decedent, JonBenet.

We are not privy to Coroner Meyer's notes so....

 

[UKGuy]

UkGuy,
Dr. Meyer made it perfectly clear in his final diagnosis on the first page of the autopsy report what was the cause of death: ligature strangulation associated with a head injury. You should read your own sources through more thoroughly before quoting them.

rashomon,
Coroner Meyer's final diagnosis is not the same this as concluding the cause of death. In one he is itemising all those factors he considers play an active role in reaching his diagnosis, the other states the cause of death.

You are welcome to your interpretation of the autopsy report, but I suspect it was written with a trial in mind?


.

 

[rashomon]

The Autopsy Report and the Coroners notes on the autopsy are different in that Dr. Meyer wrote more of his observations and possibly observations from other specialists on the decedent, JonBenet.

We are not privy to Coroner Meyer's notes so....

Are the coroner's notes on the internet too? Or do we only know about them through secondary sources?

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
Coroner Meyer's final diagnosis is not the same this as concluding the cause of death. In one he is itemising all those factors he considers play an active role in reaching his diagnosis, the other states the cause of death.

You are welcome to your interpretation of the autopsy report, but I suspect it was written with a trial in mind?

But final diagnosis and cause of death are linked. Dr. Meyer wrote "ligature strangulation" in his final diagnosis and "asphyxiation" as the cause of death. Therefore it is logical to assume that the asphyxiation was caused by the ligature strangulation.

 

[rashomon]

There were dark fibers found around her genital area...including between the labia....the fibers were never matched to anything in the home.

Michael Kane told John Ramsey that they found fibers from his shirt on JB's genitalia.

John replies..."Thats bulls**t!"

Whether Kane was tellling the truth or not...who knows?

Two types of fibers were found in JB's genital area:

- blue cotton cloth fibers were found in her vaginal area. The source of these fibers has never been identified, and the assumption that they were from John's bathrobe has not been offcially confirmed.

- black wool fibers were found on JB's external labia and in the crotch area of her underwear. These fibers were found to be consistent with the black shirt John had been wearing to the Whites' party:

MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.

It is sometimes brought up that this was a cheap trick employed by Levin to steer John Ramsey into a self-incriminating reply. It is true that the police are allowed to lie to the suspect under certain circumstances, but Levin is a lawywer, and unlike the police, lawyers are not allowed to lie in such interviews.

Lin Wood clearly did not want John Ramsey to answer the question, for fear he might say something self-incriminating. Which is why he tried to flood Levin with a tirade about the (un)reliability of fiber evidence. If he had been of the opinion that this was merely a cheap unsubstantiated trick employed by Levin to con John Ramsey, I think a hard-boiled lawyer like Wood would have told Levin this bluntly.

Wood did not tell Levin that he thought the fibers did not exist.
Which is why he wanted to study the lab report himself. but Levin was under no obligation to show Wood the evidence.
Levin also told Wood that he was going to ask Patsy about these fibers too, so maybe she could explain how they got there.
Imo nothing in Lin Wood's reaction conveys that he thought Levin didn't have anything possibly incriminating.
Suppose it had come to trial, the lab techs would have had to testify and confirm what Levin told John Ramsey. Wouldn't it have been far too risky if Levin had pulled out anything of thin air in this interview? The defense would have had a field day with those non-existing fibers and Levin would have gotten a malfeasance suit.

It has been argued that, since Levin did not pursue the matter further in this interview, this was the proof that Wood 'defeated' him.
I don't think Levin's moving on in the interview means that Wood 'defeated' him in any way. These interviews delve into many aspects of the case, their purpose is not to treat each matter exhaustively, but to get reactions from the suspect, to compare what he says with his prior statements, and to keep him talking as much as possible. For there is always the danger that the suspect will suddenly clam up and refuse to continue if he feels things get too critical.

 

[rashomon]

Hi Rash,

I use to think she was thrown full force against the bathtub, but upon looking at the photos of her skull, it is so bad, that it almost looks as if she were shot. I truly believe Patsy did this thing, but I do not know if she threw her or just in a blind rage hit her with the flashlight. I think it is very possible that she could get that angry after being up for 15 hours and still going. You have to be absolutely exhausted after a day like that and remember she had been mortally sick for some time with cancer.

I think John is covering for her. I think he helped her that night and did not find the body in the morning as Steve Thomas says, I think he helped her.

Rash, as far as sexual abuse goes, it is more llikely than not that she is a victim of this. I just cannot see a sex game that night as Cyril Wecht says. I do not believe John would take that chance. I am not even sure it was sexual abuse. I really am not. Thomas believes it was some sort of corporal punishment, and it could have been in the form of severe douching. Colorado says that she knows people who say that was a big thing that was talked about - that there was daily douching. With that kind of thing going on, JonBenet had to be incredibly dry and incredibly sensitive to bleeding after a while.

I don't know. What do you think happened? I don't know how. I just believe that Patsy lost it and killed her. And the only way she could live with it was by saying "I did not do it". Just as the man I saw on TV last week said after he finally admitted killing his son's teacher. When asked why he said he was innocent for so long, he said and I am paraphrasing - because it is too awful and you almost believe it after a while - it is basically the only way to get through - you live in denial and get to believe it.

Solace, your theory is very close to Delmar England's theory (only that he thinks that flashlight was not the weapon).
He too is not sure if JB had been the victim of sexual abuse, but thinks the signs of genital irregularities might have had their origin in toileting issues.

On the other hand , medical experts like Dr. McCann, Dr. Monteleone et al., who were among the panel of top experts consulted on the case, stated the injuries were sexual in nature. I'm undecided, but no longer believe Patsy caught John in the act of abusing JB on that fatal night.
While JB may have been the victim of chronic sexual abuse (possibly by John) , Patsy's rage attack on JB could have been unrelated to that abuse, i. e. Patsy may not have known about it at all.

I too cannot see an 'erotic asphyxiation' sex game like Wecht did (for the forensic evidence contradicts this), nor can I see John Ramsey sadistically jabbing a stick into JB's vagina. I'm convinced that the acute vaginal injury was inflicted for staging purposes.

 

[UKGuy]

But final diagnosis and cause of death are linked. Dr. Meyer wrote "ligature strangulation" in his final diagnosis and "asphyxiation" as the cause of death. Therefore it is logical to assume that the asphyxiation was caused by the ligature strangulation.

rashomon,

I wonder if you are the only person to think this, or are you simply defending your position.

Now your assumption may be correct, but I doubt it, due to the lack of internal damage to JonBenet's neck structures and muscle, which was cross-sectioned by Coroner Meyer and itemised in his report.

Therefore it is logical to assume that the asphyxiation was caused by the ligature strangulation.

Although its logical to assume this, like your pants/underwear inference, this is another case of it not being the only logical assumption open to you.

asphyxia by strangulation patently this also includes a manual strangulation, which is also aspyxiation. Or asphyxiation by some garment, however it is to be described.

I reckon the ligature is pure staging applied after she was sexually asssaulted , manually strangled and whacked upon the head, the exact sequence of the latter two I am not certain about.

I reckon the Autopsy Report is a generalised cause of death, and has itemised the contributing factors, but aspects we now know to be staging are not reported as such in the report. I reckon Coroner Meyer was going along with the staging, probably at the request of the police, this minimises the information made public, as I've speculated, the missing piece of paintbrush may have been inserted inside JonBenet, but that this has been redacted from the report?




.

 

[Solace]

rashomon,

I wonder if you are the only person to think this, or are you simply defending your position.

Now your assumption may be correct, but I doubt it, due to the lack of internal damage to JonBenet's neck structures and muscle, which was cross-sectioned by Coroner Meyer and itemised in his report.


Although its logical to assume this, like your pants/underwear inference, this is another case of it not being the only logical assumption open to you.

asphyxia by strangulation patently this also includes a manual strangulation, which is also aspyxiation. Or asphyxiation by some garment, however it is to be described.

I reckon the ligature is pure staging applied after she was sexually asssaulted , manually strangled and whacked upon the head, the exact sequence of the latter two I am not certain about.

I reckon the Autopsy Report is a generalised cause of death, and has itemised the contributing factors, but aspects we now know to be staging are not reported as such in the report. I reckon Coroner Meyer was going along with the staging, probably at the request of the police, this minimises the information made public, as I've speculated, the missing piece of paintbrush may have been inserted inside JonBenet, but that this has been redacted from the report?


.

I don't think so UK. These people did not intentionally go home that evening and kill their daughter. This was a rage "accident" if you can call it an accident. The child looks like she was shot in the head. I know if I read about this taking place in Bronx, New York, I would say, okay they murdered their child. And apparently it was done out of the way of Burke, because he would have Torettes or something by now if he had witnessed it. He did say he heard the house "creaking" though.

HOWEVER, I think that it was a rage "accident' on the part of Patsy. It does not take long to kill someone UK. She was hit and she went down. You say she was slapped about the head. Cyrill Wecht says she was shaken. Are we talking about two different things? He says she was shaken so hard that it bruised the sides of her head. Someone was really trying to wake her.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't think so UK. These people did not intentionally go home that evening and kill their daughter. This was a rage "accident" if you can call it an accident. The child looks like she was shot in the head. I know if I read about this taking place in Bronx, New York, I would say, okay they murdered their child. And apparently it was done out of the way of Burke, because he would have Torettes or something by now if he had witnessed it. He did say he heard the house "creaking" though.

HOWEVER, I think that it was a rage "accident' on the part of Patsy. It does not take long to kill someone UK. She was hit and she went down. You say she was slapped about the head. Cyrill Wecht says she was shaken. Are we talking about two different things? He says she was shaken so hard that it bruised the sides of her head. Someone was really trying to wake her.

Solace,
JonBenet has multiple contusions and abrasions on her body, an accidental rage slap simply does not account for these injuries, look closely at the contusion on the lower left of this picture: http://zyberzoom.com/face1.jpg, thats no accident, her skull has a severe dpressed fracture, this alone may have killed her, look closely at the compressed abrasion marks on the lower left and lower right of her neck: http://zyberzoom.com/neck72.jpg, note how there is a space between them e.g. they do not represent a circumferential ligature marking, imo these are the result of a manual strangulation, thats no accident, even if it didn't kill her? Then there is the fact that she was sexually assaulted prior to her death and chronically preceding it, none of this is accidental!


.