Head blow vs strangulation

[Ames]

The autopsy report states there were two ponytails. And cloth hair ties and elastic bands would be the worst things one could use to section off hair for a color job.


-Tea

You have a point...I had forgotten about the hair ties. I don't think that using rubber bands is such a far fetched idea, if she was sectioning the hair into two parts...(IF she didn't have hair clips)....but, the hair ties....now THOSE wouldn't make sense for a hair dye job....that would just be something extra to have to take OUT of the hair.

 

[Credence]

Why is everyone so sure that this could not be a rage "accident". It happens all the time. Someone gets so angry they do something they regret and wish they hadn't for the rest of their lives. Why does this have to be planned? I understand where you are all coming from that this head wound is so bad that it looks intentional and I agree; it is intentional at that moment, but why cannot it not be a rage "accident". Patsy said "we did not mean for this to happen".

I was talking to someone about this case last night. I said well maybe she was hit over the head with the flashlight, but if that is the case, then it is not an accident. I mean the person doing this has to know it will kill her. To which the person replied, why? One could be so angry that they do not realize the force they are using at the time and they kill her. Their anger overtakes. Isn't that called temporary insanity or the like. Yes, it is complete disregard, but it does not mean that they intended to kill her at that moment, they were blinded by rage?

This is not possible????/

Because in a rage killing I doubt someone would go looking for a flashlight or any weapon to hit their child in the head with.

 

[Credence]

Its not usual for me to voice an opinion, however lurking and taking on board others opinions, I wondered if we were looking in the wrong place? I have searched the threads, and maybe this has been covered, so forgive me if so....

I don't think the bath surround could have caused the head injury (in my non professional opinion!).

What if... PR and JB were in the bedroom, JB is tired, wants to fall into bed in her clothes, but PR is insistant she changes for bed... what if PR trys to remove JBs top and a scuffle ensues, JBs top is caught around her neck and PR is pulling and pulling, unaware that her actions are perventing JB from breathing. As JBs body becomes limp, and she loses consciousness, PR realises something is wrong... and lets go of the top, causing JB to fall forward and downwards... straight onto the edge of her bed. If you look at the photos of JBs room, each of the beds ends have scrolled posts protruding (sp?) slightly higher than her mattresses.. could she have fallen onto one of those? Like another poster (I'm sorry I forgot who) suggests, the injury is consistant with a rounded object.

Also the smell of peroxide could be confused with domestic amonia used for, amoungst other things, cleaning intense stains from carpets and upholstery.

Short falls do not create the massive head injury that JBR sustained.

 

[Jayelles]

A wood plane once fell on my son's head. That could have been really nasty. He was lucky he had a hard head and it didn't fall too far.

 

[Solace]

Because in a rage killing I doubt someone would go looking for a flashlight or any weapon to hit their child in the head with.

I am not so sure about the flashlight, yet. But maybe she had the flashlight with her. I am almost positive I read in their interviews that Patsy used a flashlight at times to check on the children because you had to go into JonBenet's room to turn on the light. The overhead did not work. I will try to find it.

 

[coloradokares]

Because in a rage killing I doubt someone would go looking for a flashlight or any weapon to hit their child in the head with.

Not saying it was the flashlight or not the flashlight that inflicted the head injury, but from all accounts JB had a flashlight that she carried for the times of her wetting and soiling herself in the night. To get to her parents or Burkes room. Also its possible that Patsy or John did as well. We know they had a maglite like the one found in the kitchen. Since the Maglite was wiped down batteries and all we don't know for fact it was used in inflicting that injury or if the wiped down flashlight was staging as poster Ames suggested to make it appear as if there was an intruder who wiped it down in that manner. I am not convinced that it was the flashlight that was used to injure JonBenet. I am also not convinced it was not. I do believe it'd of had to have been a round shaped item or there had two be two separate blows.

 

[Toltec]

Its not usual for me to voice an opinion, however lurking and taking on board others opinions, I wondered if we were looking in the wrong place? I have searched the threads, and maybe this has been covered, so forgive me if so....

I don't think the bath surround could have caused the head injury (in my non professional opinion!).

What if... PR and JB were in the bedroom, JB is tired, wants to fall into bed in her clothes, but PR is insistant she changes for bed... what if PR trys to remove JBs top and a scuffle ensues, JBs top is caught around her neck and PR is pulling and pulling, unaware that her actions are perventing JB from breathing. As JBs body becomes limp, and she loses consciousness, PR realises something is wrong... and lets go of the top, causing JB to fall forward and downwards... straight onto the edge of her bed. If you look at the photos of JBs room, each of the beds ends have scrolled posts protruding (sp?) slightly higher than her mattresses.. could she have fallen onto one of those? Like another poster (I'm sorry I forgot who) suggests, the injury is consistant with a rounded object.

It makes no sense to struggle over one shirt to put on another....as in the red turtleneck.

My theory is that the struggle ensued when Patsy woke JonBenet to use the toilet...around midnight. The family has said time and time again that JonBenet does not like to be awakened. Top that with the fact that her panties were soiled from earlier that day. Patsy's attempts to clean her defiant daughter caused her to become enraged.

 

[Solace]

Its not usual for me to voice an opinion, however lurking and taking on board others opinions, I wondered if we were looking in the wrong place? I have searched the threads, and maybe this has been covered, so forgive me if so....

I don't think the bath surround could have caused the head injury (in my non professional opinion!).

What if... PR and JB were in the bedroom, JB is tired, wants to fall into bed in her clothes, but PR is insistant she changes for bed... what if PR trys to remove JBs top and a scuffle ensues, JBs top is caught around her neck and PR is pulling and pulling, unaware that her actions are perventing JB from breathing. As JBs body becomes limp, and she loses consciousness, PR realises something is wrong... and lets go of the top, causing JB to fall forward and downwards... straight onto the edge of her bed. If you look at the photos of JBs room, each of the beds ends have scrolled posts protruding (sp?) slightly higher than her mattresses.. could she have fallen onto one of those? Like another poster (I'm sorry I forgot who) suggests, the injury is consistant with a rounded object.

It makes no sense to struggle over one shirt to put on another....as in the red turtleneck.

My theory is that the struggle ensued when Patsy woke JonBenet to use the toilet...around midnight. The family has said time and time again that JonBenet does not like to be awakened. Top that with the fact that her panties were soiled from earlier that day. Patsy's attempts to clean her defiant daughter caused her to become enraged.

I don't think so. Firstly, Patsy would have to be blind not to realize that JonBenet's head was stuck and she was prevented from breathing. This would take some time and unless Patsy is stoned out of her mind, I think she would catch on that JonBenets head is stuck.

As far as falling and hitting her head, this wound is severe and either JonBenet is being violently pushed into something or she is being hit hard, hard enought to dislodge a section of her scalp. Falling on the bed is not going to do it. She is too close.

 

[BBB167893]

You know I am interested on the bathtub SuperDave I am waiting ... you have not answered yet. oh I have to hit send first

Okay, here goes. JB was so spectacular and a source for attention for her mom in life, she had to be spectacular and an attention-getter in death, too.

Because in a rage killing I doubt someone would go looking for a flashlight or any weapon to hit their child in the head with.

Unless they had it with them. If it was that at all.

Short falls do not create the massive head injury that JBR sustained.

Head injuries are a funny thing, Credence. But we're not talking a "fall" so much as a slam.

 

[Solace]

Okay, here goes. JB was so spectacular and a source for attention for her mom in life, she had to be spectacular and an attention-getter in death, too.



Unless they had it with them. If it was that at all.



Head injuries are a funny thing, Credence. But we're not talking a "fall" so much as a slam.

SD,

Do you think this was an intentional killing?

 

[BBB167893]

Do you think this was an intentional killing?

I'd prefer this on the "Ask Super" thread, but I will say this: I don't know. But I'm not sure I buy the accident idea so much anymore.

People say that the only way they'll buy a parental murder is if there was a motive. Well, that's the best possible one I can come up with.

In short (just spitballing), JB had wrung a whole mess of attention and praise for her mom to vicariously absorb. But she was damaged goods, now, what with quite likely being abused and not doing so well at adjusting to it anymore. So that left one big chance for lasting fame. People forget that a lot of people only became famous because they died.

Like I said, just spitballing.

 

[coloradokares]

I'd prefer this on the "Ask Super" thread, but I will say this: I don't know. But I'm not sure I buy the accident idea so much anymore.

People say that the only way they'll buy a parental murder is if there was a motive. Well, that's the best possible one I can come up with.

In short (just spitballing), JB had wrung a whole mess of attention and praise for her mom to vicariously absorb. But she was damaged goods, now, what with quite likely being abused and not doing so well at adjusting to it anymore. So that left one big chance for lasting fame. People forget that a lot of people only became famous because they died.

Like I said, just spitballing.

Interesting as I discussed earlier on. I was informed that just because there were indeed issues surrounding wetting and soiling does not mean that it negates the evidence or suspicion of Sexual Abuse. One does not cancel out or eleminate the other. And you are so right when you say a lot of people only became famous because they died......

 

[Albert18]

Was this an intentional killing?

It's hard to find examples where John says something that can be taken seriously, but Patsy is different.

When Patsy supposedly said they didn't mean for this to happen, I take her seriously. I think that was a pre-lawyer brutally honest and candid statement.

Plus, there is no real evidence of an intruder that night and there is no real evidence this was a premeditated murder by the family. So if you speculate they may have killed her intentionally, then you also need to speculate about an intruder.

 

[Solace]

Was this an intentional killing?

It's hard to find examples where John says something that can be taken seriously, but Patsy is different.

When Patsy supposedly said they didn't mean for this to happen, I take her seriously. I think that was a pre-lawyer brutally honest and candid statement.

Plus, there is no real evidence of an intruder that night and there is no real evidence this was a premeditated murder by the family. So if you speculate they may have killed her intentionally, then you also need to speculate about an intruder.

I agree also. She also said to Geraldo Rivera's producer "I know in my heart I did not do this". I just don't think someone would phrase it that way unless they meant "I know in my heart I did not MEAN to do this". But Patsy is saying it the other way.

I think it was an accident and Patsy has said to herself, this is an accident. I would never kill JonBenet. And it probably was an accident. But one reallly has to be violent for this type of accident to occur. But then again JonBenet was tiny and I dont think it would take much and if one is full of rage, one can do enormous damage especially to a child her size.

Love talking to you.

 

[coloradokares]

I agree also. She also said to Geraldo Rivera's producer "I know in my heart I did not do this". I just don't think someone would phrase it that way unless they meant "I know in my heart I did not MEAN to do this". But Patsy is saying it the other way.

I think it was an accident and Patsy has said to herself, this is an accident. I would never kill JonBenet. And it probably was an accident. But one reallly has to be violent for this type of accident to occur. But then again JonBenet was tiny and I dont think it would take much and if one is full of rage, one can do enormous damage especially to a child her size.

Love talking to you.

I know in my heart I did not mean to do this. We did not mean for this to happen...... It is as you say Solace. If one is full of rage, one can do enourmous damage especially to a child the size of JonBenet. The semantics is if you label rage ..... accidental or intentional at the time of the action that produced the regretable action. But you'd of not chose it under any other circumstance. I think more of us agree than disagree about that. Its how you define the intent. Momentary or premeditated. Even momentary intent is that accidental?

 

[UKGuy]

Was this an intentional killing?

It's hard to find examples where John says something that can be taken seriously, but Patsy is different.

When Patsy supposedly said they didn't mean for this to happen, I take her seriously. I think that was a pre-lawyer brutally honest and candid statement.

Plus, there is no real evidence of an intruder that night and there is no real evidence this was a premeditated murder by the family. So if you speculate they may have killed her intentionally, then you also need to speculate about an intruder.

Albert18,

Read the official autopsy report, itemise JonBenet's injuries, and you cannot avoid concluding she was intentionally killed.

She was asphyxiated manually, she was whacked on the top of her head, fracturing her skull, she was whacked about the side of the head, leaving contusions, she also has various bruising and abrasions elsewhere on her body which some have speculated were caused by a stun-gun. Also she had a ligature applied to her neck, she was sexually assaulted, resulting in internal bleeding.

All these injuries apart from the ligature, represent a catalog of violence inflicted upon JonBenet, cumulatively they cannot be the consequence of an accident or rage type assault, since her injuries are so specific, the intention was to kill JonBenet, and if a manual strangulation did not succeed then a whack on the head was added to make certain that she was dead!

Speculating about the flashlight: if it was used to deliver the fatal blow, then its wiping clean and being removed from the original crime-scene and relocated to the kitchen is the killers insurance policy.

Whatever was used to deliver the fatal blow, just imagine the state of JonBenet's head and neck covered in bruises, its possible that the addition of the ponytails was intended to hide any subsequent swelling etc? That is there are coherent explanations for most of the items added to JonBenet's corpse in terms of a staging

So if you speculate they may have killed her intentionally, then you also need to speculate about an intruder.

We have considered an intruder as a suspect but none of the current forensic evidence links to any intruder, not only that but there is an absence of forensic evidence to indicate any intruder was in the Ramsey house that night, most of the available evidence links the Ramseys to the crime-scene.


.

 

[Credence]

Albert18,
<snip>
Whatever was used to deliver the fatal blow, just imagine the state of JonBenet's head and neck covered in bruises, its possible that the addition of the ponytails was intended to hide any subsequent swelling etc? That is there are coherent explanations for most of the items added to JonBenet's corpse in terms of a staging

We have considered an intruder as a suspect but none of the current forensic evidence links to any intruder, not only that but there is an absence of forensic evidence to indicate any intruder was in the Ramsey house that night, most of the available evidence links the Ramseys to the crime-scene.

There is no evidence of swelling. Curious, how do you explain the foreign fibers not linked to the Ramseys. Easier to explain away Ramsey's trace evidence but not foreign.

 

[UKGuy]

There is no evidence of swelling of what about evidence that has not been linked to the Ramseys? Easy to explain trace evidence in their home but not foreign evidence.

Credence,

There is no certified foreign evidence. After whacking JonBenet on the head, the top of her head would have been in disarray, who ever whacked her may have been making certain that any subsequent swelling was masked, as her asphyxiation was by the addition of a garrote, bear in mind evidence of her sexual assault was also masked by removing external blood stains, and she was redressed in clean underwear, all indicating a complex staging!


.

 

[Albert18]

I should define my definition of intentional in what happened that night.

My belief is that when they arrived home from the White's on Christmas night there was no intention to harm JonBenet. (And Saddam Hussein or some other intruder was not hiding behind the drapes either.)

Something happened later that triggered an attack that left JonBenet with the head injury. Everything that happened after that was intentional.

The head wound could have been caused by JonBenet hitting something with her head or she was struck with something. What is most important is defining who was with her at the time. I don't think there were three people in the room at the time.

I find it hard to believe that experts couldn't look at her skull and give a better definition as to what caused the injury.

If you look at the head injury the crack is above the impact area. This seems odd to me. Is the crack following a natural fissure line or is it indicating how the blow was delivered?

 

[UKGuy]

I should define my definition of intentional in what happened that night.

My belief is that when they arrived home from the White's on Christmas night there was no intention to harm JonBenet. (And Saddam Hussein or some other intruder was not hiding behind the drapes either.)

Something happened later that triggered an attack that left JonBenet with the head injury. Everything that happened after that was intentional.

The head wound could have been caused by JonBenet hitting something with her head or she was struck with something. What is most important is defining who was with her at the time. I don't think there were three people in the room at the time.

I find it hard to believe that experts couldn't look at her skull and give a better definition as to what caused the injury.

If you look at the head injury the crack is above the impact area. This seems odd to me. Is the crack following a natural fissure line or is it indicating how the blow was delivered?

Albert18,

If you look at the head injury the crack is above the impact area. This seems odd to me. Is the crack following a natural fissure line or is it indicating how the blow was delivered?

From memory the fissures tend to follow natural weaknesses in the skull, which can cause them to tend to radiate back, when they reach a stronger point, the fissures can allow an experienced forensic pathologist to determine the direction and angle of the blow, due the fissure pattern.

This method is new, and was not available in 1996/1997 when the original autopsy was undertaken, the then prevailing theory was that fissure radiate out from the site of the cranial injury, this assumption has since been shown to be incorrect.

It might be worth expanding upon this topic if only to establish that the fatal blow was delivered to the top of her head, and was likely not the result of an accident.


.