Learn Something New Every Day

[BBB167893]

Exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Then why did Smit say she'd been clawing at her neck? He can't even keep that straight!

Hands tied up! Pshaw! Her hands were tied so loosely the coroner just slipped the bindings off. Plus there was ample cord length between her hands. You can't tell me I can't see with my own eyes.

The only obfuscation is on the part of the RST. As Michael Kane said, the police file contains the answers to these questions.

'Her hands were tied so loosely that the coroner..." assumes the ligature was always loose on JBR. That's a big assumption. Ask JBR if there was ample cord length between her hands.

 

[truecrime]

Looks to me like the rope had initually been placed lower on the neck, as it was tightened it moved up.

 

[BBB167893]

'Her hands were tied so loosely that the coroner..." assumes the ligature was always loose on JBR. That's a big assumption. Ask JBR if there was ample cord length between her hands.

Without a Ouija board, that might be difficult. But there's no evidence she fought at all.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Its obvious the second ligature was used to bind JBR's hands. Its also obvious JBR was restrained completely by the combination of the garrote and second ligature.

To say that there was 'ample length between the loops,' thus allowing for free movement, is to completely obfuscate the evidence in this crime. To say the garrote and second ligature had no other purpose than for staging, is to spin the existing evidence of a sophisticated or advanced criminal mind, in favor of RDI.

 

[UKGuy]

It looks to me as if JonBenet was manually strangled, there are contusions and abrasions beneath the ligature, not on it, not above it, but below it, these did not arrive by accident.

The ligature came after after her manual asphyxiation, even if only to finish her off.


.

 

[truecrime]

It looks to me as if JonBenet was manually strangled, there are contusions and abrasions beneath the ligature, not on it, not above it, but below it, these did not arrive by accident.

The ligature came after after her manual asphyxiation, even if only to finish her off.


.

I googled "marks of strangulation" it stated that the neck can bleed when a person is strangled. IMO the rope had been lower when attached and slipped upward while being strangled.

 

[UKGuy]

I googled "marks of strangulation" it stated that the neck can bleed when a person is strangled. IMO the rope had been lower when attached and slipped upward while being strangled.

truecrime,

mmm possibly but if she was garroted and not simply strangled by the ligature then there should be no real slippage, even if it slipped upwards, say during a struggle, then I would expect to see indicitive ligature markings, not contusions and abrasions that reflect either thumbs and fingers or pressure from a top or towel?

.

 

[BBB167893]

You might be onto something, UKGuy.

"To say the garrote and second ligature had no other purpose than for staging, is to spin the existing evidence of a sophisticated or advanced criminal mind, in favor of RDI."

I think you got it backwards, HOTYH. The CASKU guys said this was no criminal mastermind. I imagine they know what they're talking about.

 

[Britt]

It looks to me as if JonBenet was manually strangled, there are contusions and abrasions beneath the ligature, not on it, not above it, but below it, these did not arrive by accident.

The ligature came after after her manual asphyxiation, even if only to finish her off.

...even if it slipped upwards, say during a struggle, then I would expect to see indicitive ligature markings, not contusions and abrasions that reflect either thumbs and fingers or pressure from a top or towel?

Exactly.

 

[rashomon]

truecrime,

mmm possibly but if she was garroted and not simply strangled by the ligature then there should be no real slippage, even if it slipped upwards, say during a struggle, then I would expect to see indicitive ligature markings, not contusions and abrasions that reflect either thumbs and fingers or pressure from a top or towel?

According to Delmar England's (incredibly interesting and very convincing) analysis of the garrote on the ACandyRose site, this was a total bogus contraption which could have not functioned as a garrote at all. The multiple loops around the paintbrush stick in fact would have prevented any effective garroting, as well as the fixed knot around JB's neck. Remember the knot was so tight that coroner Meyer had to cut the ligature.
This evokes a scenario where the perp tied a double knot (as Dr. Meyer said in his report) around JB's neck and then simply wrapped the remaining long end of the cord around a paintbrush handle to make it look as bizarre as possible. No real garroting was involved here.

All the ligatures scream staging. Which is why they, together with the ransom note (which screams staging too) are among the key pieces of evidence in this case, for they lead to the question "Who could have had an interest in staging a scene by applying fake ligatures and writing a bogus ransom note?" Certainly not an intruder.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I think you got it backwards, HOTYH. The CASKU guys said this was no criminal mastermind. I imagine they know what they're talking about.

Hmm, lets see. Fancy garrote, handwritten ransom note, all criminal evidence left at the scene for investigators, and no sign of a suspect 10 years later. Yep, its a mastermind. How can all the experts, analysts, etc., be right about everything while there's nobody even charged?

 

[Nuisanceposter]

How can all the experts, analysts, etc., be right about everything while there's nobody even charged?

Botched crime scene, corrupt officials, and an aggressive defense team fueled by $$$.

 

[rashomon]

"The photo of JBR's injuries around the tight ligature shows there was no accident."

You misunderstand. The head blow was the accident. The garrote was used to deflect suspicion from the Ramseys.

"JBR was fighting against the garrote that was robbing her of air."

No, she wasn't. That's another deLOUsion. There were no marks from her scratching herself trying to get away. If there were, they would have been obvious, AND JB would have had mounds and mounds of her own skin under her nails. She didn't.

SuperDave:
good point about the lack of JB's own skin under her fingernails. Had she tried to get rid of the cord, her skin would be there, no question about it.

I got a good laugh from your word "DeLOUsion" - lol, hilarious!
Just as much as "BullSMIT".
It would really interest me what went on in Smit's head. Typical also that he hardly ever commented on the bogus ransom note, for obvious reasons: he could not fit it into his intruder fantasy.

Holdontoyourhat:
I believe it was coroner Dr. Meyer who noted that the distance from the circular cord around JB's neck to JB's shoulders measured equal throughout, which would indicate that the cord was placed around an inert and unmoving body.
At the time the cord was put around that poor girl's neck, JB could not have offered resistance anymore. She was already in a deep coma from the head bash and nearing death.

 

[UKGuy]

According to Delmar England's (incredibly interesting and very convincing) analysis of the garrote on the ACandyRose site, this was total bogus contraption which could have not functioned as a garrote at all. The multiple loops around the paintbrush stick in fact would have prevented any effective garroting, as well as the fixed knot around JB's neck. Remember the knot was so tight that coroner Meyer had to cut the ligature.
This evokes a scenario where the perp tied a double knot (as Dr. Meyer said in his report) around JB's neck and then simply wrapped the remaining long end of the cord around a paintbrush handle to make it look as bizarre as possible. No real garroting was involved here.

All the ligatures scream staging. Which is why they, together with the ransom note (which screams staging too) are among the key pieces of evidence in this case, for they lead to the question "Who could have had an interest in staging a scene by applying fake ligatures and writing a bogus ransom note?" Certainly not an intruder.

rashomon,

I have not read Delmar England's analysis, seems rather detailed, but he appears to know his stuff.

Although the construction of the garrote may not have been effective in the classical sense, I consider it would have given leverage, if it was used in this manner. The application of common sense should have anyone questioning, who needs an elaborate garrote to kill a 6-year old girl?

I agree with you that the garrote and ransom note suggest staging which points away from an intruder.

could have not functioned as a garrote at all.

So what was it doing there, what was its purpose, was it just staging?

The more interesting question is was there more than one staging session and why?

I am beginning to form the view that Patsy staged a crime-scene scenario that involved the paint-brush handle, ligature, and other items, which were later removed from this crime-scene.

And that John started to make changes to this staging more to reflect that of the ransom note, it may have been him who authored the note, this may have included redressing JonBenet in her size-12 underwear, adding her longjohns, along with the intention of replacing her white gap top with that of the barbie-gown, which would complete the illusion of a bedtime abduction.

Now there is an obvious inconsistency in the use of a garrote and a ransom note in the same homicide, so I feel it helpful to separate them into two different stagings. Once I have confirmed this I'll offer forensic evidence to firm up this idea of separation.

Its possible that John created what we understand to be the garrote and its potential purpose is evident?

But in the staging created by Patsy its purpose was possibly not that of a garrote, bear in mind that, if you accept JonBenet was sexually assaulted, that she was later wiped down, this was an attempt to obscure this aspect e.g. making her appearance more in tune with a bedtime abduction.

So Patsy's staging may have been more lurid in its sexual presentation, and the ligature and paintbrush handle may have played another role?

This might chime with what other investigators speculated about and some websleuthers have thought.

So Patsy's staging may have been more graphic, with JonBenet wearing different clothing, possibly her footwear, socks, black velvet pants, red turtleneck, and blood-stained size-6 underwear, the latter later removed during her cleanup session so to reflect the bedtime abduction.

I'll also speculate, simply because it is consistent with the two sets of staging scenario, and following on from Britt's suggestion that the hair was styled like that for sleeping. Then why could it not also be part of the second staging? In support of this I see John flying upstairs grabbing hair-ties, which then fall over the floor, searching for underwear and accepting the size-12's, pulling longjohns out of the packet, seeking out a nightgown etc. Possibly not all undertaken in one visit, then again where was JonBenet located at this point in time?



.

 

[BBB167893]

I remember that, rashomon. Delmar's been invaluable to me in this case.

[rashomon] "I believe it was coroner Dr. Meyer who noted that the distance from the circular cord around JB's neck to JB's shoulders measured equal throughout, which would indicate that the cord was placed around an inert and unmoving body. At the time the cord was put around that poor girl's neck, JB could not have offered resistance anymore. She was already in a deep coma from the head bash and nearing death."

Correct. Not just that: if it were an intruder, and he did use the garrote to strangle her to death, there would not have been a need for the head blow. People forget that. Per Werner Spitz: someone went to a lot of trouble to stage strangulation. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the cord was pulled taut once. That might be all that was needed. If JB was already in shock and comatose state, and that seems likely, then she would not have drawn enough breath to re-expand her windpipe and loosen it. Think of it like a python when it constricts. Its scales lock every time the prey exhales. Thus, the prey cannot inhale again.

If anyone would like me to elaborate on that, it's no problem.

[NuisancePoster] "Botched crime scene, corrupt officials, and an aggressive defense team fueled by $$$."

That would have been my answer!

BTW, anyone been here: http://www.acandyrose.com/w1.gif

or maybe here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/w3.gif

 

[Britt]

Its obvious the second ligature was used to bind JBR's hands.

Obvious how?

 

[aussiesheila]

RDI and IDI agree that at some point JBR's free will was taken from her.

The garrote cord fibers found in JBR's bedroom, and the evidence of stun gun on JBR, suggest that JBR's free will was taken from her right when she was removed from her bed. This makes sense in IDI, where the intruder has to move JBR quietly downstairs and not disturb the rest of her family.

So the evidence suggests the garrote was used on JBR to move her quietly downstairs, and not used as a prop for staging.

Holdontoyourhat, I don't agree that JBR's free will was taken from her right when she was removed from her bed, even though I am an IDI theorist. IMO the intruder was known to JonBenet and that was why, when he woke her and placed the cord, not around her neck as you suggest, but around one of her wrists as in a game, she didn't resist. I think she walked willingly, being 'led' by the cord down to the kitchen with him, where he fed her the pineapple which I think was drugged. Once the drug(s) started to work she would have been more docile, more amenable and had she lived would have had only a hazy memory of the cord and the heart and the pineapple and everything that went with it, IMO.

 

[aussiesheila]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
I think you did say once that you thought Patsy Ramsey would and was willingly, knowingly allowing pedos access to her daughter.

I would like to see the post that you are referring to, because I have never said that. What I have said is that Patsy allowed JonBenet to be cared for by certain people in their homes and would not keep a close eye on her at parties where adults were present and would not know what was happening to JonBenet at these times. Virtually all parents do this because we don't expect the unthinkable to happen. But when it does there are usually some warning signs. There were an abundance of warning signs in JonBenet's case and all Patsy did was to take her repeatedly to Dr B, who reassured Patsy that everything was fine and not to worry about it.



Okay, did some searching -

Thread: Members' Theories

Date: 08-21-2005, 06:46 AM

Post # 14


I think that JonBenet had suffered frequent sexual abuse for many years, probably for half her life, mainly when her father was away on business trips. I think that when the Ramseys moved to Boulder JonBenet was targetted by one pedophile in particular who befriended John and Patsy in order to gain access to JonBenet. He and his wife subsequently became ‘best friends’ of John and Patsy. I think that Patsy was aware that her child was being abused but I think she had been sexually abused herself as a child and saw it as ‘normal’ and so did nothing to protect her daughter. I think that the ‘best friends’ arranged for JonBenet to be treated by a pedophile pediatrician who was prepared to turn a blind eye to the abuse and to reassure Patsy that JonBenet’s bedwetting behaviour and recurring vaginal/urinary tract infections was all perfectly normal.


Thread: What if...

Date: 01-21-2006, 04:15 PM

Post # 91

I think Patsy was covering up for a group of pedophiles that she knew had been abusing JonBenet for years - the pedophiles who had inadvertently allowed a psychopath to join in their activities on that Christmas night, an unfortunate mistake that resulted in the death of JonBenet, in what the regular pedophiles had planned to be just another 'ordinary' night of 'ordinary' abuse.



Same thread

Date: 01-23-2006, 06:03 PM

Post # 139

But one thing I will agree with most people on is Patsy's behaviour. I will never argue with anyone who says it was strange because I think Patsy's behaviour is that of a guilty person - guilty of having known about knowing about her daughter's prior sexual abuse (which I believe is a fact), and then once it had led to her death, guilty of helping a pedophile group try to cover up all the sexual abuse and to pass her murder off as a kidnapping.



Same thread

Date: 02-06-2006, 04:33 AM

Post # 169

Originally Posted by Nehemiah

"Yes, I have worked with child sexual abuse in the past, so I have some knowledge of sexual deviancy. Even now I work in the sex profession. (no, not a sex hotline or anything like that. )

Right, I just don't think Patsy would have allowed this. I think someone, from somewhere would have spoken up about this subject if Patsy were involved. Even if not, I can't fathom that Patsy would have allowed this to continue because there would be no *reward* for her to do so. I'm not ruling out in my mind any sexual abuse within the home; I just don't think there was a ring of pedophiles using JB while Patsy allowed it.

But I do respect your opinion and thank you for sharing it."



Yes Nehemiah, I thought I remembered you mentioning that you had worked in the area of child sexual abuse.

So yes it is my opinion that Patsy did behave in this way but I do also think it must be an extremely rare thing for a mother to behave like this and so I cannot blame people for not going along with my opinion.

As for someone speaking up about this subject, I don't find it difficult to believe that people would not speak out.

First of all there would be people who would want to protect Patsy, who even though might be partly guilty, has lost her daughter and they would be feeling very sorry for her. Secondly, there would be those who were implicated in the prior sexual abuse (that I believe occurred) and they would only be exposing themselves if they spoke up. And thirdly there would be a huge and formidable upheaval in the family P dynamics that would need to be contended with if any of the Ps spoke up if my theory is correct.

I guess I would not be so persistent with my theory if it did not explain so well all the evidence, most particularly the only real hard evidence there is - the ransom note. If you can accept my theory then the whole ransom note makes complete sense and I don't think any other theory does that.

Oh, and you mentioned the "reward" for Patsy. Well what if there was no actual "reward" for allowing it to happen, but maybe a "punishment" if she tried to stop it. Perhaps Patsy was not even around when it first started. I think it most probably was when she was first diagnosed with ovarian cancer and unable to care adequately for JonBenet by herself, there would have been great opportunities for pedophiles to close in on JonBenet then. Maybe by the time Patsy got well again, began to suspect something and kicked up a fuss, these people, who were very close to her, even right within her family, began being extremely nasty to her and exerted extreme pressure on her to calm down and leave well alone. Pressure coming from within a family can be very powerful no matter what it is in relation to.

And thank you Nehemiah, for being so polite.

You have gone to a lot of trouble Nuisanceposter, and everything you have posted is correct.



I guess what I take exception to is your emphasis on the "willingly". I probably haven't explained myself well enough, but I did not intend that any of those quotes you uncovered in your search to imply that Patsy was 'willing' in the true sense of the word.

It was more a case of Patsy not being up to the task of taking a strong stand and saying "No" at the very beginning, when JonBenet was first abused which I beleive was by Patsy's own father when Patsy herself had just come down with ovarian cancer. Then as time went on, when a close friend started abusing JonBenet also, Patsy becoming more and more deeply compromised, a situation that the pedophiles well knew and understood and used against her when they needed someone to write a ransom note after they had accidentally killed JonBenet.

So I suppose I could agree that Patsy "willingly" wrote the ransom note, but by then she knew JonBenet was dead anyway, and she most definitely did not want John to learn of the prior abuse because he would most certainly not listen to any of her excuses as to why she had ignored it, and would most certainly divorce her and get custody of Burke. So she was 'willing' in a kind of blackmail situation.



As for the "knowingly", this again is hard for me to explain as I am not a psychologist, but there is something about a person being 'in denial', where they 'know' at some deeper level of their subconscious, but keep it suppressed so that at their conscious level it is not 'there'.

 

[aussiesheila]

<<There is no proof that John Ramsey is a liar, it is not a fact, it is only your opinion>>

He lied to his first wife and carried out an affair.
JR is indeed a liar.

Well then the whole world is full of liars and there is no point in singling John Ramsey out and using it as evidence that he killed his daughter.