Peculiar letters from the RN

[Holdontoyourhat]

err .... is that available on You Tube?
Imagine that it's electrifying footage?

LOL I was going to ask that. Seriously though people sometimes die or have permanent damage from stun gun. Its a fact.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hi Hotyh.

determinism, attributing order and pattern, can be faulty logic either way. RDI or IDI.

Still plodding through ST's book, and wondering why some of the RDI profile info cannot be transposed to an IDI approach. Does the touch dna invaldate all the expert opinions?

I see and agree with what you're saying. But, at some point you have to decide what is the core evidence and look at that. The garrote around JBR's neck and the coroner's report are core evidence. The ransom note isn't. The most obvious relationship between the core evidence is that the garrote caused the asphyxiation noted in the report. Since the garrote was designed and then left in a position to cause asphyxiation, it mostly appears the garrote was used deliberately. RDI theory sometimes departs from this with an alternate, less obvious relationship whereby the garrote was not used to deliberately kill. This idea is not supported by the core evidence.

 

[DeeDee249]

The coroner's report said death by asphyxiation ASSOCIATED with cerebrocranial trauma. Meyer couldn't show conclusively which came first- they came too close together.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi SD.
Def a caveat when experimenting, to consider possible fatality and possible long term effects.

Yes! Do not try this at home, kids!

ok, ya, that's the assumption, that JBR was lying in bed when tazed.

If you believe she was tazed at all.

Ya, I had wondered about the fall, JBR had the scratch on her leg, and the marks on her back and face. Wondered if your injuries were comparable.

Those aren't the marks I was trying to replicate, Tadpole.

err .... is that available on You Tube?

No. I can't upload with the computer I have. Besides, too many videos like that already.

Imagine that it's electrifying footage?

Please, Tadpole: no jokes, okay?

 

[BBB167893]

Exactly my question. Just what evidence do you have to override what is most apparent?

Well, there's the lack of evidence of any kind of struggle. The cord left a very clean line all the way around the neck, not erratic with a lot of movement. I wish I knew where Ames got to! She could explain it better. Then, there's the design of the garrote. Not very efficient for strangling someone to death the way it's made. I could list a lot of forensic opinion, too.

The coroners report and the garrote together have the most obvious appearance that JBR's assailant had intent to kill. YOU'RE the one overriding the most obvious with an alternate explanation.

Like I said: overriding is your word for it, not mine. I'm taking the holistic approach I keep talking about.

And as for the most obvious, you gave a list not too long ago of very interesting things, and have proceeded to explain how we should pay them no mind. So just who's overriding here?

LOL I was going to ask that.

I'll bet you were. And it's not very damned funny.

Seriously though people sometimes die or have permanent damage from stun gun. Its a fact.

Believe me, HOTYH, I don't even want to THINK about what kind of problems I might run into down the road because of this.

 

[BBB167893]

Hi Hotyh.

determinism, attributing order and pattern, can be faulty logic either way. RDI or IDI.

Still plodding through ST's book, and wondering why some of the RDI profile info cannot be transposed to an IDI approach.

Like what, specifically?

Does the touch dna invalidate all the expert opinions?

Not on your life.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, there's the lack of evidence of any kind of struggle. The cord left a very clean line all the way around the neck, not erratic with a lot of movement. I wish I knew where Ames got to! She could explain it better. Then, there's the design of the garrote. Not very efficient for strangling someone to death the way it's made. I could list a lot of forensic opinion, too.

These are your opinions. Speculation on whether or not JBR struggled, whether or not JBR was fully restrained by various means, or how efficient or inefficient the garrote was, doesn't make asphyxiation go away.

Fact 1: JBR asphyxiated
Fact 2: Someone constructed a ligature device
Fact 3: Someone tied the device in a position that would cause asphyxiation.
Fact 4: The device was left in that position
.

These are not my opinions. These are facts. The most obvious conclusion from these facts is that there was intent to kill. There are no other conclusions that are as obvious as this one.

 

[Mysteeri]

SuperDave wrote:
1) Something was necessary to show an obvious cause of death (regardless of whether or not there were prior marks on the neck). A garrote makes sense in that a) it allows the killer to kill the victim with a minimum of physical contact; b) it allows them to kill without looking the victim in the face (that's a BIG one with me); and c) it kills without making a bloody mess.

2) It doesn't matter what I think was necessary. What matters is what a person in the grip of mortal fear with a pronounced fondness for theatrical dramatics would think.

Alright.

DeeDee249 wrote :"Meyer couldn't show conclusively which came first- they came too close together." So if RDI, it wasn`t long after the accidental head blow that te R`s decided to stage the crime and use a garrote. Pretty cold blooded. 1 a-c might also fit to an intruder who initially didn`t mean to kill JB or anyone who is not comfortable with killing children.

BTW, doesn`t the the lack of evidence for struggle and movement during strangulation indicate that the head blow came first? Can we conclude that? There is the sex game option, that she didn`t move during the strangulation..It`s just hard for me to see that.

I wrote:Perhaps JB was supposed to be silenced, but instead screamed and the scream might have alerted people in the house or outside, and he panicked and made sure she wouldn`t scream again, so he struck her hard.

SuperDave wrote:
Isn't that what I said?

Sorry, what I was thinking is that he got scared about the scream or something messed his plans, and he didn`t dare run out of the house by himself either, but wondered what to do in the basement, wondered if he had left traces of himself, etc. and didn`t just leave JB and run.

SuperDave wrote:
No way. 1) Test after test has been done, and none of them were able to match the marks exactly. 2) More importantly, I OWN a stun gun. I've had myself zapped several times (BOY, the things I do for this case!) and they never looked anything like that.

Wow, you really do take this seriously. Glad that you are ok, no more tests needed!

 

[madeleine]

This is a wider range of unrelated topics. Almost a barrage.

PR or JR violence or non-violence, expert opinions from long ago, freedom of choice, and DNA are unrelated with the ligature strangulation.

Were you even aware that JBR was strangled? If so, do you believe that the strangulation was intended to kill? Did you know that the coroner listed the reason for JBR's death as asphyxiation, so she was alive when strangled?

This IS the core of the case, right here.

RDI might be better off to drop the coverup garrote idea, as the coroner stated she died by asphyxiation. Coverup garrote idea is not supported by this evidence.

You SO like to take things out of context.
And sometimes you don't seem to read people's posts before replying,or are you just being sarcastic.


I've told you before,yeah,I think strangulation came first and that's what killed her.
I am not sure though whether it was sex game gone wrong or whether it was intentional or whether the killer did it out of hate or in a fit of rage and sadly,YOU can't be sure either whether you like it or not.
And no,the strangulation doesn't mean IDI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You SO like to take things out of context.
And sometimes you don't seem to read people's posts before replying,or are you just being sarcastic.


I've told you before,yeah,I think strangulation came first and that's what killed her.
I am not sure though whether it was sex game gone wrong or whether it was intentional or whether the killer did it out of hate or in a fit of rage and sadly,YOU can't be sure either whether you like it or not.
And no,the strangulation doesn't mean IDI.

Maybe you're not reading either.

1. unintentional
2. intentional

Considering these two alternatives, which is the most obvious? Which is the BEST ANSWER. We know that a device was constructed with ligature and paintbrush handle. We know it was tied onto JBR in a way that would cause asphyxiation. Later the coroner stated JBR died from asphyxiation.

Constructing the device appears to have been intentional, and tieing the garrote tightly and leaving it there appears to have been intentional. The most obvious answer is that these acts were intentional. To conclude that 'maybe it was unintentional' is possible but its not the most obvious answer.

 

[BBB167893]

These are your opinions. Speculation on whether or not JBR struggled, whether or not JBR was fully restrained by various means, or how efficient or inefficient the garrote was, doesn't make asphyxiation go away.

I didn't say they DID. That's not what you asked.

Look, HOTYH, I'm always willing to play your game, but it's no good changing the rules.

Fact 1: JBR asphyxiated
Fact 2: Someone constructed a ligature device
Fact 3: Someone tied the device in a position that would cause asphyxiation.
Fact 4: The device was left in that position
.

These are not my opinions. These are facts.

Fine.

The most obvious conclusion from these facts is that there was intent to kill. There are no other conclusions that are as obvious as this one.

Don't you think that was the idea?

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave wrote:
1) Something was necessary to show an obvious cause of death (regardless of whether or not there were prior marks on the neck). A garrote makes sense in that a) it allows the killer to kill the victim with a minimum of physical contact; b) it allows them to kill without looking the victim in the face (that's a BIG one with me); and c) it kills without making a bloody mess.

2) It doesn't matter what I think was necessary. What matters is what a person in the grip of mortal fear with a pronounced fondness for theatrical dramatics would think.

Alright.

That's where I stand.

DeeDee249 wrote :"Meyer couldn't show conclusively which came first- they came too close together." So if RDI, it wasn`t long after the accidental head blow that te R`s decided to stage the crime and use a garrote.

Various estimates have been given by different pathologists as to how much time there was between the two. Some are as "low" as 15 minutes, some are close to an hour.

Pretty cold blooded.

It may not be that, Mysteeri. My personal view is that whomever killed her wanted her to be as spectacular in death as she was in life.

1 a-c might also fit to an intruder who initially didn`t mean to kill JB or anyone who is not comfortable with killing children.

Possibly. But you asked why the garrote would be necessary. Why would such an obvious and time-consuming method be necessary to an intruder? Wouldn't he just club her and go? The visible means of death is only necessary in an RDI scenario. Actually I should rephrase that: I have yet to hear anyone on the IDI side explain why it was necessary after striking her.

BTW, doesn`t the the lack of evidence for struggle and movement during strangulation indicate that the head blow came first? Can we conclude that?

Darn right we can!

There is the sex game option, that she didn`t move during the strangulation..It`s just hard for me to see that.

I agree. That scenario has never convinced me.

I wrote:Perhaps JB was supposed to be silenced, but instead screamed and the scream might have alerted people in the house or outside, and he panicked and made sure she wouldn`t scream again, so he struck her hard.

SuperDave wrote:
Isn't that what I said?

Sorry, what I was thinking is that he got scared about the scream or something messed his plans, and he didn`t dare run out of the house by himself either, but wondered what to do in the basement, wondered if he had left traces of himself, etc. and didn`t just leave JB and run.

Okay.

SuperDave wrote:
No way. 1) Test after test has been done, and none of them were able to match the marks exactly. 2) More importantly, I OWN a stun gun. I've had myself zapped several times (BOY, the things I do for this case!) and they never looked anything like that.

Wow, you really do take this seriously. Glad that you are ok, no more tests needed!

[/QUOTE]

Thank the gods on BOTH counts!

 

[Mysteeri]

SuperDave wrote:
Possibly. But you asked why the garrote would be necessary. Why would such an obvious and time-consuming method be necessary to an intruder? Wouldn't he just club her and go? The visible means of death is only necessary in an RDI scenario. Actually I should rephrase that: I have yet to hear anyone on the IDI side explain why it was necessary after striking her.

I was beginning to wonder about that myself. Well, I think he had reason to want to make sure she was dead so she wouldn`t identify him later (on the other hand, what about the kidnapping plan and her possible safe return?). But why choose the garrote? I don`t know how long it would take to strangle someone to death, an unconscious one perhaps. He had the cord, he knew how to make a garrote, + 1 a-c. It might have not been necessary, but an option. Can`t say more than that.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave wrote:
Possibly. But you asked why the garrote would be necessary. Why would such an obvious and time-consuming method be necessary to an intruder? Wouldn't he just club her and go? The visible means of death is only necessary in an RDI scenario. Actually I should rephrase that: I have yet to hear anyone on the IDI side explain why it was necessary after striking her.

I was beginning to wonder about that myself.

So did I, back in the day. That's partly how I got where I am.

Well, I think he had reason to want to make sure she was dead so she wouldn`t identify him later (on the other hand, what about the kidnapping plan and her possible safe return?).

Exactly.

But why choose the garrote? I don`t know how long it would take to strangle someone to death, an unconscious one perhaps.

Depends. Maybe two minutes.

He had the cord, he knew how to make a garrote, + 1 a-c. It might have not been necessary, but an option. Can`t say more than that.

Actually, it's been stated that whomever did this did NOT know how to make a proper garrote.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Don't you think that was the idea?

Evidence indicates somebody had intent to kill JBR. Plain and simple, no sidestepping required. That's not 'what I think' its what the evidence indicates.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

In regard to the thread topic, disguised handwriting makes no sense.

There wasn't anything that important imparted to the reader to make it worth 2 1/2 pages of handwriting.

"Use that good southern common sense of yours," "If you talk to a stray dog," and "Its up to you now, John" are almost filler. Many statements are superfluous to kidnap for ransom, as if the writer was deliberately adding filler.

Masking handwriting style and adding filler are mutually opposed concepts. Therefore, whoever handwrote that note could probably care less about masking their handwriting.

 

[madeleine]

Evidence indicates somebody had intent to kill JBR. Plain and simple, no sidestepping required. That's not 'what I think' its what the evidence indicates.

The evidence doesn't indicate if it was something planned or not.IMO intent=premeditation.

Scenario 1:someone thinks for about 3 hours how to pick up a hammer and smash someone head and then does it.
Scenario 2:someone not thinking straight is picking up a hammer and in a moment of rage is smashing someone's head.


IMO we can talk about intent in scenario number 1.
We don't know if the killer planned the strangulation or if it happened in a moment of rage.

 

[madeleine]

You keep screaming intent because this sounds more like IDI but you ignore that lots of horrible murders happened because a parent just lost it for a second.A second can change lives.

 

[madeleine]

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=995

intent
n. mental desire and will to act in a particular way, including wishing not to participate. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that "there was no criminal intent." Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crime.

 

[madeleine]

So no,you can't say whether we're dealing with intent or not.You don't know what was going on in the killer's head,first of all because you don't know WHO the killer was and whether he premeditated all this(intent=mental DESIRE>>>fantasy) or just lost control.