Premeditated?

[Anti-K]

This is the first time I have commented on this topic but seeing that hair entwined in the knot indicates to me that the knot was tied while the stick was in close proximity to her hair. As much as IDI doesn't want to see it, I cannot think of a reason why you would see that kind of entwining had the knot been tied in advance. It took me a long to see this, but this indicates that the knot was tied to the stick after the rope was tied around JB's neck. If so, that makes it 100% staging. Assuming it was staging, what are we left with if we take the stick and knot out of the equation? We just have the rope.

As far as I know most IDI agree that the hair is entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle, and most IDI agree that this strongly suggests that the cord was wrapped around the handle, as you describe it, “in close proximity to her hair.”

This is what Smit claims happened. So, your characterization of this piece of evidence as being something that IDI don’t want to see is not true.

I’m not sure how you turn this fact into a clear indication of staging.

The act of pulling the handle to tighten the garrote would also be an act of pulling the victim’s hair. So, if the hair entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle is also still attached to the victim, than this would suggest that the cord was wrapped around the handle after the asphyxiation; however, if the hair is attached to the handle only, than this would suggest that the cord was wrapped around the handle before the asphyxiation.

Of course, if the victim’s hair was long enough than it could remain attached to the victim even after the handle was pulled but even if this was the case I think that we could expect that at least some of it would be ripped free.
...

AK

 

[Anyhoo]

As far as I know most IDI agree that the hair is entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle, and most IDI agree that this strongly suggests that the cord was wrapped around the handle, as you describe it, “in close proximity to her hair.”

This is what Smit claims happened. So, your characterization of this piece of evidence as being something that IDI don’t want to see is not true.

I’m not sure how you turn this fact into a clear indication of staging.

The act of pulling the handle to tighten the garrote would also be an act of pulling the victim’s hair. So, if the hair entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle is also still attached to the victim, than this would suggest that the cord was wrapped around the handle after the asphyxiation; however, if the hair is attached to the handle only, than this would suggest that the cord was wrapped around the handle before the asphyxiation.

Of course, if the victim’s hair was long enough than it could remain attached to the victim even after the handle was pulled but even if this was the case I think that we could expect that at least some of it would be ripped free.
...

AK

What I am suggesting AK is that the stick and the associated knot may not have been used to tighten the rope around her neck but only to give the appearance of having been used for that purpose, hence staging. Why would it be important to give this false impression? Because a garrote is a brutal weapon of murder that it is very difficult to see a family member using on JB and much more a weapon some brutal sadistic intruder would use. But if you take away the garrote and just focus on the rope around her neck, then we have a killing weapon that doesn't require a brutal premeditated killing by an intruder. And I disagree that most IDI think the garrote was created in-situ. This has been a subject of contention for a long time, with IDI wanting to believe the garrote was created before the murder. But if you (as IDI) say the garrote was created after the rope was around her neck, then explain the logic for it? Why create this complex device almost as an afterthought when you don't need it to kill JB? You can strangle her with the rope without having the stick. So please tell me what kind of sense it makes for an intruder to fashion the garrote while the rope is already around her neck. It makes no sense to me why anyone would do that unless it is staging.

 

[otg]

Anyhoo, you're almost there. Her hair is tied into the "knot" around the stick. The length of cord between the stick and the knot at her neck is 17". If the stick was used to pull the cord and tighten the knot, her hair would have to be longer than 17" for it not to be pulled out by the roots. Was it? Is the hair shown in the autopsy photo of the ligature as long as 17"? Does it show the ends of the hair with roots? So if the paint stick wasn't used to pull the cord, why was it added? And how was the cord pulled if not by the stick?

 

[Mama2JML]

What I am suggesting AK is that the stick and the associated knot may not have been used to tighten the rope around her neck but only to give the appearance of having been used for that purpose, hence staging. Why would it be important to give this false impression? Because a garrote is a brutal weapon of murder that it is very difficult to see a family member using on JB and much more a weapon some brutal sadistic intruder would use. But if you take away the garrote and just focus on the rope around her neck, then we have a killing weapon that doesn't require a brutal premeditated killing by an intruder. And I disagree that most IDI think the garrote was created in-situ. This has been a subject of contention for a long time, with IDI wanting to believe the garrote was created before the murder. But if you (as IDI) say the garrote was created after the rope was around her neck, then explain the logic for it? Why create this complex device almost as an afterthought when you don't need it to kill JB? You can strangle her with the rope without having the stick. So please tell me what kind of sense it makes for an intruder to fashion the garrote while the rope is already around her neck. It makes no sense to me why anyone would do that unless it is staging.

I'm one of the few that entertains the notion the handle was constructed prior to its application in the assault/murder. As I've said many times, I do not see hair incorporated IN the knot on the stick. I see hair wrapped, twisted, & tangled around the exterior of the cord wrapping on the handle. However, I don't refuse to consider the handle may have been made "in situ".

So, let's assume hair was caught up in the knot, on the stick, during construction, for the purpose of staging. How does this explain what is shown in crime scene photos of the "garrote" concerning the presence and abundance of hair twisted around the knot/handle and pulled from the victim's head?

 

[Anyhoo]

Anyhoo, you're almost there. Her hair is tied into the "knot" around the stick. The length of cord between the stick and the knot at her neck is 17". If the stick was used to pull the cord and tighten the knot, her hair would have to be longer than 17" for it not to be pulled out by the roots. Was it? Is the hair shown in the autopsy photo of the ligature as long as 17"? Does it show the ends of the hair with roots? So if the paint stick wasn't used to pull the cord, why was it added? And how was the cord pulled if not by the stick?

Let me go further. I theorize that the stick was added after JB was dead. Perhaps it was added long after she was dead. Maybe JR did this during the period of time he disappeared from sight on the morning of 12-26. That would make sense to me. The stick was added as staging, to give the impression that a brutal intruder strangled JB. BUT I think it is very significant that the knot was tied in close proximity to her hair. This would be very awkward for the person tying the knot and not something one would do by choice unless you were forced to by circumstances. What I am saying is that the rope was already wrapped around her neck and the person who tied the stick on came afterwards and did not want to remove the rope from her neck to tie the knot. It was post murder staging by a desperate person who went over-the-top in this attempt to point LE away from the family.

 

[otg]

Let me go further. I theorize that the stick was added after JB was dead. Perhaps it was added long after she was dead. Maybe JR did this during the period of time he disappeared from sight on the morning of 12-26. That would make sense to me. The stick was added as staging, to give the impression that a brutal intruder strangled JB. BUT I think it is very significant that the knot was tied in close proximity to her hair. This would be very awkward for the person tying the knot and not something one would do by choice unless you were forced to by circumstances. What I am saying is that the rope was already wrapped around her neck and the person who tied the stick on came afterwards and did not want to remove the rope from her neck to tie the knot. It was post murder staging by a desperate person who went over-the-top in this attempt to point LE away from the family.

Okay, we've got that. But why the broken paint brush, and how was the cord pulled without it?

 

[otg]

I'm one of the few that entertains the notion the handle was constructed prior to its application in the assault/murder. As I've said many times, I do not see hair incorporated IN the knot on the stick. I see hair wrapped, twisted, & tangled around the exterior of the cord wrapping on the handle. However, I don't refuse to consider the handle may have been made "in situ".

Mama, is there a difference between "incorporated IN the knot" and "tied into the knot"? (I'm simply trying to understand what you mean as the difference.) Are you considering the wrapping of the cord separate from the knot used to fasten the wrappings? It seems to me that either way it indicates it was never pulled to tighten the cord around her neck.

So, let's assume hair was caught up in the knot, on the stick, during construction, for the purpose of staging. How does this explain what is shown in crime scene photos of the "garrote" concerning the presence and abundance of hair twisted around the knot/handle and pulled from the victim's head?

If the paint brush was added as staging (and I believe it was), the question becomes, "Why was it done?" Who would do that, and with what purpose in mind? Try forgetting for a moment the word "garrote", and think of the ligature that was there before the broken paint brush was added.

 

[Mama2JML]

Mama, is there a difference between "incorporated IN the knot" and "tied into the knot"? (I'm simply trying to understand what you mean as the difference.)

No difference; "incorporated in" & "tied into" the knot are synonymous in my mind.

Are you considering the wrapping of the cord separate from the knot used to fasten the wrappings?

No.

It seems to me that either way it indicates it was never pulled to tighten the cord around her neck.

You may be right. I don't have an opinion as to how the handle functioned, except that I believe there was a purpose, beyond staging. ...and perhaps a mechanical function, to the design of the "garrote" that caused hair (as depicted in the photo below) to become wrapped & twisted around the exterior of the knot, on top of the cord wrapping, & twisted on bare portions of the handle itself. IMO.

If the paint brush was added as staging (and I believe it was), the question becomes, "Why was it done?" Who would do that, and with what purpose in mind? Try forgetting for a moment the word "garrote", and think of the ligature that was there before the broken paint brush was added.

I refer to the device as "the garrote" not because I believe it meets the proper definition, but because it's a connotation with which all of us are familiar. I don't believe the handle was affixed after, and probably not during, the assault or murder. ...and I am not of the opinion that "staging" was the purpose.

 

[Anyhoo]

Okay, we've got that. But why the broken paint brush, and how was the cord pulled without it?

I can only speculate OTG but imagine this scenario: JB is dead. She has been strangled with the rope, which is still around her neck. Someone is evaluating the crime scene sometime after the murder. Some staging has already been done, and this person is at the crime scene to see what additional staging can be done. This person has a knowledge of garrotes somehow from past experiences. The person realizes that a garrote would be a great additional staging to give the impression of an intruder. From his past experience/knowledge he knows how to make a garrote. While crouching down besides the body he looks around the room and sees the paintbrush in the tray and gets the idea that it can be used as the stick if it was shortened. It is just a snap decision to use it because it was close by and in sight.

The rope was wrapped around her neck and pulled tight just using a hand. She was strangled without the stick. Wrap it around her neck with your hand and just pull it tight to strangle her. Nothing complex about doing that.

 

[Anyhoo]

Mama, is there a difference between "incorporated IN the knot" and "tied into the knot"? (I'm simply trying to understand what you mean as the difference.) Are you considering the wrapping of the cord separate from the knot used to fasten the wrappings? It seems to me that either way it indicates it was never pulled to tighten the cord around her neck.

If the paint brush was added as staging (and I believe it was), the question becomes, "Why was it done?" Who would do that, and with what purpose in mind? Try forgetting for a moment the word "garrote", and think of the ligature that was there before the broken paint brush was added.

Let me answer the questions in the last paragraph, which won't be the answers M2M gives: Why? To give the appearance of a brutal sadistic intruder as the murderer, and not a family member. Who? JR, who somehow knew about garrotes, perhaps from his experiences in the navy or while overseas. What purpose? Same answer as Why. LE is going to be at this crime scene soon and the stager is thinking ahead.

 

[Anyhoo]

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis2.htm

 

[otg]

No difference; "incorporated in" & "tied into" the knot are synonymous in my mind. No.You may be right. I don't have an opinion as to how the handle functioned, except that I believe there was a purpose, beyond staging. ...and perhaps a mechanical function, to the design of the "garrote" that caused hair (as depicted in the photo below) to become wrapped & twisted around the exterior of the knot, on top of the cord wrapping, & twisted on bare portions of the handle itself. IMO.

Granted, we're only guessing based on what we see in two pictures, but compare the appearance of the hair in the photo UKGuy posted in his #218 to what we see in the photo you posted. In the first, it appears there are at least two strands of hair being pulled straight out by the "handle", and that there is no loose hair bunched up around the stick. But in the photo taken after the ligature had been removed by the coroner, it is loose and there doesn't appear to be any hair with the roots still on it. While he doesn't note it specifically in the AR as he does the neck knot, I think Meyer had to cut the hair attached to the stick in order to remove it. So it doesn't matter whether the hair is in the wrappings around the stick or in the knot itself, the fact that it is there shows that the stick attached to the cord could not have been used to pull the cord. So what other purpose could the stick (handle) have served?

I refer to the device as "the garrote" not because I believe it meets the proper definition, but because it's a connotation with which all of us are familiar.

I understand how we all use "garrote" as a simple way of referring to it. I'm just afraid some people get caught up in thinking of it as something it is not.

I don't believe the handle was affixed after, and probably not during, the assault or murder. ...and I am not of the opinion that "staging" was the purpose.

If not staging, then what? It could not have been constructed before the person who used it (intruder) arrived at the house because it was constructed at least in part with materials found in the basement. If this person brought with him/her the cord, did they bring it without something attached on the end hoping they would find what they needed in the home? That's kind of poor planning on that person's part. No? And if this person added the "handle" after the fact (which seems to be proven by the photos), why do so? For what reason? Many (myself included) think that reason is staging. But if you don't think it is staging, to what other purpose can you attribute it?

 

[Mama2JML]

Granted, we're only guessing based on what we see in two pictures, but compare the appearance of the hair in the photo UKGuy posted in his #218 to what we see in the photo you posted. In the first, it appears there are at least two strands of hair being pulled straight out by the "handle", and that there is no loose hair bunched up around the stick.

I'm not so sure. I cannot see the strands of hair, the knot, and the cord clearly enough to discern this.

But in the photo taken after the ligature had been removed by the coroner, it is loose and there doesn't appear to be any hair with the roots still on it.

I don't think it's possible to determine whether any roots are present.

While he doesn't note it specifically in the AR as he does the neck knot, I think Meyer had to cut the hair attached to the stick in order to remove it.

This is possible, I guess. However, it's not noted in the AR.

So it doesn't matter whether the hair is in the wrappings around the stick or in the knot itself, the fact that it is there shows that the stick attached to the cord could not have been used to pull the cord.

Maybe not? I have not arrived at the same conclusions you have, although it appears (to me) the cord wasn't simply pulled.

So what other purpose could the stick (handle) have served?

I am not sure, but somehow hair is twisted, tangled, and wrapped around the exterior of the device. Aside from any hair that may be tied into the knot, there exists an abundance of hair on the exterior of the knot. Why? How? I do not know, but is like to figure it out.

I understand how we all use "garrote" as a simple way of referring to it. I'm just afraid some people get caught up in thinking of it as something it is not.

If not staging, then what? It could not have been constructed before the person who used it (intruder) arrived at the house because it was constructed at least in part with materials found in the basement.

I agree, it's likely the paintbrush was found in the tray.

If this person brought with him/her the cord, did they bring it without something attached on the end hoping they would find what they needed in the home?

I don't know.

That's kind of poor planning on that person's part. No?

Could be, although it may have been part of the plan or it could have been a spur of the moment choice, or?...

And if this person added the "handle" after the fact (which seems to be proven by the photos), why do so? For what reason? Many (myself included) think that reason is staging. But if you don't think it is staging, to what other purpose can you attribute it?

There are a few purposes I consider, but for now, I'm not at a point that allows me to firmly arrive at a single theory.

 

[otg]

(snipped only for reference)

.

I see all these contradictions in the garrote/ligature like Lou Smit saw the pineapple: "THAT's always been the big bugaboo."

 

[otg]

(bbm)

I can only speculate OTG but imagine this scenario: JB is dead. She has been strangled with the rope, which is still around her neck. Someone is evaluating the crime scene sometime after the murder. Some staging has already been done, and this person is at the crime scene to see what additional staging can be done. This person has a knowledge of garrotes somehow from past experiences. The person realizes that a garrote would be a great additional staging to give the impression of an intruder. From his past experience/knowledge he knows how to make a garrote. While crouching down besides the body he looks around the room and sees the paintbrush in the tray and gets the idea that it can be used as the stick if it was shortened. It is just a snap decision to use it because it was close by and in sight.

The rope was wrapped around her neck and pulled tight just using a hand. She was strangled without the stick. Wrap it around her neck with your hand and just pull it tight to strangle her. Nothing complex about doing that.

But if this person had knowledge/experience with garrotes, why didn't he/she make an efficient garrote? Search for images and most of what you will find (if you exclude the Spanish execution device and pictures from JonBenet) look something like this:

If this person knew anything about using a garrote, he would know that tying the loop around the neck and pulling one end of the cord is inefficient and impracticle. An amateur OTOH...

 

[DeeDee249]

Re: The length of JB's hair...pictures posted of the R's Christmas Party on the 23rd show that her hair was at least 17" long. It doesn't show much hair in the autopsy photos, and the Christmas morning photos don't give a true impression of the length either. But the picture of a smiling JB sitting with the other kids at her parents' party on the 23rd, wearing her purple velvet dress and her hair in a pretty topknot with the remaining hair streaming down long give a more accurate idea of the length. (these pictures break my heart)
I do recall that the coroner had said that he had to cut some of her hair to remove the ligature from her neck. I assume he meant he had to cut the part that was wound around the paintbrush.
Had her hair been pulled out, I assume the coroner would be able to tell- he'd see the roots. Part of what he should have done was look at the hair that was in the "handle" under a microscope to tell whether it had been pulled out- but e did not follow proper protocol in other aspects of his autopsy, so I'd say he probably never examined the hair.

 

[Anti-K]

SUBJECT MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR EVERYONE; description of asphyxiation, etc
IMO! The garrote could have been fashioned something like this: lay victim (unconscious from head blow, or wide awake and alert) on floor, face down, arms to either side or beneath. Sit on top of victim, your bum on victim’s lower back, your legs to either side with your heels against your bum, your knees pinning the victim’s shoulders. Loop cord around neck and tie slip knot – hair becomes entwined in knot. Wrap cord around handle, hair becomes entwined. Grip handle and hair, pull handle with entwined hair – hair pulls free, garrote tightens, asphyxiation begins. Walk away, or do something else while the asphyxiation continues without you.

This scenario explains the evidence as we see it, and as it has been described in the AR and elsewhere.

Hair Cut or Pulled Free?
I do see the same strands that otg sees that look like they could be attached at both ends, but, I don’t think that this is a determination that can be made from this picture. This hair does seem to be attached to the victim, but to the handle? This photograph does not convince me either way.

Regardless, the scenario above is sufficient to explain the hair as we see it, and as it has been described, and I am not aware of any source stating that the hair was still attached to the victim, or that the coroner had to cut it when he removed it from the victim.

Handle Used or just for Display?
Since the handle is attached, and since pulling the handle with hair entwined is sufficient to explain the evidence as we see it I think that it would be reasonable to provisionally accept that this is in fact what did happen. However, there is further evidence that seemingly corroborates this position.

The cord wrapped around the handle appears to be very neat and almost undisturbed. However, the opposite side of the handle shows something very different, and the wrapping on this side is messy, and obviously disturbed. The largest clump of hair is around the neat side of the handle.

When the user tightened his hand around the handle and pulled it the neat side of the handle (with the hair) would have faced the palm of his hand while his fingers would have dug into the messy side (grabbing more hair) – thus, making it appear messy and disturbed. If the handle had not been used than I think we could expect the wrapping to be similar I appearance (neat) on both sides.

For the Sake of Appearance
I cannot see how adding the handle could make the asphyxiation appear any more brutal or what-have-you than it would have appeared without it. Remove the handle and you still have a child who was asphyxiated to death by a ligature that was tightened around her neck in a brutal fashion.

Efficient and Experienced
The user only needed to be familiar with this type of ligature, and he only needed to know that this type of ligature would work good enough for what he intended. This type of ligature is a slip knot. This is a very common type of knot and almost everyone can tie one. In a flash.

Ligatures of this type are very efficient. They are simple to construct, simple to use and require only one, fast, hard pull and the job is done. Once tightened the ligature remains tight without any further effort on the user’s part. Just one good pull and then walk away.

Why Use a Handle?
Wrong question, but, why not use a handle? Handles make certain things easier to use, that’s why we use them, so why not?

The question should be, why was the paintbrush broken? It would have worked as a handle just as well if left as a single piece. Why take the time/effort to break the handle, and why put the detached end back into the paint tote?

If RDI, than these are further examples of the Ramseys unnecessarily creating self-incriminating evidence: the paintbrush connects the ligature to the house. It would be nonsensical for the Ramseys to do such a thing (particularly if they disposed of the remainder of the cord/tape, etc so that such items could not be traced back to the house).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Re: The length of JB's hair...pictures posted of the R's Christmas Party on the 23rd show that her hair was at least 17" long. It doesn't show much hair in the autopsy photos, and the Christmas morning photos don't give a true impression of the length either. But the picture of a smiling JB sitting with the other kids at her parents' party on the 23rd, wearing her purple velvet dress and her hair in a pretty topknot with the remaining hair streaming down long give a more accurate idea of the length. (these pictures break my heart)
I do recall that the coroner had said that he had to cut some of her hair to remove the ligature from her neck. I assume he meant he had to cut the part that was wound around the paintbrush.
Had her hair been pulled out, I assume the coroner would be able to tell- he'd see the roots. Part of what he should have done was look at the hair that was in the "handle" under a microscope to tell whether it had been pulled out- but e did not follow proper protocol in other aspects of his autopsy, so I'd say he probably never examined the hair.

Thomas mentions (p. 41) that Meyer had to cut the hair entwined in the knot around the neck, but he does not mention the hair entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle.

Kolar also mentions (p. 55) that Meyer had to cut the hair entwined in the knot around the neck, but he does not mention the hair entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle.
...

AK

 

[Anyhoo]

(bbm)But if this person had knowledge/experience with garrotes, why didn't he/she make an efficient garrote? Search for images and most of what you will find (if you exclude the Spanish execution device and pictures from JonBenet) look something like this:

If this person knew anything about using a garrote, he would know that tying the loop around the neck and pulling one end of the cord is inefficient and impracticle. An amateur OTOH...

Good point. I want to revise my theory as follows: The person who created the garrote had never made one himself before but had a conceptual idea of how one would be created. The person made a garrote how they imagined one would be created, even though they had no actual knowledge of how to create one. As we see, what they made only appears to be a garrote but would be completely useless as an actual garrote (17 inch distance between the stick and the slip knot). Of the three RDI suspects, who can we say would be most likely to create something like this? Can any of the three RDI suspects be ruled out as the creator of the garrote? Your thoughts?

 

[Anyhoo]

Thomas mentions (p. 41) that Meyer had to cut the hair entwined in the knot around the neck, but he does not mention the hair entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle.

Kolar also mentions (p. 55) that Meyer had to cut the hair entwined in the knot around the neck, but he does not mention the hair entwined in the cord wrapped around the handle.
...

AK

To me this just means there was a lot more hair entwined in the knot around her neck and this was interfering with the autopsy so he had to cut it. There was less hair in the garrote knot and it wasn't interfering with the autopsy so no mention of it. What is your point?