Premeditated?

[Mama2JML]

No disagreement, but the hair being intertwined or not is just not a driver in planned pre-meditation or reactive pre-meditation if that makes sense.

Yes, makes sense to me. Pre-meditation, deliberate purpose, utilized with intent, but not purposeful in staging. IMHO. For effectual purposes after, i.e. shock value, maybe/probably?... MOO.

 

[Mama2JML]

No disagreement, but the hair being intertwined or not is just not a driver in planned pre-meditation or reactive pre-meditation if that makes sense.

I'm simply saying the killer/accomplice didn't look at the cord around the neck and determine, "Hey, a handle would seal the deal!", then add the paintbrush. After death for staging? I just don't think this is a reasonable conjecture when considering the "totality of the evidence"...

 

[Mama2JML]

So you think the murder was premeditated? While I consider that possible, it is less likely than the alternative: that the murder was not premeditated and someone improvised and staged after the fact to confuse LE.

If your alternative is correct, the evidence should indicate such, but it doesn't. JMHO.

 

[UKGuy]

I also think JonBenet's murder was premeditated. JonBenet was denied medical assistance then asphyxiated, this was deliberate and calculated, it was no accident!

There is nothing to prevent someone ligature asphyxiating JonBenet upstairs, and applying the paintbrush handle downstairs, this in fact conforms to an ad-hoc pattern of staging.

That JonBenet's hair was embedded into the knotting around the paintbrush handle suggests it was tied in place, it does not follow she was asphyxiated at the same time?

JonBenet apparently sustained three separate injuries, i.e. a sexual assault, a head injury, and a ligature asphyxiation.

Any RDI theory has to explain these away along with the other contusions and abrasions noted on JonBenet.

Although there might be some overlap in describing upstairs in the Ramsey house as the primary crime-scene and downstairs/basement as the secondary crime-scene, i.e. staged crime-scene. I feel it helps to map JonBenet's injuries to the correct location, i.e. upstairs?

.

 

[Mama2JML]

I also think JonBenet's murder was premeditated. JonBenet was denied medical assistance then asphyxiated, this was deliberate and calculated, it was no accident!

There is nothing to prevent someone ligature asphyxiating JonBenet upstairs, and applying the paintbrush handle downstairs, this in fact conforms to an ad-hoc pattern of staging.

That JonBenet's hair was embedded into the knotting around the paintbrush handle suggests it was tied in place, it does not follow she was asphyxiated at the same time?

JonBenet apparently sustained three separate injuries, i.e. a sexual assault, a head injury, and a ligature asphyxiation.

Any RDI theory has to explain these away along with the other contusions and abrasions noted on JonBenet.

Although there might be some overlap in describing upstairs in the Ramsey house as the primary crime-scene and downstairs/basement as the secondary crime-scene, i.e. staged crime-scene. I feel it helps to map JonBenet's injuries to the correct location, i.e. upstairs?

.

BBM

The hair isn't within the knot on the stick. (It's not tied into, "embedded" or incorporated.)

The hair is only present on the exterior of the handle knot. It's twisted around the cord that's wrapped around the handle, but there's no hair sandwiched between the wrapping and the stick. JMO@TM.

 

[Zeno49]

I definitely do not think the murder was premeditated. But I think the molestation was ongoing. I believe the note was written AFTER, as a way to explain why she was dead (because they called police and others).And I think they called all their friends to the house, in a very public display of flouting the "orders" in the RN, so that there would be no doubt that the "kidnappers" killed her because they spoke to people.
In a "real" kidnapping, I can see parents still calling police regardless of whether they were instructed not to. I'd do the same. BUT no way parents would ever call all their friends, clergy, etc- OTHER people to come to the house. Bad enough to call them, but to have them all driving up to the house, parking their cars, etc. indicates clearly that these parents had NOTHING to fear from that note. (because they wrote it and because the victim was already dead).

I think your account is absolutely on the mark and true.
Nice comment.

 

[Anti-K]

I’m still not really sure where to begin, or what all to cover, but I think I’ll start here: You may not think that “we really disagree over the issue,” but, we do. In BOLD (BBM) is the specific claim that I disagree with.

The deep ligature furrow was formed postmortem. It is not an indication of how tightly the ligature was pulled while she was being strangled. It forms as a result of the body's swelling, and the color is because of the ligature's effect on blood and other fluids under the surface of the skin.

The deep ligature furrow IS an indication of how tightly the ligature was pulled while she was being strangled. However, it is not the only indicator. Accompanying injury as noted in the AR, and as seen in the autopsy photos (petechia, abrasions, etc) are indicators of how tight the ligature was pulled, as is the fact of death by asphyxiation (associated with... ). The tautness of the ligature as it is seen while around the neck (as opposed to the more relaxed appearance after its removal) is another indicator.

Every account, every report, every opinion (those of a few forum posters notwithstanding) supports the claim that Jonbenet was asphyxiated to death by the ligature positioned, and embedded, as we see it in the autopsy photos.

This is a pretty solid body of evidence, and I’ve never come across anything to contradict any of it. But, let’s say that your explanation for the furrow is true. We still have the petachia, the triangular abrasion, the tautness of the ligature, the consensus of opinion...

But, as I’ve said, your explanation for the furrow is false.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

If you notice in your video that when you tightened the cord, the surrounding flesh raised up because of the pressure applied at the ligature.

The video: http://tinyurl.com/mg4vvhr

Surely you don’t deny that the ligature is sunk into my flesh, and that it is quite tight! It is embedded. There is a furrow. If I was dead (dead for some period of time; right?), and you removed the ligature the furrow would remain.

The damage that you think causes the swelling/furrow only occurs because the ligature was tight enough to cause the damage that, in turn, causes the swelling/furrow!!! You don’t get one without the other.

Your source: This embedding may be accentuated by edema of the tissues, especially above the ligature.

The embedding is the result of the ligature being tightened around the victim’s neck.

That embedding may be accentuated. What embedding? The embedding that is already there.

Accentuated by what? Edema (“especially above the ligature).”

What caused the edema? The ligature being tightened around the neck with sufficient force as to cause such damage.

As your source states: Presumably, some passive transudation of tissue fluid continues even after the circulation has stopped...

Passive transudation. Passive. Fluids are "seeping" (because of the damage caused by the tightening of the ligature), and presumably they continue to seep for a bit, after death. Your source: ...edema may continue to develop to some extent even after death, accentuating the depth of the groove.

Swelling (caused by the tightening of the ligature) MAY continue post-mortem, and this swelling MAY accentuate (make more distinct) the (pre-exisiting) depth of the groove. But, the groove – the furrow – is caused by the tightening of the ligature (and the fact that it remained in place for hours after death).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Sorry if I’ve not made it clear enough, AK. I think she died from strangulation with the same ligature found on her neck where the first (IMO) white line is found. This caused her death (along with cerebral trauma from the head blow). Where we see the furrow is where I believe the ligature slipped upwards after she was already dead.

If a theory or speculative direction is not supported by the evidence, than the theory should be abandoned.
...

AK

 

[Anyhoo]

I also think JonBenet's murder was premeditated. JonBenet was denied medical assistance then asphyxiated, this was deliberate and calculated, it was no accident!

There is nothing to prevent someone ligature asphyxiating JonBenet upstairs, and applying the paintbrush handle downstairs, this in fact conforms to an ad-hoc pattern of staging.

That JonBenet's hair was embedded into the knotting around the paintbrush handle suggests it was tied in place, it does not follow she was asphyxiated at the same time?

JonBenet apparently sustained three separate injuries, i.e. a sexual assault, a head injury, and a ligature asphyxiation.

Any RDI theory has to explain these away along with the other contusions and abrasions noted on JonBenet.

Although there might be some overlap in describing upstairs in the Ramsey house as the primary crime-scene and downstairs/basement as the secondary crime-scene, i.e. staged crime-scene. I feel it helps to map JonBenet's injuries to the correct location, i.e. upstairs?

.

Please don't confuse terms. Premeditated is not the same as purposeful. JB could be purposefully killed without the murder being premeditated. For example: After an accidental head blow, someone made the choice to purposely kill JB by strangling her. That is a big difference to premeditation, where someone makes the choice to kill JB in advance and then carries it out. No one is saying the strangulation is accidental, but just because the strangulation is purposeful does not indicate premeditation.

EDIT TO ADD: What I am trying to say is that some unexpected, unplanned incident may have led to the purposeful strangulation. That would NOT be premeditation by my definition.

Not just RDI, but any theory must explain those three things you mentioned UKGuy.

Which of these three injuries do you think took place upstairs and why do you think that?

 

[Anyhoo]

http://www.acandyrose.com/05312000larrykinglive.htm

P. RAMSEY: You must have conjured something in your head for you to come out and call me a murderer of my child. I want to hear one through 10. When did I write this ransom note? Before or after I killed JonBenet?

THOMAS: You tell me: You wrote the ransom note.

P. RAMSEY: No, you're the one theorizing here, you tell me.

--------------

if this was planned (possible,since we're dealing with a dysfunctional family) I still tend to believe the note was written after the killing as staging

For some reason I missed that interview on Larry King between Steve Thomas and the Ramsey's. Absolutely amazing to read it!!

 

[UKGuy]

Please don't confuse terms. Premeditated is not the same as purposeful. JB could be purposefully killed without the murder being premeditated. For example: After an accidental head blow, someone made the choice to purposely kill JB by strangling her. That is a big difference to premeditation, where someone makes the choice to kill JB in advance and then carries it out. No one is saying the strangulation is accidental, but just because the strangulation is purposeful does not indicate premeditation.

EDIT TO ADD: What I am trying to say is that some unexpected, unplanned incident may have led to the purposeful strangulation. That would NOT be premeditation by my definition.

Not just RDI, but any theory must explain those three things you mentioned UKGuy.

Which of these three injuries do you think took place upstairs and why do you think that?

Anyhoo,
Purposeful, Premeditated, Prior Thought, Due Consideration. Select whichever semantics suits your theory, but someone deliberately killed JonBenet, after she was sexually assaulted.

I reckon all three injuries could have taken place upstairs, which room and who did what is open for debate.

If its BDI then a possible scenario is that allegedly BR sexually assaults JonBenet, she attempts to extract herself from the situation, leading to a struggle and fight, resulting in JonBenet falling unconcious due to her neck being constricted, this scenario might explain the majority of contusions and abrasions on her body, including the mark on her neck lying beneath the circumferential furrow. And if you factor in the mess in her bedroom this suggests her bedroom as the primary crime-scene?

BR seeks help from his parents one of which decides to whack JonBenet on the head so to offer a visible explanation for her death, this fails, so they move onto applying a ligature thus asphyxiating JonBenet.

The rest is staging for obvious reasons, the application of the paintbrush handle, is an after the fact addition, easily accomplished as they prepare JonBenet for the wine-cellar, i.e. change her underwear for the size-12's.

Its possible that there was more than one staging prepared, e.g. one in her bedroom, one elsewhere in the basement, and finally one including the wine-cellar?

Without repeating all the details if you track the changes to JonBenet they seem to evolve from being dressed in her bedclothes to other clothing including the size-12's, to finally being wrapped in a blanket with the paintbrush handle added?

All illustrating ad-hoc staging as the night wore on, resulting in the ransom note and the hiding of JonBenet in the wine-cellar to stage an abduction.

Any kidnapper or Intruder does not need to place JonBenet into the wine-cellar that is gratuitous behaviour, all they need to do is dump JonBenet anywhere in the house and leave ASAP!

So it appears BR may have staged JonBenet in her own bedroom, hence the bloodstain on the pillow, JR may have staged JonBenet somewhere in the basement, this was later revised to that of an abduction, so JonBenet ended up in the winecellar?

For the three main injuries they may have been caused by BR, JR and PR, in that sequence?

.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM

The hair isn't within the knot on the stick. (It's not tied into, "embedded" or incorporated.)

The hair is only present on the exterior of the handle knot. It's twisted around the cord that's wrapped around the handle, but there's no hair sandwiched between the wrapping and the stick. JMO@TM.

Mama2JML,
JonBenet's hair lies underneath the ligature at the front of her neck, as does the necklace where they meet.

Also rather than display the shocking pictures, I'll limit myself to the Autopsy Report:

Autopsy Report, 12/27/96 John E Meyer, excerpt.

Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick.

in the knot sounds like incorporated to me, you may interpret this evidence accordingly?

.

 

[otg]

I’m still not really sure where to begin, or what all to cover, but I think I’ll start here: You may not think that “we really disagree over the issue,” but, we do. In BOLD (BBM) is the specific claim that I disagree with.

The deep ligature furrow was formed postmortem. It is not an indication of how tightly the ligature was pulled while she was being strangled. It forms as a result of the body's swelling, and the color is because of the ligature's effect on blood and other fluids under the surface of the skin.

The deep ligature furrow IS an indication of how tightly the ligature was pulled while she was being strangled. However, it is not the only indicator. Accompanying injury as noted in the AR, and as seen in the autopsy photos (petechia, abrasions, etc) are indicators of how tight the ligature was pulled, as is the fact of death by asphyxiation (associated with... ). The tautness of the ligature as it is seen while around the neck (as opposed to the more relaxed appearance after its removal) is another indicator.

As I stated earlier (bbm):

We both know (as I’m sure everyone here knows) that there would be no furrow, no discoloration of the underlying flesh, and no evidence of a ligature (other than its presence) if it was not tight enough to depress the flesh on a victim and compress the tissue enough to have any effect at all. But unless the tightening of the ligature was enough to cause immediate (acute) damage to her neck, it would leave nothing behind after it was removed (as you demonstrated in your video). However, left on for a long enough period of time, it would.

I see no need to add anything to that. We've covered it, and I see no point in us each continuing to state our opinions.

Every account, every report, every opinion (those of a few forum posters notwithstanding) supports the claim that Jonbenet was asphyxiated to death by the ligature positioned, and embedded, as we see it in the autopsy photos.

So are we to use consensus to arrive at the truth? Why then such wide disagreement among the “experts” on the exact circumstances?

This is a pretty solid body of evidence, and I’ve never come across anything to contradict any of it. But, let’s say that your explanation for the furrow is true. We still have the petachia, the triangular abrasion, the tautness of the ligature, the consensus of opinion...

And these are all things that you feel are related to the furrow itself? Let’s take each of the things you list one at a time:

1. The petechiae are caused by rupture of the surface capillaries due to the increased pressure from the strangulation -- regardless of where the ligature was. There is also petechial hemorrhaging noted in the AR on her eyelids, her left cheek, her left shoulder, both her lungs, and her heart. Do you feel these are all related to the exact position of the ligature?
2. The triangular abrasion (IMO) is from the rupture of a larger blood vessel in her neck and the blood’s extravasation into surrounding tissue. The reason this pooled blood is triangularly shaped is due to its limitation within the musculature of what forms the carotid triangle. You can read more about this [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123333"]here[/ame]. I should also point out that it is less likely that this would occur below the ligature -- like the petechial hemorrhaging in the area of the ligature, it is more likely above the ligature.
3. The tautness of the ligature (as I’ve already stated) has a different effect dependent on how long it is left in place.
4. Do you really think I need to account for “consensus of opinion”? What kind of scientific evidence is that?

But, as I’ve said, your explanation for the furrow is false.

We disagree.

 

[otg]

The video: http://tinyurl.com/mg4vvhr

Surely you don’t deny that the ligature is sunk into my flesh, and that it is quite tight!

Nope.

It is embedded.

Okay, we could say that -- even though it is only temporarily embedded.

There is a furrow.

No, there isn’t. (Maybe this is where our disagreement lies.) The furrow is not there when you remove the ligature. It is only formed after time because of the body’s response.

If I was dead (dead for some period of time; right?), and you removed the ligature the furrow would remain.

Yes -- if the ligature was in place long enough for the furrow to have formed. It is not instantaneous after death.

The damage that you think causes the swelling/furrow only occurs because the ligature was tight enough to cause the damage that, in turn, causes the swelling/furrow!!! You don’t get one without the other.

Your source: This embedding may be accentuated by edema of the tissues, especially above the ligature.

The embedding is the result of the ligature being tightened around the victim’s neck.

That embedding may be accentuated. What embedding? The embedding that is already there.

Accentuated by what? Edema (“especially above the ligature).”

What caused the edema? The ligature being tightened around the neck with sufficient force as to cause such damage.

As your source states: Presumably, some passive transudation of tissue fluid continues even after the circulation has stopped...

Passive transudation. Passive. Fluids are "seeping" (because of the damage caused by the tightening of the ligature), and presumably they continue to seep for a bit, after death. Your source: ...edema may continue to develop to some extent even after death, accentuating the depth of the groove.

Swelling (caused by the tightening of the ligature) MAY continue post-mortem, and this swelling MAY accentuate (make more distinct) the (pre-exisiting) depth of the groove. But, the groove – the furrow – is caused by the tightening of the ligature (and the fact that it remained in place for hours after death).
...

AK

We’re beginning to circle back to the same points, AK, and I don’t see much purpose in continuing to go back and forth on each point -- especially in a thread where we’ve gone off topic. I think it best if I just back off and say we disagree. We’re both beginning to bore the other posters.

 

[otg]

If a theory or speculative direction is not supported by the evidence, than the theory should be abandoned.
...

AK

I’m just gonna scroll on by your opinion there, my friend. It’s this discussion that needs to be abandoned.

 

[Mama2JML]

Anyhoo,
Purposeful, Premeditated, Prior Thought, Due Consideration. Select whichever semantics suits your theory, but someone deliberately killed JonBenet, after she was sexually assaulted.

RSBM

Amen.

 

[Mama2JML]

Mama2JML,
JonBenet's hair lies underneath the ligature at the front of her neck, as does the necklace where they meet.

Right. I see that. No disagreement here...

Also rather than display the shocking pictures, I'll limit myself to the Autopsy Report:

Autopsy Report, 12/27/96 John E Meyer, excerpt.

"Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick."​

in the knot sounds like incorporated to me, you may interpret this evidence accordingly?
.

I interpret Meyer's observation, "Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck," just as you have. No disagreement here, either.

Based on photos & the AR, I'm not so sure hair was "entwined in the knot on the" stick:

"...as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick."​

The hair isn't within the knot on the stick. (It's not tied into, "embedded" or incorporated.)

The hair is only present on the exterior of the handle knot. It's twisted around the cord that's wrapped around the handle, but there's no hair sandwiched between the wrapping and the stick. JMO@TM.

I only know of one other poster that agrees with me, so I don't really expect anyone else to see it as I do.

...

 

[otg]

A few pics related to the discussion on the hair entanglement:

 

[Mama2JML]

A few pics related to the discussion on the hair entanglement:

Thank you, otg. Is it okay if I post a large photo of the knot on the handle? I don't want to upset anyone. The victim is not shown. So, do you think it would it be okay? ...just want to follow the norms & TOS.