Premeditated?

[Anti-K]

To me, this isn't a functional garrote. A true garrote isn't tied or knotted- it is placed around the neck and the two ends held in the two hands of the killer, then crossed and pulled. To me, this is just a piece of cord tied tightly in a knot around her neck- then a "makeshift" handle was attached. It never functioned as a true garrote. Neither was it a true noose either. I obviously wasn't suggesting that the Boy Scouts teach how to make a functional garrote. But they DO teach how to make knots.

It does not matter if this was a “true garrote.” It is what it is and the fact that someone way back whenever dubbed it a garrote doesn’t change anything at all.

Your claim of “just a piece of cord tied tightly in a knot around her neck” is disproved by the evidence. It was a functional slip knot. That is painfully obvious and there is no evidence or sound reason to doubt this claim.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Well I am confused and don't know what to believe about the garrote. We have one side saying the garrote was functional enough to kill JB and another side saying that it was not functional and just created to give the appearance of a functional garrote. It shouldn't be this difficult to determine the truth about this aspect of the crime. Can someone clear this up?

Look to the evidence.

The ligature is deeply embedded in the flesh, there are petechia, abrasions, ecchymosis, etc. There is the AR which clearly states cause of death was “asphyxia by strangulation” (associated with... ). There is no post-mortem bloat or post-mortem swelling. The ligature is embedded as we see it because that is how tight it was pulled.

Every account you can find – outside of a few forum posters - agrees with this. There is no contrary evidence or conflicting opinions. The evidence is clear and unequivocal: Jonbenet was asphyxiated to death by strangulation and her killer left the ligature that he strangled her with in place around her neck.
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Look to the evidence.

The ligature is deeply embedded in the flesh, there are petechia, abrasions, ecchymosis, etc. There is the AR which clearly states cause of death was “asphyxia by strangulation” (associated with... ). There is no post-mortem bloat or post-mortem swelling. The ligature is embedded as we see it because that is how tight it was pulled.

Every account you can find – outside of a few forum posters - agrees with this. There is no contrary evidence or conflicting opinions. The evidence is clear and unequivocal: Jonbenet was asphyxiated to death by strangulation and her killer left the ligature that he strangled her with in place around her neck.
...

AK

Anti-K,
Enacting out a ligature/rod construction today does not demonstrate this was how it took place on 12/25/1996!

The major flaw in your reasoning follows from your BBM sentence above.

Since JonBenet could have been ligature asphyxiated anywhere in the house then brought to the basement where the broken piece of paintbrush handle was tied to the remaining length of the ligature!

You are making the classic error of mistaking the staged evidence for bona-fide forensic evidence. This is the intended purpose of a crime-scene staging!

.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy writes that, “If the ligature/paintbrush handle had been used as advertised JonBenet's neck and internal structures would have sustained corresponding damage there was none!”

I’m not sure what is meant by “as advertised,” but I do know that the “neck and internal structures” as described in the AR and as seen in the autopsy photos are EXACTLY as one should expect given that the victim was asphyxiated to death due to the ligature being tightened sufficiently around her neck to occlude the carotids and jugulars which then resulted in her death.

Damage to “internal structures” are not commonly seen in strangulations of this type (look it up!), so the damage to “internal structures” is as we should expect. As for UKGuy’s bizarre denial of corresponding damage to the neck – I’m almost speechless. Read the autopsy report; look at the photographs.
...

AK

Anti-K,
As advertised refers to the common conception of what is termed a Garrote.

Technically this is a USofA neologism or synonym where a ligature device is used to asphyxiate someone, as the term garrrote applies to the stick or rod used!

The broken piece of paintbrush handle affixed to the ligature is completely redundant.

In fact it would probably detract from rather than assist in any asphyxiation.

The basic method of asphyxiation, known as Thugee style simply places the ligature around the victims neck from the rear and pulls tightly back, waiting for death to take place.

An improved method which requires prior construction applies a small rod, usually wood, to both ends of the ligature. This is used by assassins the world over, particularly favored by the miltary.

Please observe that the ligature/paintbrush found around JonBenet's neck falls into neither category.

So it is not really a Garrote it only seems like one since the media chose to describe it so.

So for those uncertain as to what took place that fateful night, what I am suggesting is that if the ligature had been used in conjunction with the paintbrush handle, then the injuries to JonBenet's neck, particularly her internal structures, i.e. would have been more severe?

With the paintbrush handle exerting an asymmetric force to the left or the right you would not expect to see a nice circumferential furrow.

It follows from the forensic evidence that the ligature, paintbrush handle were applied in stages, possibly with a significant time gap between them.

Again constructing a ligature/rod device today does not mean this is how it was done on the night of JonBenet's murder!

.

 

[Darlene733510]

I know that when my boys were in Boy Scouts they were taught how to make a tourniquet.
It seems to me that this so called garrote resembles a tourniquet, which would be used to control bleeding of an injury. The so called handle would be used off and on until medical help could take over.

 

[Anyhoo]

I know that when my boys were in Boy Scouts they were taught how to make a tourniquet.
It seems to me that this so called garrote resembles a tourniquet, which would be used to control bleeding of an injury. The so called handle would be used off and on until medical help could take over.

Even it that were the case, I don't think 9 year old BR devised the idea of creating this to strangle his sister to death.

 

[Anyhoo]

Anti-K,
Enacting out a ligature/rod construction today does not demonstrate this was how it took place on 12/25/1996!

The major flaw in your reasoning follows from your BBM sentence above.

Since JonBenet could have been ligature asphyxiated anywhere in the house then brought to the basement where the broken piece of paintbrush handle was tied to the remaining length of the ligature!

You are making the classic error of mistaking the staged evidence for bona-fide forensic evidence. This is the intended purpose of a crime-scene staging!

.

I hear what you are saying but you are making the assumption that the entire garrote (rope and stick) was not created around JB's neck before she was strangled. On what basis do you assume that? Why couldn't the scenario have been as follows?

1. Head blow
2. Creation of entire garrote around JB's neck while she is incapacitated from the head blow.
3. Pulling on stick and strangling JB.

What makes this not possible? If it is possible, then what makes you disbelieve it?

 

[Anyhoo]

Anti-K,
Enacting out a ligature/rod construction today does not demonstrate this was how it took place on 12/25/1996!

The major flaw in your reasoning follows from your BBM sentence above.

Since JonBenet could have been ligature asphyxiated anywhere in the house then brought to the basement where the broken piece of paintbrush handle was tied to the remaining length of the ligature!

You are making the classic error of mistaking the staged evidence for bona-fide forensic evidence. This is the intended purpose of a crime-scene staging!

.

Look to the evidence.

The ligature is deeply embedded in the flesh, there are petechia, abrasions, ecchymosis, etc. There is the AR which clearly states cause of death was “asphyxia by strangulation” (associated with... ). There is no post-mortem bloat or post-mortem swelling. The ligature is embedded as we see it because that is how tight it was pulled.

Every account you can find – outside of a few forum posters - agrees with this. There is no contrary evidence or conflicting opinions. The evidence is clear and unequivocal: Jonbenet was asphyxiated to death by strangulation and her killer left the ligature that he strangled her with in place around her neck.
...

AK

Assuming what you say is true, don't you find it unusual that the killer would craft the garrote around her neck instead of having his killing device already made and ready to use? I certainly find it unusual, just as I find it unusual that the RN was written with pad and pen from the house instead of having been already written. I imagine myself wanting to tie that knot around the stick. I would find it very awkward and inconvenient to try to tie that knot close to her hair. I would want to tie the knot away from her and then bring it to her. Why anyone would do that eludes me.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
Enacting out a ligature/rod construction today does not demonstrate this was how it took place on 12/25/1996!

The major flaw in your reasoning follows from your BBM sentence above.

Since JonBenet could have been ligature asphyxiated anywhere in the house then brought to the basement where the broken piece of paintbrush handle was tied to the remaining length of the ligature!

You are making the classic error of mistaking the staged evidence for bona-fide forensic evidence. This is the intended purpose of a crime-scene staging!

.

Jonbenet was asphyxiated to death by strangulation and her killer left the ligature that he strangled her with in place around her neck.

This is not my reasoning, this is the evidence. This statement of fact makes no reference to where that strangulation tool place, and it makes no reference to the handle, period. So, your objection is non sequitor, and hence not meaningful.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
As advertised refers to the common conception of what is termed a Garrote.

Technically this is a USofA neologism or synonym where a ligature device is used to asphyxiate someone, as the term garrrote applies to the stick or rod used!

The broken piece of paintbrush handle affixed to the ligature is completely redundant.

In fact it would probably detract from rather than assist in any asphyxiation.

The basic method of asphyxiation, known as Thugee style simply places the ligature around the victims neck from the rear and pulls tightly back, waiting for death to take place.

An improved method which requires prior construction applies a small rod, usually wood, to both ends of the ligature. This is used by assassins the world over, particularly favored by the miltary.

Please observe that the ligature/paintbrush found around JonBenet's neck falls into neither category.

So it is not really a Garrote it only seems like one since the media chose to describe it so.

So for those uncertain as to what took place that fateful night, what I am suggesting is that if the ligature had been used in conjunction with the paintbrush handle, then the injuries to JonBenet's neck, particularly her internal structures, i.e. would have been more severe?

With the paintbrush handle exerting an asymmetric force to the left or the right you would not expect to see a nice circumferential furrow.

It follows from the forensic evidence that the ligature, paintbrush handle were applied in stages, possibly with a significant time gap between them.

Again constructing a ligature/rod device today does not mean this is how it was done on the night of JonBenet's murder!

.

Obviously, this garrote was mis-named. That doesn’t change anything about it. Your description of what a garrote should look like and alternative methods of strangulation, while interesting, have absolutely nothing to do with what the killer used in this case; you may as well be talking about cheese.

“If the ligature had been used in conjunction with the paintbrush handle, then the injuries to Jonbenet's neck, particularly her internal structures, i.e. would have been” EXACTLY as we see them in the AR and in the autopsy photographs.

I say this with certainty and beyond all doubt because I have used this type of garrote – I use the term because everyone uses the term – quite literally hundreds of times. UKGuy writes that, “With the paintbrush handle exerting an asymmetric force to the left or the right you would not expect to see a nice circumferential furrow.” UKGuy is demonstrably wrong.

I made this video several years ago to show people that a circumferential furrow is EXACTLY what we get from using the garrote:
http://tinyurl.com/mg4vvhr I encourage everyone to try this for themselves.

But, wait, you say, there is no handle in this video. So, tell me what difference a handle would make? Either you wrap the cord around your hand or you wrap it around a handle, either way the garrote works EXACTLY the same – you pull one end of the cord and the loop around the neck, or whatever it is around, gets smaller. You put a ten inch loop around a ten inch neck and then pull the loop until it is only nine inches around and your end up with an embedded ligature and a circumferential furrow (about 0.3 inch deep).

That’s the facts.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Assuming what you say is true, don't you find it unusual that the killer would craft the garrote around her neck instead of having his killing device already made and ready to use? I certainly find it unusual, just as I find it unusual that the RN was written with pad and pen from the house instead of having been already written. I imagine myself wanting to tie that knot around the stick. I would find it very awkward and inconvenient to try to tie that knot close to her hair. I would want to tie the knot away from her and then bring it to her. Why anyone would do that eludes me.

I addressed this earlier, and I’m just copying that here: Tying the slip knot is easiest if you do it on the victim. Otherwise, you have to make a loop large enough to slip over her head. Handling a loop this large, slipping it over the head and then shrinking it up close enough to the neck for the tightening is just awkward and it takes longer. You could wrap the cord around the handle ahead of time, but it would be just as easy to do it at the same time that you’re tying the slip knot, which means while in close proximity to the victim.
...

AK

 

[Anyhoo]

Jonbenet was asphyxiated to death by strangulation and her killer left the ligature that he strangled her with in place around her neck.
AK

Why would the killer take the head blow weapon out of the house but leave the garrote in place around her neck? Don't you see that as inconsistent behavior? Why hide one but leave the other? My explanation for that inconsistency is that the killer meant for the garrote to be found (as staging). It had been cleaned up of all fingerprints. It was meant to be found by LE to give the false impression that a brutal intruder murdered JB when in fact the killer was within the immediate family.

 

[Anyhoo]

I addressed this earlier, and I’m just copying that here: Tying the slip knot is easiest if you do it on the victim. Otherwise, you have to make a loop large enough to slip over her head. Handling a loop this large, slipping it over the head and then shrinking it up close enough to the neck for the tightening is just awkward and it takes longer. You could wrap the cord around the handle ahead of time, but it would be just as easy to do it at the same time that you’re tying the slip knot, which means while in close proximity to the victim.
...

AK

I'm not talking about the slipknot, AK. I realize it makes sense to tie the slipknot close to the victim. I am talking about the knot around the stick. Why wouldn't the "intruder" already have that knot tied, and then they could tie the slip knot later? I disagree it would be just as easy to tie it at the same time as the slip knot, if her hair was so close it was getting caught up in the knot as it was being created. That would be awkward. Also, why would the killer not even have the stick with him as a separate item that he could then just tie when he was ready? Why have to find a stick in close proximity to the body? What if there had been no paintbrush in that tray or no tray at all close to the body? What would the killer have used then for his garrote stick?

 

[Mama2JML]

Why would the killer take the head blow weapon out of the house but leave the garrote in place around her neck?

Shock value, maybe?...

Don't you see that as inconsistent behavior?

Inconsistent compared to? ...a RN, but she's already dead, & in the house. ...cord & tape missing, but pineapple, sharpies, & notepad left behind.

Why hide one but leave the other?

The weapon used for the head blow is a debatable topic, but I'm not sure what you mean by "hide". Please elaborate...

My explanation for that inconsistency is that the killer meant for the garrote to be found (as staging).

Or, for some other horrendous purpose.

It had been cleaned up of all fingerprints.

What makes you think so?

It was meant to be found by LE to give the false impression that a brutal intruder murdered JB when in fact the killer was within the immediate family.

But, LE didn't find her. If IDI, it seems (to me) the probability of the body being found by a family member would have been far more likely, and this IS how it turned out.

 

[Mama2JML]

I'm not talking about the slipknot, AK. I realize it makes sense to tie the slipknot close to the victim. I am talking about the knot around the stick. Why wouldn't the "intruder" already have that knot tied, and then they could tie the slip knot later? I disagree it would be just as easy to tie it at the same time as the slip knot, if her hair was so close it was getting caught up in the knot as it was being created. That would be awkward. Also, why would the killer not even have the stick with him as a separate item that he could then just tie when he was ready? Why have to find a stick in close proximity to the body? What if there had been no paintbrush in that tray or no tray at all close to the body? What would the killer have used then for his garrote stick?

I tend to believe the handle was attached prior to, but I'm in the minority. I just do not "see", nor interpret, definitive evidence of this. ...not at all.

 

[Anyhoo]

Shock value, maybe?...

Saying shock value to me is just another way of saying extreme staging. Yes, it is shocking to see this strangulation device around the neck of a six year old girl, but the end result of this is for the mind to disbelieve a parent could do this to their child. If staging, it is very effective staging, and it shows that one of the parents was willing to do whatever it took to throw LE off their track.

Inconsistent compared to? ...a RN, but she's already dead, & in the house. ...cord & tape missing, but pineapple, sharpies, & notepad left behind.

Inconsistent as in there were two weapons used to harm JB. Someone thought it important that the head bash weapon not be found by LE, for whatever reason, and yet this same someone purposefully left the second weapon to be found. To me that tells me the killer meant for the garrote to be found, and the purpose of it being found was a benefit to the killer. The benefit was deception. There was no benefit to the head blow weapon being found. In fact, that weapon was removed because it would point LE to the real killer, IMO.

The weapon used for the head blow is a debatable topic, but I'm not sure what you mean by "hide". Please elaborate...

Remove from house, conceal, whatever word you like.

Or, for some other horrendous purpose.

Do you care to theorize on what that purpose might be?

What makes you think so?

Didn't you say yourself multiple times that no Ramsey fingerprints were found on the garrote?

But, LE didn't find her. If IDI, it seems (to me) the probability of the body being found by a family member would have been far more likely, and this IS how it turned out.

[/QUOTE]

It does not matter who found her body. LE was who the killer had in mind when they left the garrote there. Everything was for the sake of LE. This killer did not want to be held responsible for the murder of JB and many of things he/she did were for the specific purpose. No one was trying to fool the family, because the family already knew.

 

[Anyhoo]

I tend to believe the handle was attached prior to, but I'm in the minority. I just do not "see", nor interpret, definitive evidence of this. ...not at all.

Well I am curious about your opinion, M2M. Normally I would agree that it would make sense for the handle to be tied prior to, but seeing what was chosen for the handle (half a paint brush from a tray in the basement in close proximity to the body) disproves your theory, IMO. The killer did not have the stick fashioned prior to. If fashioned prior to, something else would have been used for the stick. He/she did it at the same time and used what was conveniently in sight in the basement to make it. There is a huge clue hidden here, but I don't know exactly what it means.

I ask again, what if there would have been nothing to use as the garrote stick in sight in the basement? What would the killer have used as the stick then? Would there even have been a stick in that case? Would there even have been a garrote in that case?

 

[Mama2JML]

Saying shock value to me is just another way of saying extreme staging. Yes, it is shocking to see this strangulation device around the neck of a six year old girl, but the end result of this is for the mind to disbelieve a parent could do this to their child. If staging, it is very effective staging, and it shows that one of the parents was willing to do whatever it took to throw LE off their track.

Finding her dead in the basement with a ligature around her neck would have accomplished the same. Why would the Ramseys add their own paintbrush? (And, place the remainder of the broken Ramsey brush in the Ramsey paint tote?!) Why would they choose to implicate themselves? ...disposed of the cord, disposed of the tape, but fashioned a "garrote" handle from their own art supplies?

Inconsistent as in there were two weapons used to harm JB. Someone thought it important that the head bash weapon not be found by LE, for whatever reason...

Aside from all other alternatives, two of the more popular head blow theories include items left behind; a flashlight found on a kitchen countertop, and a bat found outside, within inches of the house. (...with fibers from the basement carpet attached.)

...and yet this same someone purposefully left the second weapon to be found. To me that tells me the killer meant for the garrote to be found, and the purpose of it being found was a benefit to the killer.

I don't disagree.

The benefit was deception.

Among other things, maybe.

There was no benefit to the head blow weapon being found. In fact, that weapon was removed because it would point LE to the real killer, IMO.

Possibly.

Remove from house, conceal, whatever word you like.

We don't know, with certainty, what caused the skull fracture, but LE recovered items that may have been used to inflict the blow. LE might have a better idea then we do.

Do you care to theorize on what that purpose might be?

The perp's enjoyment.

Didn't you say yourself multiple times that no Ramsey fingerprints were found on the garrote?

I don't recall mentioning this, but it's true. This doesn't mean the item was wiped clean.

It does not matter who found her body. LE was who the killer had in mind when they left the garrote there. Everything was for the sake of LE. This killer did not want to be held responsible for the murder of JB and many of things he/she did were for the specific purpose.

I won't argue with these points.

No one was trying to fool the family, because the family already knew.

Highly unlikely, IMO.

 

[UKGuy]

I hear what you are saying but you are making the assumption that the entire garrote (rope and stick) was not created around JB's neck before she was strangled. On what basis do you assume that? Why couldn't the scenario have been as follows?

1. Head blow
2. Creation of entire garrote around JB's neck while she is incapacitated from the head blow.
3. Pulling on stick and strangling JB.

What makes this not possible? If it is possible, then what makes you disbelieve it?

Anyhoo,

1. Head blow

This did take place, as per the Autopsy Report.

2. Creation of entire garrote around JB's neck while she is incapacitated from the head blow.

This entails someone moving JonBenet to the paint tote region and constructing the ligature/paintbrush around her neck.

3. Pulling on stick and strangling JB.

This could have taken place.

Whether step 2. takes place all at one location or at separate locations is a moot point. Due to JonBenet's hair being entangled into the knotting on the ligature and paintbrush, and with JonBenet's hair lying underneath the ligature at the front, i.e. there was little lateral movement, the uniform circumferential furrow along with an absence of internal neck injuries suggest to me that JonBenet was asphyxiated with the ligature alone!

If the paintbrush handle had been used as advertised then you might expect some deviation to the horizontal, since the paintbrush handle would be pulled upwards or sideways, i.e. the person pulling would not be mindful enough to pull upwards to the normal, why bother, a left handed person would bias the ligature in one direction, similarly in an opposite direction for a right handed person. Also the ligature crosses over the necklace yet the Coroner cites no marking due to asphyxiation.

I partially disbelieve Step 2. and wholly disbelieve Step 3. since the forensic evidence does not demonstrate that the paintbrush handle was used as advertised.

Since I consider some of the contents of the basement to be staged along with JonBenet herself, it follows I consider that her asphyxiation by the broken paintbrush handle and ligature may also be staged, you decide.

.

 

[Mama2JML]

Well I am curious about your opinion, M2M. Normally I would agree that it would make sense for the handle to be tied prior to, but seeing what was chosen for the handle (half a paint brush from a tray in the basement in close proximity to the body) disproves your theory, IMO. The killer did not have the stick fashioned prior to. If fashioned prior to, something else would have been used for the stick. He/she did it at the same time and used what was conveniently in sight in the basement to make it. There is a huge clue hidden here, but I don't know exactly what it means.

"Prior to" as in before the cord was applied to JonBenet's neck. ...minutes or hours before JonBenet was within arm's reach of her murderer.

I ask again, what if there would have been nothing to use as the garrote stick in sight in the basement? What would the killer have used as the stick then? Would there even have been a stick in that case? Would there even have been a garrote in that case?

No stick, no handle.