Premeditated?

[UKGuy]

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,
As you are in possession of the facts, there is little left to debate.


.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
As you are in possession of the facts, there is little left to debate.


.

Well, I wasn’t debating anything, anyway.

A theory (IDI, RDI, etc) is an explanation for a set of facts. So, there is always something to debate, although I’m much more interested in discussion. But, the facts are the facts, and the evidence is the evidence is the evidence.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.

Let’s say that the weapon used was a flashlight; maybe, not the flashlight that BPD collected into evidence, but still, a flashlight. Why leave it behind?

A ligature is something very much different than a flashlight. It’s disposable, for one thing. It’s cheap and easily replaceable. It takes a little bit of effort to remove it, and then, what do you do with it? Why not just leave it? Isn’t this most often what happens when people are strangled? When victims are tied up, you leave them tied up; right? I mean, most of the time isn’t that what investigators find – the ligatures still in place.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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?

Ah, okay. I misunderstood you.

I don’t know the answer to your question: why wouldn’t the intruder have tied cord to handle in advance. All I know is that the evidence suggests that the cord was wrapped around the handle close enough to the victim that her hair got caught up in it. I don’t think this favors one position over another – if it was awkward for an intruder, it was equally awkward for a Ramsey.

Why didn’t the intruder bring his own handle? I can only speculate, but your guess is probably as good as mine. First, the handle wasn’t necessary, and, I think that this guy only brought with him those few items that he deemed necessary (the cord, the tape, possibly a flashlight). Second, since the handle was not necessary we can entertain the possibility that he used the paint brush out of impulse, a spur of the moment decision inspired by the nearness of the paint tote. I can think of a couple scenarios, but I really don’t know the answer to this question, either.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.

What would be definitive evidence? Do you think that Meyer was mistaken? Do you doubt Whitson, Smit, Thomas, Kolar and Douglas, etc? Do you have any contradictory evidence or reason to doubt the claim, something beyond a lack of clarity in the photographs?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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 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.



Remove from house, conceal, whatever word you like.



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



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

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.[/QUOTE]
It might not be that the killer wanted the garrote to be found but that he simply didn’t care if it was found.

It might surprise you to learn that I completely agree with your assertion that everything that the killer was done “for the sake of LE.”
...
AK

 

[Anti-K]

Anyhoo,

This did take place, as per the Autopsy Report.


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


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.

.

Handle or no handle, the garrote works EXACTLY the same. You just pull it. I strongly encourage everyone to try this out for themselves. You can use anything that’s handy. Tie a piece of string around a pen, make a slip knot and pull the pen. Wrap a piece of string around your hand, make a slip knot and pull with your hand. Improvise. It’s easy, and you will see that handle or no handle, it works EXACTLY the same. EXACTLY.
...

AK

 

[chlban]

This whole exchange is, IMO, how the staging in this case serves it purpose well because it sends everyone off down various rabbit holes arguing about the "details" of the staging itself. Well done John and Patsy.

In reality, the bigger question to me would be why an intruder would take JB to the basement at all? Why wouldn't an intruder get her out of the house?

Whether it was ever meant to be a kidnapping, or not, who takes the victim to the basement of the house, with three other people sleeping inside, when he can simply walk out the back door?

This is typical of this case and proves that the staging truly did work well. IDI's love to throw out the bait, the tiny details that can be twisted to make it look like the Ramsey's could be innocent and everyone temporarily ignores the big fat Elephants in the room.

There was never a shred of evidence that the house was broken into.

Neither a kidnapper or a killer has any reason to keep JB in the house. Either way the best and most logical course of action is to get her out where she cannot scream, where a parent isn't likely to hear something or even just to get up in the night and check on their children while they are up, as parents are likely to do.

Even excluding the fact that Patsy wrote the RN, these two factors alone confirm the obvious. A Ramsey killed or seriously harmed JB, either intentionally or accidently. I think the most likely scenario is the extent of the injury was not intentional. That was the head blow. Everything, EVERYTHING, that came after was part of the staging and/or cover up.

Of course it doesn't make sense, because the entire scenario is designed to make it appear something happened that didn't.

 

[Venom]

This whole exchange is, IMO, how the staging in this case serves it purpose well because it sends everyone off down various rabbit holes arguing about the "details" of the staging itself. Well done John and Patsy.

In reality, the bigger question to me would be why an intruder would take JB to the basement at all? Why wouldn't an intruder get her out of the house?

Whether it was ever meant to be a kidnapping, or not, who takes the victim to the basement of the house, with three other people sleeping inside, when he can simply walk out the back door?

This is typical of this case and proves that the staging truly did work well. IDI's love to throw out the bait, the tiny details that can be twisted to make it look like the Ramsey's could be innocent and everyone temporarily ignores the big fat Elephants in the room.

There was never a shred of evidence that the house was broken into.

Neither a kidnapper or a killer has any reason to keep JB in the house. Either way the best and most logical course of action is to get her out where she cannot scream, where a parent isn't likely to hear something or even just to get up in the night and check on their children while they are up, as parents are likely to do.

Even excluding the fact that Patsy wrote the RN, these two factors alone confirm the obvious. A Ramsey killed or seriously harmed JB, either intentionally or accidently. I think the most likely scenario is the extent of the injury was not intentional. That was the head blow. Everything, EVERYTHING, that came after was part of the staging and/or cover up.

Of course it doesn't make sense, because the entire scenario is designed to make it appear something happened that didn't.

Thanks chlban for coming in and being a voice of reason. :seeya:
What you said is absolutely correct and well stated.

 

[bettybaby00]

This whole exchange is, IMO, how the staging in this case serves it purpose well because it sends everyone off down various rabbit holes arguing about the "details" of the staging itself. Well done John and Patsy.

In reality, the bigger question to me would be why an intruder would take JB to the basement at all? Why wouldn't an intruder get her out of the house?

Whether it was ever meant to be a kidnapping, or not, who takes the victim to the basement of the house, with three other people sleeping inside, when he can simply walk out the back door?

This is typical of this case and proves that the staging truly did work well. IDI's love to throw out the bait, the tiny details that can be twisted to make it look like the Ramsey's could be innocent and everyone temporarily ignores the big fat Elephants in the room.

There was never a shred of evidence that the house was broken into.

Neither a kidnapper or a killer has any reason to keep JB in the house. Either way the best and most logical course of action is to get her out where she cannot scream, where a parent isn't likely to hear something or even just to get up in the night and check on their children while they are up, as parents are likely to do.

Even excluding the fact that Patsy wrote the RN, these two factors alone confirm the obvious. A Ramsey killed or seriously harmed JB, either intentionally or accidently. I think the most likely scenario is the extent of the injury was not intentional. That was the head blow. Everything, EVERYTHING, that came after was part of the staging and/or cover up.

Of course it doesn't make sense, because the entire scenario is designed to make it appear something happened that didn't.

OMG exactly!!!! I've always felt that between the actual crime/murder, the staging and the undoing, investigators have essentially had to deal with 3 crime scenes. Add to this mix that the only people who could potentially offer any valuable information about that night have spent the last 17 years lying, stalling, evading as well as threatening any other potential material witnesses it's no wonder police were never able to build a solid theory of what happened that night!

 

[Anyhoo]

Ah, okay. I misunderstood you.

I don’t know the answer to your question: why wouldn’t the intruder have tied cord to handle in advance. All I know is that the evidence suggests that the cord was wrapped around the handle close enough to the victim that her hair got caught up in it. I don’t think this favors one position over another – if it was awkward for an intruder, it was equally awkward for a Ramsey.

Why didn’t the intruder bring his own handle? I can only speculate, but your guess is probably as good as mine. First, the handle wasn’t necessary, and, I think that this guy only brought with him those few items that he deemed necessary (the cord, the tape, possibly a flashlight). Second, since the handle was not necessary we can entertain the possibility that he used the paint brush out of impulse, a spur of the moment decision inspired by the nearness of the paint tote. I can think of a couple scenarios, but I really don’t know the answer to this question, either.
...

AK

If the handle was not necessary to strangle JB, then why add it? What advantage does the handle give the killer? Does he/she need the handle to kill JB? Could the addition of the handle have just been staging to give the impression of a ruthless garroting intruder/assassin when all we really have is the rope? I don't think it was due to impulse but because the killer wanted to deceive LE. It was purposeful.

 

[Anyhoo]

This whole exchange is, IMO, how the staging in this case serves it purpose well because it sends everyone off down various rabbit holes arguing about the "details" of the staging itself. Well done John and Patsy.

In reality, the bigger question to me would be why an intruder would take JB to the basement at all? Why wouldn't an intruder get her out of the house?

Whether it was ever meant to be a kidnapping, or not, who takes the victim to the basement of the house, with three other people sleeping inside, when he can simply walk out the back door?

This is typical of this case and proves that the staging truly did work well. IDI's love to throw out the bait, the tiny details that can be twisted to make it look like the Ramsey's could be innocent and everyone temporarily ignores the big fat Elephants in the room.

There was never a shred of evidence that the house was broken into.

Neither a kidnapper or a killer has any reason to keep JB in the house. Either way the best and most logical course of action is to get her out where she cannot scream, where a parent isn't likely to hear something or even just to get up in the night and check on their children while they are up, as parents are likely to do.

Even excluding the fact that Patsy wrote the RN, these two factors alone confirm the obvious. A Ramsey killed or seriously harmed JB, either intentionally or accidently. I think the most likely scenario is the extent of the injury was not intentional. That was the head blow. Everything, EVERYTHING, that came after was part of the staging and/or cover up.

Of course it doesn't make sense, because the entire scenario is designed to make it appear something happened that didn't.

I'm not even considering IDI as a valid possibility at this point although the garrote does shock me that a parent would be willing to go that far to save their own . I can argue the facts with the IDI crowd but everything I say is with RDI fully in mind. It is my belief that the killer used the garrote for the purpose of deception. As has been pointed out many times, there are far easier ways to kill JB than using this device. Just putting your hand tightly over her mouth to smother her to death would have killed her and would have been easiest for the adult killer to do had the goal merely been to kill her. But the killer purposely wanted the shock value of the garrote to be seen and found by LE. IDI may say that is a mark of a sadistic ruthless intruder who gets off on showing brutality but I say this the mark of a very intelligent person who was ruthless enough not to let his or her emotions get in the way of the task at hand: staging and deception. When I say that last part, my prime suspect is JR because he is the only one of those three IMO to have the intelligence, ruthlessness, and lack of emotion to be able to do the garroting.

 

[Anti-K]

This whole exchange is, IMO, how the staging in this case serves it purpose well because it sends everyone off down various rabbit holes arguing about the "details" of the staging itself. Well done John and Patsy.

In reality, the bigger question to me would be why an intruder would take JB to the basement at all? Why wouldn't an intruder get her out of the house?

Whether it was ever meant to be a kidnapping, or not, who takes the victim to the basement of the house, with three other people sleeping inside, when he can simply walk out the back door?

This is typical of this case and proves that the staging truly did work well. IDI's love to throw out the bait, the tiny details that can be twisted to make it look like the Ramsey's could be innocent and everyone temporarily ignores the big fat Elephants in the room.

There was never a shred of evidence that the house was broken into.

Neither a kidnapper or a killer has any reason to keep JB in the house. Either way the best and most logical course of action is to get her out where she cannot scream, where a parent isn't likely to hear something or even just to get up in the night and check on their children while they are up, as parents are likely to do.

Even excluding the fact that Patsy wrote the RN, these two factors alone confirm the obvious. A Ramsey killed or seriously harmed JB, either intentionally or accidently. I think the most likely scenario is the extent of the injury was not intentional. That was the head blow. Everything, EVERYTHING, that came after was part of the staging and/or cover up.

Of course it doesn't make sense, because the entire scenario is designed to make it appear something happened that didn't.

Well, according to this site’s “Separating Facts from Fiction” it is not a fact that Mrs Ramsey wrote the note; see http://tinyurl.com/kdfyoy2 Of course, this is something that we should all realize by now. No one has ever been identified as the author of that note.

Victims, particularly victims of sexual assault, are sometimes attacked in their home. Sometimes, though not often, they are attacked when others are present in the home. This is simply one of those cases.

In this case, the killer may have had nowhere to take his victim. Or, he may have had some other, unknown to us, reason.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

If the handle was not necessary to strangle JB, then why add it? What advantage does the handle give the killer? Does he/she need the handle to kill JB? Could the addition of the handle have just been staging to give the impression of a ruthless garroting intruder/assassin when all we really have is the rope? I don't think it was due to impulse but because the killer wanted to deceive LE. It was purposeful.

The handle gives the advantage of something to hold onto, instead of wrapping the cord around your hand and letting it dig into your flesh when you pull on it.
I don’t think adding the handle makes the strangulation look any more vicious or brutal than what it actually was. I think the periligature injuries all confirm that.

However, I do think that the handle could have been part of some sort of staging, although I’m not sure if that is the appropriate term. Except, it isn’t the handle itself that piques my attention – it’s the fact that it is broken and that the broken end is in the paint tote (in my mind, the broken end in the paint tote is the same thing as the so-called practice note in the notepad). There just seems to be no reason for that (and, it contradicts the RDI position that the handle was used to somehow point away from them because the broken end in the paint tote points right back at them), but, of course, there must have been some rationale involved in the act.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

I'm not even considering IDI as a valid possibility at this point although the garrote does shock me that a parent would be willing to go that far to save their own . I can argue the facts with the IDI crowd but everything I say is with RDI fully in mind. It is my belief that the killer used the garrote for the purpose of deception. As has been pointed out many times, there are far easier ways to kill JB than using this device. Just putting your hand tightly over her mouth to smother her to death would have killed her and would have been easiest for the adult killer to do had the goal merely been to kill her. But the killer purposely wanted the shock value of the garrote to be seen and found by LE. IDI may say that is a mark of a sadistic ruthless intruder who gets off on showing brutality but I say this the mark of a very intelligent person who was ruthless enough not to let his or her emotions get in the way of the task at hand: staging and deception. When I say that last part, my prime suspect is JR because he is the only one of those three IMO to have the intelligence, ruthlessness, and lack of emotion to be able to do the garroting.

We may be on opposite sides of the fence, but I completely agree with this: [the garrote] is the mark of a very intelligent person who was ruthless enough not to let his or her emotions get in the way of the task at hand: staging and deception.
...

AK

 

[chlban]

I'm not even considering IDI as a valid possibility at this point although the garrote does shock me that a parent would be willing to go that far to save their own . I can argue the facts with the IDI crowd but everything I say is with RDI fully in mind. It is my belief that the killer used the garrote for the purpose of deception. As has been pointed out many times, there are far easier ways to kill JB than using this device. Just putting your hand tightly over her mouth to smother her to death would have killed her and would have been easiest for the adult killer to do had the goal merely been to kill her. But the killer purposely wanted the shock value of the garrote to be seen and found by LE. IDI may say that is a mark of a sadistic ruthless intruder who gets off on showing brutality but I say this the mark of a very intelligent person who was ruthless enough not to let his or her emotions get in the way of the task at hand: staging and deception. When I say that last part, my prime suspect is JR because he is the only one of those three IMO to have the intelligence, ruthlessness, and lack of emotion to be able to do the garroting.

I agree with everything except that my prime suspect is not necessarily John. I believe both of the adult Ramseys were ruthless enough, and perfectly capable of, doing the garroting. It just needed to be done as part of the staging, not because they got any enjoyment out of it.

Yep, definitely think both were ruthless enough.

 

[Nom de plume]

I agree with everything except that my prime suspect is not necessarily John. I believe both of the adult Ramseys were ruthless enough, and perfectly capable of, doing the garroting. It just needed to be done as part of the staging, not because they got any enjoyment out of it.

Yep, definitely think both were ruthless enough.

I think both were selfish enough, but JR was far more likely to think of a garrote than PR IMO. It was the method of execution used in the Philippines when he was stationed there. I also think part of the reason for adding the paint brush handle, PR's paint brush handle, was a double CYA in case the SFF BS didn't fly. A "Plan B".

 

[Anyhoo]

The handle gives the advantage of something to hold onto, instead of wrapping the cord around your hand and letting it dig into your flesh when you pull on it.
I don’t think adding the handle makes the strangulation look any more vicious or brutal than what it actually was. I think the periligature injuries all confirm that.

However, I do think that the handle could have been part of some sort of staging, although I’m not sure if that is the appropriate term. Except, it isn’t the handle itself that piques my attention – it’s the fact that it is broken and that the broken end is in the paint tote (in my mind, the broken end in the paint tote is the same thing as the so-called practice note in the notepad). There just seems to be no reason for that (and, it contradicts the RDI position that the handle was used to somehow point away from them because the broken end in the paint tote points right back at them), but, of course, there must have been some rationale involved in the act.
...

AK

Well AK, even though I am RDI, on this point I must agree with you: If RDI, it would be totally illogical for them to write the RN on their own notepad with their own pen that was found in the house and also to leave the practice RN where it could be found. This is in the same category as the broken stick in the paint tote. This is one of the things that puts doubt in my mind and makes me question if there was actually a very clever intruder who did these things for kicks, just because he could. In other words, someone so confident about what he was doing that it gave him a thrill to leave all these bizarre clues when he didn't have to, and going out of his way to use things from the house in the murder and not bring them with him. Here are some RDI theories that "might" explain this:

1. One or both parents who was doing the staging were sloppy and not thinking clearly and logically. They were desperate and did not think about the consequences of their actions. I don't believe this but it is a theory to explain it.

2. One or both parents did these things purposely with the intent of proving that they wouldn't have done it this way. I mean, why, if they were going to murder their daughter and leave a fake RN would they do it this way when there were other ways they could have done it which would not point back at them? But it is precisely because they could say that they did these seemingly illogical things. LE is not going to believe the parents could be so brazen (and so stupid) as to do that, and that is the reason why one of both parents did them. Now, as for this theory, it would take a very confident person to believe they could get away with this, IMO. And in my read of the two parents, I must admit that this does not seem to fit either one of them. Unless BR is some kind of psychotic child mastermind, it does not fit him either.

Neither of the above two explanations satisfy me. I am looking for something else to explain this.

 

[chlban]

I think both were selfish enough, but JR was far more likely to think of a garrote than PR IMO. It was the method of execution used in the Philippines when he was stationed there. I also think part of the reason for adding the paint brush handle, PR's paint brush handle, was a double CYA in case the SFF BS didn't fly. A "Plan B".

Those are both really good points and you may well be correct. I am definitively not sure who did what in the staging with the exception of the RN which IMO screams Patsy,regardless of the handwriting.

I was mostly responding to anyhoo's statement that John was the one smart enough and ruthless enough to use the garrote. IMO, Patsy would be every bit as ruthless and, while I can say many negative things abut Patsy, being stupid isn't one of them. I think she was definitely a smart cookie but what tripped her up on the RN was her flair for the dramatic.

That same flair is exactly why I could see her using the garrote as well.

Again, I am not saying you are wrong and I definitely like the theory that John was setting her up, just in case, by using her paintbrush handle. So he sets it up to look like an intruder, his first choice, but if that doesn't work he wants a fall back. Making Patsy the Patsy:floorlaugh:

OK sorry, I couldn't resist.

Good theory!

 

[Anyhoo]

BBM


We may be on opposite sides of the fence, but I completely agree with this: [the garrote] is the mark of a very intelligent person who was ruthless enough not to let his or her emotions get in the way of the task at hand: staging and deception.
...

AK

Answer this question, AK: Why would an intruder have to stage and deceive? My definition of staging and deception is to change the crime scene to give a false or misleading impression about what happened, and to hide a person's involvement. If the killer was an intruder as you think, he certainly didn't have to do the bizarre things he did. He could have molested and murdered JB without leaving all of these crazy little clues. He is not staging, IMO, but is showing that he doesn't care and that he thinks he can get away with anything. He is showing off. He gets a thrill from doing these things and leaving all these clues for LE. If I were IDI, that is how I would interpret the evidence. He is not staging. He is showing off. Can you see that?