The actual vs. desired outcome

[Holdontoyourhat]

the cord had an innocent reason alright...I believe Patsy bought it for her paintings.
like Dee said,can you prove she *didn't buy it? the cord matches up to the cord found in the store,and the price matches as well.I think she didn't get around to making the sling yet..not that' 'that's that'.It isn't that simple.
I'd say the cord was invited once Patsy paid for it and brought it home.
'Come on in!', it screams.

But it is that simple.

The cord was given many opportunities to be innocent. Any one of the following would put the cord in the house as invited guest:

1. Its not Home Depot, so a clerk could've easily remembered selling PR cord the preceeding month. When asked, clerk could've simply said yeah she bought some cord.
2. Either JR or PR stating they purchased the cord for the innocent purpose. They have no reason to deny it. Plus it would be very risky to deny it and later found out they bought it.They could've simply said their intruder improvised with their cord like they did with their paintbrush.
3. Any use in the house of that cord for any purpose other than JBR's garrote and second ligature.

In the absense of these, the cord very much appears to be exclusive to the crime. Brought to the house for no innocent purpose.

Probably brought to the house as a weapon the perp didn't want to be without. Everybody's got pen and paper, not everybody has cord suited for sophisticated slipknotted garrote/restraining devices.

 

[DeeDee249]

Holdon makes my brain hurt...

 

[Toltec]

But it is that simple.

The cord was given many opportunities to be innocent. Any one of the following would put the cord in the house as invited guest:

1. Its not Home Depot, so a clerk could've easily remembered selling PR cord the preceeding month. When asked, clerk could've simply said yeah she bought some cord.
2. Either JR or PR stating they purchased the cord for the innocent purpose. They have no reason to deny it. Plus it would be very risky to deny it and later found out they bought it.They could've simply said their intruder improvised with their cord like they did with their paintbrush.
3. Any use in the house of that cord for any purpose other than JBR's garrote and second ligature.

In the absense of these, the cord very much appears to be exclusive to the crime. Brought to the house for no innocent purpose.

Probably brought to the house as a weapon the perp didn't want to be without. Everybody's got pen and paper, not everybody has cord suited for sophisticated slipknotted garrote/restraining devices.

What about the duct tape found in the junk drawer??? Patsy says it is most likely John's because she uses the clear stuff.

So you have duct tape in the junk drawer, along with a flashlight, pens, writing pads around the house.

So this intruder brings with him a shoelace-type cord to do what???

 

[coloradokares]

But it is that simple.

The cord was given many opportunities to be innocent. Any one of the following would put the cord in the house as invited guest:

1. Its not Home Depot, so a clerk could've easily remembered selling PR cord the preceeding month. When asked, clerk could've simply said yeah she bought some cord.
2. Either JR or PR stating they purchased the cord for the innocent purpose. They have no reason to deny it. Plus it would be very risky to deny it and later found out they bought it.They could've simply said their intruder improvised with their cord like they did with their paintbrush.
3. Any use in the house of that cord for any purpose other than JBR's garrote and second ligature.

In the absense of these, the cord very much appears to be exclusive to the crime. Brought to the house for no innocent purpose.

Probably brought to the house as a weapon the perp didn't want to be without. Everybody's got pen and paper, not everybody has cord suited for sophisticated slipknotted garrote/restraining devices.[/quote

 

[coloradokares]

But it is that simple.

The cord was given many opportunities to be innocent. Any one of the following would put the cord in the house as invited guest:

1. Its not Home Depot, so a clerk could've easily remembered selling PR cord the preceeding month. When asked, clerk could've simply said yeah she bought some cord.
2. Either JR or PR stating they purchased the cord for the innocent purpose. They have no reason to deny it. Plus it would be very risky to deny it and later found out they bought it.They could've simply said their intruder improvised with their cord like they did with their paintbrush.
3. Any use in the house of that cord for any purpose other than JBR's garrote and second ligature.

In the absense of these, the cord very much appears to be exclusive to the crime. Brought to the house for no innocent purpose.

Probably brought to the house as a weapon the perp didn't want to be without. Everybody's got pen and paper, not everybody has cord suited for sophisticated slipknotted garrote/restraining devices.[/quote

Thanks for clearing that up. Bump it up to murder one

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Thanks for clearing that up. Bump it up to murder one

OK, but what if the cord was brought for sexual assault or kidnap and not murder?

 

[coloradokares]

But it is that simple.

The cord was given many opportunities to be innocent. Any one of the following would put the cord in the house as invited guest:

1. Its not Home Depot, so a clerk could've easily remembered selling PR cord the preceeding month. When asked, clerk could've simply said yeah she bought some cord.
2. Either JR or PR stating they purchased the cord for the innocent purpose. They have no reason to deny it. Plus it would be very risky to deny it and later found out they bought it.They could've simply said their intruder improvised with their cord like they did with their paintbrush.
3. Any use in the house of that cord for any purpose other than JBR's garrote and second ligature.

In the absense of these, the cord very much appears to be exclusive to the crime. Brought to the house for no innocent purpose.

Probably brought to the house as a weapon the perp didn't want to be without. Everybody's got pen and paper, not everybody has cord suited for sophisticated slipknotted garrote/restraining devices.[/quote

The above was not from me!! I think thequote feature hiccupped I sure never said that the rope was brought to the house as a weapon etc.

 

[coloradokares]

OK, but what if the cord was brought for sexual assault or kidnap and not murder?

The cord was already there it was not brought. It was Patsys and used to make the Art slings. No one brought anything with them. There was never an intruder and that is my opinion . As I understand it you theorize there was an intuder so we disagree about that. It matters not what the cord was purchased for, unless you believe the death of Jon Benent was intentional and premeditated. I believe it was utilized to stage a garroting along with the other items. The broken paintbrush etc. In fact Jon Benet was most likely mortally wounded but not yet deceased when it was used in that staging. I believe the head bash was sufficient to cause death without the staging to attempt to provide the appearance of an intuder. What I said is in your scenario if we accept that it was not an attempt to stage it becomes murder one cause you cannot place an intruder at the scene, this never was a kidnapping. This was all part of trying to distort the appearance of what actually took place. I am offering an opinion that is indeed very different from what you believe.

 

[BOESP]

The cord was already there it was not brought. It was Patsys and used to make the Art slings. No one brought anything with them. There was never an intruder and that is my opinion . As I understand it you theorize there was an intuder so we disagree about that. It matters not what the cord was purchased for, unless you believe the death of Jon Benent was intentional and premeditated. I believe it was utilized to stage a garroting along with the other items. The broken paintbrush etc. In fact Jon Benet was most likely mortally wounded but not yet deceased when it was used in that staging. I believe the head bash was sufficient to cause death without the staging to attempt to provide the appearance of an intuder. What I said is in your scenario if we accept that it was not an attempt to stage it becomes murder one cause you cannot place an intruder at the scene, this never was a kidnapping. This was all part of trying to distort the appearance of what actually took place. I am offering an opinion that is indeed very different from what you believe.

It seems obvious to me, CK, if a killer brought in the tape and cord, they would have brought their own "stick" as well. It is just a bit too convenient to use a broken paintbrush from a kit sitting right outside the wine cellar door and not think it most likely the tape and cord came from that art tote as well.

No amount of convincing will convince those who don't want to believe that duct tape and cord are used by artists, particularly those who travel back and forth to class. No amount of convincing will allow someone to consider that all three pieces (brush, tape, and cord) were likely sitting right there, conveniently together.

I speculate someone was carrying JonBenet to the wine cellar to hide her and came up with the last-minute idea to stage the ligature strangulation (thinking she was already dead). A second speculation is the original injury to the head could have occurred in the basement and not upstairs. Maybe JonBenet was down there with her Mama or Daddy "helping" or observing some last minute preparation or surprise or, perhaps, just playing around.

 

[coloradokares]

It seems obvious to me, CK, if a killer brought in the tape and cord, they would have brought their own "stick" as well. It is just a bit too convenient to use a broken paintbrush from a kit sitting right outside the wine cellar door and not think it most likely the tape and cord came from that art tote as well.

No amount of convincing will convince those who don't want to believe that duct tape and cord are used by artists, particularly those who travel back and forth to class. No amount of convincing will allow someone to consider that all three pieces (brush, tape, and cord) were likely sitting right there, conveniently together.

I speculate someone was carrying JonBenet to the wine cellar to hide her and came up with the last-minute idea to stage the ligature strangulation (thinking she was already dead). A second speculation is the original injury to the head could have occurred in the basement and not upstairs. Maybe JonBenet was down there with her Mama or Daddy "helping" or observing some last minute preparation or surprise or, perhaps, just playing around.

There is none so blind as those who will not see

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The possibilities of murder, kidnap, and sexual assault didn't present themselves in the case evidence evenly. There's a bias toward kidnapping. The gist of the RN, the cord fibers in JBR's bed, and the R's social status all are consistent with kidnapping.

I could have blinders on, because I can therefore only 'see' kidnapping as the most likely original plot.

For the all-seeing all-knowing RDI fans, I have a question: How does RDI see the empty loops on the 2nd ligature? Were they just random looping done on the cord to make it fancy? Was the stager going for a triple loop combo? Were the empty loops supposed to be imagined on her other wrist or leg?

It could be a rhetorical question.

 

[DeeDee249]

The loops were empty because they were no longer on the body. Those loops had been on her wrists. Her legs, I believe, had been taped.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Was it the intention of the stager to have the loops empty?

 

[DeeDee249]

Was it the intention of the stager to have the loops empty?

Of course not. The loops are empty because they were not on the body when that crime scene photograph was taken.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So the wrist ligature fell off the other wrist/leg before JBR's body was removed from the crime scene? Why would the garrote be staged tight, while the wrist ligature staged loose?

 

[DeeDee249]

So the wrist ligature fell off the other wrist/leg before JBR's body was removed from the crime scene? Why would the garrote be staged tight, while the wrist ligature staged loose?

The wrist loop was loose because she was already unconscious when it was applied. It didn't NEED to be tight. She wasn't struggling. Even LA describes the cord as being wrapped around one wrist. The coroner describes the same thing. The cord was around the right wrist only.
The part around her neck HAD to be pulled tight- she was strangled with it! (even though she was likely unconscious when this was done)-while the strangulation may have played a part in her death, it had to look as if the strangulation (and ONLY the strangulation) was what killed her.
Holdon, I am not being sarcastic here, and I realize that this is hard for an IDI to do, but have you READ acandyrose and looked at the photos? Have you read the autopsy report? The description of the cord and where and how it was found on the body have long been known. That site would answer a lot of your questions even if your feelings are unchanged.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You're misreading me, here. As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd ligature was used to forcibly move JBR while alive and resisting. It had slipknots. The 2nd ligature obviously lost purpose once she was dead, thats why it was found loose on her. The slipknots were no longer taut.


I was only wondering how the extra loops being empty on a staged crime scene makes sense to RDI. As far as I'm concerned, its a misinterpretation and oversimplification of the evidence to claim the loops were simply draped over her wrists after she was dead, and then slipped off one of her wrists, as if the stager didn't care about the loops being tight.

 

[DeeDee249]

You're misreading me, here. As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd ligature was used to forcibly move JBR while alive and resisting. It had slipknots. The 2nd ligature obviously lost purpose once she was dead, thats why it was found loose on her. The slipknots were no longer taut.


I was only wondering how the extra loops being empty on a staged crime scene makes sense to RDI. As far as I'm concerned, its a misinterpretation and oversimplification of the evidence to claim the loops were simply draped over her wrists after she was dead, and then slipped off one of her wrists, as if the stager didn't care about the loops being tight.

Well, yes, that is how some of us DO see the loops. As being draped over her after she was dead (or unconscious). If JBR was restrained or forced or dragged in any way with those cords while alive, there would be marks on her wrists. The only marks made by the cord are around her neck.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, yes, that is how some of us DO see the loops. As being draped over her after she was dead (or unconscious). If JBR was restrained or forced or dragged in any way with those cords while alive, there would be marks on her wrists. The only marks made by the cord are around her neck.

There's three loops. When JBR was originally found, only one loop was around one wrist, right? Her wrists were both over her head, suggesting the other loop was around her other wrist, right? So whats the third loop for, nothing?

No purpose for the third loop in RDI?

 

[DeeDee249]

As I see the photo, the third loop was the one around her neck. I am seeing the garotte against a blue coroner's sheet after it has been removed from JBR.


It's late, Holdon. Go to bed. You're making my brain hurt again.