I understand the reasoning against garrote as sex toy. However, I don't fully understand garrote as cover-up. Who thinks of a garrote, per se & why (when I first read about a garrote in this case my only association were the sacrifices of the celts, even when I read about a garrote then I wasn't sure what it was, this encyclopedia had a picuture of linlow (?) man - he was preserved because of the nature of the bogs where he was deposited and you could see the garrote & how tight it was wound, etc., there are many of these bodies and they were always garroted and bludgeoned) - why not just a cord & the only logic to use anything like this whatsoever is that there must have been some type of neck 'evidence' that they desired to obfustcate (sorry for that word - when I haven't had my coffee I can only think of words like that, anyway, on with it) - the garrote has never made sense to me. It's easy to see, say, John making it - especially the knots that were used. I just don't see Patsy whittling paintbrushes & making a garrote and knowing of the knots to do so - it's still hard for me to see anyone going to that trouble - when a simple cord is easier - especially if you're victim is unconscious, if not dead....I suppose that's why the intruder folks saw it as a means of 'control' - even though I don't think intruders did this - aside from the 'cover-up' rationale using it as a controlling device makes sense.
Why would the perpetrators want us to think she was garroted instead of strangled with someone's hands? If there were prints, assuming gloves weren't used, she could easily be washed. I'm not an expert on what evidence is left behind when someone is strangled via hands versus garrote - so, bear with me if the reasoning is obvious. Considering she was molested with a brush, bludgeoned, what difference does the means of asphyxiation make?
Jane Osa,
Lindow Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindow_man may have been asphyxiated but was probably not garroted as per the modern definition.
If you take some time out to read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrote it should explain what a garrote is and distinguish it from a
ligature strangulation, which is what is likely to have caused
Lindow Man's asphyxiation.
Most people assume a garrote or/and ligature are the same but they are distinct, although the media is rarely consistent in the use of terminology, in the USA garroting appears to be the same as ligature strangulation.
So if you read over your favorite JonBenet source it should tell you that the nylon cord around JonBenet's neck was tied to a broken piece of paintbrush handle, fashioned just for this purpose, this was then knotted firmly in place, resulting in a garrote, without the paintbrush handle, you would just have a ligature.
I just don't see Patsy whittling paintbrushes & making a garrote and knowing of the knots to do so - it's still hard for me to see anyone going to that trouble - when a simple cord is easier - especially if you're victim is unconscious, if not dead
Nearly every RDI would agree with you, its even easier to just leave the house with JonBenet and indulge your kidnapping fetish elsewhere at leisure, forget the ransom note and phone in from a downtown payphone later that morning.
This is one of the hallmarks of staging, its overdone, or overly complex, the novice criminal trying to think like a criminal usually gets it wrong. So with the garrote tight around JonBenet's neck, firmly held in place by
fixed knots, it then
cannot function as a Erotic Asphyxiation device as per those theories. In fact had the garrote been used in such a manner JonBenet's hair would have been ripped from her skull, this did not occur, further demonstrating another staged aspect to the garrote.
The coverup is for the abrasions and bruising seen on JonBenet's neck lying
beneath the ligature, these needed some fake causal agent and the garrote supplies this. The abrasions are yet another reason why Erotic Asphyxiation was not taking place, since those bruises appear to be quite painful looking to me.
Lets hope the garrote makes more sense to you now, since its original purpose was to precisely elicit the response you had?
.
