The Globe July 17

[Britt]

They seem to have taken an IDI stance, saying the jurors shuddered as they realized it was likely that an intruder fed JB the pineapple, had a glass of tea with her, and then killed her. They also say the panty DNA is from a caucasian male and make mention of the strand of cord fiber in her bed.

About that tea, pineapple and cord fiber on the bed. IMO those things all support an insider, not an intruder, because of the level of comfort of the perp within the home.

Obviously, it's more credible that an insider would sit at the kitchen table having a snack or spend time using the cord while in JB's room... if an intruder were to snatch JB from her bed, he would snatch her, cover her mouth and get the hell out of there, not hang around risking getting caught.

 

[Britt]

I don't buy that traumatized face baloney either. For no doubt would coroner Dr. Meyer have mentioned it in his autopsy report, but he didn't.
At the wake, Nedra led visitors to the open casket to show them how beautiful JonBenet looked. How could she have looked beautiful if her face had been smashed and disfigured, I ask myself.

I saw the photo in the re-airing of the documentary - it was not edited out - it was shown indirectly and briefly during the Dobersen stun gun segment... and I did not see what it is that's being asserted about JB's face.

IMO it's nothing more than histrionic BS designed to whip up emotional support for the "parent couldn't have done it" theory, just like Smit tried to do with autopsy and crime scene photos.

 

[Jimthecarpetguy]

Forgive me if this has been discussed but I have been out of the country, and yesterday upon returning I picked up The Globe at an airport because it had several JBR articles in it. One of the articles, by Bob Burns, states that some of the grand jurors sobbed when they saw the picture of JB's "body lying facedown on the floor in her pajamas". Where was she lying facedown? Was this after John brought her upstairs? The article goes on to say that one of the photos shows the imprint of the garrotte on her back and that the perp had left her lying on the garrotte, so I'm assuming this was while in the basement. So...did any of you know that she was brought upstairs and laid facedown? Or is this just more erroneous reporting?

From that article"The gorroting was a slow and horrible death that experts believe took up to two minutes"the source says."And the whole time the killer would have had to look in JonBenet's eyes.The thought of that is pretty tough on it's own.

 

[Britt]

From that article"The gorroting was a slow and horrible death that experts believe took up to two minutes"the source says."And the whole time the killer would have had to look in JonBenet's eyes.

Except that she was garroted from the back and unconscious at the time.

Though it may well have taken the perp two minutes to tie that thing on her neck.

 

[BBB167893]

Except that she was garroted from the back and unconscious at the time.

Though it may well have taken the perp two minutes to tie that thing on her neck.

Right. Whomever killed her COULDN'T look her in the face! Just tying it might have been part of it. I mean, strangulation is more subtle than we think. If that thing's on her neck, every time she exhales, her windpipe is going to be compressed more and more.

"IMO it's nothing more than histrionic BS designed to whip up emotional support for the "parent couldn't have done it" theory, just like Smit tried to do with autopsy and crime scene photos."

I agree, and the jury was not doing its job if they decided that. They went by emotion rather than fact. Of course, it's the prosecutor's job to show they could have done it. Rotten all around. But brutality is not even a mitigatiing factor. Parents have decapitated children, eaten them, bashed them with sledgehammers, etc., and many times with no priors. And just for the record, it was the jurors who decided that the blow was too powerful for a woman, not any expert. Leverage+rage=power.

Besides, even if I can't link Patsy conclusively to the blow, I can tie her (literally) to the cord. That's all I need. I need not prove she could do it, only that she did.

 

[narlacat]

Could the marks on her back come from the tips of the paint-brush?? The one on her face also could have come from the paint-brush.

JonBenet was struck on the back of her head, right side. The force of the blow caused an eight inch crack which extended to the right orbital area. Blunt-force trauma...so a golf-club was not used. My belief is that it was the flashlight that was on the kitchen counter.

With all these photos, I do not believe JonBenet's face was disfigured. The so-called photo of a disfigured face is false. The wake was open casket so I don't buy the traumatized face baloney.

Could this mean that the person who administered the blow was right handed?

 

[Camper]

Hmmm, the dorkiest part of the article as Nehemiah posted was that Mr. Burns said the Grand Jurors sobbed when they SAW the autopsy photos. HOW does he know they sobbed, no one was in the court room from media when the Grand Jurors would have been looking at the photos.

Who leaked the info that they were sobbing?

.

 

[Britt]

Could this mean that the person who administered the blow was right handed?

I don't think we can tell that because it all depends where the perp and JB were facing in relation to each other.

From the looks of the fracture, it appears the front end of the maglite caused the hole in the skull towards the back right of JB's head, with the shaft striking along the side where the fracture runs.

The perp could've had hold of JB from the front, gripping her top around her neck with the right hand, while hitting with the maglite in the left hand.

Or, while face to face, perp had hold of the maglite with both hands and swung it like a baseball bat from the perp's left.

 

[txsvicki]

Has there ever been any mention of the mold covered basement floor other than the footprint of the boot? I'm wondering if there were smeared areas where someone might have been kneeling there or any other evidence of activity on that cellar floor? It just seems that it would be hard to have done all that was done down there without leaving more evidence in the mold except for that one shoe print.

 

[Mathew]

A garrote is normally used from the rear for a number of reasons. Surprise being one and secondly it is more effective from that position. In about one minute the person will begin to lose consciousness but the thrashing around will go on for sometime. Two minutes is a ball park frequently used but it will vary a great deal based on how effective the restraint method is and the physical condition of the person. LE folks have a dozen or so people die each year from restraint holds that have similar effects as the garrote but were only intended to incapacitate the person. Most of those are in very poor health in the first place. As for the parents involvement it is true that MOM can be connected to the materials used in the garrote but I do not believe that a parent has ever used a garrote to kill a child before in the history of murder. Certainly not a manufactured one as used in this case. There have been plenty of extension cords and the like used used in a garrote like manner but the sticks indicate some expertise. First of all the list of people that know what a garrote is much less make one is limited. That does not mean that Patsy or John couldn't be the first. I have always said that the garrote leads conventional thinking away from the family. Now somebody may have read in the Globe that Patsy check out a book from the local library on garrotes for fun and profit but I don't think so. As for looking her in the eye most killers don't like to do that. I read about one fellow who could not identify his victims because he never looked at their face. So that aspect does not point to or away from Patsy. As for emotion by investigators or the grand jury all liklyhood of sucessful resolution is gone if emotion becomes a part of the process.

 

[narlacat]

A garrote is normally used from the rear for a number of reasons. Surprise being one and secondly it is more effective from that position. In about one minute the person will begin to lose consciousness but the thrashing around will go on for sometime. Two minutes is a ball park frequently used but it will vary a great deal based on how effective the restraint method is and the physical condition of the person. LE folks have a dozen or so people die each year from restraint holds that have similar effects as the garrote but were only intended to incapacitate the person. Most of those are in very poor health in the first place. As for the parents involvement it is true that MOM can be connected to the materials used in the garrote but I do not believe that a parent has ever used a garrote to kill a child before in the history of murder. Certainly not a manufactured one as used in this case. There have been plenty of extension cords and the like used used in a garrote like manner but the sticks indicate some expertise. First of all the list of people that know what a garrote is much less make one is limited. That does not mean that Patsy or John couldn't be the first. I have always said that the garrote leads conventional thinking away from the family. Now somebody may have read in the Globe that Patsy check out a book from the local library on garrotes for fun and profit but I don't think so. As for looking her in the eye most killers don't like to do that. I read about one fellow who could not identify his victims because he never looked at their face. So that aspect does not point to or away from Patsy. As for emotion by investigators or the grand jury all liklyhood of sucessful resolution is gone if emotion becomes a part of the process.

The garrotte was staging.
Designed to lead conventional thinking away from the family.

 

[UKGuy]

The garrotte was staging.
Designed to lead conventional thinking away from the family.

narlacat,

Yes this seems the best interpretation.

Detractors from the staging theory should bear in mind that some of JonBenet's hair was embedded into the knotting on the paintbrush handle that made up part of the garrote.

Also if JonBenet had been garroted in the classical fashion then her hyoid bone should have been compressed and broken, whilst not a certainty to occur, JonBenet was not an adult.

If JonBenet was killed in her bathroom as some suggest then possibly a Predatory Sexual Assault staging was constructed complete with garrote and a sexual assault in her bedroom. This may account for some fibers?

Someone realised that this would bring the occupants of the house under immediate suspicion, so this scenario was revised, with her corpse being relocated to the basement, with the intention of cleaning her up, and redressing her, say in her barbie-gown, so to portray JonBenet as the victim of a bedtime abduction, for which the Ransom Note, would offer corrobative testimony?

.

 

[Mathew]

Prior to this case what percentage of the population even knew what a garrote was or how to make one. If it was staging to lead suspicion away from the family, why use something directly connected to Patsy. A great deal of the other evidence does suggest at least someone very close to the family if not John or Patsy. if we try to imagine the thought processes the killer would have gone through to have arrived at this plan if it was all preconcieved. The garrote must have been an after thought because of the way it was made and the source of the materials. From the very beginning of this case I always said that the garrote did not fit well with a great deal of the other evidence and behavior patterns of this crime. I would think that military personnel, some LE types and students of murder methods are the short list of those that would have the slightest idea of how to make a garrote and use it properly. And of course most of the members of this crime sleuthing community. Just for the record I can account for my whereabouts.

 

[BBB167893]

"The perp could've had hold of JB from the front, gripping her top around her neck with the right hand, while hitting with the maglite in the left hand. Or, while face to face, perp had hold of the maglite with both hands and swung it like a baseball bat from the perp's left."

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, she tries to run, the perp grabs the collar from behind with the left and swings with the right?

"LE folks have a dozen or so people die each year from restraint holds that have similar effects as the garrote but were only intended to incapacitate the person."

That's why a lot of police departments have banned them, Mathew. It's easier to kill someone by strangulation than we think.

"As for the parents involvement it is true that MOM can be connected to the materials used in the garrote but I do not believe that a parent has ever used a garrote to kill a child before in the history of murder. Certainly not a manufactured one as used in this case."

that's true, but the reverse is also true: no serial killer has ever used this mo. Besides, at one time, no parent had ever decapitated their child, either. Eric Starr Smith did. No history, that I know of.

 

[rashomon]

A garrote is normally used from the rear for a number of reasons. Surprise being one and secondly it is more effective from that position. In about one minute the person will begin to lose consciousness but the thrashing around will go on for sometime. Two minutes is a ball park frequently used but it will vary a great deal based on how effective the restraint method is and the physical condition of the person. LE folks have a dozen or so people die each year from restraint holds that have similar effects as the garrote but were only intended to incapacitate the person. Most of those are in very poor health in the first place. As for the parents involvement it is true that MOM can be connected to the materials used in the garrote but I do not believe that a parent has ever used a garrote to kill a child before in the history of murder. Certainly not a manufactured one as used in this case. There have been plenty of extension cords and the like used used in a garrote like manner but the sticks indicate some expertise. First of all the list of people that know what a garrote is much less make one is limited. That does not mean that Patsy or John couldn't be the first. I have always said that the garrote leads conventional thinking away from the family. Now somebody may have read in the Globe that Patsy check out a book from the local library on garrotes for fun and profit but I don't think so. As for looking her in the eye most killers don't like to do that. I read about one fellow who could not identify his victims because he never looked at their face. So that aspect does not point to or away from Patsy. As for emotion by investigators or the grand jury all liklyhood of sucessful resolution is gone if emotion becomes a part of the process.

According to Delmar England's very interesting analysis of the garrote contraption on the ACandyRose site, the mutiple loops around the stick would have prevented effective garroting, and the garrote scene handle 17" away from the object decreases the leverage factor.
Delmar England exposes the garrote as a bogus contraption and the work of a bungling amateur who had no idea how real garrotes work.
Plus, the knot around JB's neck was fixed. ( remember Coroner Dr. Meyer wrote "double knot"). If I have an already fixed knot, garroting wouldn't work either.

I believe the perp simply tied a double knot around JB's neck from two ends of the ligature, and that it was this knot which shut off her respiration. Then the longer end of the ligaturwe was wrapped around the broken paintbrush handle (now is a broken paintbrush handle really a 'sophisticated instrument'?) for pure dramatic staging purposes.

 

[Mathew]

Superdave, you are correct that most police department have banned these type of restraints. You are also correct that "It's easier to kill someone by strangulation than we think". And still LE folks have a fair number of deaths as a result of restraints that cause asphyxiation. And every method has a first. But I still maintain that a garrote manufactured at the scene in a manner that shows some understanding of how they should be made is something that points away from John and Patsy rather than toward them. They showed too much caution after the fact to have used something that pointed toward like the paint brush. But I was wrong once before so if this is the second mistake I will give up on a carreer in crime sleuthing

 

[BBB167893]

Well, I don't ask you give up, Mathew. But rashomon is right: it was completely ineffective for the killer's needs. It wasn't even a sliding noose knot.

 

[Mathew]

I seem to recall seeing pictures of the garrote with each of the halves of the broken paint brush tied to the ends of what appeared to be a shoe string. If it was a true garrote there would not be noose or double looping because that would take away from the effectiveness of a garrote. When you wrote about a noose, I recalled a picture of the ligature still tightly connected around the neck which would be unusual for a garrote. You guys will blow my entire theory if this is not really a garrote. Does any one have a link to pictures of this thing that is being called a garrote from a reliable source.

 

[narlacat]

It was staging Mathew.

Maybe try www.acandyrose for pics, I will go and have a look too and try and find a more specific link.

Edit to add.
There are some pics of the garotte here:

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

 

[Mathew]

These pictures look more like a noose with a stick tied to one end. What I have always thought to be a garrote was a devise with a handle at both ends of a ligature. People that make those and use them learned that method some place where their training would suggest that they may at some time in the future have the need or intent to kill fairly quickly. Anyway this devise shown in these pictures could have been made by anyone. So much for my theory of excluding the parents because of the garrote.