Was Burke Involved? # 4

[otg]

I thought the hair was tied into the knot at the noose end, which does appear to have been tied while around her neck. But it's not so clear if toggle end had hair tied in or just pushed in - at least to me.

I would think the toggle end had to be tied first, then the cord looped around her neck and tied, catching her hair in the slip knot.

In the other forum I read about rumors that Burke was seen using such a device as a leash for one of the Jacques- does anyone know about this?

Read the AR. It was entwined in both knots. Only problem is with the knot on her neck. Since it is a slip knot, it could have entangled the hair as it was pulled tight.

 

[Heymom]

(PS: I hate having to write gender neutral sentences.)[/I]

The common solution is to write "they" instead, although for the grammarians among us, that is a plural pronoun and is also wrong. I have used s/he or h/him but any time you use a / mark, it seems awkward. "They" is probably the mainstream treatment.

 

[johnjay]

Read the AR. It was entwined in both knots. Only problem is with the knot on her neck. Since it is a slip knot, it could have entangled the hair as it was pulled tight.

Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick.

I don't think the AR says the hair was entwined in both knots, just the cord at the stick end.

 

[otg]

The perp being under the legal age of culpability does not mean the crime was not committed or that those who assisted the underage perp can not be held accountable.

You're absolutely correct, TeaTime. C.R.S. 18-1-801 (Insufficient age) states the following (bbm):

Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, (Colo. App. 1991).
​

The reference to People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19911...%20v.%20MILLER) was from a case in which a parent appealed her conviction of Contributing the Delinquency of a Minor because the child was too young to be charged with a crime (theft). From that Appeals Court opinion:

Miller first contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. She asserts that her eight-year-old son was not charged with theft because a child under the age of ten cannot be charged and convicted of any offense. Section 18-1-801, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). Thus, according to Miller, since it was impossible for her son to violate any state law, she cannot be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
​

The Appeals Court’s decision states:

Here, the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. The General Assembly is concerned with adults who encourage children under eighteen to commit crimes. The statute does not require that the minor be charged or convicted of a crime nor does it require the minor to be over the age of ten.

Further, Miller's reliance on § 18-1-801 is misplaced. Although a child under the age of ten cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. Rather, in enacting § 18-1-801, the General Assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts. It did not determine that such persons could not commit the acts themselves. Cf. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988). We therefore conclude that even though Miller's son was only eight years old at the time of her offense, Miller could be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
​

And in C.R.S. 18-6-701 (Contributing to the delinquency of a minor) Annotations, it states:

An adult may be charged with violating this statute regardless of whether the minor was actually charged with or convicted of a crime or whether the minor was old enough to be charged with or convicted of a crime. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1991).
​

 

[otg]

I don't think the AR says the hair was entwined in both knots, just the cord at the stick end.

I've quoted what the ME said in it. Read the AR (autopsy report) for yourself:

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon124.htm

 

[Heymom]

Here's OTG's theory in these two posts.:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...rke-Involved-4/page42&p=12849489#post12849489

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?226503-Explain-BDI-to-me&p=9981961#post9981961

Thank you for intervening! I was having trouble locating the right post!

 

[otg]

I think the paintbrush handle was used more like a way to drag JBR/move her. BR may not have been able to carry her weight; but he could have fashioned a system to drag her by the neck after she was unconscious. There is a white ring around her neck that looks like a cord was pulled on her neck in an upward motion from someone behind her. (Just stating my opinion on

The white line wouldn't be there if the cord was not there after she was dead. If the cord was in that position and then removed before she died, it would not be white. The white line was formed during the blanching phase postmortem.

 

[otg]

This is a mistake. The poster otg has explained this very clearly on another thread. She was not strangled twice.

Mmmm... not exactly. That white line on her neck indicates the cord was in that position until after she died. At some point after that, it slipped up (or was moved up) into the position it remained until the furrow formed. But technically (IMO), you might say she was already strangled to death and therefore couldn't be strangled again.

 

[otg]

The common solution is to write "they" instead, although for the grammarians among us, that is a plural pronoun and is also wrong. I have used s/he or h/him but any time you use a / mark, it seems awkward. "They" is probably the mainstream treatment.

Thank you. Either way, I agree, is awkward. I can't bring myself to use the plural for a single person (Oh, no. Am I now insinuating marital status?). I can't use here (on a JBR forum) what was once suggested because you know that the word ("hir") designates a certain person who will always be known as "hir" for reasons I'm sure you know, Heymom. Actually though, in all honesty I added in a couple of extra "him/her"s just to call attention to how silly it seems to me. But then, I'm just showing my age. :biggrin:

 

[Heymom]

Mmmm... not exactly. That white line on her neck indicates the cord was in that position until after she died. At some point after that, it slipped up (or was moved up) into the position it remained until the furrow formed. But technically (IMO), you might say she was already strangled to death and therefore couldn't be strangled again.

Yes, what I meant was that she was not strangled while conscious, first, and then hit with something, and then strangled again to her death, which is what some here seem to believe happened.

So just to clarify - the white line is where the cord was when she was actually strangled, but where it was furrowed into her neck came *after* she had died?

 

[UKGuy]

If they were trying to sexually assault her that night with the sole purpose of hiding previous sexual assault...then why clean up the evidence that a sexual assault was done to her that night? That just doesn't make any sense.

If you believe the "sexual assault" that night was only staging....then why stage something just to clean it up?

ThinkHard,
Well I don't think so, but many do. They also tend to mistake the staging as evidence of what took place. Even CBS was guilty of this when they mooted the flashlight as the blunt force weapon.

There are those who leave their common sense behind when they wax lyrical in scientific terms regarding the ligature asphyxiation, yet alike CBS no motive is offered as to why a kidnapper is required to asphyxiate his victim?

.

 

[otg]

Yes, what I meant was that she was not strangled while conscious, first, and then hit with something, and then strangled again to her death, which is what some here seem to believe happened.

So just to clarify - the white line is where the cord was when she was actually strangled, but where it was furrowed into her neck came *after* she had died?

I thought that's what you meant. Just wanted to make sure no one had misunderstood me (or you).

 

[johnjay]

I've quoted what the ME said in it. Read the AR (autopsy report) for yourself:

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon124.htm

I mostly did, and I quoted from it for you above. I'll repeat it here: (from the AR)

Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick.

Entwined in the knot on noose part, and the cord on the wooden stick part is how I read it- not both knots.

 

[otg]

I mostly did, and I quoted from it for you above. I'll repeat it here: (from the AR)



Entwined in the knot on noose part, and the cord on the wooden stick part is how I read it- not both knots.

(I'm not sure how we're misunderstanding each other.) There are only two knots on the ligature: the one securing the cord to the paintbrush and the one near her neck which your are calling "the knot on noose part." Am I right?

 

[BOESP]

It's this one BOESP

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?42511-Media-Links-Only&p=1553855#post1553855 post no 37

THANK YOU! That's it (the minister looked more like the late Tom Snyder when I watched it the first time :laughing:.

 

[ThinkHard]

It’s not, despite the poster continuing to repeat his/her idea that it is based on his/her interpretation of what he/she thinks he/she sees in one photo. That’s ignoring other photos and what the ME wrote in the AR at the time he was removing it:

Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick.
​

It was 17” after it had been wrapped around the paintbrush about 8 to 12 times and then tied.



Again, anyone can read what Dr. Meyer wrote about it in the AR:

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon124.htm



(PS: I hate having to write gender neutral sentences.)

Right, but if the cord where so long, and presumably longer before being tied, and JBR's hair was much shorter. Then it seems like given the length of line one could have daily attached the paintbrush with it catching any of JBRs hair in it. Yet despite the length her hair was stil caught in the line.

That to me, even though you see otherwise, points to the fact that the paintbrush was tied on the line when it was used in JBR. We might not be clear on how it was used but it's clear to me that her hair is entwined in the line for betting caught in a preexisting knot, rather then from being tied up in one.

Just because you choose to see the information one way and I another does not make you right and me wrong, it is merely each of our opinion on how we are interpreting the same data. We are clearly just seeing vastly different things.

 

[scruffydog]

I just want to say...I am so intrigued with the input of everyone on this site. But please get rid of this notion that PR and JR "thought she was dead after BR hit her over the head-so they staged the cover up". I have been in a medical field for 25 years, and been with hundreds of people at or after their time of death. You can tell if someone is dead!! For God's sake-especially if it was your child!!! You would check for a pulse all over their body---look and feel for breathing-look at their skin color!!!!!
even f I were NOT a medically trained professional-I would certainly assess for the normal functions of life!!! Please get rid of this notion that they thought she was dead-I have tried to hold my tongue on this for so long, but it is simply not realistic.

 

[Heymom]

I just want to say...I am so intrigued with the input of everyone on this site. But please get rid of this notion that PR and JR "thought she was dead after BR hit her over the head-so they staged the cover up". I have been in a medical field for 25 years, and been with hundreds of people at or after their time of death. You can tell if someone is dead!! For God's sake-especially if it was your child!!! You would check for a pulse all over their body---look and feel for breathing-look at their skin color!!!!!
even f I were NOT a medically trained professional-I would certainly assess for the normal functions of life!!! Please get rid of this notion that they thought she was dead-I have tried to hold my tongue on this for so long, but it is simply not realistic.

THANK YOU! My feeling is that it's very hard for people to believe that the killer really did know what he was doing and that he did it on purpose, and that John and/or Patsy came across their daughter already dead (and very obviously dead) and chose to cover it up rather than have their son removed from the home and possibly institutionalized. People sometimes have a lot of investment in their beliefs about what people (especially children) can do....Most people know nothing about sociopathy and I'm happy for them if they don't.

 

[TexMex]

Right, but if the cord where so long, and presumably longer before being tied, and JBR's hair was much shorter. Then it seems like given the length of line one could have daily attached the paintbrush with it catching any of JBRs hair in it. Yet despite the length her hair was stil caught in the line.

That to me, even though you see otherwise, points to the fact that the paintbrush was tied on the line when it was used in JBR. We might not be clear on how it was used but it's clear to me that her hair is entwined in the line for betting caught in a preexisting knot, rather then from being tied up in one.

Just because you choose to see the information one way and I another does not make you right and me wrong, it is merely each of our opinion on how we are interpreting the same data. We are clearly just seeing vastly different things.

Her hair seems pretty long in the last photo taken of her before her death

 

[BBB167893]

So the Ramseys can forgive the person who murdered their precious child but to this day John can't seem to forgive the public or anyone else who dare think he or his family had a part in the crime. So the actual murderer (who they keep saying is a stranger) is forgiven. Anyone who questions the Ramsey's is not forgiven. Got it.

Yeah, that's pretty much how it stands.