Which came first, Strangulation or Head Trauma???

[UKGuy]

Indeed,and Thomas revealed some of that for us,referring to a splinter being found inside JB,as well as several other things he outlined in his book.I would sure like to know what he knows!




sure,but the sequence of events the evidence suggests (to me at least) leads me to believe that's not what happened.If JB was manually strangled first,as Dr Spitz states,then out cold from the head injury,(as there were no claw marks on her neck)...then it appears the garotte was,at least in part,an attempt to hide the manual strangulation marks that resulted from a rage attack.

JMO8778,
Yes Steve Thomas knows, once John passes on, he will probably reveal some of what he knows, consider how Holly Jones went public with her stuff?

sure,but the sequence of events the evidence suggests (to me at least) leads me to believe that's not what happened.If JB was manually strangled first,as Dr Spitz states,then out cold from the head injury,(as there were no claw marks on her neck)...then it appears the garotte was,at least in part,an attempt to hide the manual strangulation marks that resulted from a rage attack.

The garrote is pure staging along with placing her body into the wine-cellar, both are staging errors, as are the size-12's. But the garrote still has to be itemised in the autopsy report, since it appears to be a contributing factor to the asphyxia. Yet it was likely that the head blow was what really finished JonBenet off? Such a severe blow was no accident, this probably did more to impede oxygen transfer than that of the garrote. Everyone conveniently forgets or glosses over that JonBenet's genital injuries were cleaned up and hidden from view, e.g. this was by design.

Whatever the causes I reckon something like the following sequence of events occurred.

1. Sexual assault.
2. Manual strangulation.
3. Head injury
4. Cleanup
5. 1st staging
6. 2nd staging
7. Garrote applied
8. Ransom Note authored

e.g. you don't need the ransom note if you dump JonBenet outdoors.


.

 

[Ames]

Re: the 'what did I do' line,that was BR overheard on the 911 call tape,he'd stated,'please,what do I do?',and 'what did you find?'
What you are probably thinking of is Patsy being highly medicated at the Fernie's,and saying 'we didn't mean for this to happen'.WE.They were both involved,she and JR,and both had knowledge of sexual abuse of JB,IMO.
JR was heard to oversay "I regret,I regret...". I think it's obvious he meant he regretted abusing JB,as that led to medical care not being sought for her,IMO.

JMO8778, I heard that tape...I believe that it was on Geraldo, years ago. I do not remember Burke saying "What did I do?", all I heard was "What did you find?" John said, "We are not speaking to you", and then Patsy says.."Help me Jesus".

 

[rashomon]

Not unless the bashing is intended as a fake cause of death?

If that was the motive, I think the stager would have bashed her on the head to a point where the injury would be seen externally also.

If the headblow occurred first either accidently or intentionally but not intended to be mortal, why was JonBenet denied medical assistance, whilst when Burke whacked her with a golf club, she was off to hospital immediately?

A parental rage attack is different from a sibling fight.
A parent can't just say "I snapped an lost it and whacked my child on the head" without being held criminally reponsible.
So to escape justice, this parent would have had to lie to LE about what happened.

Presenting an 'accident' story to LE (like e. g. the child fell down the stairs) would have required explaining activities after the family arrived home.
Therefore the stager opted for a scenario where she said the last time she saw JonBenet alive she had been asleep and just fine.
The stager created the intruder to direct the attention away from the family.

Imo the FBI CASKU top experts hit id dead center when they said the dramatic ransom note was not only written to misdirect LE, but also a cathartic act which allowed the offender to undo the deed in his/her own mind. That is, the ransom note allowed the stager to dissociate herself from what she had done.

Let's look at another ugly possibility: suppose Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and directed her rage at her daughter instead of at John. These things happen and imo such a reaction would not be far-fetched at all for a mother who came dressed up as the sex symbol Marilyn Monroe together with her daughter at a pageant.
After the attack, panicked fear of the molestation evidence being discovered could have set in, preventing the Ramseys from concocting an accident story. So they decided to create an intruder/kidnapping scenario instead.

 

[rashomon]

If you look at the following pictures then one thing seems apparent:

Picture 1.

Note the bruising beneath the ligature furrow, it appears on either side of her neck, and is not circumferential, there is a gap between the bruising.

Picture 2.

This is a sideview of neck and garrote, note how less embedded the furrow actually appears?

Picture 3.

Now although it appears obvious there is only one circumferential furrow to be seen on the back of her neck. Should there not be two, the other corresponding with the bruising beneath the ligature furrow at the front of her neck as seen on Picture 1.?

Does the bruising lying beneath the ligature furrow, as seen on pictures 1 and 2, suggest a manual strangulation, with the garroting intended to mask this event?

This assumption seems consistent with the forensic evidence and any consequent staging?

An MD posting on another forum wrote that manual strangulation (that is, with the fingers pressing hard against the neck) would have left distinct marks, but that these marks can't be found on the victim. What could have happend though is that a fight occurred during which JonBenet's collar was twisted so much that it abraded the skin.
I think this is what Dr. Spitz meant by some form of strangulation possibly having preceded the head blow.
It is interesting that the petechiae can not only be found above and below the ligature, but also on the other parts of the neck.
Autopsy report (bolding mine):

The remainder of the abrasions and petechial hemorrhages of the skin
above and below the anterior projection of the ligature furrow
are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the
midline, right, and left areas of the anterior neck.

Imo this could indicate that a physcial fight between JonBenet and her attacker (I believe it was her mother) preceded the head blow.

Does the bruising lying beneath the ligature furrow, as seen on pictures 1 and 2, suggest a manual strangulation, with the garroting intended to mask this event?

Since the mark beneath ligature furrow is not even a bruise, but a mere abrasion, this is not consistent with manual strangulation where the fingers would have pressed hard agaist the skin. Also, the complete absence of any bruising in the underlying tissue of the inner neck does not suggest manual strangulation either.
Imo the abraded skin does suggest a fight between JonBenet and her attacker though, and when the offender later staged a scene, she may very well have opted to tie a cord around JonBenet's neck to present it all as a deliberate strangulation homicide committed by an "intruder".

Imo the strangulation scene was staged to direct the attention away from the true nature of the crime.
The nonsensical combination of the fixed knot on the neck together with a handle (at a 17- inch distance!) gives the handle away as a non-fuctional stage prop.

Nor nor could this have been an 'erotic asphyxiation' sex game since the TIED neck knot would have made a cord tightening/releasing scenario a physical impossibility.
Aside from that, seeing a six year-old as a participant in such an activity is absurd anyway.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778, I heard that tape...I believe that it was on Geraldo, years ago. I do not remember Burke saying "What did I do?", all I heard was "What did you find?" John said, "We are not speaking to you", and then Patsy says.."Help me Jesus".

I think in Thomas' book ,he says what was heard was (I don't know what parts they played on Geraldo,I sure wish I could have heard it though!),was BR first saying 'please,what do I do???!!',and then JR harshly saying his line next,with BR following up with 'but what DID you find???' ..emphasis on did,I do recall reading that somewhere.

It's a shame that tape isn't allowed to be played on the net,I guess attorneys and BR's age at the time prevent it from being on sites like youtube.

 

[BBB167893]

I imagine that's correct.

Just to add to something rashomon said: when we say the strangulation was staged, that doesn't necessarily mean JB had to be dead for that to happen. All that matters is if the person thought she was dead and was trying to misdirect events.

 

[Ames]

I imagine that's correct.

Just to add to something rashomon said: when we say the strangulation was staged, that doesn't necessarily mean JB had to be dead for that to happen. All that matters is if the person thought she was dead and was trying to misdirect events.

Exactly! I have always thought that after the head wound, she was unconscious, and most likely bleeding from her mouth, ears and or nose. The heartbeat was so faint that they couldn't detect it and thought that she was already dead when the garotte was applied. A few days before my mom died, her heart beat was so faint that the Hospice nurse couldn't detect it, but...we knew that her heart had to be beating, because she was talking to us.

 

[BBB167893]

Exactly! I have always thought that after the head wound, she was unconscious, and most likely bleeding from her mouth, ears and or nose. The heartbeat was so faint that they couldn't detect it and thought that she was already dead when the garotte was applied. A few days before my mom died, her heart beat was so faint that the Hospice nurse couldn't detect it, but...we knew that her heart had to be beating, because she was talking to us.

What a horrible experience that must have been. My mom died the same way.

The difference is, the hospice nurses would have known what to look for. Can that be said for one, possibly two upset laypeople?

 

[angelwngs]

IMO, head trauma came first. On another thread about this topic it was questioned as to whether a 9 year old could have delivered a life threatening blow to JBR's head. I just found this article today which I thought worth posting to validate my opinion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,418904,00.html

Blow to Head With Child-Sized Golf Club Kills Boy, 7, in Michigan

The victim was playing at the home of the 7-year-old friend while the other boy's father was doing yard work.

More at link-

It could have happened...

 

[Ames]

What a horrible experience that must have been. My mom died the same way.

The difference is, the hospice nurses would have known what to look for. Can that be said for one, possibly two upset laypeople?

Yes, she had congestive heart failure.

Right..the hospice nurses would have known what to look for...Patsy and John wouldn't have. They feel for a pulse...it is faint, so they believe that there isn't one...and the staging begins, garotte and all.

 

[Ames]

IMO, head trauma came first. On another thread about this topic it was questioned as to whether a 9 year old could have delivered a life threatening blow to JBR's head. I just found this article today which I thought worth posting to validate my opinion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,418904,00.html

Blow to Head With Child-Sized Golf Club Kills Boy, 7, in Michigan

The victim was playing at the home of the 7-year-old friend while the other boy's father was doing yard work.

More at link-

It could have happened...

Sure it could have...a child's skull is not as thick or as hard as an adults....SO, that means that the fracture and displacement of the skull bone could have happened by someone shoving JB into something too, either on purpose or by accident. Like, the side of the sink, toilet or tub. I believe that if Burke had anything to do with it, he would not have had to ask his parents.."What did you find"..when he heard Patsy talking about finding the RN to the 911 operator. He would have already have known what was going on. I just don't believe that he had anything to do with it..or even knew what was going on. When John said to him, "we are not speaking to you", I believe that was John's way of saying, Stay out of it.

 

[angelwngs]

Sure it could have...a child's skull is not as thick or as hard as an adults....SO, that means that the fracture and displacement of the skull bone could have happened by someone shoving JB into something too, either on purpose or by accident. Like, the side of the sink, toilet or tub. When John said to him, "we are not speaking to you", I believe that was John's way of saying, Stay out of it.I believe that if Burke had anything to do with it, he would not have had to ask his parents.."What did you find"..when he heard Patsy talking about finding the RN to the 911 operator. He would have already have known what was going on. I just don't believe that he had anything to do with it..or even knew what was going on.

I agree, but am still concerned that the 'quotes' determined to be heard on the 911 recording were indeed accurate.

Another possibility is that BR accidently injured JBR and PR and JR took over to protect BR from thinking he was responsible for 'killing' his sister...telling him to go to bed that JBR would be ok and then manufactured this whole concoction of the kidnapping to continue to protect him from his own actions. They could have told him to never mention the 'little accident' the night before or LE would think he was somehow involved... If this were the case, BR could have still delivered the initial head wound the night before, been convinced it wasn't bad, gone to sleep, been awakened when JR checked his room and been told that JBR was missing and BR could have indeed said, "What did you find?".

 

[Tadpole12]

Tadpole12,

No he does not, just as he does not state JonBenet was manually strangled, yet forensic evidence exists to demonstrate that both may have occurred.


Wecht is applying common sense and limiting the use of the term chronic to a period of days.

If you read the Vaginal Mucosa section in Coroner Meyer's Autopsy Report he refers to:


Now both the emphasised terms have explicit meanings in the world of pathology : 1. vascular congestion refers to the infusion or build up of blood at a particular spot e.g. Clitoris or in the bulbs of vestibule.

And 2. focal interstitial chronic inflammation means that there was a localised injury that was attempting to heal itself thus inducing the inflammation, signs of which are cellular damage and an imbalance in the interstitial fluid. Basically that there was chronic inflammation present suggests as Wecht does that sexual abuse had occurred prior to the day JonBenet was killed?

3. epithelial erosion means it took place over time, with skin cells gradually being displaced. 4. underlying capillary congestion tells you the remaining surface skin cells are damaged thus displaying capillary congestion impeding the cells ability to engage in normal osmosis.

So Coroner Meyer's use of the terms 1. , 2. , 3. and 4. is offering evidence of a process that has occurred over a period of time, much more than a matter of days since epithelial erosion would take longer than that, chronic inflammation tells you that it is at least days old, but an analysis of the capillary congestion would offer an opinion beyond that of recent days.

5. Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen. Acute inflammation is distinct from chronic inflammation since inflammation progresses through various stages. Acute inflammation usually involves an increased movement of plasma and leukocytes from the blood into the injured tissues. This is what I assume is the infiltrate that Coroner Meyer refers to?

Now the latter statement may be Coroner Meyers way of saying This looks like staging since Acute inflammatory infiltrate is not seen. or he may be suggesting the injury took place after death?

You can find Detective Arndt's remarks here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm


So Wecht limited his application of the term chronic to days since he never had access to the forensic evidence and resulting analysis. Whereas Meyer was explicitly making a distinction between the acute and chronic evidence.

imo it appears there is enough evidence to suggest historical and ongoing sexual abuse.


.

Hi and Hey UKGuy.
TY for the expansive response re Wecht's and Meyer's findings.

"that there was chronic inflammation present suggests as Wecht does that sexual abuse had occurred prior to the day JonBenet was killed" ...

That's kinda how I understood it .... prior abuse had occured ... up to several days prior.


"epithelial erosion would take longer than that" .... okay. So a time frame greater than several days. TY for pointing out the distinction.

Just wondering who had access to JBR and when the 'historical abuse' may have begun.

 

[Tadpole12]

rocket,
Sure is not, so why bother flagging up any EA evidence by applying a garrote? Also the garrote as applied was not capable of functioning as an EA device, since the knotting was fixed, if it had ever been used as such then JonBenet's hair would have been ripped out by the roots, since it was embedded into the knotting.

Hardly a prescription for a pleasurable EA experience!

"Hardly a prescription for a pleasurable EA experience!" ... maybe not? 'textbook' from what little I've read about AEA and EA, but I did finally stumble upon the term 'vicarious' EA, on a IDI link, which allows the IDI theory greater plausibility???

 

[JMO8778]

if the device were for EA..(and it wasn't even made to function as one,at that...),then wouldn't it be used on the perp HIMSELF,and not his child victim? that just doesn't make any sense.none whatsoever.

 

[BBB167893]

That's kinda how I understood it .... prior abuse had occured ... up to several days prior.

Some have said longer than that.

"epithelial erosion would take longer than that" .... okay. So a time frame greater than several days. TY for pointing out the distinction.

Just wondering who had access to JBR and when the 'historical abuse' may have begun.[/QUOTE]

That's where it gets tricky. There were several people who could have been "it."

 

[UKGuy]

Hi and Hey UKGuy.
TY for the expansive response re Wecht's and Meyer's findings.

"that there was chronic inflammation present suggests as Wecht does that sexual abuse had occurred prior to the day JonBenet was killed" ...

That's kinda how I understood it .... prior abuse had occured ... up to several days prior.


"epithelial erosion would take longer than that" .... okay. So a time frame greater than several days. TY for pointing out the distinction.

Just wondering who had access to JBR and when the 'historical abuse' may have begun.

Tadpole12,

"epithelial erosion would take longer than that" .... okay. So a time frame greater than several days. TY for pointing out the distinction.

Just as important because it corroborates that the epithelial erosion is chronic and not acute is the capillary congestion the latter shows damaged layers of cells attempting to heal, but being impeded by repeated physical erosion.

Just wondering who had access to JBR and when the 'historical abuse' may have begun.

Most of the male members, including those of the extended Ramsey family!

 

[UKGuy]

If that was the motive, I think the stager would have bashed her on the head to a point where the injury would be seen externally also.


A parental rage attack is different from a sibling fight.
A parent can't just say "I snapped an lost it and whacked my child on the head" without being held criminally reponsible.
So to escape justice, this parent would have had to lie to LE about what happened.

Presenting an 'accident' story to LE (like e. g. the child fell down the stairs) would have required explaining activities after the family arrived home.
Therefore the stager opted for a scenario where she said the last time she saw JonBenet alive she had been asleep and just fine.
The stager created the intruder to direct the attention away from the family.

Imo the FBI CASKU top experts hit id dead center when they said the dramatic ransom note was not only written to misdirect LE, but also a cathartic act which allowed the offender to undo the deed in his/her own mind. That is, the ransom note allowed the stager to dissociate herself from what she had done.

Let's look at another ugly possibility: suppose Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and directed her rage at her daughter instead of at John. These things happen and imo such a reaction would not be far-fetched at all for a mother who came dressed up as the sex symbol Marilyn Monroe together with her daughter at a pageant.
After the attack, panicked fear of the molestation evidence being discovered could have set in, preventing the Ramseys from concocting an accident story. So they decided to create an intruder/kidnapping scenario instead.

rashomon,

If that was the motive, I think the stager would have bashed her on the head to a point where the injury would be seen externally also.

Maybe, anyone staging may have thought a head injury would confuse or mask any original events.

A parental rage attack is different from a sibling fight.
A parent can't just say "I snapped an lost it and whacked my child on the head" without being held criminally reponsible.
So to escape justice, this parent would have had to lie to LE about what happened.

Sure they might lie, or they might tell the truth, because their daughters life is at risk, that is the paramount issue, so medical assistance is sought?

Presenting an 'accident' story to LE (like e. g. the child fell down the stairs) would have required explaining activities after the family arrived home.
Therefore the stager opted for a scenario where she said the last time she saw JonBenet alive she had been asleep and just fine.
The stager created the intruder to direct the attention away from the family.

Not quite, since by default an intruder is required unless you want it to be a domestic homicide. The intruder is created via the Ransom Note this is a prompt for the 911 call, otherwise JonBenet is simply missing. Since JonBenet is lying down in the wine-cellar, visibly dead, garroted and sexually assaulted, both of these latter elements contradict the rationale inherent in any kidnapping. The intruder was to be Lou Smit's job, after a discussion with John Ramsey and an impromptu prayer session, he concocted his Intruder Theory complete with a re-enactment of the intruder gaining entry via the basement window. That is the kidnapping morphed into an intruder homicide!

Imo the FBI CASKU top experts hit id dead center when they said the dramatic ransom note was not only written to misdirect LE, but also a cathartic act which allowed the offender to undo the deed in his/her own mind. That is, the ransom note allowed the stager to dissociate herself from what she had done.

How can it misdirect LE when JonBenet is discovered inside the house patently not kidnapped? All this cathartic and dissociate stuff is pyschological jargon issued by people who cannot see into the physical minds of people, never mind, pardon the pun, a mind situated in the past. The ransom note was written to offer a script and a reason for dialling 911 with certainty that JonBenet was not simply missing. It may even be that because of the inherent contradiction in the ransom note, that this strongly suggests it was part of a prior staging, since it is not required?

Let's look at another ugly possibility: suppose Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet and directed her rage at her daughter instead of at John. These things happen and imo such a reaction would not be far-fetched at all for a mother who came dressed up as the sex symbol Marilyn Monroe together with her daughter at a pageant.

mmm, your reasoning appears questionable. for a mother who came dressed up as the sex symbol Marilyn Monroe together with her daughter at a pageant. Any mother behaving so might not be so surprised to discover her daughter behaving like an adult?

Any rage directed at JonBenet by Patsy in a situation as you describe might be because JonBenet is not doing what Patsy is expecting?

The prior sexual abuse complicates things because it suggests a motive other than the standard PDI rage theory, imo you must be able to reject a motive from sexual rage before embracing another e.g. PDI.

Also if an intruder homicide was intended to be staged why bother wiping JonBenet down, as per Coroner Meyer's remarks, redressing her in size-12's then urine-soaked longjohns, then wrapping her in blankets, thus effectively hiding the sexual assault?


A PDI does not explain much of the forensic evidence, nor does it explain her lies regarding the placement of the size-12's. imo the PDI is simply an extrapolation from the evidence that Patsy played a part in the staging it does not show or prove that she killed JonBenet?


.

 

[BBB167893]

You are correct, UKGuy: it doesn't prove she killed her; it proves she was involved in the cover-up attempt.

 

[JMO8778]

rashomon,

Maybe, anyone staging may have thought a head injury would confuse or mask any original events.

..but then why rearrange her hair,adding ponytails? ..from all accounts,it appears that's what happened,as if it was an attempt to hide the head injury.

Not quite, since by default an intruder is required unless you want it to be a domestic homicide. The intruder is created via the Ransom Note this is a prompt for the 911 call, otherwise JonBenet is simply missing. Since JonBenet is lying down in the wine-cellar, visibly dead, garroted and sexually assaulted, both of these latter elements contradict the rationale inherent in any kidnapping. The intruder was to be Lou Smit's job, after a discussion with John Ramsey and an impromptu prayer session, he concocted his Intruder Theory complete with a re-enactment of the intruder gaining entry via the basement window. That is the kidnapping morphed into an intruder homicide!

yes,and also the private meeting held in the R's attorney's office,which JR outlines in DOI,even stating he'd asked if whatever was said could be just between them?

How can it misdirect LE when JonBenet is discovered inside the house patently not kidnapped? All this cathartic and dissociate stuff is pyschological jargon issued by people who cannot see into the physical minds of people, never mind, pardon the pun, a mind situated in the past. The ransom note was written to offer a script and a reason for dialling 911 with certainty that JonBenet was not simply missing. It may even be that because of the inherent contradiction in the ransom note, that this strongly suggests it was part of a prior staging, since it is not required?

I think so,too.The RN was a task-minded event;the R's don't just arbitrarily do anything,everything is done w reason.I think it was the Hodges book that went even further,even adding cancer into the mix...that's just going a bit too far for someone who needs an explanation for their dead daughter's body in the house!
That said,you mentioned earlier that a RN would not be needed if her body were to be found outdoors.But..the R's overdid it,and in a moment of panic,weren't thinking rationally,IMO.But I don't think they intended,at least at first...for her to be found at all.The RN and the 'denying her remains' content,was to be an explanation as to why her body was never found...they called LE,and so she's been killed,never to be seen again.This would explain JR's concern over the walk-in fridge..(a place to keep her body till something could be done otherwise).It appears the RN was also intended to direct attention away from friends or anyone who would help JR do this...they are foreigners,not from the US.
I got the overall feeling that JR thought Thomas may have been onto this prior plan (and perhaps he does know more than he can say,if that's what happened),so he offered up explanations for things that didn't really need one..no reason to explain his prints on the fridge,for one thing..that's just overdoing it.I got the feeling JR was afraid someone had spilled the beans on that,to some extent?