Why BOTH Garrote & Head Bash?

[UKGuy]

Gaffers tape is designed to be "less sticky" than traditional duct tape. I'm not sure how this plays into it, however I suspect, the normal telling signs ,expected by LE ,would not be found on gaffer's tape. This tape , being more expensive, as well, would suggest the perp used it in his profession, and that profession was likely to have placed him/her in Jonbenet's life. Camera...stage lighting...setting up electrical wiring for musicians..something of the kind..

sissi,

Whether it was or was not Gaffers tape I am uncertain, but whomever applied it assumed it would silence JonBenet, if that was its purpose?

To do this it needed to adhere to her mouth and prevent any noise emitting, all I am wishing to establish is that, if this is the case then there were 4 red acrylic fibers recovered from a previously sealed piece of tape.

That it was "less sticky" did not seem to prevent its use.


.

 

[sissi]

No it didn't prevent it's use, but...did it prevent the adhesive from sticking to her face, or the impression of her lips to appear differently than if it was duct tape?

 

[BlueCrab]

To do this it needed to adhere to her mouth and prevent any noise emitting, all I am wishing to establish is that, if this is the case then there were 4 red acrylic fibers recovered from a previously sealed piece of tape.

UKGuy,

The duct tape was far from being sealed. Fibers on the duct tape are not credible items of evidence because it had numerous fibers on it from the house. For instance, the tape was on JonBenet's mouth; it was removed and dropped onto the floor by John; it was picked up by Fleet and dropped onto the white blanket; and who knows where it had been prior to being put on JonBenet's mouth?

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

The duct tape was far from being sealed. Fibers on the duct tape are not credible items of evidence because it had numerous fibers on it from the house. For instance, the tape was on JonBenet's mouth; it was removed and dropped onto the floor by John; it was picked up by Fleet and dropped onto the white blanket; and who knows where it had been prior to being put on JonBenet's mouth?

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

So the tape did not adhere to her mouth? It was far from being sealed?

If it did not seal her mouth what was its purpose then?

The other fibers on the tape are inconsequential, they do not have the same forensic significance, the four from the sticky side of the tape, that also match those found in the paint tote, are though!

"who knows where it had been prior to being put on JonBenet's mouth?"
Well thats the point, possibly it was in direct contact with Patsy's red-and-black checked jacket, for you to not even mention this as a possibility is notable.

If JonBenet's body had been discovered anywhere upstairs, then I would agree with your position, but she was found in a near empty 'wine-cellar' with the door shut, and as has been suggested PR never ventured downstairs that morning, so how did four fibers arrive on the tape?

.

 

[sissi]

Four red fibers at a crime scene where a child was expecting a visit from Santa? C'mon! They weren't from Patsy's tri-colored jacket.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

The other fibers on the tape are inconsequential, they do not have the same forensic significance, the four from the sticky side of the tape, that also match those found in the paint tote, are though!
.

UKGuy,

I agree the four fibers on the duct tape can be important, but don't forget there were numerous other fibers on the duct tape. For instance, fibers from the comforter in JAR's suitcase were also found on the duct tape, as well as on JonBenet's clothing, in the body bag, and on JonBenet's crotch area. These fibers are not inconsequential.

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

I agree the four fibers on the duct tape can be important, but don't forget there were numerous other fibers on the duct tape. For instance, fibers from the comforter in JAR's suitcase were also found on the duct tape, as well as on JonBenet's clothing, in the body bag, and on JonBenet's crotch area. These fibers are not inconsequential.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

thank you, I am not disputing the existence of any of the other fibers just their forensic significance, those that reference inanimate objects are of interest, but those that link people to the crime scene I consider more relevant.

So the fibers on JonBenet's genital area are obviously of interest since they link JR, the others as you suggest, at this moment in time, are not inconsequential.

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

BlueCrab,

thank you, I am not disputing the existence of any of the other fibers just their forensic significance, those that reference inanimate objects are of interest, but those that link people to the crime scene I consider more relevant.

So the fibers on JonBenet's genital area are obviously of interest since they link JR, the others as you suggest, at this moment in time, are not inconsequential.

.

Fibers found at the crime scene that match a foreign source, e.g. a material not present in the house, would establish a link to an outsider. That would be significant.

Fibers found at the crime scene that match an internal source, material present within the house, especially materials from things JBR would naturally be close to, e.g. her parents, can't be presented as a 'link to the crime scene' because a link between JBR and household fibers already exists legitimately.

IOW the question isn't whether or not the R's fibers are 'linked to the crime scene,' since all household fibers are alreadly linked to all household surfaces, in which the crime scene resides!

You can speculate all day long on how certain fibers transferred from one surface to another, either directly or indirectly, but to draw any conclusion seems impossible. There's just too many ways for this or that fiber to travel.

 

[UKGuy]

Fibers found at the crime scene that match a foreign source, e.g. a material not present in the house, would establish a link to an outsider. That would be significant.

Fibers found at the crime scene that match an internal source, material present within the house, especially materials from things JBR would naturally be close to, e.g. her parents, can't be presented as a 'link to the crime scene' because a link between JBR and household fibers already exists legitimately.

IOW the question isn't whether or not the R's fibers are 'linked to the crime scene,' since all household fibers are alreadly linked to all household surfaces, in which the crime scene resides!

You can speculate all day long on how certain fibers transferred from one surface to another, either directly or indirectly, but to draw any conclusion seems impossible. There's just too many ways for this or that fiber to travel.

Holdontoyourhat,

That would be the defense presented to the court no doubt.

The crime-scene in question is a rather isolated one, and imo staqed, so any fibers such as those suggested by BlueCrab, rashomon, myself and others are important, they cannot be explained away as the flotsam and jetsam of random debri in the Ramsey environment. Precisely because they are located at a staged crime-scene!

You can speculate all day long on how certain fibers transferred from one surface to another, either directly or indirectly, but to draw any conclusion seems impossible. There's just too many ways for this or that fiber to travel

We are not concerned with speculating how they transferred that is immaterial, that they are at the crime-scene is what is relevant, their existence is not speculative, they are not being inferred from their absence, they exist!

.

 

[BlueCrab]

Precisely because they are located at a staged crime-scene!

UKGuy,

I too believe the crime scene was staged but, staged crime scene or not, there were obviously a lot of primary and secondary fiber transfers. And whether a person is in the act of killing someone or is in the act of staging the crime scene there will usually be something of him left at the scene. JonBenet is talking to us by way of the fiber evidence, so the fibers must be seriously interpreted.

BlueCrab

 

[aussiesheila]

I would like to concentrate on why the perp both Garroted and Bashed JonBenet. There have been various reasons I know of suggested:

1. perhaps the Head Bash occurred first by accident and the Garrote was a coverup (ST) - with an amazing lack of blood loss,
2. the perp enjoyed the Garrote and then finished off with the Head Bash because 3of a struggle - again an amazing lack of blood loss
4. the perp first did the Garrote and then the Head Bash for just sadistic pleasure,
5. the perp first did the Garrote and then the Head Bash as a step by step ritual (eg Celtic midwinter garrote/bash sacrifice).

I'm just a laymen here, but the low loss of blood to the Head Bash suggests to me that it was NOT done immediately after the Garrote and therefore suggests to me that it was planned that way.

I think it is central to the motive and important to discuss in itself. Why do you think both the Garrote and Head Bash were done?

To get back to your original question Rupert - I think 'the amazing lack of blood loss' is highly significant in that I think it means that the strangulation and head bash had to be virtually simeltaneous events. If the head bash was first then the strangulation would have had to come within seconds for there not to have been massive intracranial bleeding. If the strangulation came first then the head bash must have come fairly soon after because there were tissue injury response signs around the area of the head bash that cannot occur more that several minutes after death which in this case would have occurred from the strangulation.

(EDIT: I've just had another look at the autopsy report - re tissue injury response - there was 'an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage ......... encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 X 4 inches.'

This has to have happened almost immediately after the strangulation. I think the hemorrhaging would have been far greater if the head bash was before the strangling and could not have occurred at all if the head bash was more than 1 or 2 minutes after the strangling.)

I don't understand why you think the 'the amazing lack of blood loss' suggests the head bash was not immediately after the strangulation.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

We are not concerned with speculating how they transferred that is immaterial, that they are at the crime-scene is what is relevant, their existence is not speculative, they are not being inferred from their absence, they exist!

.

Fibers from the R's clothing can be expected to be transferred to JBR, especially fibers from the clothing they wore that day. Absence of their fibers would need an explanation.

If you want, you can consider irrelevant the fact that JBR herself brought a ton of R fiber to the crime scene, normally.

 

[Rupert]

To get back to your original question Rupert - I think 'the amazing lack of blood loss' is highly significant in that I think it means that the strangulation and head bash had to be virtually simeltaneous events. If the head bash was first then the strangulation would have had to come within seconds for there not to have been massive intracranial bleeding. If the strangulation came first then the head bash must have come fairly soon after because there were tissue injury response signs around the area of the head bash that cannot occur more that several minutes after death which in this case would have occurred from the strangulation.

(EDIT: I've just had another look at the autopsy report - re tissue injury response - there was 'an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage ......... encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 X 4 inches.'

This has to have happened almost immediately after the strangulation. I think the hemorrhaging would have been far greater if the head bash was before the strangling and could not have occurred at all if the head bash was more than 1 or 2 minutes after the strangling.)

I don't understand why you think the 'the amazing lack of blood loss' suggests the head bash was not immediately after the strangulation.

I guess "immediate" is a question. The flashlight would be a natural thing to have with him. I guess the headbash could have happened within a minute. I am not a doctor.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, there were several pathologists who said that the head bash could have come up to an hour before the strangulation. Werner Spitz was one of them. Tom Henry was another. Ronald Wright was another. So was Henry Lee. He used the term "fully developed."

 

[Lookindreams]

Has anyone ever entertained the idea that the crime scene was just a stage and that the original crime ...the blow to the head was committed elsewhere........That would also explain the panic when in fact they thought she had died they realized she was alive and in a panic devised a plan to stage the kidnapping and ransom note etc. All the materials used in the strangulation were items already in that basement......Intruders would not have known where all these items were located especially the Ransom note who would go into a kitchen drawer write a note for a odd amount then climb out a basement window this just doesnt make any sense...why not walkk out the door they were already upstairs Intruder theory doesnt make any sense

 

[DeeDee249]

As you are new here, you haven't read all the threads, but of course many of us do consider that the head bash may have occurred in JB's bedroom or bathroom, or even the kitchen or another room in the house. The staging involved the basement, and your comment about why the "intruder" couldn't just have walked out the door has been said many times before here. It is an excellent point, too. The answer is that of course, there WAS no intruder. Nothing in this case makes sense from an intruder point of view, yet it all comes into focus when you consider this a staged crime scene.
No intruder would know not only where all the items used were, but would take the time to replace everything back where they belonged. Pen back in the cup holder, etc. No intruder would know that her blanket was in the basement dryer (her bed clearly shows that the foot portion was not disturbed, and police mentioned this very thing to Patsy during her interviews, where she admitted that it did seem that no one could have pulled a blanket off that bed and still have the foot portion remain perfectly made. If you haven't looked at the crime photos, I strongly suggest that you do. If you need the link, let us know.
I feel that the head bash may have been to silence her scream. The scream, which was heard by a neighbor, happened around midnight. There was only one scream- and this fits a theory where she screamed and someone hit her with a blunt object to shut her up (I believe it was the flashlight, which had been wiped down of prints -even the BATTERIES).

 

[Toltec]

My belief is that Patsy snapped and picked up the first object she could find, the flashlight. She hit JonBenet over the head and heard a loud crack and realized that she couldn't take it back. She than did what any person would do to keep out of jail...self preservation. She decided to stage a kidnapping/murder.

She took JonBenet down to the basement, out of sight of John and proceeded to strangle her. That explains no fight by JonBenet...the cord was wrapped around her neck with lots of hair attached. The cord was attached in a perfect circumference...a very slight deviation at the back of her neck. JonBenet did not put up a fight because she was already unconcious from the blow to the head.

 

[ukrberserker]

I think you all need a redneck's opinion on the fibers on the tape. I've used duct tape for over 20 years for everything. I've also left fiber or fingerprint evidence all over WV. Most of the times I have used duct tape, it was a short piece. When I di, I usually pull out the lenght I want, tear it off, and stick it to my jeans leg, or sometimes my shirt. I would also say this proves that the perps wore gloves. Just try to tear off a piece of duct tape, and stick it to something else, without leaving fingerprints on it. I don't think it can be done. Funny no one mentioned any prints on the piece of tape. Maybe that is why JR pulled it off. To explain away any prints found on it. I guess BPD never checked it for prints, just fibers.

 

[UKGuy]

I think you all need a redneck's opinion on the fibers on the tape. I've used duct tape for over 20 years for everything. I've also left fiber or fingerprint evidence all over WV. Most of the times I have used duct tape, it was a short piece. When I di, I usually pull out the lenght I want, tear it off, and stick it to my jeans leg, or sometimes my shirt. I would also say this proves that the perps wore gloves. Just try to tear off a piece of duct tape, and stick it to something else, without leaving fingerprints on it. I don't think it can be done. Funny no one mentioned any prints on the piece of tape. Maybe that is why JR pulled it off. To explain away any prints found on it. I guess BPD never checked it for prints, just fibers.

ukrberserker,
What nearly everyone ignores, rednecks included, is that the fibers found on the duct tape and her body should not have been there, simply because the crime-scene was an isolated, sealed room!

The fibers are more important and take on a greater significance than normal, despite critics who pour scorn on the evidence citing secondary transfer etc.

.

 

[Chrishope]

ukrberserker,
What nearly everyone ignores, rednecks included, is that the fibers found on the duct tape and her body should not have been there, simply because the crime-scene was an isolated, sealed room!

The fibers are more important and take on a greater significance than normal, despite critics who pour scorn on the evidence citing secondary transfer etc.

.

LOL. The fibers could easily have got on the various items before they were hidden in the WC.

The "crime scene" (where the actual murder took place) is outside the WC, not inside.


To be more technical, the entire house and it's grounds are the crime scene.