You, the jury

[MurriFlower]

IMO the right wrist knot being tied LOOSELY is just a misunderstanding.
Why?
I think this was the first photo taken of it,where IMO it's clear that it's NOT loosely.

And THEN they probably took a second photo were it seems loosely indeed but maybe they already touched/tried to remove it.

Hmm, now there's a funny thing. Is it just me or does one of these photos appear to be mirror reversed or of the wrong (left) arm?

"VII Ligature of right wrist"

The lower photo appears to be her left wrist and can't be mirror reversed as it's got some writing on the paper under it.

 

[DeeDee249]

Both photos are of the same arm, just turned a different way. Both photos were taken on the autopsy table before the body was undressed for dissection. I see nothing that indicates anyone tried to loosen or untie that knot. The wrist cord was cut off by the coroner.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Both photos are of the same arm, just turned a different way. Both photos were taken on the autopsy table before the body was undressed for dissection. I see nothing that indicates anyone tried to loosen or untie that knot. The wrist cord was cut off by the coroner.

Doesn't JR say he struggled to loosen the wrist ligature, and why does RDI go on and on about how loose the wrist ligature was, how it left no marks, and how it didn't do anything? If it was tied tightly around her sweater, it might not rub or leave marks, but it could pull.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Both photos are of the same arm, just turned a different way. Both photos were taken on the autopsy table before the body was undressed for dissection. I see nothing that indicates anyone tried to loosen or untie that knot. The wrist cord was cut off by the coroner.

John said he tried to loosen them. Don't know how far he got before he was told to stop.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Why am I here? Because I still believe that victims like JonBenet deserve a voice.

Thanks SD. Never give up.

Dear God Almighty,
Who did these horrible, horrible things to this little girl? Open our eyes that we might see the person who butchered and took the life and sanctity of one of your little ones.
Amen

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks SD. Never give up.

Thank you, Fang. No retreat and no surrender.

Dear God Almighty,
Who did these horrible, horrible things to this little girl? Open our eyes that we might see the person who butchered and took the life and sanctity of one of your little ones.
Amen

And let that monster learn that revenge is a dish best served cold.

 

[madeleine]

And let that monster learn that revenge is a dish best served cold.

As far as you're concerned isn't the monster DEAD?What revenge.

 

[BBB167893]

As far as you're concerned isn't the monster DEAD? What revenge.

I wasn't referring to PR, madeleine.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Dear God Almighty,
Who did these horrible, horrible things to this little girl? Open our eyes that we might see the person who butchered and took the life and sanctity of one of your little ones.
Amen

 

[MurriFlower]

Your Honour, members of the jury.

I'd like to submit as evidence for the defence the following autopsy photograph of the deceased, which has been digitally enhanced in the sophistocated Photo Studio 5.5 laboratory. You will see that it depicts the Autopsy photograph is of the 'rust coloured abrasion' on the throat of the deceased, detailed in the Autopsy Report. When subjected to a laboratory process that separates out colour, tone, saturation and equalisation, a clear shape emerges in from the surrounding colour of the 'abrasion'.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?pictureid=10355&albumid=1224&dl=1275628839&thumb=1

We submit, your Honour, that the shape closely resembles that of the muzzle of a Glock hand gun, and that the abrasion was caused when the weapon was pressed heavily into the throat of the deceased prior to her death. The following video clearly shows the shape of the muzzle of a similar hand gun.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-gRqlcg1xQ[/ame]

Furthermore, we also submit the autopsy photograph showing the skull fracture of the deceased.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/picture.php?pictureid=10384&albumid=1224&dl=1276392877&thumb=1

We maintain that the fracture of the skull and draw your attention particularly to the section of skull that was described in the Autopsy Report as "a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull", was the result of having been bashed by the butt of the same Glock handgun.

Finally, your honour, we submit the following video for the consideration of the jury of a Glock handgun, which clearly shows the shape of the butt where the magazine fits into the weapon and we submit is similar to the shape of the object that inflicted the blunt force trauma resulting in fracture to the skull of the deceased.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORkNiW-otHU&feature=related[/ame]

We submit that this evidence points to the deceased having been attacked and ultimately murdered by an unknown intruder and not by either of her parents.

 

[DeeDee249]

That could never be submitted as evidence. You can't say because it was shaped like part of a gun that it was made by a part of a gun. You have to prove it. First, you'd need to provide the gun that was supposed to have made the marks, not any gun, but THE gun, and it would have to have been linked to a suspect and shown to fit the mark on the body, not a photo of the mark on the body.
The "gun" imprint is a lot like the "stun gun" imprints. Unless you can test the skin for evidence of electrical burns (as would happen with a stun gun) you can't submit as evidence that the marks were made by a stun gun. In this case, no stun gun was found, but there was a video on stun gun use found in the R home.
Unfortunately, there is no way to test JB's skin for either stun gun burns or a pressure injury caused by a gun.
At the risk of being repetitive, once again I want to point out that the large triangular abrasion (coroner's description) is a fairly common effect of ligature strangulation, and photos depicting victims with the exact same type of mark are available online. It is caused by the pooling of blood just under the skin at the point where the ligature "twists" most deeply. The skin becomes parchment-like- a different kind of mark than just a bruise or an abrasion caused by scraping.

Let's not make the mistake of viewing the handgun as part of this crime, just as we shouldn't make the stun gun part of this crime.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

We submit that this evidence points to the deceased having been attacked and ultimately murdered by an unknown intruder and not by either of her parents.

This is more believable than the flashlight over the head idea. That idea doesn't really fit the fractured area very well. Also why would anyone risk losing their flashlight functionality by hitting someone over the head with it? And why wouldn't PR or JR simply turn on the light? What do they need a flashlight for?

If an intruder killed JBR, which I believe is true, then it is reasonable to assume they were constantly armed with something besides cord in the event a shotgun wielding parent wandered downstairs unexpectedly.

 

[MurriFlower]

That could never be submitted as evidence. You can't say because it was shaped like part of a gun that it was made by a part of a gun. You have to prove it.

I can say anything I like, as it's just my 'opinion'. However, unlike RDI 'opinions' I'm prepared to back it up with some 'evidence'.

First, you'd need to provide the gun that was supposed to have made the marks, not any gun, but THE gun, and it would have to have been linked to a suspect and shown to fit the mark on the body, not a photo of the mark on the body.

Well, in the real world probably yes. But in Websleuth World, when there are only two options, RDI & IDI, all I need to do is prove that ANY gun was used to refute RDI and therefore support IDI. There is no RDI theory as far as I know where the R's used a gun either to threaten or beat JBR.

The "gun" imprint is a lot like the "stun gun" imprints. Unless you can test the skin for evidence of electrical burns (as would happen with a stun gun) you can't submit as evidence that the marks were made by a stun gun. In this case, no stun gun was found, but there was a video on stun gun use found in the R home.
Unfortunately, there is no way to test JB's skin for either stun gun burns or a pressure injury caused by a gun.
.

I don't expect that even the authorities could prove this either at this point. In a court room situation, it would be up to the 'experts' to fight this out.

At the risk of being repetitive, once again I want to point out that the large triangular abrasion (coroner's description) is a fairly common effect of ligature strangulation, and photos depicting victims with the exact same type of mark are available online. It is caused by the pooling of blood just under the skin at the point where the ligature "twists" most deeply. The skin becomes parchment-like- a different kind of mark than just a bruise or an abrasion caused by scraping.

It is not the abrasion I'm pointing to, but the clear outline of the gun muzzle within. I don't think the Autopsy agrees with your take on this and gives no reason for the mark. Remember there were also other marks on the body where the cause was also not given.

Let's not make the mistake of viewing the handgun as part of this crime, just as we shouldn't make the stun gun part of this crime

Lets not make the mistake of taking everything RDI says as true. The Stun Gun and the outline of the muzzle of a handgun as well as a head injury consistent with being pistol whipped are not consistent with RDI, so I would not expect you would want it to be taken seriously.

This will be a matter for the jury to decide.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is clear evidence that a handgun could have been used to threaten/intimidate and to bash JBR. Neither parent, given the scenario presented by the prosecution, has been accused of using a gun and in fact this is contrary to the belief that the killing was unintentional. If you believe there is reasonable doubt that a gun may have been used to inflict these injuries, then you must also believe that this crime was in fact committed by an unknown person or persons.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is clear evidence that a handgun could have been used to threaten/intimidate and to bash JBR. Neither parent, given the scenario presented by the prosecution, has been accused of using a gun and in fact this is contrary to the belief that the killing was unintentional. If you believe there is reasonable doubt that a gun may have been used to inflict these injuries, then you must also believe that this crime was in fact committed by an unknown person or persons.

YGG
We have the birth of a superstar taking place before our very eyes in real time! YGG

 

[madeleine]

This is more believable than the flashlight over the head idea. That idea doesn't really fit the fractured area very well.

Where did this idea come from anyway.There is absolutely no evidence that the flashlight was used in the murder or to bash JB's head.It's one of the BPD's silly attempts to make it look like RDI but it just doesn't fly.Lots of experts said that the fracture rather tells us she wasn't HIT but pushed/thrown into something and I agree.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Where did this idea come from anyway.There is absolutely no evidence that the flashlight was used in the murder or to bash JB's head.It's one of the BPD's silly attempts to make it look like RDI but it just doesn't fly.Lots of experts said that the fracture rather tells us she wasn't HIT but pushed/thrown into something and I agree.

A forensic pathologist experimented on the skull of a deceased six year old using a comparable or the same flashlight and created at least a partial fracture consistent with J's. Additionally, the alleged flashlight and the batteries had no fingerprints found on them. I believe this is accurate.

 

[madeleine]

A forensic pathologist experimented on the skull of a deceased six year old using a comparable or the same flashlight and created at least a partial fracture consistent with J's. Additionally, the alleged flashlight and the batteries had no fingerprints found on them. I believe this is accurate.

Seems like another "it COULD have been this or that " .It could have been the flashlight but there's no evidence that it WAS.
Why on earth would the R's leave the MURDER WEAPON right there on the kitchen table after taking so much time and effort to stage everything.They got rid of the tape,the cord,the panties,wrote a 3 page RN but left the murder weapon right there under everybody's noses.Yeah right BPD,another bright scenario.If the R's would have cleaned it,I bet they would have said It's definitely NOT OUR flashlight.They didn't.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Seems like another "it COULD have been this or that " .It could have been the flashlight but there's no evidence that it WAS.
Why on earth would the R's leave the MURDER WEAPON right there on the kitchen table after taking so much time and effort to stage everything.They got rid of the tape,the cord,the panties,wrote a 3 page RN but left the murder weapon right there under everybody's noses.Yeah right BPD,another bright scenario.If the R's would have cleaned it,I bet they would have said It's definitely NOT OUR flashlight.They didn't.

Yeah right next to the bowl of pineapple, I guess. Why not wash out the bowl? Did they forget about the pineapple bowl and flashlight, what with all that crime scene staging going on?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

A forensic pathologist experimented on the skull of a deceased six year old using a comparable or the same flashlight and created at least a partial fracture consistent with J's. Additionally, the alleged flashlight and the batteries had no fingerprints found on them. I believe this is accurate.

Did the flashlight still work afterwards? Does anybody know the make/model of this flashlight?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It is not the abrasion I'm pointing to, but the clear outline of the gun muzzle within. I don't think the Autopsy agrees with your take on this and gives no reason for the mark. Remember there were also other marks on the body where the cause was also not given.

And this discredits most RDI theories. According to RDI it was an accident followed by staging. The head injury was the accident, the ligatures staging. These other injuries suggest either assault or struggle, which have not been included in most RDI theories.