The headblow first and why

[Bev]

I had forgotten this, and just reread the autopsy report - there was no damage to the tongue, no damage to the frenulum (that bit of tissue that connects the tongue to the bottom of the mouth) the hyoid bone was not damaged, no strap muscles damaged and no internal damage to the larynx, etc. In aphixiation and strangulation cases where the victim is conscious, there is damage to the tongue - the victim bites it, cuts it along the edge of the teeth as it presses down on them and very often the frenulum is cut or torn, cheeks are bitten. The hyoid bone is broken because it is a very delicate bone and as people struggle, arch their necks and pressure is put upon it, it fractures or breaks. There is always damage to other parts of the neck, such as bruising, tearing of muscles, etc. In this case, there was no damage to any of these body parts - no bruising, nothing. There was bruising, there were abrasions, but they were on the outside, not the inside of throat or mouth. Since there were no signs of a struggle then she was probably unconscious.

IMO, this is more consistent with what Dave* suggested earlier and I had remembered from quite some time ago, that someone grabbed the neck of the shirt, twisted it, and at the same time began to shake the little girl. If the little girl had resisted, and arched her head and reared back, she might have hit her head on the edge of the sink counter and become immediately unconscious. In looking at the autopsy pictures, I noticed that there were also at least what appeared to be another furrow mark, wider and not as deep, with a v shaped bruise on the anterior of the neck which looks like knuckles pressed into the skin - there's another furrow closer to the top of the neck also. The ligature made by the white string, (which looks like a tie for sweatpants or a shoe string with the nibs missing) is horizontal, no pulling up or down or to any side that again would indicate a conscious struggle to breathe.

Another odd anomoly is that the long underwear she had on was stained with urine anteriorly. That would mean that if she had had an accident while she had the longjohns on, she would have to have been on her stomach. However, I vaguely remember reading that the longjohns were on backwards, does anyone else remember that? That would of course mean that someone had redressed her, beside the fact that they had wrapped her in a blanket and layed the body on top of a throw in the basement room. I won't get into all the psychological implications of that, but it is very odd.

If someone had come up from behind the kid and hit her little head with a flashlight, why would they need to use a stun gun, (not that they'd need to in any case) and if they strangled her first, why would a head blow be needed?

In my opinion, the reason one person in that relationship kept quiet, is because he/she might have heard an altercation taking place and thought to him/herself "let the other person handle it, I'm too tired to get up" and then felt overcome with guilt that he/she didn't go see what was happening.

*I should let Dave speak for himself, but by posting that, he did remind me, and I didn't want him to think I was ignoring his ideas or thoughts.

I'm also thinking of starting a thread called "the guys I'd like to tro a beatin' to for screwin this up by openin ther traps and bein arrogant *ssh*les"

Wecht, Eller, Arndt, The Denver FBI office, Smit, Darnay Hoffman (a real good beatin to him) Hunter... (just kidding...sort of:))

[SuperDave]

I had forgotten this, and just reread the autopsy report - there was no damage to the tongue, no damage to the frenulum (that bit of tissue that connects the tongue to the bottom of the mouth) the hyoid bone was not damaged, no strap muscles damaged and no internal damage to the larynx, etc. In aphixiation and strangulation cases where the victim is conscious, there is damage to the tongue - the victim bites it, cuts it along the edge of the teeth as it presses down on them and very often the frenulum is cut or torn, cheeks are bitten. The hyoid bone is broken because it is a very delicate bone and as people struggle, arch their necks and pressure is put upon it, it fractures or breaks. There is always damage to other parts of the neck, such as bruising, tearing of muscles, etc. In this case, there was no damage to any of these body parts - no bruising, nothing. There was bruising, there were abrasions, but they were on the outside, not the inside of throat or mouth. Since there were no signs of a struggle then she was probably unconscious.

IMO, this is more consistent with what Dave* suggested earlier and I had remembered from quite some time ago, that someone grabbed the neck of the shirt, twisted it, and at the same time began to shake the little girl. If the little girl had resisted, and arched her head and reared back, she might have hit her head on the edge of the sink counter and become immediately unconscious. In looking at the autopsy pictures, I noticed that there were also at least what appeared to be another furrow mark, wider and not as deep, with a v shaped bruise on the anterior of the neck which looks like knuckles pressed into the skin - there's another furrow closer to the top of the neck also. The ligature made by the white string, (which looks like a tie for sweatpants or a shoe string with the nibs missing) is horizontal, no pulling up or down or to any side that again would indicate a conscious struggle to breathe.

Another odd anomoly is that the long underwear she had on was stained with urine anteriorly. That would mean that if she had had an accident while she had the longjohns on, she would have to have been on her stomach. However, I vaguely remember reading that the longjohns were on backwards, does anyone else remember that? That would of course mean that someone had redressed her, beside the fact that they had wrapped her in a blanket and layed the body on top of a throw in the basement room. I won't get into all the psychological implications of that, but it is very odd.

If someone had come up from behind the kid and hit her little head with a flashlight, why would they need to use a stun gun, (not that they'd need to in any case) and if they strangled her first, why would a head blow be needed?

In my opinion, the reason one person in that relationship kept quiet, is because he/she might have heard an altercation taking place and thought to him/herself "let the other person handle it, I'm too tired to get up" and then felt overcome with guilt that he/she didn't go see what was happening.

*I should let Dave speak for himself, but by posting that, he did remind me, and I didn't want him to think I was ignoring his ideas or thoughts.

I'm also thinking of starting a thread called "the guys I'd like to tro a beatin' to for screwin this up by openin ther traps and bein arrogant *ssh*les"

Wecht, Eller, Arndt, The Denver FBI office, Smit, Darnay Hoffman (a real good beatin to him) Hunter... (just kidding...sort of:))

I take it by "Dave" you mean me! Well, if that's the case:

there would not have been any need for a head blow if she'd already been strangled to death, imo.

Not only was the tongue not damaged, but the petechiae really don't add up to much. You can get those in the neck just by getting hit there.

This is from "Cracking More Cases" by Henry Lee:

"the head blow, in all probability, had come first...head wound was fully developed...victim had survived for a period of time."

Just let me at Smit, Hunter and Hoffman! I'll take 'em all on at once! A no-holds-barred, broken-glass, barbed-wire death match!

[Bev]

after I wrote that, I thought it looked like we had some prior discussion and agreed on this, and it didn't seem very fair to you. Hope you didn't take offense, but I did think we were moving somewhat along the same lines - headblow first followed by staging. I don't think it was a deliberate act, I think it was an accident and what followed was a coverup motivated by shame.

[UKGuy]

I think it was an accident and what followed was a coverup motivated by shame.


But an accident is not a homicide.

Staging a homicide runs the risk of a life sentence if convicted on the staged evidence.

Why take the risk, i.e. all three Ramseys were in this as a conspiracy, they tailored each others versions of events.

So why would any of the other two take the risk of a sentence for faking a homicide, why not tell it like it is?

There is more to JonBenet's death than an accident!


.

[Bev]

trying to explain what happened would have been too shameful and embarrassing to Patsy Ramsey. There is no way she could have rushed that kid to the hospital without the doctors and nurses being aware that this was the result of tempers clashing between an adult and a child. I believe she thought she had killed her and then staged the coverup. How could she have possibly explained those injuries, because even if it was accidental (and I believe it was) it still was a criminal offense, probably involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide or something along that order. The sad thing is, according to Boulderites, she would probably have gotten a deal, and would not have spent a day in prison, sparing her son and husband a lifetime of suspicion and accusation. I also think that she justified in her mind as an accident, since she didn't intend to do it.

[UKGuy]

trying to explain what happened would have been too shameful and embarrassing to Patsy Ramsey. There is no way she could have rushed that kid to the hospital without the doctors and nurses being aware that this was the result of tempers clashing between an adult and a child. I believe she thought she had killed her and then staged the coverup. How could she have possibly explained those injuries, because even if it was accidental (and I believe it was) it still was a criminal offense, probably involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide or something along that order. The sad thing is, according to Boulderites, she would probably have gotten a deal, and would not have spent a day in prison, sparing her son and husband a lifetime of suspicion and accusation. I also think that she justified in her mind as an accident, since she didn't intend to do it.

Bev,

It might just be as straight forward as you describe.

But there was always going to be shame, the Ramseys were always going to have to face the world with the fact that their daughters dead body was discovered inside their house, accident or not!

Why should John choose to involve himself in such a flaky deal, how was he to know how it would all end up, Patsy was unstable at best?

If it was John, Patsy could just divorce him and inherit all his wealth while he went to jail.

If events unfolded as you suggest, Patsy must have confided to John at some point: I just killed JonBenet or JonBenet is dead.

The motive to engage all three resident Ramseys in a conspiracy to stage the accidental death of JonBenet as an Intruder Homicide, is that of avoiding shame and embarrassment.

Not only does that not sound right, but it is patently a rationalisation of Patsy's behaviour e.g. accidental.

Do you reckon it was Patsy who authored the ransom notes?

Do you reckon it was Patsy who wiped her down and changed her underwear?

Do you reckon it was Patsy who wrapped JonBenet in those blankets and deposited her corpse behind a latched door in the basement wine-cellar?

Do you reckon it was Patsy who sexually assaulted JonBenet?

Do you reckon it was Patsy who tied the ligature around JonBenet's neck and pulled it tight?

Was this the behaviour of a woman driven by the desire to avoid shame and public ridicule, so driven it overides any maternal instinct?

Actually it would seem much easier to fake an accident, along the lines JonBenet fell in the bathtub and hit her head on the side.

This was probably not undertaken because there is more to JonBenet's death than that of an accident and coverup that went wrong!

Its quite likely that what JonBenet wanted to tell people would shame Patsy and John socially, so she was silenced, and not accidently!


.

[SuperDave]

Not a problem, Bev.

"Staging a homicide runs the risk of a life sentence if convicted on the staged evidence."

Not if you think the person is already dead, UKGuy. Alan Dershowitz was talking about this case. He said that if you think someone is already dead, you can't intend to kill them. (It's a curious idea, but that's the law!)

"Why should John choose to involve himself in such a flaky deal, how was he to know how it would all end up, Patsy was unstable at best?"

Well, think about it this way: for him to admit she was involved, he'd have to admit that he screwed up his first marriage only to marry a monster. That's hard to take.

"If it was John, Patsy could just divorce him and inherit all his wealth while he went to jail."

And she might die from a cancer relapse. Then her son would be alone.

"Do you reckon it was Patsy who authored the ransom notes?

Do you reckon it was Patsy who wiped her down and changed her underwear?

Do you reckon it was Patsy who wrapped JonBenet in those blankets and deposited her corpse behind a latched door in the basement wine-cellar?

Do you reckon it was Patsy who sexually assaulted JonBenet?

Do you reckon it was Patsy who tied the ligature around JonBenet's neck and pulled it tight?

Was this the behaviour of a woman driven by the desire to avoid shame and public ridicule, so driven it overides any maternal instinct?"

Given the state of it as we know it, I have to say yes.

[Bev]

this woman's whole life was wrapped up in her presentation of herself to the world. Her house, her husband, her money, her looks, her kids - it was all how it looked. I believe that this accident of rage was so out of character for her, that at first she didn't know what to do. She thought the little girl was dead - if she called 911, any medic, doctor or nurse would have taken one look at that kid and those bruises on her neck and along with the head fracture know that this was the result of rage. Everything she had worked for would be gone, and by that I don't mean the money and the stuff, I mean her reputation as the glamourous saint of a wife and mother.

Here's something that every parent, if he/she is honest will tell you - sometimes you feel like knocking the kid into next week. The vast majority of parents are able to control themselves, but sometimes, something just snaps. I think PR had a really tiring day, now add to that a trip right before a big cruise, that she admitted she did not want to do, she said she still had packing for all four of them (for the cruise) to do, she had to get clothes ready for the next day so that they could leave @ 6:30 am, and she also said that every night she had to go into the little girl's bedroom, wake her up, and make her go to the bathroom. I think PR had been futzing around trying to get it together for the next day, she remembered around midnight to go wake the child, and the child probably was whiney and crabby and possibly refused to get up or just acted defiantly. I would imagine by that time of night, PR had had it up to her chin and just plain lost her temper. She didn't morph into a "monster", she didn't become "evil" in fact, she was all too human. One of the tragedies of this accident, was that I think she weighed what she thought she might lose, against a future with people knowing she did this, and decided that the best thing for her was to make it look like a kidnapping. I think she had every intention of taking the little girl's body somewhere, but couldn't make herself do it in the end. That's why you have the little girl with the supposed sexual abuse, a knock on the head, clothes on backward and an instrument of strangulation that was made so that she didn't have to touch the child or look into her face. That's why we have acts of maternal remorse - the wrapping her in a blanket, the placing her on a blanket, placing a favorite little thing with the child - those aren't acts of a psychopath - those are acts of remorse and true sorrow for what she had done - those are things that mothers do. The comforter, the children's book in the suitcase - I think she thought she could go through with it - put that little girl in a suitcase and put her somewhere. The fact that she was so hidden away, is I think, indicative of her feelings - she wanted to hide away her act, but she couldn't bear to part with her.

The only way this whole tragedy makes sense, is if you look at Patsy Ramsey with empathy and compassion and ask yourself, "if you were Patsy Ramsey, what would you do?" I believe her when she said she loved that child with her whole heart and soul, she truly meant it, but I also think that for one moment in her life she lost control and accidently killed that little girl. The one act of Patsy Ramsey that made me sure she did it, was at that press conference when she was asked if the person who did this should get the death penalty, she completely broke down, put her head down and could barely say the word yes. I think she thought that she was serving her sentence - she would never see her little girl again. And who knows, maybe that was punishment enough. I always think, "there but for the grace of God, go I."

[SuperDave]

this woman's whole life was wrapped up in her presentation of herself to the world. Her house, her husband, her money, her looks, her kids - it was all how it looked. I believe that this accident of rage was so out of character for her, that at first she didn't know what to do. She thought the little girl was dead - if she called 911, any medic, doctor or nurse would have taken one look at that kid and those bruises on her neck and along with the head fracture know that this was the result of rage. Everything she had worked for would be gone, and by that I don't mean the money and the stuff, I mean her reputation as the glamourous saint of a wife and mother.

Here's something that every parent, if he/she is honest will tell you - sometimes you feel like knocking the kid into next week. The vast majority of parents are able to control themselves, but sometimes, something just snaps. I think PR had a really tiring day, now add to that a trip right before a big cruise, that she admitted she did not want to do, she said she still had packing for all four of them (for the cruise) to do, she had to get clothes ready for the next day so that they could leave @ 6:30 am, and she also said that every night she had to go into the little girl's bedroom, wake her up, and make her go to the bathroom. I think PR had been futzing around trying to get it together for the next day, she remembered around midnight to go wake the child, and the child probably was whiney and crabby and possibly refused to get up or just acted defiantly. I would imagine by that time of night, PR had had it up to her chin and just plain lost her temper. She didn't morph into a "monster", she didn't become "evil" in fact, she was all too human. One of the tragedies of this accident, was that I think she weighed what she thought she might lose, against a future with people knowing she did this, and decided that the best thing for her was to make it look like a kidnapping. I think she had every intention of taking the little girl's body somewhere, but couldn't make herself do it in the end. That's why you have the little girl with the supposed sexual abuse, a knock on the head, clothes on backward and an instrument of strangulation that was made so that she didn't have to touch the child or look into her face. That's why we have acts of maternal remorse - the wrapping her in a blanket, the placing her on a blanket, placing a favorite little thing with the child - those aren't acts of a psychopath - those are acts of remorse and true sorrow for what she had done - those are things that mothers do. The comforter, the children's book in the suitcase - I think she thought she could go through with it - put that little girl in a suitcase and put her somewhere. The fact that she was so hidden away, is I think, indicative of her feelings - she wanted to hide away her act, but she couldn't bear to part with her.

The only way this whole tragedy makes sense, is if you look at Patsy Ramsey with empathy and compassion and ask yourself, "if you were Patsy Ramsey, what would you do?" I believe her when she said she loved that child with her whole heart and soul, she truly meant it, but I also think that for one moment in her life she lost control and accidently killed that little girl. The one act of Patsy Ramsey that made me sure she did it, was at that press conference when she was asked if the person who did this should get the death penalty, she completely broke down, put her head down and could barely say the word yes. I think she thought that she was serving her sentence - she would never see her little girl again. And who knows, maybe that was punishment enough. I always think, "there but for the grace of God, go I."

And that's what keeps me down to earth. I'm trying very hard to be forgiving.

[Bev]

it isn't those who forget history who are condemned to repeat it, it is those who can't forgive history who are condemmed to repeat it.

You know, I'm starting to get a tad irritated with the "it was God's will" or "it must have been a monster" excuse for actions, that are the result of poor choices, lack of control, lost temper, jealously, greed or anything else that's part of being human. Human beings are capable of committing some of the most hideous, filthy acts and at the same time exhibiting overwhelming kindness and compassion for each other. I truly believe that if we stopped making excuses, maybe we could take responsiblity for what we do, and try to figure out a way to help each other. And I'm not advocating a revocation of law and order - society has to have law and order or we wouldn't be able to live together in relative harmony, and society has the right to seek retribution and protect itself from humans more broken than ourselves - but if we don't acknowledge that we are human and our acts are human, then we will always have excuses to behave badly and we will never have the opportunity to be better humans.

Does that make any d*mned sense a'tall?

[Paradox]

The accident/cover-up theory doesn't account for the content of the ransom note and all the correlations to books and movies. This crime was no accident.

Head blow first, strangulation first, it was no accident either way.

[shiloh]

The accident/cover-up theory doesn't account for the content of the ransom note and all the correlations to books and movies. This crime was no accident.

Head blow first, strangulation first, it was no accident either way.
I agree. That was a very massive head blow.

[Paradox]

When she bent to look, he brought the plaster cast down on the back of her head.

He rolled her onto her face and checked her scalp, parting her thick hair with his fingers. The padded cast hadn't cut her.

From The Silence of the Lambs.

[Rupert]

Well done Bev. A good part of heaven is what you leave behind. No excuses. That's what I was taught.

I was always grappling with the head bash first or strangulation. The lack of evidence of internal related injuries related to strangulation makes me think that the headbash might have come first and I have never heard or considered this before. Thankyou for pointing this out. Some doctors have stated that head injuries do not always cause alot of blood.
If indeed there was no intruder, then the R's owe the world the truth.

[Bev]

It's not a political treatise or a blow for freedom, it's a silly, nonsensical, piece of work, which sounds like something written in the middle of the night. Even John Ramsey didn't take it seriously.

Here we have terrorists kidnapping the man's daughter, for 118,000. which wouldn't even buy you a false passport, much less fund a revolution, and what does JR do? Nothing. He doesn't call Lockheed Martin, which actually is an international company, alert their executives, (or even the executives of his own company) enlist the help of their security department (which by the way is huge and considering the fact that Lockheed Martin makes weapons systems for the U.S., you would think he'd want their expertise and their knowledge of active, terrorist groups who pose a threat to their company) call the FBI and any other government office I could think of that might help and hunker down for the ordeal. Instead, this man has his wife call 911, the very thing the letter said not to do if he wanted his child back. That doesn't sound like a man who took that letter seriously - he didn't even bother to run outside and look around.

As to that forceful head blow, of course it was forceful - when you're shaking someone back and forth, and the person is resisting, you're building up a great force, and when that great force meets an immovable object, you're going to have some serious damage.

[UKGuy]

He doesn't call Lockheed Martin, which actually is an international company, alert their executives, (or even the executives of his own company) enlist the help of their security department (which by the way is huge and considering the fact that Lockheed Martin makes weapons systems for the U.S., you would think he'd want their expertise and their knowledge of active, terrorist groups who pose a threat to their company) call the FBI and any other government office I could think of that might help and hunker down for the ordeal.

Bev,

We dont know who he called do we?

He may have called the FBI and the Lockheed Security Dept. recieved some good advice such as lawyering up, notify the state gov. of events to transpire, and prepare a brief for the local police?

Then intsruct Patsy to dial 911.


.

[Nuisanceposter]

Bev,

We dont know who he called do we?

He may have called the FBI and the Lockheed Security Dept. recieved some good advice such as lawyering up, notify the state gov. of events to transpire, and prepare a brief for the local police?

Then intsruct Patsy to dial 911.




.Don't you think if the Rs had made calls to the FBI and Lockheed that they would have been talking about that in DOI?

We know John and/or Patsy didn't call the FBI because they complain in DOI that the BPD didn't have them on the case, which is untrue. FBI agents were there at the Ramsey house that morning, and left because JonBenet was found dead in the basement. Once it went from a kidnapping to a homicide they no longer had jurisdiction and pulled out, but advised Thomas later that the parents were the ones to check out.

I would assume if JR had called Lockheed Martin then he would have talked about that call and how they responded in DOI. He did not mention anything like that, therefore I feel it is safe to conclude that didn't happen.

John Ramsey claims the decision to lawyer up came from allowing friends of the family to make decisions for them because they were too distraught to think straight. I consider that shameless passing of the buck.

They specifically say in DOI that the very first phone call made that morning was to 911, then to friends and their reverend. They say nothing whatsoever of calling anyone else for any other reason.

[SuperDave]

If we did take a little more responsibility, human history might be less bloody.

God's will? To quote George Carlin, God is one of the leading causes of death.

"That was a very massive head blow."

There may be more than one factor involved. Leverage, force, etc. Plus, people get very strong when they're mad.

"If indeed there was no intruder, then the R's owe the world the truth."

I won't hold my breath. But, I would prefer the truth with immunity than nothing.

I'll elaborate if you like.

[Bev]

if the Ramseys had been pro-active that morning, they would have been screaming it from the rooftops. I wouldn't mind immunity, either.

[rashomon]

this woman's whole life was wrapped up in her presentation of herself to the world. Her house, her husband, her money, her looks, her kids - it was all how it looked. I believe that this accident of rage was so out of character for her, that at first she didn't know what to do. She thought the little girl was dead - if she called 911, any medic, doctor or nurse would have taken one look at that kid and those bruises on her neck and along with the head fracture know that this was the result of rage. Everything she had worked for would be gone, and by that I don't mean the money and the stuff, I mean her reputation as the glamourous saint of a wife and mother.

Here's something that every parent, if he/she is honest will tell you - sometimes you feel like knocking the kid into next week. The vast majority of parents are able to control themselves, but sometimes, something just snaps. I think PR had a really tiring day, now add to that a trip right before a big cruise, that she admitted she did not want to do, she said she still had packing for all four of them (for the cruise) to do, she had to get clothes ready for the next day so that they could leave @ 6:30 am, and she also said that every night she had to go into the little girl's bedroom, wake her up, and make her go to the bathroom. I think PR had been futzing around trying to get it together for the next day, she remembered around midnight to go wake the child, and the child probably was whiney and crabby and possibly refused to get up or just acted defiantly. I would imagine by that time of night, PR had had it up to her chin and just plain lost her temper. She didn't morph into a "monster", she didn't become "evil" in fact, she was all too human. One of the tragedies of this accident, was that I think she weighed what she thought she might lose, against a future with people knowing she did this, and decided that the best thing for her was to make it look like a kidnapping. I think she had every intention of taking the little girl's body somewhere, but couldn't make herself do it in the end. That's why you have the little girl with the supposed sexual abuse, a knock on the head, clothes on backward and an instrument of strangulation that was made so that she didn't have to touch the child or look into her face. That's why we have acts of maternal remorse - the wrapping her in a blanket, the placing her on a blanket, placing a favorite little thing with the child - those aren't acts of a psychopath - those are acts of remorse and true sorrow for what she had done - those are things that mothers do. The comforter, the children's book in the suitcase - I think she thought she could go through with it - put that little girl in a suitcase and put her somewhere. The fact that she was so hidden away, is I think, indicative of her feelings - she wanted to hide away her act, but she couldn't bear to part with her.

The only way this whole tragedy makes sense, is if you look at Patsy Ramsey with empathy and compassion and ask yourself, "if you were Patsy Ramsey, what would you do?" I believe her when she said she loved that child with her whole heart and soul, she truly meant it, but I also think that for one moment in her life she lost control and accidently killed that little girl. The one act of Patsy Ramsey that made me sure she did it, was at that press conference when she was asked if the person who did this should get the death penalty, she completely broke down, put her head down and could barely say the word yes. I think she thought that she was serving her sentence - she would never see her little girl again. And who knows, maybe that was punishment enough. I always think, "there but for the grace of God, go I."Fantastic post, Bev! A lot of food for thought. This is an extremely tragic case because obviously in one short moment, Patsy lost control in anger and irreparable damage was done. A 'point of no return' was reached, and every further action she took had its origin in that point of no return.
The wrist ligatures, the injuries to the vagina, the garrote, the ransom note - it was all done for staging purposes: to direct attention away from what had actually happened.

[narlacat]

If I suscribe to the PDIA (Patsy did it accidently) theory, then this is how I see it too.
God knows, I have come THAT close to losing it with my child.

[Bev]

I believe every parent has come that close. Every single day it was a battle royale to get my younger son to go to school. One day I almost picked him up by his shirt to put him in the van and just by a moment of grace from God or whatever great fortune one subscribes too, I managed to control myself. It is hard work raising kids, and when Patsy would say she had cancer and knew what her priorities were, well, I had cancer too, and while you like to think it makes you get your priorities straight, life's problems don't stop, and the stuff that bothered you before you had cancer, bother you after you had cancer.

[luvbeaches]

trying to explain what happened would have been too shameful and embarrassing to Patsy Ramsey. There is no way she could have rushed that kid to the hospital without the doctors and nurses being aware that this was the result of tempers clashing between an adult and a child. I believe she thought she had killed her and then staged the coverup. How could she have possibly explained those injuries, because even if it was accidental (and I believe it was) it still was a criminal offense, probably involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide or something along that order. The sad thing is, according to Boulderites, she would probably have gotten a deal, and would not have spent a day in prison, sparing her son and husband a lifetime of suspicion and accusation. I also think that she justified in her mind as an accident, since she didn't intend to do it.

I believe there were two things going on...but both caused the action that was taken.

She couldn't explain those injuries, nor the sexual abuse (which I believe was happening-don't know who was doing the sexual abusing), so she staged the multiple cover-ups. So that's why the paint brush was used...to try and hide those prior injuries. And the garrotte was used to "cover" for the head injury, which I think was an accident which revolved around the bedwetting.

[luvbeaches]

this woman's whole life was wrapped up in her presentation of herself to the world. Her house, her husband, her money, her looks, her kids - it was all how it looked. I believe that this accident of rage was so out of character for her, that at first she didn't know what to do. She thought the little girl was dead - if she called 911, any medic, doctor or nurse would have taken one look at that kid and those bruises on her neck and along with the head fracture know that this was the result of rage. Everything she had worked for would be gone, and by that I don't mean the money and the stuff, I mean her reputation as the glamourous saint of a wife and mother.

Here's something that every parent, if he/she is honest will tell you - sometimes you feel like knocking the kid into next week. The vast majority of parents are able to control themselves, but sometimes, something just snaps. I think PR had a really tiring day, now add to that a trip right before a big cruise, that she admitted she did not want to do, she said she still had packing for all four of them (for the cruise) to do, she had to get clothes ready for the next day so that they could leave @ 6:30 am, and she also said that every night she had to go into the little girl's bedroom, wake her up, and make her go to the bathroom. I think PR had been futzing around trying to get it together for the next day, she remembered around midnight to go wake the child, and the child probably was whiney and crabby and possibly refused to get up or just acted defiantly. I would imagine by that time of night, PR had had it up to her chin and just plain lost her temper. She didn't morph into a "monster", she didn't become "evil" in fact, she was all too human. One of the tragedies of this accident, was that I think she weighed what she thought she might lose, against a future with people knowing she did this, and decided that the best thing for her was to make it look like a kidnapping. I think she had every intention of taking the little girl's body somewhere, but couldn't make herself do it in the end. That's why you have the little girl with the supposed sexual abuse, a knock on the head, clothes on backward and an instrument of strangulation that was made so that she didn't have to touch the child or look into her face. That's why we have acts of maternal remorse - the wrapping her in a blanket, the placing her on a blanket, placing a favorite little thing with the child - those aren't acts of a psychopath - those are acts of remorse and true sorrow for what she had done - those are things that mothers do. The comforter, the children's book in the suitcase - I think she thought she could go through with it - put that little girl in a suitcase and put her somewhere. The fact that she was so hidden away, is I think, indicative of her feelings - she wanted to hide away her act, but she couldn't bear to part with her.

The only way this whole tragedy makes sense, is if you look at Patsy Ramsey with empathy and compassion and ask yourself, "if you were Patsy Ramsey, what would you do?" I believe her when she said she loved that child with her whole heart and soul, she truly meant it, but I also think that for one moment in her life she lost control and accidently killed that little girl. The one act of Patsy Ramsey that made me sure she did it, was at that press conference when she was asked if the person who did this should get the death penalty, she completely broke down, put her head down and could barely say the word yes. I think she thought that she was serving her sentence - she would never see her little girl again. And who knows, maybe that was punishment enough. I always think, "there but for the grace of God, go I."


Excellent post. Yes, a lot of food for thought.

You are so right about kids. I think Patsy just lost it. And then the cover up began.

[Paradox]

In aphixiation and strangulation cases where the victim is conscious, there is damage to the tongue - the victim bites it, cuts it along the edge of the teeth as it presses down on them and very often the frenulum is cut or torn, cheeks are bitten. The hyoid bone is broken because it is a very delicate bone and as people struggle, arch their necks and pressure is put upon it, it fractures or breaks. There is always damage to other parts of the neck, such as bruising, tearing of muscles, etc.
Please indicate your sources and where they distinguish between the affects of strangulation of adults or adolescents and 6yr old girls.

[SuperDave]

"I had cancer too, and while you like to think it makes you get your priorities straight, life's problems don't stop, and the stuff that bothered you before you had cancer, bother you after you had cancer."

In some cases, worse. That's how it was with my dad. He was a different man.

[jubie]

I don't know where to get it to post it here but I saw a picture of Patsy after chemo with very little hair and she had a cross in her teeth hanging from a necklace around her neck. (It was a black and white photo) It gave me the creeps. Just as with the photo she posed for beside JonBenets grave. I've known a few people who've been through chemo and although they didn't hide in closets they certainly weren't lining up photo sessions with dark sunglasses and crosses clenched in their teeth.

Did anyone else see that picture and find it odd?

[narlacat]

Jubie
I have never seen the picture you are describing.
I remember the pics of her and JonBenet and Burke when she had no hair from the chemo, but I don't remember one with a cross in her teeth.

[jubie]

Jubie
I have never seen the picture you are describing.
I remember the pics of her and JonBenet and Burke when she had no hair from the chemo, but I don't remember one with a cross in her teeth.


It was recent, just after she died and there were reports about her death popping up in various news prints....

I wish I had figured out how to keep it and post it here.


She was wearing round wire rimmed sunglasses, headshot up close and she was holding the cross in between her teeth. Her eyes were shadowed by the sunglasses but she was looking into the camera. It was definitely a professional pic, it was NOT a home snapshot type of thing.

I will be trying to find it again and if I do I'll do my best to provide a link. I just assumed it would be everywhere.



Jubie

[trixie]

I'm pretty sure that's one that Judith Miller took. I've seen it recently too. I'll look around for it also.

[SuperDave]

I don't recall seeing it either.

[Bev]

I don't have any sources to quote - my information is the result of years of reading and self-education about this case. If I'm labouring under some wrong assumption or information, I would be happy to read your corrections. I'm quite certain as to my information, or I wouldn't have posted it, but anyone can make mistakes or not remember correctly. I did reread the autopsy the other night, which is how I remembered the mouth as not being damaged. Another strange piece of evidence in the autopsy report was the fact that the tip of her tongue was dry. That would indicate to me that her mouth had been open and her tongue exposed to the air some time before the tape was put on it. The tape would have held the mouth closed and the naturally occurring moisture would have kept the tongue from drying out. Also, there was no marks on the tape that indicate a struggle - from what I've read, there are bite marks, lip impressions,etc, on tape when the victim is conscious and struggling.

[Paradox]

If you have done years of reading then you should be able to recall where you read about strangulation of children vs strangulation of adults.

And the coroner concluded strangulation so I guess he didn't do the many years of reading to get his degree and professional status that you did to get your opinion.

Also, it has been a long time conclusion that the placing of the tape was among the last things the perp did.

Also, interruption of blood flow to the brain due to constriction of the carotid arteries can cause unconsciousness.

Also, fright alone can cause unconsciousness.

The initial attack could well have been an unsuccessful attempt at strangulation that resulted, none the less, in unconsciousness without showing the typical damage.

The head blow could then have followed or the placing of the cord around the neck could have been second with the head blow third.

At any rate, the conclusion that the head blow came first from the autopsy report can not be made with certainty.

[SuperDave]

"Also, there was no marks on the tape that indicate a struggle - from what I've read, there are bite marks, lip impressions,etc, on tape when the victim is conscious and struggling."

Not only that, it was just a square of tape, not wrapped around the head.

"At any rate, the conclusion that the head blow came first from the autopsy report can not be made with certainty."

Maybe not, but at least two pathologists, Werner Spitz and Tom Henry, agreed that it did.

[Bev]

there is no need to get snippy. If you have proof that my information is incorrect, by all means post it.

[Britt]

"At any rate, the conclusion that the head blow came first from the autopsy report can not be made with certainty."

Maybe not, but at least two pathologists, Werner Spitz and Tom Henry, agreed that it did.
I find these discussions confusing because, as Spitz said, there were two strangulations, one before and one after the head blow, and the first strangulation (aka choking a/o pressure on the neck a/o vagal nerve response) could've occurred in various ways not necessarily involving the garrote cord.

The strangulation and the head blow both came first.

[SuperDave]

I find these discussions confusing because, as Spitz said, there were two strangulations, one before and one after the head blow, and the first strangulation (aka choking a/o pressure on the neck a/o vagal nerve response) could've occurred in various ways not necessarily involving the garrote cord.

The strangulation and the head blow both came first.

I should have been more specific. Spitz said the blow came before the garrote.

"Someone took a great deal of time and trouble to stage strangulation."-Werner Spitz

[rashomon]

"Also, there was no marks on the tape that indicate a struggle - from what I've read, there are bite marks, lip impressions,etc, on tape when the victim is conscious and struggling."

Not only that, it was just a square of tape, not wrapped around the head.

"At any rate, the conclusion that the head blow came first from the autopsy report can not be made with certainty."

Maybe not, but at least two pathologists, Werner Spitz and Tom Henry, agreed that it did.The fact that the duct tape was put on JB's mouth when she was either already dead or almost dead is extremely damaging evidence pointing to a staging. Ramsey advocates have never been able to disprove this, which is why they avoid the issue.

[SuperDave]

That's what happens with amateurs!

[Solace]

I had forgotten this, and just reread the autopsy report - there was no damage to the tongue, no damage to the frenulum (that bit of tissue that connects the tongue to the bottom of the mouth) the hyoid bone was not damaged, no strap muscles damaged and no internal damage to the larynx, etc. In aphixiation and strangulation cases where the victim is conscious, there is damage to the tongue - the victim bites it, cuts it along the edge of the teeth as it presses down on them and very often the frenulum is cut or torn, cheeks are bitten. The hyoid bone is broken because it is a very delicate bone and as people struggle, arch their necks and pressure is put upon it, it fractures or breaks. There is always damage to other parts of the neck, such as bruising, tearing of muscles, etc. In this case, there was no damage to any of these body parts - no bruising, nothing. There was bruising, there were abrasions, but they were on the outside, not the inside of throat or mouth. Since there were no signs of a struggle then she was probably unconscious.

IMO, this is more consistent with what Dave* suggested earlier and I had remembered from quite some time ago, that someone grabbed the neck of the shirt, twisted it, and at the same time began to shake the little girl. If the little girl had resisted, and arched her head and reared back, she might have hit her head on the edge of the sink counter and become immediately unconscious. In looking at the autopsy pictures, I noticed that there were also at least what appeared to be another furrow mark, wider and not as deep, with a v shaped bruise on the anterior of the neck which looks like knuckles pressed into the skin - there's another furrow closer to the top of the neck also. The ligature made by the white string, (which looks like a tie for sweatpants or a shoe string with the nibs missing) is horizontal, no pulling up or down or to any side that again would indicate a conscious struggle to breathe.

Another odd anomoly is that the long underwear she had on was stained with urine anteriorly. That would mean that if she had had an accident while she had the longjohns on, she would have to have been on her stomach. However, I vaguely remember reading that the longjohns were on backwards, does anyone else remember that? That would of course mean that someone had redressed her, beside the fact that they had wrapped her in a blanket and layed the body on top of a throw in the basement room. I won't get into all the psychological implications of that, but it is very odd.

If someone had come up from behind the kid and hit her little head with a flashlight, why would they need to use a stun gun, (not that they'd need to in any case) and if they strangled her first, why would a head blow be needed?

In my opinion, the reason one person in that relationship kept quiet, is because he/she might have heard an altercation taking place and thought to him/herself "let the other person handle it, I'm too tired to get up" and then felt overcome with guilt that he/she didn't go see what was happening.

*I should let Dave speak for himself, but by posting that, he did remind me, and I didn't want him to think I was ignoring his ideas or thoughts.

I'm also thinking of starting a thread called "the guys I'd like to tro a beatin' to for screwin this up by openin ther traps and bein arrogant *ssh*les"

Wecht, Eller, Arndt, The Denver FBI office, Smit, Darnay Hoffman (a real good beatin to him) Hunter... (just kidding...sort of:))
That was an excellent post. Some of the best I have read on the theory of what happened first. I agree with you and thank you for that post. It was excellent.:cool:

[Solace]

there is no need to get snippy. If you have proof that my information is incorrect, by all means post it.

I still say your post was very very interesting.

[Paradox]

there is no need to get snippy. If you have proof that my information is incorrect, by all means post it.
Oh, I see, you can post: the head blow came first absolutely and why absolutely, and that is above and beyond refutability.

Your argument couldn't stand up in court or a med lab.

[Paradox]

Maybe not, but at least two pathologists, Werner Spitz and Tom Henry, agreed that it did.
So what? Others didn't. The point is: it can't be said either way for certain.

Word to Bev.

[Bev]

I doubt that my theory would be considered "evidence" in a court. If you took the title of my post as some sort of final word on the subject, I'm sorry - I was only offering my theory as to why the headblow came first. It's what I've read over the years and what I've found after researching the subject. I assumed that anyone posting here, could google the subject and find plenty of information about the subject to prove or disprove my statements. If you feel like researching the subject and find that I'm wrong, please post it. Nothing is ever "final" in this case, and like most people who post here, it's just interesting to discuss for amateur sleuths.

[Bev]

Britt, I should have made that clearer in the post - the headblow was simultaneous to the first choking - I agree with you that they happened at the same time.

Solace, thanks for the compliments, they mean a lot!

[Rupert]

"I had forgotten this, and just reread the autopsy report - there was no damage to the tongue, no damage to the frenulum (that bit of tissue that connects the tongue to the bottom of the mouth) the hyoid bone was not damaged, no strap muscles damaged and no internal damage to the larynx, etc. In aphixiation and strangulation cases where the victim is conscious, there is damage to the tongue - the victim bites it, cuts it along the edge of the teeth as it presses down on them and very often the frenulum is cut or torn, cheeks are bitten. The hyoid bone is broken because it is a very delicate bone and as people struggle, arch their necks and pressure is put upon it, it fractures or breaks. There is always damage to other parts of the neck, such as bruising, tearing of muscles, etc. In this case, there was no damage to any of these body parts - no bruising, nothing. There was bruising, there were abrasions, but they were on the outside, not the inside of throat or mouth. Since there were no signs of a struggle then she was probably unconscious."

Bev, good "catch". Maybe one of the best I have seen on this case. Sounds like you know what you are talking about. Your comments should really be taken up by the detective with a review of the autopsy by the medical pros. It might help them figure out what came first. If she was unconcious while being garroted, she wasn't just asleep. She would have had to have been knocked out really cold as in "head bash".

Albeit, I wonder if they are really still serious about finding the killer.

[Bev]

I wonder if the da's office ever wanted to prosecute this case. From the very beginning they were so cozy with the defense team, that I didn't think they were serious about taking it to trial.

[SuperDave]

I wonder if the da's office ever wanted to prosecute this case. From the very beginning they were so cozy with the defense team, that I didn't think they were serious about taking it to trial.

I'm with you, Bev. Just goes to show you what a millionaire with a trophy wife and a law firm that owns half the state can do.

(Forget about taking "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. That "Justice for All" part's the one that bothers me!)

"So what? Others didn't. The point is: it can't be said either way for certain."

That's fine, Paradox. It's just that some people claim there was NO doubt she was hit last.

Bev's not the only one to point out the discrepancy between the crime photos and the actual underlying injuries.

[Bev]

and I do mean speculation, but the relationship with Bynum and Hofsteder(sp? I'm not even sure if that's the right one) was always puzzling to me. These two were discussing this case from the 26th on - it was too strange.

[sissi]

Her mouth was open under the tape, I have no idea why the killer put the tape over her mouth. I would guess it wasn't that strong of tape and she could open her mouth, yet not enough to remove it. Anyone have any to try?

A parent would have closed her mouth first, murderous parents like their children to look "asleep".

[SuperDave]

"Her mouth was open under the tape, I have no idea why the killer put the tape over her mouth. I would guess it wasn't that strong of tape and she could open her mouth, yet not enough to remove it. Anyone have any to try?"

I never heard that. There was a perfect impression of her lips. No tongue impression, nothing to indicate she'd fought at all.

"A parent would have closed her mouth first, murderous parents like their children to look 'asleep'."

Like Darlie Routier? Sure. Why not just put up a sign that said "Child murdered by parents?"

[Bev]

why then would the tip of her tongue be dried out?

[aussiesheila]

why then would the tip of her tongue be dried out?Hi Bev, I can give you a reason, but it wouldn't fit in with your whole scenario. So would you consider it if I did? And I liked your analysis of the lack of damage to the neck etc although I have a very different view as to why this occurred in this particular case of strangulation.

[Bev]

as long as it fit with the evidence.

[SuperDave]

"Hi Bev, I can give you a reason, but it wouldn't fit in with your whole scenario. So would you consider it if I did? And I liked your analysis of the lack of damage to the neck etc although I have a very different view as to why this occurred in this particular case of strangulation."

Give!

[aussiesheila]

"Hi Bev, I can give you a reason, but it wouldn't fit in with your whole scenario. So would you consider it if I did? And I liked your analysis of the lack of damage to the neck etc although I have a very different view as to why this occurred in this particular case of strangulation."

Give!I think just before she was strangled with the garotte and bashed over the head, JonBenet had been subjected to about an hour or maybe less, of the garotte being tightened and released repeatedly while a group of pedophiles were sexually abusing her. I think her mouth would have been open the whole time resulting in her tongue drying out. I think the pre-used piece of duct tape they just found lying around in the basement and when they were arranging the staged kidnapping, someone noticed it and got the bright idea to put it over JonBenet's mouth to make it look as though the kidnapper had put a gag on her to keep her quiet.

I think the reason there was a lack of damage to the hyoid bone was because the strangulation was slow and gradual with no sudden jerking. Also I think JonBenet had been subdued by drugs and wouldn't have been struggling, especially if a stungun had been used to 'punish' her if she did.

[SuperDave]

Hmm...

The used piece I can agree with. The question is, if this had happened before, the ones doing it would have been smart enough to put a scarf or similar object on her neck so she wouldn't get marks. They didn't this time. Were they planning to kill her?

[aussiesheila]

Hmm...

The used piece I can agree with. The question is, if this had happened before, the ones doing it would have been smart enough to put a scarf or similar object on her neck so she wouldn't get marks. They didn't this time. Were they planning to kill her?I think it possible when, if a garotte is used as a breath control device on a child, for it not to leave marks on the child's neck. I don't think the pedophiles who I think murdered her, did so intentionally, I think they were all set up for just another abuse session.

I think this time was a little different though, in that this time they allowed a new person to join in, namely GM. I think that GM proved to be a really violent psychopath, and I think it was he who shoved somthing sharp up JonBenet's vagina and that ws what caused her to scream that terrible scream. It was at this point I think, that whoever was manipulating the garotte pulled it way too tight in an effort to silence her and GM picked up a metal baseball bat and swung it at her head.

[Nuisanceposter]

Just spitballing (thanks Super Dave) on aussiesheila's theory that JonBenet had been strangled previously but not fatally, and if there would be any outward sign of it.

This link talks of finding strangulation evidence when there is little sign of it visibly.

http://www.polaroid.com/global/printer_friendly.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524441 760370


And this one talks of non-lethal stragulation.

http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/domesticviolence/strangulation.htm

Signs (objective observation) & Symptoms (subjective descriptions) of Strangulation

http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/_themes/crisisconnection/aeclbul1.gifVoice changes: in at least 50% of cases, ranges from hoarseness (raspy) to total loss of voice http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/_themes/crisisconnection/aeclbul1.gifSwallowing changes http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/_themes/crisisconnection/aeclbul1.gifBreathing changes (hyperventilation, gasping, panting) and coughing http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/_themes/crisisconnection/aeclbul1.gifPain to neck/throat and/or lumps in neck http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/_themes/crisisconnection/aeclbul1.gifMental status change (disoriented, combative, restlessness, “spaced-out”, memory loss, severe stress) http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/_themes/crisisconnection/aeclbul1.gifScratch, scrape, pattern injuries or claw marks to neck and/or chest and chin http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/_themes/crisisconnection/aeclbul1.gifRedness, impression marks, or abrasions to neck http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/_themes/crisisconnection/aeclbul1.gifSpasm: loss of bodily function (vomiting, urination, defecation) and/or uncontrollable shaking http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/_themes/crisisconnection/aeclbul1.gifEars ringing http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/_themes/crisisconnection/aeclbul1.gifHead “rush” http://www.crisisconnectioninc.org/_themes/crisisconnection/aeclbul1.gifPetechaie (eyes (around, under, whites), ears, anywhere on face or neck, shoulders, upper chest) always above the area of constriction)

[SuperDave]

"I think it possible when, if a garotte is used as a breath control device on a child, for it not to leave marks on the child's neck. I don't think the pedophiles who I think murdered her, did so intentionally, I think they were all set up for just another abuse session."

Didn't say it wasn't possible. I just said, "why take a chance?"

"they allowed a new person to join in, namely GM"

GM?

"Just spitballing (thanks Super Dave)"

Oh, boy, now I've really started something!

[Bev]

I just don't think that there is any evidence to support that. How could a group of pedophiles operate in that house without any fear of discovery? No one talked, no one was missed, no one was suspicious of any of these people?

[UKGuy]

"I think it possible when, if a garotte is used as a breath control device on a child, for it not to leave marks on the child's neck. I don't think the pedophiles who I think murdered her, did so intentionally, I think they were all set up for just another abuse session."

Didn't say it wasn't possible. I just said, "why take a chance?"

"they allowed a new person to join in, namely GM"

GM?

"Just spitballing (thanks Super Dave)"

Oh, boy, now I've really started something!

SuperDave,

All this speculation about EA activity is just that, the garrote would never have functioned as a breath control device. Her hair was embedded into the knotting on the paintbrush handle, her cross and chain necklace were tangled underneath the ligature, and the knots being fixed would prevent any adjustment.

Also there is no forensic evidence to indicate anyone other than the resident Ramsey's were in the house that night.

.

[tumble]

The tape on the mouth might have been put on quite late in the staging process.

Maybe JB was lying around(with an open mouth) for quite some time before the tape was put on her, this could explain the dried tongue tip.
The tape helped closing her mouth.

[SuperDave]

SuperDave,

All this speculation about EA activity is just that, the garrote would never have functioned as a breath control device. Her hair was embedded into the knotting on the paintbrush handle, her cross and chain necklace were tangled underneath the ligature, and the knots being fixed would prevent any adjustment.

Also there is no forensic evidence to indicate anyone other than the resident Ramsey's were in the house that night.

.

Would you believe it took me six years to realize that!

[Linda7NJ]

Would you believe it took me six years to realize that!
nope, you're one smart dude & I always enjoy your posts!

[Linda7NJ]

Would you believe it took me six years to realize that!
nope, you're one smart dude & I always enjoy your posts!

[UKGuy]

Would you believe it took me six years to realize that!

I guess so, there are millions who continue to believe so or some variant thereof.


.

[rashomon]

All this speculation about EA activity is just that, the garrote would never have functioned as a breath control device. Her hair was embedded into the knotting on the paintbrush handle, her cross and chain necklace were tangled underneath the ligature, and the knots being fixed would prevent any adjustment.

Exactly. A fixed know would exclude both garroting and EA activity.
The first time I heard about (auto)erotic asphyxiation was when the Australian Musician Michael Hutchence (sp?) accidentally hung himself.
No one can 'force' EA on someone else, for EA is done with the willing consent of the person who is asphyxiated, because this person wants to derive sexual pleasure from it. So anyone who thinks the ligature around JB's neck was an EA device must also believe that this six-year-old child was a willling participant in this kind of stuff. Totally absurd imo.

The forensic evidence makes a scenario likely where (an already dead/near dead) JB was lying face-down on the floor when the perp tied the knot at the back of her neck, and then entangled her hair into the wrappings on the paintbrush handle as he was looping the remaining long end of the cord around it.

[tumble]

Exactly. A fixed knot would exclude both garroting and EA activity.

Ignoring the facts already pointed out by UKGuy, which excludes garroting there are further strange things about it.
I might be wrong but a real garrote isn't it just a cord with two handles. You wrap the cord around the neck and tightens it by pulling the handles. When you are done you leave with the garrote. I am thinking Luca Brasi in 'the godfather'.
I can't understand how professionals(LE) can say that this looks like a professional garrote. Just think of the extra trouble tying a knot around the neck, not something you do on a living victim. Not to mention having to leave evidence at the scene.

The forensic evidence makes a scenario likely where (an already dead/near dead) JB was lying face-down on the floor when the perp tied the knot at the back of her neck, and then entangled her hair into the wrappings on the paintbrush handle as he was looping the remaining long end of the cord around it.

Yes, this sound very plausible to me.

[SuperDave]

"I might be wrong but a real garrote isn't it just a cord with two handles. You wrap the cord around the neck and tightens it by pulling the handles. When you are done you leave with the garrote. I am thinking Luca Brasi in 'the godfather'."

That's it, all right.

"I can't understand how professionals(LE) can say that this looks like a professional garrote. Just think of the extra trouble tying a knot around the neck, not something you do on a living victim. Not to mention having to leave evidence at the scene."

Well, it's only two "professionals," and both of them have gone against all of their own training to clear the Rs.

"I guess so, there are millions who continue to believe so or some variant thereof."

Not as many as us, though!

[Bev]

this is not a case of ea - that strangling device is staging and it is not a garotte.

[SuperDave]

this is not a case of ea - that strangling device is staging and it is not a garotte.

That's about the size of it.

[Toltec]

Doesn't a person who dies by strangulation have their tongue bloated or sticking out and the hyoid bone broken?

None of that occured. My belief is that the cord was put on while she was unconcious from the head blow. There is no way JonBenet would sit still while the cord is being tightened and then loosened. Her hair and necklace tangled in with the cord suggests to me a little girl who was already dying.

[rashomon]

"I can't understand how professionals(LE) can say that this looks like a professional garrote. Just think of the extra trouble tying a knot around the neck, not something you do on a living victim. Not to mention having to leave evidence at the scene."
Well, it's only two "professionals," and both of them have gone against all of their own training to clear the Rs.

Who was the first investigator to come up with the 'professional garrote' stuff? Lou Smit? (wouldn't surprise me if it was him).
Delmar England said, judging from the nonsense Smit spouted about the alleged garrote, it was clear to him that Smit didn't know a thing about real garrotes.

And who was the other professional who firmly believed that this was a garrote?

[SuperDave]

"Doesn't a person who dies by strangulation have their tongue bloated or sticking out and the hyoid bone broken?"

Generally yes.

"None of that occured. My belief is that the cord was put on while she was unconcious from the head blow. There is no way JonBenet would sit still while the cord is being tightened and then loosened. Her hair and necklace tangled in with the cord suggests to me a little girl who was already dying."

I agree 100%. No one is stupid enough to try and tie a noose on someone who is still alive and fighting.

"Who was the first investigator to come up with the 'professional garrote' stuff? Lou Smit? (wouldn't surprise me if it was him)."

Yeah, it was him, all right.

"Delmar England said, judging from the nonsense Smit spouted about the alleged garrote, it was clear to him that Smit didn't know a thing about real garrotes."

But obviously the BPD called someone who did. That person or persons said that this was a prop with very simple knots.

"And who was the other professional who firmly believed that this was a garrote?"

The name escapes me right now.

[rashomon]

"Delmar England said, judging from the nonsense Smit spouted about the alleged garrote, it was clear to him that Smit didn't know a thing about real garrotes."

But obviously the BPD called someone who did. That person or persons said that this was a prop with very simple knots.


Do you happen to know if this was the rope expert Van Tassell Steve Thomas mentioned in his book?

[SuperDave]

"Do you happen to know if this was the rope expert Van Tassell Steve Thomas mentioned in his book?"

I'm afraid I don't. It could be.