Cords, Knots, and Strangulation Devices

[MurriFlower]

100% agree with you, OTG! And something else. I would love to hear the answer from IDI supporters: 'Assuming that RN was written by IDI before R came home, when RN was placed on the bottom of the spiral stairs: before or after JBR murder?'. You see, no matter what the answer is - it has no logical behavior sense, IMO.

BEFORE the murder: risky business; any R can wake-up at any time and get downstairs, see RN and spoil the 'fun';
AFTER the murder: risky business again; takes time after cleaning, redressing...go upstairs, walk through the kitchen and hallway and neatly place all pages (kind of side by side) in sequential order...WOW, 'cool dude' this IDI...

I'm guessing it would be after the Rs went to bed and before the murder.

I think you are absolutely right, this IDI is a cool dude in the sense that he has no fear, but that might be more to do with a substance than a personality trait.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,
Well as usual you seem to consider that indulging us in your erroneous reasoning is sufficient to persuade us that you are correct.

Given the number of your invalid conclusions I'm beginning to wonder if you are operating incognito, since your mistakes in reasoning seem to be very similar to some other members.

Uk I'm impressed, the quality of your prose has improved out of sight.

There is nothing inconsistent in the interviewers remarks. Mr Levin is stating he has a belief, but not any arbitrary belief such as alien abduction or the power inherent in pyramids. Mr Levin is stating his belief is based on the state of the art scientific testing, so it is not a subjective belief, it is objective and testable.

Yes, so he says, but I was noting that he said it in such a way that, when it proved NOT to be correct, he could just say that is the information he was given, and he did not deliberately lie.

Whilst you may hold the belief that the police were attempting to entrap the Ramseys' your evidence for this is simply based on semantics and your personal interpretation of the term belief.

So I wanted to point out to you that he did not say, "I have a report here that says fibers found on the body are the same as those of her coat" and then read from the report that exact conclusion. Instead he rambles on, putting the onus onto his colleague to say that he believes someone else will testify that this is true.

You have not seen the evidence and you do not know if the said evidence e.g. lab report is absent because the forensic evidence is sealed. So your reasoning means that you are inferring the absence of forensic evidence based on a subjective belief e.g. entrapment. This means we cannot test your belief. But Mr Levin's belief is testable his is objective. Furthermore in the event of any court case the evidence led in the interview would have to be produced in court else claims of entrapment might be sustained.

Nor have you seen the evidence so we are square. Why would the evidence be 'sealed' if what you say is correct? No other valid evidence is sealed (DNA). Mr Levin's belief is not the same as saying that something exists.

You for example believe RDI, but that doesn't make it so.

I'd say I'll see you in court, since that is where the actual forensic evidence is tested.

Not on this forum!! It's been tried and found correct right here.

Possibly because you reckon repetition represents validity.

I've said the same thing about RDI, so there are things we have in common after all!!

Similar to how magic operates with the incantation of spells.

Oh? I'm not familiar with magic spells.

You may believe you have a case for entrapment but sadly you can produce no evidence since the forensic evidence is sealed.

This is almost exactly what was said to PR. Mr Levin believes he has a case for the fibers being PR's but sadly he provided no evidence.

That is your reasoning is flawed.

No, my reasoning is perfectly logical. NO EVIDENCE IS NO EVIDENCE.

So I guess we may revisit this one again.

You can bet on it.

 

[OpenMind4U]

I'm guessing it would be after the Rs went to bed and before the murder.

I think you are absolutely right, this IDI is a cool dude in the sense that he has no fear, but that might be more to do with a substance than a personality trait.

MF,

Please allow me to disagree with bolded statement: every action is connected with the 'personality trait'. This is how the 'profiling' was originated. You think RN was neatly placed BEFORE the murder. But how this can be done? IDI kidnappes JBR and while holding her coming downstairs - placed the RN (how many hands does he/she has?)?...or, placed JBR in basement (and kind of say to her: 'don't run no way, I'll be right back! and go back upstairs to place RN?...Nope, cannot see it in such a 'cool dude' action. By the way, talking about 'cool dude' NO FEAR personality - how this could be merrit with the tenderness for the victim by cleaning, redressing, covering with the blanket and such a cruel/pervert way of the sexual activity, forsefull way of the head blow and monstreouse way of strangulation?!! Maybe I should call him/her 'space alien IDI dude'....

 

[UKGuy]

Uk I'm impressed, the quality of your prose has improved out of sight.



Yes, so he says, but I was noting that he said it in such a way that, when it proved NOT to be correct, he could just say that is the information he was given, and he did not deliberately lie.



So I wanted to point out to you that he did not say, "I have a report here that says fibers found on the body are the same as those of her coat" and then read from the report that exact conclusion. Instead he rambles on, putting the onus onto his colleague to say that he believes someone else will testify that this is true.



Nor have you seen the evidence so we are square. Why would the evidence be 'sealed' if what you say is correct? No other valid evidence is sealed (DNA). Mr Levin's belief is not the same as saying that something exists.

You for example believe RDI, but that doesn't make it so.




Not on this forum!! It's been tried and found correct right here.



I've said the same thing about RDI, so there are things we have in common after all!!



Oh? I'm not familiar with magic spells.



This is almost exactly what was said to PR. Mr Levin believes he has a case for the fibers being PR's but sadly he provided no evidence.



No, my reasoning is perfectly logical. NO EVIDENCE IS NO EVIDENCE.


You can bet on it.

MurriFlower,

No, my reasoning is perfectly logical. NO EVIDENCE IS NO EVIDENCE.

Your reasoning may be logical but it is flawed what logicians call bad form, look it up. You are asserting an absence of evidence based on your belief in entrapment. But for all you know there may be a lab report sitting in a cardboard box in the JonBenet forensic evidence repositry.

Your position is similar to other members where they assert the touch-dna found on JonBenet originated from an intruder, whilst conveniently ignoring other explanations.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Your reasoning may be logical but it is flawed what logicians call bad form, look it up. You are asserting an absence of evidence based on your belief in entrapment. But for all you know there may be a lab report sitting in a cardboard box in the JonBenet forensic evidence repositry.

Logicians may call it what they will. Lawyers call it NO EVIDENCE.

Your position is similar to other members where they assert the touch-dna found on JonBenet originated from an intruder, whilst conveniently ignoring other explanations.

At least we have some validation for the DNA aside from that spoken about in interviews of suspects. The fact that RDI continues to deny the that the likelihood of this DNA being from an intruder, rather than the infinitely more unlikely tertiary transfer method onto two separate items in three areas, speaks volumes for the art of 'conveniently ignoring' the obvious explanation.

 

[otg]

Most of my calculations are based on the Autopsy report, which details her height as well as the length of the ligatures. I needed to estimate the circumfence of the loops, but as there is a ruler in post pictures, this wasn't difficult. The length of cord on the stick is a guestimate. Report is here http://www.acandyrose.com/12271996autopsy.htm

I acknowledged my not knowing her exact height which I had estimated as 4.5’. In fact, if you google “jonbenet height” ([ame="http://www.google.com/search?q=jonbenet+height&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a"]jonbenet height - Google Search[/ame]), the first link on the page shows “Height 4’ 7” (1.40 m)”. I’ve since re-read the AR and found where it shows her height to be 47”, so apparently I’m not the only one confused about it. Nevertheless, I stand corrected on that, and in the calculation would have to add 14” to it.

I was trying to show that the hanging wasn't feasible, given the length of the cord. You need to do this calculation yourself to be convinced. The standard door height (here in Oz anyway) is 6'8", so I based the estimate of the height of the pipes on this, as the doors clear the pipework. The larger pipes look like 4" or 6" diameter, I used 4". Of course, if you are just going to say (in backing up the hanging theory) that there was probably more cord that was cut off and sent out with BR in the backpack or with PP in the golf bag, then I'd be disappointed in you!!

I wouldn’t want you to be disappointed in me, but while that would indeed be the easiest way out, it wouldn’t preclude it from being a possibility. However, rather than continue to belabor the point, I’ll say this. I tried to go through the calculations to get an idea just how much cord would indeed be needed based on the best information we have. I’m not trying to hedge here, but as I said there is a lot we don’t know.

A few of the variables that might affect the outcome:

• Exactly how high the ceiling is. Is it the same height as a normal room? Higher? Lower? (If the ceiling is not a standard height, the doors can be adjusted or ordered different. I simply used them as a reference point in the picture.)
• Where exactly did it happen, and what was overhead at that spot? If one pipe had to cross another, it would have to go over or under, making one of them lower at the crossover point. I had suggested that one of the many pipes we’ve seen pictured would be convenient for this, but for all we know, there might be something else hanging down from the ceiling somewhere convenient (bike rack, etc.).
• Could she have been standing on something? A suitcase standing sideways, the chair we’ve seen in the pictures, a stepstool? As I pointed out, I felt it was less likely, but nevertheless it is still a possibility.

I’m afraid it probably sounds like, and I’m sure you’ll say, I’m trying to hedge. But as I said from the start, there is too much not known to be able to explain the exact mechanics of how it happened. The evidence (cord, knots, autopsy photos) speaks to “what” happened. The “how” and “who” is only theory. If you choose not to consider it, nothing I can say will convince you (but I’ll still continue to discuss it with you, or any theory you come up with that addresses the evidence).

You have made me wonder though, if the cord on the stick was capable of strangling her. I can certainly see that it's purpose was so that tension could be kept on the cord while the IDI was standing above, pulling on the stick with a foot on her shoulders (see the enhanced picture I posted earlier with the shoe imprints).

I’ve read your theory on the markings on her back. I tend to think that they are instead the irregular pooling of blood and marks from the folds in the blanket. While they are shaped like the edge of a shoe, for that to have been the cause, they would have to have been done during the blanching phase of livor mortis. Why would your IDI continue pulling on the ligature after she had been dead for that long? If he/she had killed her by accident or intent, would not a quick exit be the best thing to do at that point (after dropping off the RN, of course, on the spiral staircase one floor up)? And it still bothers me about the entangled hair on the paintbrush. While I don’t believe for a second that it was used that way, the length of the cord was more than the length of her hair. Had it actually been pulled, it would have pulled her hair out from the root. So was her hair cut after tying the knot to the paintbrush? And if so, by whom? Assailant? Coroner?

How long would it have taken to strangle her like that? Or even for her to become unconscious? Was it the length of time it took the reason for the head bash -- they became impatient?

"Although almost always homicidal, ligature strangulations are not always intended by the assailant[7]. The ligature may be thrown around the victim's neck perhaps only to subdue or to silence. The onset of unconsciousness is only 10 to 15 seconds. The victim's death can come very suddenly after. If it can be demonstrated that the ligature was drawn relatively tight in a short period of time, this might tend to be more directly supportive of intentional homicide." Brent Turvey, http://www.corpus-delicti.com/ligature.html

I said the theory of her having died in the hallway was 'debunked' because, although it is still possible, I wanted people to consider that it is just one person's theory, and is no more valid than another persons as it cannot be verified. What happens here is a theory, that is accepted as fact, gets a life of it's own, other theories attach to it, until there is a whole story developed around something that turns out to have been based on a fictitious clue. In this case, it is the unverified 'urine stain'.

True that.
.

 

[UKGuy]

Logicians may call it what they will. Lawyers call it NO EVIDENCE.



At least we have some validation for the DNA aside from that spoken about in interviews of suspects. The fact that RDI continues to deny the that the likelihood of this DNA being from an intruder, rather than the infinitely more unlikely tertiary transfer method onto two separate items in three areas, speaks volumes for the art of 'conveniently ignoring' the obvious explanation.

MurriFlower,

You are patently making it up as you move along. You cannot know if there is no evidence. You are inventing this position.

Mr Levin has a belief , you have a belief the difference is you have no evidence to support your case. Mr Levins asserts he does, he is credible since he will have lab report to back him up.

Your position is to simply deny credible forensic evidence!


.

 

[Zak]

I have a question about the DNA. Has the report from Bode ever been made public? I can't remember ever seeing it.

 

[cynic]

I have a question about the DNA. Has the report from Bode ever been made public? I can't remember ever seeing it.

Definitely not.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

You are patently making it up as you move along. You cannot know if there is no evidence. You are inventing this position.

Mr Levin has a belief , you have a belief the difference is you have no evidence to support your case. Mr Levins asserts he does, he is credible since he will have lab report to back him up.

Your position is to simply deny credible forensic evidence!

You seem to entirely miss the point here. The only place this 'evidence' is discussed is in an interview. If it were credible, then we would have seen copies of the report by now or at the very least, other independent verification that such a report even exists. There is none. We can therefore assume that it was merely an interview tactic, until or unless some evidence of it's existence is produced.

 

[Zak]

Definitely not.

Thanks Cynic. That is what I thought. If I follow the logic of some IDI's, then how do I know what is contained in this report? How do I know it even exists? Why should I not consider it hearsay? If this report does exist then why not make it public? Afterall, ML said there is a report, but she never produced it. Not only does that make me question what else is contained in the report, but if there really is a report. Therefore, I can now say what DNA?

 

[MurriFlower]

Thanks Cynic. That is what I thought. If I follow the logic of some IDI's, then how do I know what is contained in this report? How do I know it even exists? Why should I not consider it hearsay? If this report does exist then why not make it public? Afterall, ML said there is a report, but she never produced it. Not only does that make me question what else is contained in the report, but if there really is a report. Therefore, I can now say what DNA?

Because it was made public by a source other than an investigator in an interview who he never thought would be available publicly. Aside from the four (4) red fibers on the tape, is there anywhere that Mr Levin is quoted as saying they had a laboratory report saying that fibers from her jacket were found in the paint tray, tied into the ligature, on the blanket that she was wrapped in?

 

[cynic]

Thanks Cynic. That is what I thought. If I follow the logic of some IDI's, then how do I know what is contained in this report? How do I know it even exists? Why should I not consider it hearsay? If this report does exist then why not make it public? Afterall, ML said there is a report, but she never produced it. Not only does that make me question what else is contained in the report, but if there really is a report. Therefore, I can now say what DNA?

I hear you, perhaps if the “rules of admissibility” were posted we could play the “game” better. (Although I’m sure the “rules” would be subject to change.)

 

[Kaybug]

What does IDI and RDI stand for?

 

[OpenMind4U]

What does IDI and RDI stand for?

IDI = Intruder Did It (means, stranger involved in JBR murder)
RDI - Ramsey Did It (means, anyone from Ramsey family involved in JBR murder)

Welcome and enjoy!

 

[Kaybug]

IDI = Intruder Did It (means, stranger involved in JBR murder)
RDI - Ramsey Did It (means, anyone from Ramsey family involved in JBR murder)

Welcome and enjoy!

Thank you very much for the info.
Kaybug

 

[UKGuy]

You seem to entirely miss the point here. The only place this 'evidence' is discussed is in an interview. If it were credible, then we would have seen copies of the report by now or at the very least, other independent verification that such a report even exists. There is none. We can therefore assume that it was merely an interview tactic, until or unless some evidence of it's existence is produced.

MurriFlower,

Speak for yourself. Your assumption is fine, but we can all make assumptions e.g. the touch-dna is mere environmental debri, or the urine-stain in the basement represents JonBenet's final voiding.

This does not make me correct, in some cases it generates new factoids.

.

 

[Tadpole12]

I acknowledged my not knowing her exact height which I had estimated as 4.5’. In fact, if you google “jonbenet height” (jonbenet height - Google Search), the first link on the page shows “Height 4’ 7” (1.40 m)”. I’ve since re-read the AR and found where it shows her height to be 47”, so apparently I’m not the only one confused about it. Nevertheless, I stand corrected on that, and in the calculation would have to add 14” to it.



I wouldn’t want you to be disappointed in me, but while that would indeed be the easiest way out, it wouldn’t preclude it from being a possibility. However, rather than continue to belabor the point, I’ll say this. I tried to go through the calculations to get an idea just how much cord would indeed be needed based on the best information we have. I’m not trying to hedge here, but as I said there is a lot we don’t know.


A few of the variables that might affect the outcome:

• Exactly how high the ceiling is. Is it the same height as a normal room? Higher? Lower? (If the ceiling is not a standard height, the doors can be adjusted or ordered different. I simply used them as a reference point in the picture.)
• Where exactly did it happen, and what was overhead at that spot? If one pipe had to cross another, it would have to go over or under, making one of them lower at the crossover point. I had suggested that one of the many pipes we’ve seen pictured would be convenient for this, but for all we know, there might be something else hanging down from the ceiling somewhere convenient (bike rack, etc.).
• Could she have been standing on something? A suitcase standing sideways, the chair we’ve seen in the pictures, a stepstool? As I pointed out, I felt it was less likely, but nevertheless it is still a possibility.

I’m afraid it probably sounds like, and I’m sure you’ll say, I’m trying to hedge. But as I said from the start, there is too much not known to be able to explain the exact mechanics of how it happened. The evidence (cord, knots, autopsy photos) speaks to “what” happened. The “how” and “who” is only theory. If you choose not to consider it, nothing I can say will convince you (but I’ll still continue to discuss it with you, or any theory you come up with that addresses the evidence).



I’ve read your theory on the markings on her back. I tend to think that they are instead the irregular pooling of blood and marks from the folds in the blanket. While they are shaped like the edge of a shoe, for that to have been the cause, they would have to have been done during the blanching phase of livor mortis. Why would your IDI continue pulling on the ligature after she had been dead for that long? If he/she had killed her by accident or intent, would not a quick exit be the best thing to do at that point (after dropping off the RN, of course, on the spiral staircase one floor up)? And it still bothers me about the entangled hair on the paintbrush. While I don’t believe for a second that it was used that way, the length of the cord was more than the length of her hair. Had it actually been pulled, it would have pulled her hair out from the root. So was her hair cut after tying the knot to the paintbrush? And if so, by whom? Assailant? Coroner?



"Although almost always homicidal, ligature strangulations are not always intended by the assailant[7]. The ligature may be thrown around the victim's neck perhaps only to subdue or to silence. The onset of unconsciousness is only 10 to 15 seconds. The victim's death can come very suddenly after. If it can be demonstrated that the ligature was drawn relatively tight in a short period of time, this might tend to be more directly supportive of intentional homicide." Brent Turvey, http://www.corpus-delicti.com/ligature.html



True that.
.

Ty for all your efforts, otg.

Realize this makes you a thread knotpert.

So ..... how could the garotte mechanism have worked if JBR was not hung or suspended. Could she have been tied to a chair or, is there enough total length of rope to be tied to each post of her twin size bed.

Again?, what are your estimates of total length of rope used to make the garotte plus stick device and total length used forming arm restraints?

 

[DeeDee249]

otg's last paragraph provides an interesting possibility- that which some believe anyway IDI as well as RDI- that the ligature may have not been intended to kill her. There are three possibilities as far as the ligature, as I see it:
The ligature was part of a bondage/sexual activity and NOT meant to kill her
The ligature was MEANT to kill her
The ligature was STAGING, meant to lend credence to a cause of death for a child who was unconscious/comatose from the head blow which had no outward signs, and was dying. The purpose of the strangulation in that case was to provide an instantly visible, plausible cause of death for a child that otherwise had no visible explanation why she was dead in her basement. If this was the case, this last theory could only be RDI as a intruder wouldn't care about providing a visible cause of death, they'd simply have left her anyway.
The first has the head bash coming during the activity, in response to her scream. It not only silenced her immediately, but knocked her out. If the ligature activity continued after that, it may explain how one of the ligature marks was white (postmortem) and the others were red. She may have died during this activity and the perp(s) did not know it.
The second and third have the head bash coming first, to silence her.

As to whether she could have been tied to a chair or otherwise suspended- there were no marks of any kind on her wrists, and had she been suspended by the wrists or had they been tied to anything tightly enough to restrain her, there would have been marks on her wrists. Not as deep as the ligature furrow, perhaps, but still there would be evidence that cord was tied fairly tightly around her wrists, and the loose cords found on one wrist are not enough evidence the cord was TIGHT, as they could be staging. JR's comment that they were tightly bound has to be false because:
1. there are NO marks on her wrists and 2. JB was in full rigor mortis by that time, which develops about 12 hours after death, and her wrists would still have been frozen in that close together position, even without a cord around them. We know her her wrists were more than a foot apart.
If she were tied to a chair some other way, the only way I see it happening is cord around her torso. We haven't seen photos of her torso from the front, only of her back.
I find it hard to believe the coroner would not/could not determine she had been tied to anything or suspended at some point, but there were other things, as we all know, that the coroner did not put in the report. He did specify ligature strangulation, not hanging.
One thing is certain- whatever position she was in when she died, she was placed on her back in the wineceller within the period that livor mortis was in the early blanching stage. Because if she had died in any other position or been moved at all during that period, there would be another livor mortis pattern on the body and there is only one- indicating blood pooling as she lay on her back, head cocked to the right. There is no livor mortis pattern indicating she was hung, suspended or in a sitting position after she was dead more than about 10 minutes.
So she COULD have died in a sitting or suspended position, but had to be placed on her back right after.

 

[BBB167893]

You seem to entirely miss the point here. The only place this 'evidence' is discussed is in an interview. If it were credible, then we would have seen copies of the report by now or at the very least, other independent verification that such a report even exists.

That seems an erroneous assumption. When Kane and the others were brought on, things became much more hush-hush, which is what they should be. Kane told LW specifically that he would see the evidence when the world did.