1078 users online (178 members and 900 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,252

    May I ask a question?

    I've tried to keep up with the JonBenet case but still have lots to learn. My question is: Is it true that the head trauma had to happen almost at the same time as the garotte was tightened? Something about it's hard to determine which injury actually ended her life? Are we talking a few minutes? An hour?

    I think this is important when considering what happened?

    IF Patsy or Burke hit JonBenet on the head and 'accidently' killed her (or they believed) surely it would have taken some time to overcome the horrible initial shock and plan out the cover up.... was there enough time for the secondary trauma to her neck to actually kill her?


    Thanks
    Jubie

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    230
    This is something that was discussed on another thread(actually MANY threads...LOL) just a few days ago, as a matter of fact. I am of the belief that if they did accidentally kill her by the head blow, they would not be able to have been composed enough in time to have choked her that way causing the petechial hemorrhages, which would have had to have occurred almost immediately after the head blow to cause the petechial hemorrhages.

    It just doesn't make sense to me that someone who loved their child so much and even though they accidentally killed her would be able to go about covering up this and staging the accident to look like this awful crime in the time that it would have taken, considering the emotional factor that would have to be in all likelihood all consuming you at that time. It doesn't make sense!

    Also, I am one who believes that the head blow was after the fact. There are many who argue that it didn't, but this is just my opinion.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by twizzler333

    I am one who believes that the head blow was after the fact.

    Twizzler,

    I agree with you. Here's why I'm convinced the strangulation came first and the bash on the head came second:

    o The elaborate cord devices wrapped around JonBenet's neck and around her wrists were designed for erotic asphyxiation, a dangerous masturbation techique that accidentally kills hundreds of young people every year. That was not a garrote around her neck. Garrotes are simple and look nothing like what was on JonBenet. There would be no reason to construct such an elaborate device as staging to fake a strangulation. IMO the EA device on JonBenet's neck asphyxiated her and was the cause of death. It was not staging.

    o From the autopsy report: "Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma." IOW, she died by asphyxia, but was also hit on the head. A person can die only once and by only one cause, and the coroner said it was by asphyxia.

    o There were petechial hemorrhages on the neck above and below where the cord was imbedded into her skin. There were also petechial hemorrhages on her eyelids. The only way the hemorrhages could have formed was if the heart was pumping blood when the strangulation occurred. If JonBenet had already been dead from the head blow when strangled, the petechial hemorrhages wouldn't have been there.

    o The hit on the head split JonBenet's skull in two, all the way from the right eyebrow to the lower back of the skull, and also caved in and punched out a section of the skull. If the powerful blow had been first, IMO it would have killed her instantly, stopping the heart, and thus there would have been no petechial hemorrhages caused by the cord around her neck.

    JMO

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,252
    I very rarely start a thread and I guess I really should have looked back for a thread already started. Mod, feel free to delete this if you like. Sorry.



    I will go and look now because I want to understand this aspect of her murder much better.


    Thanks,
    Jubie

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Twizzler,

    I agree with you. Here's why I'm convinced the strangulation came first and the bash on the head came second:

    o The elaborate cord devices wrapped around JonBenet's neck and around her wrists were designed for erotic asphyxiation, a dangerous masturbation techique that accidentally kills hundreds of young people every year. That was not a garrote around her neck. Garrotes are simple and look nothing like what was on JonBenet. There would be no reason to construct such an elaborate device as staging to fake a strangulation. IMO the EA device on JonBenet's neck asphyxiated her and was the cause of death. It was not staging.

    o From the autopsy report: "Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma." IOW, she died by asphyxia, but was also hit on the head. A person can die only once and by only one cause, and the coroner said it was by asphyxia.

    o There were petechial hemorrhages on the neck above and below where the cord was imbedded into her skin. There were also petechial hemorrhages on her eyelids. The only way the hemorrhages could have formed was if the heart was pumping blood when the strangulation occurred. If JonBenet had already been dead from the head blow when strangled, the petechial hemorrhages wouldn't have been there.

    o The hit on the head split JonBenet's skull in two, all the way from the right eyebrow to the lower back of the skull, and also caved in and punched out a section of the skull. If the powerful blow had been first, IMO it would have killed her instantly, stopping the heart, and thus there would have been no petechial hemorrhages caused by the cord around her neck.

    JMO
    Very nice post Blue Crab, I believe you are correct. I especially like your definition of the device.
    quote BC "The elaborate cord devices wrapped around JonBenet's neck and around her wrists were designed for erotic asphyxiation, a dangerous masturbation techique that accidentally kills hundreds of young people every year. That was not a garrote around her neck. Garrotes are simple and look nothing like what was on JonBenet. There would be no reason to construct such an elaborate device as staging to fake a strangulation. IMO the EA device on JonBenet's neck asphyxiated her and was the cause of death. It was not staging. "

    Could you profile ,for us, the kind of perpetrator that would construct and use such an elaborate device on a six year old child.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    Very nice post Blue Crab, I believe you are correct. I especially like your definition of the device.
    quote BC "The elaborate cord devices wrapped around JonBenet's neck and around her wrists were designed for erotic asphyxiation, a dangerous masturbation techique that accidentally kills hundreds of young people every year. That was not a garrote around her neck. Garrotes are simple and look nothing like what was on JonBenet. There would be no reason to construct such an elaborate device as staging to fake a strangulation. IMO the EA device on JonBenet's neck asphyxiated her and was the cause of death. It was not staging. "

    Could you profile ,for us, the kind of perpetrator that would construct and use such an elaborate device on a six year old child.

    Sissi,

    Erotic asphyxiation masturbation is almost exclusively practiced by young people, especially males in their teens and twenties. However, there have been EA deaths recorded for victims as young as nine and as old as those in their seventies. Less than 10 % of the deaths were females. The FBI estimates that between 500 and 1,000 Americans accidentally die each year while engaged in the extremely dangerous method of EA masturbation. Accurate statistics are hard to keep because the families of EA victims, to prevent embarrassment, often lie about the cause of death by saying such things as he committed suicide by hanging himself, or he was murdered, etc.

    IMO if the killer of six-year-old JonBenet was an adult or in his late teens, he would likely be a pedophile. If the killer was younger he was likely experimenting with EA and probably not a pedophile.

    If the killer was nine or ten years old then he likely had an older tutor who taught him about erotic asphyxiation, and personally demonstrated its use for the benefit of the child (or children). And, of course, he would have been the one who constructed the EA device. Once constructed, it probably would have been hidden and re-used as opportunity presented itself.

    As you know, I'm also convinced that a Ramsey either killed JonBenet or knows who killed her -- otherwise the Ramseys wouldn't be lying, refusing to fully cooperate with investigators, and covering up. The Ramseys would behave like that only if a family member was involved in the death of JonBenet. IMO that family member is Burke.

    If the BDI and EA scenario was valid, then WHO was Burke's likely tutor of erotic asphyxiation? The contents of John Andrew Ramsey's blue suitcase in the basement, IMO, strongly points to him as the tutor.

    JMO

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    There is no way to scientifically say whether the head blow or the strangulation came first. The coroner himself could not determine and therefore listed BOTH under cause of death.

    One thing to consider is just HOW JonBenet, if already strangled (and obviously not standing up, sitting up nor running away) could have been bashed across the head. And not only that - WHY?
    Picture it - she is strangled (and not roughly by the way) - so she drops, is limp and just lying there. How in the world is this perp then going to deliver a blow to the SIDE of her head while she is lying down??
    It makes no sense. It makes no sense that there is even a purpose for it and it makes no sense that this is the weapon and part of body chose to strike.
    The perp would have to basically "golf" JonBenet in the head.

    It didn't happen that way. Even Dr. Henry Lee states in his recent book that the head blow came first.

    Of course it did.

    The head blow left no VISIBLE indication as to why this child lay dead. (Perp thought she was - and she nearly was).
    Perp HAD to concoct something VISIBLE for those who "found" her.
    Ah ha! THAT is how she died..... because see! There is a cord around her neck! The kidnappers strangled her!

    Little were they thinking that in the next day or so the medical examiner would pull back her scalp and discover to his his horror - the REAL reason JonBenet was dead. A massive blow to the side of her head.

    The cord pulled around her neck which actually caused her final breaths was NOT intended by the perp to cause her any harm. She/he/they thought she was already dead from the head blow.....
    This post is my opinion.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel
    The head blow left no VISIBLE indication as to why this child lay dead. (Perp thought she was - and she nearly was).
    Perp HAD to concoct something VISIBLE for those who "found" her.
    Ah ha! THAT is how she died..... because see! There is a cord around her neck! The kidnappers strangled her!

    Angel,

    Why would the "kidnappers" be concerned about staging something visible for those who found her, by putting a cord around her neck, thus faking the real cause of death? There's no reason for them to hide the real cause of death. She would obviously look dead to those who would find her, no matter whether a cord was around her neck or not. And if the cord was staging, why build such an elaborate and time-consuming device with multiple knots and a wooden handle? That wouldn't make sense when all you need is one single length of cord to strangle somebody, or stage a strangling.

    The EA device wasn't staging. It was the murder weapon. The petechial hemorrhages prove it. She was alive when strangled. The head blow was likely intended to be staging to make it appear to be the work of a terrorist, but it didn't provide the desired effect (bleeding) because she was already dead when struck.

    JMO

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    230
    A very angry vengeful person who hates people with money, people who are showy, people who are prideful and show off their little precious, beautiful, almost perfect little angel, JonBenet. A person who perhaps didn't feel loved that way by their parents, or who just simply hated the fact that the R's were so successful and hated that PR paraded JBR around in those costumes (which BTW- I do not see as a big deal but the perp may have seen it as something terrible). A person with so much rage in them that they wanted to commit the perfect murder and show these rich people that their life is not so perfect after all, WOULD sexually assault this child (Knows it will just rip their hearts out), choke her to death and in all that rage and anger be overcome with it all and take the flashlight they have with them while bringing her down to the basement, WHACK her on the side of her head that just happens to be accessible because she was either already dead or nearly dead from the strangulation and her head was turned to the side (which is a natural state for a head to lie on a concrete floor if there is unconsciousness present or even death).

    IN MY OPINION

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by twizzler333
    A very angry vengeful person who hates people with money, people who are showy, people who are prideful and show off their little precious, beautiful, almost perfect little angel, JonBenet. A person who perhaps didn't feel loved that way by their parents, or who just simply hated the fact that the R's were so successful and hated that PR paraded JBR around in those costumes (which BTW- I do not see as a big deal but the perp may have seen it as something terrible). A person with so much rage in them that they wanted to commit the perfect murder and show these rich people that their life is not so perfect after all, WOULD sexually assault this child (Knows it will just rip their hearts out), choke her to death and in all that rage and anger be overcome with it all and take the flashlight they have with them while bringing her down to the basement, WHACK her on the side of her head that just happens to be accessible because she was either already dead or nearly dead from the strangulation and her head was turned to the side (which is a natural state for a head to lie on a concrete floor if there is unconsciousness present or even death).

    IN MY OPINION

    Twizzler,

    You are describing one of my possible scenarios which actually does involve representatives of what could be considered a small foreign faction -- the Colorado University chapter of the Asian Pacific American Coalition (APAC).

    APAC at CU in Boulder had 29 members and was pro-active in leftist-leaning politics and social issues, including its perception that Asian-American women were being raped and murdered in the U.S. without adequate justice prevailing. APAC at CU suspiciously folded just weeks after JonBenet was murdered, yet, to the best of my knowledge, neither the organization nor its members were ever investigated.

    APAC's direct connection to the Ramsey family would have been through one of its members, Nathan Inouye. The Stine family employed Nathan as a live-in babysitter for Doug, who was also Burke's best friend. Nathan also helped babysit the Ramsey children -- Burke and JonBenet -- when the parents were out of town.

    My theory, which fits your description of the killer, is that an enraged loose cannon from APAC, one of its 29 members, raped, tortured, and killed the white, rich, beautiful and high profile JonBenet to protest and send a message about the unsolved rapes and murders of Asian-American women in the U.S.

    JMO


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    K7777 Quote:Picture it - she is strangled (and not roughly by the way) - so she drops, is limp and just lying there. How in the world is this perp then going to deliver a blow to the SIDE of her head while she is lying down??

    The autopsy pictures tell a different story, the cord created a deep furrow,there was hemmorrhaging above and below, accompanied by marks that very well could suggest a struggle on the part of the child.
    I do suggest we all take a look at both the chid's neck and her skull on the autopsy picture site.
    Looking at the fracture to her skull, it appears she was struck on the top of the back of the head, slightly off to the right with the linear fracture extending to the area above her right eye. The coroner reported the displacement of bone in his report as in the posteroparietal area. This clearly indicates the point of impact.
    There is nothing in any report to indicate she was hit on the "side" of her head as you suggest.
    http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetskull1.jpg

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ks.
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    Twizzler,

    You are describing one of my possible scenarios which actually does involve representatives of what could be considered a small foreign faction -- the Colorado University chapter of the Asian Pacific American Coalition (APAC).

    APAC at CU in Boulder had 29 members and was pro-active in leftist-leaning politics and social issues, including its perception that Asian-American women were being raped and murdered in the U.S. without adequate justice prevailing. APAC at CU suspiciously folded just weeks after JonBenet was murdered, yet, to the best of my knowledge, neither the organization nor its members were ever investigated.

    APAC's direct connection to the Ramsey family would have been through one of its members, Nathan Inouye. The Stine family employed Nathan as a live-in babysitter for Doug, who was also Burke's best friend. Nathan also helped babysit the Ramsey children -- Burke and JonBenet -- when the parents were out of town.

    My theory, which fits your description of the killer, is that an enraged loose cannon from APAC, one of its 29 members, raped, tortured, and killed the white, rich, beautiful and high profile JonBenet to protest and send a message about the unsolved rapes and murders of Asian-American women in the U.S.

    JMO

    BC.

    Your scenario involving the APAC also helps explain why Burke asked his parents "Where did you find the body"?(This has always perplexed me until now)
    Perhaps Burke let Nathan and other males into the house and wasn't involved or all were involved in the sexual activity with JonBenet when something went terribly wrong. Burke panic and ran screaming for help or just ran to his room and pulled the covers over his head. This is something a child his age would do, mine have.Therefore, he wouldn't know where the male visiters put her body.
    However, because of all the activity occurring in the house that AM (We know from the slip made by Patsy regarding time, etc.), he more than likely sought out their help. But how would he not know where her body was placed? Unless, he went to bed to avoid everything. If this is what occured, then he would not know where they placed her body. Wonder why he said "the body" and not her body? Oh my, I'm confussed again, please help.
    Your scenario also explains why the Ramseys moved in with the Stines. Thank you BC for keeping your ideas and theories current...it is most helpful. You certainly do stimulate the gray matter.

    Be Well
    IMHO

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    230
    See if this helps give you an idea: skull


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    230
    BUT- does it make sense that they would move in with the Stines if this house guest of theirs was responsible for killing their child? Would they cover up for this person? Yep, I'm gonna move right on in with the people who housed this idiot who just brutally murdered my child! You have got to be kidding me.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    Thank you Twizzler, that should clear it up!
    Now on to developing a scenario to describe how the person "aimed and struck".
    Would it make sense for her to be on the floor ?
    Would it make more sense if she was tied to a chair ,her arms above her attached by the cord to something, and from behind someone "finished her off with a hard hit to the head"?
    I can't see getting leverage with her on the floor, unless someone kicked her hard with a steel toed shoe?
    I'm not suggesting anything here, just indicating that part of the head, back/top would be hard to access,unless hit from behind..In my opinion

    It all reminds me of a scene from a movie, where the captives were bound, gagged, and sat on the edge of a precipice, one by one they were hit from behind and kicked off the edge.

    It pretty much wipes out pushing her into a sink or bathtub,doesn't it!!

    Is there anything we've missed concerning the cords that could suggest she was tied into a chair?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast