Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 167

Thread: Dna

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    985
    I put a comparison photo together which may illustrate what I meant in my last post regarding the "white" area of the ligature marking on the neck at autopsy, located approx. where the knot would have finally rested after it worked its way to the right as it was pulled from behind.

    WARNING: AUTOPSY PHOTOS!

    [ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=190215&postcount=32"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - JonBenet Ramsey autopsy photos - CAUTION GRAPHIC![/ame]
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,498
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    There are abrasions on the neck that are visible with the naked eye which, in my layperson's opinion, could be from the small chains links being rolled up the neck, under pressure from the ever-tightening ligature.

    The ligature was never removed after it was tightened. I in fact had to cut the cord off my own leg once I tightened it similar to the furrow in the photos.

    There are no bruises from fingerprints left on the neck to indicate anyone strangled the child manually.

    Also, it's a common mistake for people to think the "paintbrush handle" was somehow used to "twist" the cord. It was not. It was simply pulled: you couldn't possibly twist the attached cord itself and make the noose around the neck do anything in terms of effectively tightening it. Using the ligature like a true garrote--i.e. with the noose encircling the neck and looped over the stick itself, which is then turned like a faucet to tighten the noose, execution-style--would have left further bruising and abrasion on the neck skin at the site of that kind of friction. There is none. In fact, if you notice the area under the knot of the ligature on the neck is actually the least bruised section; it appears to me that the cord was lifted slightly away from the neck from behind as the handle was pulled to tighten it. Of course, I'm just guessing.

    The hair tied into the knot of the ligature at the neck was still attached to the scalp, it's true. Why wouldn't it be? She had very long hair and the ligature noose only rolled up the neck in the front for a few inches, whereas in the back it was rather turning in the same location.

    The hair tied into the handle: if it was still attached, I'll have to revisit my thoughts on this, but I don't remember that it was stated that was still attached to the head. I could be simply forgetting or misunderstood that piece of info. If you remember off the top of your head, could you direct me to that particular statement of the evidence? Don't look it up or go to any trouble, but just if you have it on hand. I've forgotten so much by now.

    [I made a composite picture which I posted in my next post, #101, which may clarify what I mean--and please don't think I believe I'm absolutely, 100% right. I'm just fumbling along here, waiting for an expert to explain it to us one fine day.]
    KoldKase,
    I forget the source, but I think it is an autopsy photograph. If the garrote was used more as a noose than a garrote and an explanation is forthcoming for the lack of trauma beneathe the necklace, then I'll revise my opinion to accept JonBenet was killed with the garrote, and not simply by the ligature, although I still think the garrote is staging.


    .

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  4. #103
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,498
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    I put a comparison photo together which may illustrate what I meant in my last post regarding the "white" area of the ligature marking on the neck at autopsy, located approx. where the knot would have finally rested after it worked its way to the right as it was pulled from behind.

    WARNING: AUTOPSY PHOTOS!

    Forums For Justice - View Single Post - JonBenet Ramsey autopsy photos - CAUTION GRAPHIC!
    KoldKase,
    In the image on the right, there seems to be clear evidence of a prior constriction, lying directly beneath the upper circumferential furrow, inflcited whether by hand, collar or ligature. This is one reason why I reckon the garrote is staging, even if functionally it did kill JonBenet?


    .

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  6. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,868
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    KoldKase,
    In the image on the right, there seems to be clear evidence of a prior constriction, lying directly beneath the upper circumferential furrow, inflcited whether by hand, collar or ligature. This is one reason why I reckon the garrote is staging, even if functionally it did kill JonBenet

    .

    As you state, in the picture on the right, there is evidence of another constriction. If one imagines that the hands were placed around the neck with fingers towards the back of the neck and thumbs towards the front, then the dark red mark could be from where the two thumbs joined and pressed hard, the lighter red mark at the lower right, under the darker mark could be from the portion of the hand between forefinger and thumb?

    Just speculation. I don't know what a manual strangulation is supposed to look like, but we can see clearly there is no furrow associated with the lower constriction.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  8. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope View Post
    As you state, in the picture on the right, there is evidence of another constriction. If one imagines that the hands were placed around the neck with fingers towards the back of the neck and thumbs towards the front, then the dark red mark could be from where the two thumbs joined and pressed hard, the lighter red mark at the lower right, under the darker mark could be from the portion of the hand between forefinger and thumb?

    Just speculation. I don't know what a manual strangulation is supposed to look like, but we can see clearly there is no furrow associated with the lower constriction.
    Chrishope,
    Yes, well spotted. Not only that but from having discussed this topic many times before, its similar to the Barbie Nightgown, from memory and the autopsy photographs should confirm this. The lower trauma is not circumferential. From the back in one of the autopsy photographs, there is no lower furrow! This is what led me to suspect years ago that there had been a prior strangulation and that the garrote wa staging?

    That the garrote killed JonBenet rather confuses the above assumption.

    Again to reiterate this is how I view the death of JonBenet, as a series of stepwise stagings, at each stage, attempts are made to eliminate errors from the previous.


    .

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  10. #106
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,629
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249,

    This is precisely, over many posts, what I quoted to you, e.g. verbatim opinion. For the record, do you give precedence to either of Coroner Meyer's manner of communication?


    As far as you can see? Well he did and I will elucidate it for you:



    1. Red stains observed on size-12's, assumed to be blood.
    2. No blood observed on the exterior pubic area, located next to the areas of the size-12's containing the red stains.
    =================
    Conclusion:
    =================
    3. JonBenet was wiped down

    Coroner Meyer's conclusion reached from separate facts observed at autopsy are to be read in the last sentence in the above verbatim opinion.


    Your theory has some merit, but relates to the volume of blood having exited, at some point, from JonBenet. A subject which Coroner Meyer also offers no opinion on!

    Whilst the original subject was that JonBenet was already wearing the size-12's prior to being wiped down, and that is my inference, and it is based on something Coroner Meyer opined on, and if queried on oath, I'm certain he would agree?


    That is two different subjects are being conflated, e.g.

    1. The timeline in which JonBenet was wiped down: prior to being redressed in the size-12's or after?

    2. The volume of blood exiting from JonBenet.



    .
    Once again- Mayer reached NO conclusion about what may have caused the bleeding he simply wrote what he found. Stating that she had been wiped by a cloth, to me, is an observation, not a conclusion. We still have nothing in writing from the coroner about how these injuries (and the resulting bleeding) were caused. But if it makes you feel better, call it a "conclusion". To me, a conclusion is the "end"- a final statement. The final part of this observation is missing- as there is nothing that indicated the cause.

    For the record, I prefer Mayer's WRITTEN observations over those spoken to those present at the autopsy. I think most people would agree.

    I doubt Mayer would agree, under oath or not, that JB was wearing the size 12 panties before she was wiped down. There would have been more blood on them, and the blood on the panties would be in a different location. This he has already said- that the blood drops do not match the area on her body where she had been wiped down. I simply cannot spin it any other way and simply cannot see how there is anything that indicates she was wearing them before she was wiped down.
    Here is my timeline:
    1. assault causing bleeding occurs
    2. bleeding necessitated wiping
    3. panties needed replacing.
    4. replacement panties found in basement, wrapped up in a gift box, possibly with other items.
    5. size 12 panties put on JB.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  12. #107
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,366
    Some years ago, iirc, in one of the depositions, Patsy was asked if JonBenet and Burke ever played "horse" or some similar game. I believe Patsy replied that sometimes she pretended to be a dog and Burke would put a leash of sorts around her and lead her around. Does anyone else remember this?

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to BOESP For This Useful Post:


  14. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,629
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Some years ago, iirc, in one of the depositions, Patsy was asked if JonBenet and Burke ever played "horse" or some similar game. I believe Patsy replied that sometimes she pretended to be a dog and Burke would put a leash of sorts around her and lead her around. Does anyone else remember this?
    I do recall that. I also recall Patsy saying that BR was always "trying to make a boat or something" (her words) with a rope.

    This family knew about ropes and knots. They were sailors and BR was a scout and JR was in the Navy.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  16. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,452
    Please, please, please. The “handle” that was attached to one of the tailpieces of the ligature that was found on JonBenet’s neck was never twisted to tighten it. It was dysfunctional in that respect, and probably impossible to do because of the hair that was caught up in the knot. Her hair was shorter than the length of cord between the ligature and the “handle”, so neither was it pulled to tighten the ligature. The simple logistics of how this would work makes impossible to be anything other than something that was added on to a lifeless body as nothing more than staging.

    I had wondered before (and even asked on this forum) if anyone knew whether the hair caught in the knot attached to the broken paintbrush was pulled out by the roots, or did the coroner have to cut the hair in order to remove it. After a little closer scrutiny of the picture taken of her body lying on the floor in her home, I believe her hair to still be attached and caught up in the knot on the paintbrush, which would verify (in my mind anyway) that the device found around her neck was not functional .

    Just google images of garrotes and you’ll find two types: the type that was used in formal executions in Spain for several centuries, and the type that assassins use -- the latter always having two ends that are pulled away from one another when used:

    (http://dailygunpictures.blogspot.com...s-garotte.html)

    .

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to otg For This Useful Post:


  18. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,452
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    The lower trauma is not circumferential. From the back in one of the autopsy photographs, there is no lower furrow! This is what led me to suspect years ago that there had been a prior strangulation and that the garrote was staging?
    Or... perhaps the back part of the two circumferences is confluent.

    Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).


    I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching.
    .


  19. The Following User Says Thank You to otg For This Useful Post:


  20. #111
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,868
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I do recall that. I also recall Patsy saying that BR was always "trying to make a boat or something" (her words) with a rope.

    This family knew about ropes and knots. They were sailors and BR was a scout and JR was in the Navy.

    I think too much is made of this sailor stuff. For two reasons;

    One, and most important, there was nothing very sophisticated about the garrotte. In fact the windings around the paint brush handle are more skillful than the knot at JBR's neck.

    Second, I served in the navy and I can only make a few basic knots. That's all I ever need. People who sail boats need to know some knots, but one doesn't have to be a sailor to know how to tie a simple slip knot.

    Actually there is a third reason, and it's this - why would the Rs want to show off their knot tying skills under these circumstances. Isn't it better not to have the knots linked with their "special skills" ?
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  21. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  22. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,868
    Quote Originally Posted by otg View Post
    Please, please, please. The “handle” that was attached to one of the tailpieces of the ligature that was found on JonBenet’s neck was never twisted to tighten it. It was dysfunctional in that respect, and probably impossible to do because of the hair that was caught up in the knot. Her hair was shorter than the length of cord between the ligature and the “handle”, so neither was it pulled to tighten the ligature. The simple logistics of how this would work makes impossible to be anything other than something that was added on to a lifeless body as nothing more than staging.

    I had wondered before (and even asked on this forum) if anyone knew whether the hair caught in the knot attached to the broken paintbrush was pulled out by the roots, or did the coroner have to cut the hair in order to remove it. After a little closer scrutiny of the picture taken of her body lying on the floor in her home, I believe her hair to still be attached and caught up in the knot on the paintbrush, which would verify (in my mind anyway) that the device found around her neck was not functional .

    Just google images of garrotes and you’ll find two types: the type that was used in formal executions in Spain for several centuries, and the type that assassins use -- the latter always having two ends that are pulled away from one another when used:

    (http://dailygunpictures.blogspot.com...s-garotte.html)

    .

    Garrotte is used so broadly that it really can't be said there is on or two types.

    You are absolutely right that the handle was not twisted to pull tighter on the cord around her neck.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  24. #113
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,498
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Once again- Mayer reached NO conclusion about what may have caused the bleeding he simply wrote what he found. Stating that she had been wiped by a cloth, to me, is an observation, not a conclusion. We still have nothing in writing from the coroner about how these injuries (and the resulting bleeding) were caused. But if it makes you feel better, call it a "conclusion". To me, a conclusion is the "end"- a final statement. The final part of this observation is missing- as there is nothing that indicated the cause.

    For the record, I prefer Mayer's WRITTEN observations over those spoken to those present at the autopsy. I think most people would agree.

    I doubt Mayer would agree, under oath or not, that JB was wearing the size 12 panties before she was wiped down. There would have been more blood on them, and the blood on the panties would be in a different location. This he has already said- that the blood drops do not match the area on her body where she had been wiped down. I simply cannot spin it any other way and simply cannot see how there is anything that indicates she was wearing them before she was wiped down.
    Here is my timeline:
    1. assault causing bleeding occurs
    2. bleeding necessitated wiping
    3. panties needed replacing.
    4. replacement panties found in basement, wrapped up in a gift box, possibly with other items.
    5. size 12 panties put on JB.
    DeeDee249,
    The subject of my post was the wiping down timeline not the cause of the bleeding. If you post a topic on it, we can discuss this further.


    Here is my timeline:
    1. assault causing bleeding occurs
    2. bleeding necessitated wiping
    3. panties needed replacing.
    4. replacement panties found in basement, wrapped up in a gift box, possibly with other items.
    5. size 12 panties put on JB.
    Thats fine, how do you know where in the sequence of events the size-12's were placed onto JonBenet?

    There is absolutely nothing to prevent the size-12's being applied upstairs, as part of a prior staging, which would encompass the entirety of your timeline, making it consistent with nearly all the forensic evidence, then you could apply your postmortem release, then discovered in the basement, yielding another wipe down, one observed by Coroner Meyer?

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  26. #114
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,498
    Quote Originally Posted by otg View Post
    Or... perhaps the back part of the two circumferences is confluent.

    Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).


    I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching.
    .

    otg,
    Or... perhaps the back part of the two circumferences is confluent.
    Good point, is this distinct from the lower trauma simply being the origin of the garrote, which under pressure moves upwards, thus yielding the circumferential furrow?

    Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).
    Yes, again good point, does lack of the distinct v-shape indicate it was definitely not a hanging, or could it indicate manual ligature constriction from above, e.g. with JonBenet kneeling or lying on her back?

    I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching.
    More input is required on this topic, since it is quite detailed. Some might claim the lower trauma represents a failed first attempt at using the garrote? Although I am sympathetic towards your view, since I regard the garrote as staging, it was not required to kill JonBenet, by all accounts she was already comatose, a pillow would have been sufficient?

    P.S. Here is that view of the back of her neck:


    e.g. Just one furrow not two!


    .
    Last edited by UKGuy; 07-16-2012 at 10:31 AM.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  28. #115
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    985
    There are a lot of photos of strangulation victims at FFJ in the autopsy section, as well as at CrimeShots. You can see how a ligature rolls up the neck, as well as how the V shaped bruise on the neck happened during that process.

    Bruising on the neck clearly proves the cord rolled up the neck, IMO, and rested in the location where it was found at autopsy. It wasn't applied post mortem; the bruises prove that, I believe.

    I'm not saying the child was hanged. When I use the term "noose" I simply mean the circle of cord around her neck, tied on her with a slip knot which, when pulled, tightened that noose and strangled her.

    Remember she was laying on her stomach at that point. So the force used to pull on the handle on the cord would have pulled the body up, as well. I've speculated that the bruise on her upper back/shoulder blade on the right was from being held down as the cord was being pulled tighter. I may be wrong, of course, but things don't just lay there when you pull on them unless they're bolted down or something.

    I've very confused as to why the term "twist" keeps being used in relation to the cord around the neck. If you don't believe the cord was tightened by the pulling of the broken paintbrush tied onto the end, okay. I still don't understand the use of the word "twist," though; there is nothing logical I can see in "twisting" a long, limp piece of cord in relation to this ligature around the neck. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what y'all mean by "twist."

    I've also never seen any evidence the hair tied into the paintbrush handle was still attached to the child's scalp. As I remember it, Thomas said the hair tied into the knot at the neck was still attached to the scalp, but I have no recollection of anyone every claiming that was also true of the hair tied into the paintbrush handle. Maybe I'm simply confused, but I've never seen this in many years of reading and discussions...or at least, I don't remember it. Anyone have a source for that info?

    I've missed noticing any photo where one can see hair tied into the paintbrush knot and attached to the scalp of the child, but I'd like to see that. Perhaps you can post the link to that? And thanks in advance.
    Bloomies underwear model:
    Bloomies model


    My opinions, nothing more.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:


  30. #116
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,498
    Quote Originally Posted by KoldKase View Post
    There are a lot of photos of strangulation victims at FFJ in the autopsy section, as well as at CrimeShots. You can see how a ligature rolls up the neck, as well as how the V shaped bruise on the neck happened during that process.

    Bruising on the neck clearly proves the cord rolled up the neck, IMO, and rested in the location where it was found at autopsy. It wasn't applied post mortem; the bruises prove that, I believe.

    I'm not saying the child was hanged. When I use the term "noose" I simply mean the circle of cord around her neck, tied on her with a slip knot which, when pulled, tightened that noose and strangled her.

    Remember she was laying on her stomach at that point. So the force used to pull on the handle on the cord would have pulled the body up, as well. I've speculated that the bruise on her upper back/shoulder blade on the right was from being held down as the cord was being pulled tighter. I may be wrong, of course, but things don't just lay there when you pull on them unless they're bolted down or something.

    I've very confused as to why the term "twist" keeps being used in relation to the cord around the neck. If you don't believe the cord was tightened by the pulling of the broken paintbrush tied onto the end, okay. I still don't understand the use of the word "twist," though; there is nothing logical I can see in "twisting" a long, limp piece of cord in relation to this ligature around the neck. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what y'all mean by "twist."

    I've also never seen any evidence the hair tied into the paintbrush handle was still attached to the child's scalp. As I remember it, Thomas said the hair tied into the knot at the neck was still attached to the scalp, but I have no recollection of anyone every claiming that was also true of the hair tied into the paintbrush handle. Maybe I'm simply confused, but I've never seen this in many years of reading and discussions...or at least, I don't remember it. Anyone have a source for that info?

    I've missed noticing any photo where one can see hair tied into the paintbrush knot and attached to the scalp of the child, but I'd like to see that. Perhaps you can post the link to that? And thanks in advance.
    KoldKase,
    Why was the garrote used, it was not required. A simple ligature was enough to kill JonBenet?

    Here are some of the garrote photographs:





    Note the hair embedded into the knotting


    Note the hair embedded into the knotting

    .

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  32. #117
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632
    There WERE bloodstains on the blanket - see below:

    Screen Capture of DNA Lab Report -- Lists all the places there is blood found/tested....

    "Two lines BLACKED OUT
    DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
    EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
    #5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
    #7 Bloodstains from panties
    #14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
    #14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
    #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
    #15A, #15B Samples from tape
    Bloodstains from white blanket
    #17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??"

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  34. #118
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Whaleshark View Post
    There WERE bloodstains on the blanket - see below:

    Screen Capture of DNA Lab Report -- Lists all the places there is blood found/tested....

    "Two lines BLACKED OUT
    DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
    EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
    #5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
    #7 Bloodstains from panties
    #14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
    #14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
    #14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
    #15A, #15B Samples from tape
    Bloodstains from white blanket
    #17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??"
    Whaleshark,
    Yes, I remember this now. Those bloodstains were explained away as contamination via the Barbie Nightgown. Still its yet another item that should not have bloodstains?


    .

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  36. #119
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    KoldKase,
    Why was the garrote used, it was not required. A simple ligature was enough to kill JonBenet?

    Why were there two causes of killing: head blow AND strangulation, if only one would suffice?



    ...UKGuy, ok already -- just BECAUSE something may not have been 'needed', doesn't make it not so. It may only take someone one hard stabbing to kill someone, so why stab someone 84 times? Yet it happens...

    ...Just because it wasn't NEEDED, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
    Last edited by Whaleshark; 07-16-2012 at 03:23 PM.

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  38. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,868
    Quote Originally Posted by otg View Post
    Or... perhaps the back part of the two circumferences is confluent.

    Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).


    I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching.
    .


    I'm not saying I disagree, just trying to go into this in more detail.

    Notice both upper and lower points of constriction show petechial hemorrhages. If she was killed by the first constriction would PHs be possible? Petechial hemorrhages are cause by differential pressure between the arteries and veins. Veins are smaller and nearer the surface so they constrict more readily under a given amount of pressure. Once she died, there would be no more pressure, at least not from the heart pumping.

    So, I wonder if the ligature/garrote could cause pressure that would produce PHs? I don't know the answer, perhaps someone following this thread knows?

    If PHs cannot be caused after death, then the lower constriction cannot have been fatal.

    This might suggest the lower constriction was a first attempt? I can't size the marks to anyone's hands, but that might be interesting. I'm thinking the first attempt was unsuccessful because the perp was too small/weak. PR or BR?

    Another question is - would postmortem swelling be sufficient to cause that kind of furrow? I don't know. If the first attempt were successful and the garrotte merely staging, then why not place the garrotte over that spot?
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  39. The Following User Says Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  40. #121
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,629
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249,
    The subject of my post was the wiping down timeline not the cause of the bleeding. If you post a topic on it, we can discuss this further.




    Thats fine, how do you know where in the sequence of events the size-12's were placed onto JonBenet?

    There is absolutely nothing to prevent the size-12's being applied upstairs, as part of a prior staging, which would encompass the entirety of your timeline, making it consistent with nearly all the forensic evidence, then you could apply your postmortem release, then discovered in the basement, yielding another wipe down, one observed by Coroner Meyer?
    I don't KNOW the sequence. Nor does anyone else who was not there. It just makes sense to me. If she had the panties on before she was wiped, they would HAVE to have more blood on them. It is also odd that the longjohns do not have blood, yet the blanket and pink nightie do. Was it also droplets? OR a spatter. Forensics can tell the difference and sometimes that helps to decide what happened. In this case, I do not see any official opinion on the blood on the blanket or nightie. The blood on the sweatshirt isn't made much of either by LE it seems. There is evidence of tan mucus on her right sleeve and cheek and it is easy to see how that got there. But the blanket, nightie and pillowcase all had blood on them, presumably HER blood, yet not much was said about it by investigators. The blood appears in her bedroom on the pillowcase and in the basement on the blanket, nightie and her panties, yet not the longjohns. How this all fits together is still the mystery.
    Then we have JR's comment to LE when shown a picture of the blanket in the wc and he sees the nightie and says "that wasn't supposed to be there". Of course not, neither was the dead child in the blanket.
    So what happened where? Certainly a bedroom assault is a possibility - wearing the pink nightie and her own panties. Or was the nightie stuck to the blanket by static cling and played no part. Then where and how did the blood get on it? It seems as if some blood splattered right there in the wc. How? Her head bash made no wound. I am wondering if it happened during wiping her down or if there was perhaps more blood coming from her nose than has been noted.
    We can see by the photos and interviews that police established with Patsy that JB's bed was tidy at the foot section and that it was obvious that NO blanket could have been pulled off the bed and still have the foot section remain neat. So there is a 3-stage crime scene here- the bedroom and the basement outside the where the tote was found and the wc itself. The panties come into the picture at one of these locations, and actually- there is more than one possible way it could have happened.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  41. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  42. #122
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632

    Crime Reconstruction – William Jerry Chisum and Brent E. Turvey

    I have posted this before, and stated a week or two ago why everything cannot be whittled down to its simplest form in this case - especially in assuming when/why the pineapple is where it is (due to the crime scene changing that morning when everyone was there), as well as now, in assuming the simplest, easiest form/method of killing her.... it's NOT SO SIMPLE.

    Don't take it from me -

    http://books.google.com/books?id=6bXjPEjzyLcC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=oversimp lifying+crime+scenes+and+occam's+razor&source=bl&o ts=q1YjPa9bu_&sig=eb_UnQfC6UXSmpCLZ2WDOnDUEzo&hl=e n&sa=X&ei=BHIEUNSKIcHTqgH6nv2wDA&sqi=2&ved=0CE0Q6A EwAA#v=onepage&q=oversimplifying%20crime%20scenes% 20and%20occam's%20razor&f=false

    "Oversimplification and Occam’s Razor –

    Before we can discuss crime reconstruction practice standards, we must deconstruct the popular yet mistaken assumption that it is a simple and certain enterprise based solely on careful observation and experience.

    Oversimplification occurs when a complex situation is described in simplistic terms that neglect its complexity in order to achieve a greater measure of certainty. These days oversimplification has become common-place in entertainment, political rhetoric, and even journalism. But it has no place in the justice system.

    Oversimplification is too common a vice in the forensic disciplines, from scene processing to laboratory analysis to crime reconstruction. It manifests itself in the supplanting of a formal scientific education with short courses, rote technical training, and learning on the job. It manifests itself with appeals to experience instead of scientific fact. It manifests itself in the form of appeals to common sense for the sake of intellectual ease. It Manifests itself when reconstructionists admonish others not to get “bogged down by all the facts,” when the facts actually provide the context needed for informed and accurate interpretation. It manifests itself in these forms and others, wherever there is a desired conclusion and the full weight of the scientific method is perceived to be the long way or the wrong way.

    Those with a basic grasp of logic and reasoning might stop us right there and invoke Occam’s razor. They might suggest that the scientific method reveals simplicity, and that complexity relates directly to improbability – the more complex a theory, the less probable – given Occam’s razor.

    Occam’s razor is an often misstated principle that, ironically, has been reduced for mass consumption to the point of misapplication. Not uncommonly, it is stated as something along the lines of “all things being equal, the simplest explanation is most often the Correct one”. Although this interpretation of Occam’s razor sounds good and has the virtue of popping up in a television show or Movie every now and again, it is inaccurate.

    ….We would do better to recall Albert Einstein’s cautionary, which provides, “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler”. In other words, we are encouraged to embrace both the complexity of reality and the simplicity of direct logical reasoning without irrevelant encumbrances.

    Reconstruction is particularly susceptible to oversimplification because many of those currently involved, as discussed in the Preface, do not come from a scientific background of any kind.…

    ...Practice standards for the reconstruction of a crime -

    ….11. Reconstructionists must demonstrate an understanding of establishing the conditions of transfer (Locard’s Exchange Principle and evidence dynamics):

    Identifying and individuating physical evidence is only part of crime reconstruction. Equally important is the need to establish the source of evidence and the conditions under which it was transferred to where it was ultimately found. Reconstructionists must not be quick to oversimplify complex issues, such as the examination and interpretation of physical evidence, or to disregard those circumstances that can move, alter, or obliterate that evidence. "
    ____

    ....Which is exactly why you cannot assume that the condition of the physical evidence as it was that morning, in those photos, was exactly the way they were the night before... especially since people moved and changed evidence in that chaos that morning.... photos were taken days later, and even photo-takers stated the 'photos lied'!!

    ...Same thing goes for what may or may not have been 'needed' to get the 'job done' in the crime....Besides, if we were discounting evidence in crimes based on that over-simplification, then any crime that had unnecessary ways/means of killing someone, would all be considered staging and not part of the 'real' crime.... That's just not the case. There is 'overkill' in multitudes of crimes based on the mental condition of the criminals...

    You must account for all the complexities... you just must.

  43. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  44. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,498
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I don't KNOW the sequence. Nor does anyone else who was not there. It just makes sense to me. If she had the panties on before she was wiped, they would HAVE to have more blood on them. It is also odd that the longjohns do not have blood, yet the blanket and pink nightie do. Was it also droplets? OR a spatter. Forensics can tell the difference and sometimes that helps to decide what happened. In this case, I do not see any official opinion on the blood on the blanket or nightie. The blood on the sweatshirt isn't made much of either by LE it seems. There is evidence of tan mucus on her right sleeve and cheek and it is easy to see how that got there. But the blanket, nightie and pillowcase all had blood on them, presumably HER blood, yet not much was said about it by investigators. The blood appears in her bedroom on the pillowcase and in the basement on the blanket, nightie and her panties, yet not the longjohns. How this all fits together is still the mystery.
    Then we have JR's comment to LE when shown a picture of the blanket in the wc and he sees the nightie and says "that wasn't supposed to be there". Of course not, neither was the dead child in the blanket.
    So what happened where? Certainly a bedroom assault is a possibility - wearing the pink nightie and her own panties. Or was the nightie stuck to the blanket by static cling and played no part. Then where and how did the blood get on it? It seems as if some blood splattered right there in the wc. How? Her head bash made no wound. I am wondering if it happened during wiping her down or if there was perhaps more blood coming from her nose than has been noted.
    We can see by the photos and interviews that police established with Patsy that JB's bed was tidy at the foot section and that it was obvious that NO blanket could have been pulled off the bed and still have the foot section remain neat. So there is a 3-stage crime scene here- the bedroom and the basement outside the where the tote was found and the wc itself. The panties come into the picture at one of these locations, and actually- there is more than one possible way it could have happened.
    DeeDee249,
    I don't KNOW the sequence. Nor does anyone else who was not there.
    Sure, but you might be able to work it out, either partially or completely by elimination. Consider the wipe-down event that Coroner Meyer alludes to. If you know that occured last then you can place the redressing in the size-12's further back in the theoretical sequence. This for me why Coroner Meyer's opinion is important.

    So there is a 3-stage crime scene here- the bedroom and the basement outside the where the tote was found and the wc itself. The panties come into the picture at one of these locations, and actually- there is more than one possible way it could have happened.
    Could not agree more. Note bloodstains are the common factor, so we can infer from the bloodstains either context or relationship, e.g. JonBenet wore the Barbie Nightgown, and that it is out of context?

    If you allow the word tote to represent the area where the tote was found. And the bold emphasis to represent a wipe-down event, then it might look like this:


    1. bedroom, tote, wine-cellar.

    2. bedroom, tote, wine-cellar.

    3. bedroom, tote, wine-cellar.

    Although 3. is possible, we can put it to one side assuming, once JonBenet was laid into the wine-cellar, nobody unwrapped her to wipe her down?

    So that leaves either 1. and 2. as separate outcomes, or if you merge them, thus so:

    1.&2. bedroom, tote, wine-cellar?

    If you now consider the bloodstain evidence along with Coroner Meyer's opinion. This might suggest JonBenet was last wiped down at the tote area, but due to postmortem release, Coroner Meyer spotted this?

    No bloodstains on the longjohns suggests they were placed on last, after the cleanup? Now the blanket and Barbie Nightgown are both bloodstained, is this because they once shared the same environment, consider the size-12's, could the last wipe down event have led to these bloodstains? Which might suggest the tote area? Blood drops onto the Barbie Nightgown as JonBenet is wiped down, and if she is lying on the blanket, similarly?

    Now with a bloodstain on her pillow, we can place her in her bedroom, I reckon its safe to assume she was cleaned up and redressed upstairs, again the Barbie Gown scenario could be played out here, this is more variable than the wipe down, it could have happened at either location but the tote area seems more logical?


    So for me the most probable sequence of events is:
    1.&2. bedroom, tote, wine-cellar?


    .

  45. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  46. #124
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Whaleshark View Post
    I have posted this before, and stated a week or two ago why everything cannot be whittled down to its simplest form in this case - especially in assuming when/why the pineapple is where it is (due to the crime scene changing that morning when everyone was there), as well as now, in assuming the simplest, easiest form/method of killing her.... it's NOT SO SIMPLE.

    Don't take it from me -

    http://books.google.com/books?id=6bXjPEjzyLcC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=oversimp lifying+crime+scenes+and+occam's+razor&source=bl&o ts=q1YjPa9bu_&sig=eb_UnQfC6UXSmpCLZ2WDOnDUEzo&hl=e n&sa=X&ei=BHIEUNSKIcHTqgH6nv2wDA&sqi=2&ved=0CE0Q6A EwAA#v=onepage&q=oversimplifying%20crime%20scenes% 20and%20occam's%20razor&f=false

    "Oversimplification and Occam’s Razor –

    Before we can discuss crime reconstruction practice standards, we must deconstruct the popular yet mistaken assumption that it is a simple and certain enterprise based solely on careful observation and experience.

    Oversimplification occurs when a complex situation is described in simplistic terms that neglect its complexity in order to achieve a greater measure of certainty. These days oversimplification has become common-place in entertainment, political rhetoric, and even journalism. But it has no place in the justice system.

    Oversimplification is too common a vice in the forensic disciplines, from scene processing to laboratory analysis to crime reconstruction. It manifests itself in the supplanting of a formal scientific education with short courses, rote technical training, and learning on the job. It manifests itself with appeals to experience instead of scientific fact. It manifests itself in the form of appeals to common sense for the sake of intellectual ease. It Manifests itself when reconstructionists admonish others not to get “bogged down by all the facts,” when the facts actually provide the context needed for informed and accurate interpretation. It manifests itself in these forms and others, wherever there is a desired conclusion and the full weight of the scientific method is perceived to be the long way or the wrong way.

    Those with a basic grasp of logic and reasoning might stop us right there and invoke Occam’s razor. They might suggest that the scientific method reveals simplicity, and that complexity relates directly to improbability – the more complex a theory, the less probable – given Occam’s razor.

    Occam’s razor is an often misstated principle that, ironically, has been reduced for mass consumption to the point of misapplication. Not uncommonly, it is stated as something along the lines of “all things being equal, the simplest explanation is most often the Correct one”. Although this interpretation of Occam’s razor sounds good and has the virtue of popping up in a television show or Movie every now and again, it is inaccurate.

    ….We would do better to recall Albert Einstein’s cautionary, which provides, “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler”. In other words, we are encouraged to embrace both the complexity of reality and the simplicity of direct logical reasoning without irrevelant encumbrances.

    Reconstruction is particularly susceptible to oversimplification because many of those currently involved, as discussed in the Preface, do not come from a scientific background of any kind.…

    ...Practice standards for the reconstruction of a crime -

    ….11. Reconstructionists must demonstrate an understanding of establishing the conditions of transfer (Locard’s Exchange Principle and evidence dynamics):

    Identifying and individuating physical evidence is only part of crime reconstruction. Equally important is the need to establish the source of evidence and the conditions under which it was transferred to where it was ultimately found. Reconstructionists must not be quick to oversimplify complex issues, such as the examination and interpretation of physical evidence, or to disregard those circumstances that can move, alter, or obliterate that evidence. "
    ____

    ....Which is exactly why you cannot assume that the condition of the physical evidence as it was that morning, in those photos, was exactly the way they were the night before... especially since people moved and changed evidence in that chaos that morning.... photos were taken days later, and even photo-takers stated the 'photos lied'!!

    ...Same thing goes for what may or may not have been 'needed' to get the 'job done' in the crime....Besides, if we were discounting evidence in crimes based on that over-simplification, then any crime that had unnecessary ways/means of killing someone, would all be considered staging and not part of the 'real' crime.... That's just not the case. There is 'overkill' in multitudes of crimes based on the mental condition of the criminals...

    You must account for all the complexities... you just must.
    Whaleshark,
    The reference to Occam is when it is simply being used as a nostrum, a magic fix, since the definition given is patently false!

    You must account for all the complexities... you just must.
    Sure and to do all that accounting its nice to have some method, to limit the growth of complexity so you can get a handle on things. This is where occam plays a role, its not an answer or proof, simply a logical heuristic.


    .

  47. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  48. #125
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Whaleshark,
    The reference to Occam is when it is simply being used as a nostrum, a magic fix, since the definition given is patently false!

    Sure and to do all that accounting its nice to have some method, to limit the growth of complexity so you can get a handle on things. This is where occam plays a role, its not an answer or proof, simply a logical heuristic.
    You are the one who quotes it often, so you're saying you use it as a 'magical fix'... but I'm trying to do more than a magical fix, so you're proving my point, then?

    Yes, it's nice to have some method - and Occam's Razor is not the correct one, in this case -- or in crime reconstruction, in general, as per the Crime Reconstruction authors quoted above.

    So, are we on this forum for 'magical fixes', or are we trying to figure this thing out?

    If we're trying to figure this thing out, then we need to quit referring to Occam's Razor, and quit deciding what we think is 'needed' or not or what the exact only application of a 'garrotte' would be, etc.

    If you only consider your absolute necessities, and do not account for things like children playing dog-on-a-leash as to why there is a ligature with a handle, or that the victims advocates moved that pineapple to the table that morning since there was a lot of people there, then you are not considering the complexities, based on what you find out about the situation, or the behavior of the people involved.

    You simplify it too much, you have nothing but your repeated stances that you refuse to budge on...

    ...And I don't know why you refused to see it, but there was blood in her vaginal vault as noted per the autopsy, and those areas could have, and most likely did, leak onto that size 12 underwear. Just because the blood was not on the outermost external part of the vulva/lips, doesn't mean it didn't drip down from those areas that were noted in the autopsy still containing blood....

    ...Ask me how i know this is possible, and i can explain to you from firsthand experience what it's like to be a woman with female parts and how things can 'drip' out without being coated all on the external parts....didn't want to go there with you, but since you insist that the external absence of blood noted by Coroner Meyer means that the underwear HAD to be on before wiping, and then taken down again to wipe... it doesn't have to be the case.. and again, it most likely isn't, or there would be a lot more blood on those size 12s....

  49. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. DNA Under Nails Matches Panty DNA?
    By Nuisanceposter in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-28-2006, 02:25 PM
  2. The DNA
    By calus_3 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-27-2005, 03:37 PM
  3. Dna
    By K777angel in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 12-23-2004, 09:27 PM
  4. Dna
    By ajt400 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-13-2003, 05:26 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •