Cyril Wecht's theory of the murder

2 percent

New Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
12
I have to admit I've only been a casual follower of the Ramsey case. Not because it wasn't interesting but because I was hooked by the Routier case just months before and stayed very immersed in that for many years. I tried to keep up with the death of that poor little girl, but time always limits me.

When I finally did resurface I began to read and discuss the Ramsey case on the forums until I ran into a person who was, for lack of a better term, a bully on almost all of the Ramsey forums I read. I won't say the name because of the constant threats of lawsuits I saw from this person but I have to say they left a very bad taste in my mouth on forum discussions of this case.

Still curious about the case but totally turned off to the forums, I read Wecht's book. I have to say I found his theory compelling, especially the lack of blood from the head wound.

Has the book ever been discussed on this site?
What is your opinion of his conclusions?
 
I am interested to hear what you have to say. I have not read the book.

It probably has been discussed somewhere on here everything else has; but, I don't know where.

Someone threatened to sue you? Now that is just not right.
 
It's been discussed. There are of course various opinions.

The thing is, imo, the garrotte doesn't function well for erotic asphyxiation games. It should tighten and loosen very easily. This one didn't loosen easily. Once it was pulled, it stayed in place until someone used both hands to loosen it.

Of course the garrotte found on her neck at autopsy isn't necessarily what was used to strangle her. There are some who think there was a prior strangulation. You'll have to ask them for their reasons, I don't think there were two, just one. I don't think it was an EA game, as Dr. Wecht does. But I have to pay attention to Wecht's theory, he's no dummy.
 
I am interested to hear what you have to say. I have not read the book.

It probably has been discussed somewhere on here everything else has; but, I don't know where.

Wecht was asked to look at the case without knowing it was the Ramsey case. Although his book discusses the surrounding drama and other evidence in the case, Wecht's focus is on the autopsy evidence.

He saw clear evidence of chronic sexual abuse, most likely digital or similar. So basically, he thinks the strangulation was a sex game and that the vagus nerve was accidentally pinched which immediately compromised her heart function. She went limp. The head wound came from the murderer panicking, striking her head either accidentally or purposefully.
His evidence for that is the small amount of blood in the serious head wound. To him, if a head wound like that were sustained when her heart was still functioning normally there would be a lot of blood. As it was, there was very little...I think it was characterized as a tablespoon full of blood. It suggested to him that she was almost dead when her head wound occured.

I've never heard a good dispute of that blood evidence.
I have heard people saying the sex game didn't fit the "typical" freak of pedophiles. That's not really a compelling argument to me.

One thing Wecht did note was how carefully the coroner examined and recorded the neck ligatures. He didn't see the point of it so he was intrigued.

Despite his problems and a few cases I didn't agree with him on, I respect him more than Lee. I read Lee's book on the Simpson case and lost all respect for him.

Someone threatened to sue you? Now that is just not right.

Fortunately I was never personally threatened but this person often threatened people who spoke out against the Ramseys and their story with a communication from their lawyer Lin Wood. I was careful to keep to the facts if our paths crossed.

To my knowledge, no one was sued regardless of the threats.
 
It's been discussed. There are of course various opinions.

The thing is, imo, the garrotte doesn't function well for erotic asphyxiation games. It should tighten and loosen very easily. This one didn't loosen easily. Once it was pulled, it stayed in place until someone used both hands to loosen it.

Of course the garrotte found on her neck at autopsy isn't necessarily what was used to strangle her. There are some who think there was a prior strangulation. You'll have to ask them for their reasons, I don't think there were two, just one. I don't think it was an EA game, as Dr. Wecht does. But I have to pay attention to Wecht's theory, he's no dummy.

I think more than anything his book verified two points that were so obvious to me 1) this was a family murder and 2) there was a pattern of sexual abuse.
 

It would have taken me days to find those threads.

I can't say I was bowled over by the conclusions on the forums. Like most cases these days there are too many forensic expert voices and people pick the expert who best fits their pet theory. Not that I'm criticizing but I find common sense is often out the door. I remember one such case in the Darlie Routier discussions where a person said that the arm bruises were probably caused by someone kneeling on her arms because they had bruises similar in a similar situation. And suddenly that became the template for the people that thought she was wrongfully convicted. Problem was, they didn't really think through the evidence in the case versus personal, mostly unrelated, experience.

For full disclosure purposes I will say right now I do not respect Dr. Henry Lee's opinions or conclusions in any case where he is being paid. His opinion, in my opinion, is too heavily influenced by who is paying for his expertise. I have disagreed with Wecht on many occasions but have found he is more sound and less influenced by money than Lee. Dr. Spitz is sound but I disagree with him more than I do with Wecht. He, too, does not appear to be influenced by money.

I lean more toward Wecht in this case not because I like or agree with him more but because I think his conclusions more align with the overall feel (for lack of a better term) of the case.
I pretty much know the Darlie Routier case inside and out. I used to love when people would come to the forums and challenge the majority consensus so we could dust off our facts and argue a compelling case. I hope you guys like that too because I am going to give you just that opportunity...but I'll start another thread :seeya:
 
It would have taken me days to find those threads.

I can't say I was bowled over by the conclusions on the forums. Like most cases these days there are too many forensic expert voices and people pick the expert who best fits their pet theory. Not that I'm criticizing but I find common sense is often out the door. I remember one such case in the Darlie Routier discussions where a person said that the arm bruises were probably caused by someone kneeling on her arms because they had bruises similar in a similar situation. And suddenly that became the template for the people that thought she was wrongfully convicted. Problem was, they didn't really think through the evidence in the case versus personal, mostly unrelated, experience.

For full disclosure purposes I will say right now I do not respect Dr. Henry Lee's opinions or conclusions in any case where he is being paid. His opinion, in my opinion, is too heavily influenced by who is paying for his expertise. I have disagreed with Wecht on many occasions but have found he is more sound and less influenced by money than Lee. Dr. Spitz is sound but I disagree with him more than I do with Wecht. He, too, does not appear to be influenced by money.

I lean more toward Wecht in this case not because I like or agree with him more but because I think his conclusions more align with the overall feel (for lack of a better term) of the case.
I pretty much know the Darlie Routier case inside and out. I used to love when people would come to the forums and challenge the majority consensus so we could dust off our facts and argue a compelling case. I hope you guys like that too because I am going to give you just that opportunity...but I'll start another thread :seeya:

2 percent,
I agree with you here. Although I think Wecht arrived at the wrong conclusion, it was understandable given the times and constraints etc.

Wecht realized something many had missed, but interpreted it in a manner which was inconsistent with the forensic evidence.

He may have been playing to the crowd, who knows?


.
 
I may have to pick this book up. I have to tell you Cyril wechts opinion carries weight with me.

I believe that she could have been abused. But I don't believe that means family. I think and have always thought it was someone close to the Ramsey's.
 
I may have to pick this book up. I have to tell you Cyril wechts opinion carries weight with me.

I believe that she could have been abused. But I don't believe that means family. I think and have always thought it was someone close to the Ramsey's.

I'm sure you know that when a child that age is murdered LE look very closely at those closest to the child. This is mostly because a child's social circle is pretty small and those close enough to be able to successfully molest and kill the child in her own home is a very small circle indeed.

I think your main stumbling block to the "someone close" theory will be that most if not all of the people that fit this definition have been scrutinized very closely. Whereas the people in that house that night have never been cleared in an unbiased way.

I just have a hard time believing a person outside the house would be so desperate to be with JB that they would risk so much. Like I said in another post, this intruder would have had to break into a house on Christmas night not knowing if a neighbor would suddenly come home and catch them. The intruder would have to invade her comfort zone, invade her room without a peep from JB. After the sex game went awry that same intruder would have to hang around, write a note, etc when s/he could just run away. To me, it doesn't make sense. The only people who would be interested in sanitizing that house is the people in it...and they wouldn't do it for an intruder.

The book is called "Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?". It's a very interesting read.
 
I think there are still way too many possibilities to just settle on immediate family.
I don't believe it was a sex game I believe it was torture.

I also believe that the timing makes it less likely to be a family member. Christmas night.

The more I read without slant or influence I still feel firm it was not a primary Family member.

I have many scenarios that work for me. But alas no proof. But in the absence of positive proof of a parent or sibling I will not point fingers at them.
 
I asked a few questions at a conference years back (I have a medical background) re: JBR's repetitive urinary tract infections and correlation or significance towards molestation as the causative factor (digital or otherwise) and liked W*cht's answer much better than L*e's.

My question then lead into a heated debate between the two of them.

moo
 
I think there are still way too many possibilities to just settle on immediate family.
I don't believe it was a sex game I believe it was torture.

I also believe that the timing makes it less likely to be a family member. Christmas night.

The more I read without slant or influence I still feel firm it was not a primary Family member.

I have many scenarios that work for me. But alas no proof. But in the absence of positive proof of a parent or sibling I will not point fingers at them.

Scarlett----in the case of molestation, proof positive is ever so elusive. Many times the damage is done long before rumors even start to arise, if they ever do. Some take the molestation to their grave. I'm just saying that like all "bedroom crimes"....looking for "proof positive" will leave many guilty people walking---(like CA and the murder of her tot).

moo
 
Scarlett----in the case of molestation, proof positive is ever so elusive. Many times the damage is done long before rumors even start to arise, if they ever do. Some take the molestation to their grave. I'm just saying that like all "bedroom crimes"....looking for "proof positive" will leave many guilty people walking---(like CA and the murder of her tot).

moo

To me, If you are going to accuse a family member of abusing a child you better have proof. Lots of it and solid proof. It is just too serious a crime to guess at or speculate about.
I have seen many people accused wrongly in the last 20 years and I just won't go there.

I firmly still believe the Ramseys had nothing to do with Jon Benet's death. I am in the minority but until I see proof, I won't believe it. I do plan to get Cyril Wechts book soon and read it.

But I don't apply speculation to cases.. I think about the source and then I look to see where they are coming from, But it has to be evidence that leads the case for me.
 
To me, If you are going to accuse a family member of abusing a child you better have proof. Lots of it and solid proof. It is just too serious a crime to guess at or speculate about.
I have seen many people accused wrongly in the last 20 years and I just won't go there.

I firmly still believe the Ramseys had nothing to do with Jon Benet's death. I am in the minority but until I see proof, I won't believe it. I do plan to get Cyril Wechts book soon and read it.

But I don't apply speculation to cases.. I think about the source and then I look to see where they are coming from, But it has to be evidence that leads the case for me.
No one here has “accused” anyone of abusing a child. This is a discussion forum. We discuss theories, and express our opinions. We agree and disagree with one another from time to time. We try to connect the dots and fill in the blanks because we don’t have access to all the evidence that the authorities do simply because even with that evidence -- they apparently haven’t. If you want to call that guessing and speculating and not participate, that’s fine, but don’t condemn others for doing what the forum is here for. Your opinion that “the R’s had nothing to do with Jon Benet's death”, while the minority opinion here, is just as valid as any other. But if you expect that there will ever be any “solid proof” of someone, you will only be disappointed. The DNA won’t do it, and there will never be a confession (unless you want to put your hopes on another fruitcake like Karr).
 
It was Wecht's explanation that made me tend to believe strangulation came first.
And maybe he was right re sex game gone wrong BUT IMO the garotte had nothing to do with it.(the actual sex game/molestation)
 
Can someone pls remind me,
why where the cops so interested in JR's scarf?I forgot...
 
To me, If you are going to accuse a family member of abusing a child you better have proof. Lots of it and solid proof. It is just too serious a crime to guess at or speculate about.
I have seen many people accused wrongly in the last 20 years and I just won't go there.

I firmly still believe the Ramseys had nothing to do with Jon Benet's death. I am in the minority but until I see proof, I won't believe it. I do plan to get Cyril Wechts book soon and read it.

But I don't apply speculation to cases.. I think about the source and then I look to see where they are coming from, But it has to be evidence that leads the case for me.

The child (JBR) is dead with evidence of sexual assault and prior medical history of repetitive UTI's in the genital region. She also had reported issues with bed-wetting and defecation. Simple to connect the dots that something wasn't right here. No accusations-----to a particular person causing this but we must as a society look at the facts and make determinations if we are ever to solve a crime or prevent the next victimization. And it is our duty to society to protect the innocent.

We can choose to be deductive or inductive thinkers but it all comes down to *hypothesis* in the end. To wait and solely rely on DNA or surveillance evidence may leave you empty-handed in many a case.

To solve a case, we need to apply all of the tools that we have and reasoning skills is one of them. I'm glad when I see detectives, researchers, and scientists use them.

An odds-maker (and actuarials) use skills like this: she died in the house----what are the odds after inputting data into the computer, and they apply what the chances were that there was an intruder--->and I bet those odds are low that an intruder entered (when kidnapping is not involved and where there is sexual molestation involved) versus the other odds. Just sayin'.

moo
 
That does not mean it was more than that..Many kids have bathroom issues.. So that does not mean much to me. The fact that she had frequent UTI's, not much either because I also had a friend who had this growing up. No sexual abuse.

So while it can be linked to sexual abuse it does not mean it IS in fact sexual abuse. IT is still a question.. I will read Cyril Wechts book and look at his information.

While I know that you believe the chances are low that it was an intruder. The possibility is there. Yes you apply reason but that should not take the place of evidence and proof.

We don't just surmise people do things and convict them. We need fact, connection and proof that they were involved in the crime. There is none in this case. If there was, PR and JR would have been indicted and tried. They were not..


I don't convict people on gut instinct or reasoning. To me people have to be proved guilty. If you are going to charge and convict someone with the sexual abuse and murder of their family member, You have to prove it to me.

I have never seen a clear case against the Ramseys. I see maybe, could, perhaps, possibly.

That won't get me there.
 
It would have taken me days to find those threads.

I can't say I was bowled over by the conclusions on the forums. Like most cases these days there are too many forensic expert voices and people pick the expert who best fits their pet theory. Not that I'm criticizing but I find common sense is often out the door. I remember one such case in the Darlie Routier discussions where a person said that the arm bruises were probably caused by someone kneeling on her arms because they had bruises similar in a similar situation. And suddenly that became the template for the people that thought she was wrongfully convicted. Problem was, they didn't really think through the evidence in the case versus personal, mostly unrelated, experience.

For full disclosure purposes I will say right now I do not respect Dr. Henry Lee's opinions or conclusions in any case where he is being paid. His opinion, in my opinion, is too heavily influenced by who is paying for his expertise. I have disagreed with Wecht on many occasions but have found he is more sound and less influenced by money than Lee. Dr. Spitz is sound but I disagree with him more than I do with Wecht. He, too, does not appear to be influenced by money.

I lean more toward Wecht in this case not because I like or agree with him more but because I think his conclusions more align with the overall feel (for lack of a better term) of the case.
I pretty much know the Darlie Routier case inside and out. I used to love when people would come to the forums and challenge the majority consensus so we could dust off our facts and argue a compelling case. I hope you guys like that too because I am going to give you just that opportunity...but I'll start another thread :seeya:
You are right that there are a lot of so-called experts’ opinions, and that people tend to “pick the expert who best fits their pet theory”. And there is so much disagreement even amongst these “experts”. I believe the experts do the same thing in picking the evidence that fits in with the opinion they’ve formed.

For instance, Dr. Wecht was (I think) the first to come out publicly to state what most people seem to now accept -- that JonBenet had been sexually abused just prior to her death as well as in some period of time leading up to it. But he also said that the bleeding in her brain was limited to only 1-1/2 teaspoons. That amount was the only quantitative amount recorded in the AR, but there was much more bleeding than just that. There were three separate and distinct areas of bleeding described by Dr. Meyer, but only the one where he estimated an amount. I went into a little more detail about this in a post [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9566550#post9566550"]here[/ame] if you care to read. But Wecht’s conclusion from what he saw was that because of the “little amount” of blood, she was bludgeoned after she had been strangled, and therefore the strangulation was part of a “sex game gone awry” scenario.

Another so-called expert, Dr. Spitz, claimed access to special inside information that led him to conclude that the weapon that struck her head was a Maglite. But his “inside information” was since proven to be wrong when some of the autopsy photos were leaked.

So take anything you read from any of the “experts” with a grain of salt. Don’t take their word on any of it, but listen to what they have to say. Draw your own conclusions based on what makes sense to you, and then tell us about it so we can all discuss it.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
2,344
Total visitors
2,523

Forum statistics

Threads
589,969
Messages
17,928,514
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top