EA

Hello. When it comes to the faux garrote, there has always been much talk of erotic asphyxiation. Personally, I don't believe that EA had anything to do with this crime. Some reasons:

1 Erotic asphyxiation is often called autoerotic asphyxiation for a reason. It is done for one's own pleasure. How often do we find someone who derives pleasure from witnessing or assisting someone else perform EA?

2 The whole point of EA is to augment orgasm by oxygen derivation. So the point of attempting this with a six year old is what?

3 Two of the three usual suspects, (my favorite two), are not post pubescent males, who account for the majority of EA instances.

4 The device left around JBR's neck is very poorly designed if it was to be intended as an EA device imo.

5 I believe that important items were likely removed from the scene. I surely believe that if the so called garrote was an actual EA device, that it would have been removed as well.

6 EA often comes from JDI's. Where are the people coming out over the years saying - "yeah, when I dated him he was into that". Not a single one to my knowledge.

Imo, there is really nothing at all that supports EA.

I agree; and feel the garrote was a sign of hatred toward JBR. Plus it was her own mothers paint brush handle. Only someone in the home would have had access to that or would have known where to get that...there was no break in. So.

I don't think its auto-erotic asphyxiation either. I think the ropes are a part of the "corporal cleansing" procedure Patsy used. Steve Thomas mentions in his book that he believes Patsy subjected JonBenet to "corporal cleansing" but he doesn't define what he meant by that. However, imo, he means that Patsy, in a rage, while cleansing JonBenet, caused the blunt force trauma to JonBenet's skull. So by inference I think JonBenet was restrained using the ropes.

This may seem weird, but I was wondering if it would at all be possible that the garrotte had been used as a 'leash'? I have no idea if this would be feasible or not given the construct, but I am just putting it out there.

If JBR was 'acting up' as alot of kids do after long, busy, exciting, days - perhaps PR and/or JR used this as somewhat of a control device? Hooking it around her neck and possibly leading JBR to the WC which might be used as a 'time out' chamber? On the way down there, she acted out/screamed/cried and someone grabbed a golf club and whacked her?

I realize that this sounds out there, so please be gentle - but its something that has been in my mind because the garrotte as an EA or as a strangulation device doesn't reconcile in my mind. As far as a 'time out chamber' - we certainly have heard about this type of thing in other cases, and the R's - IMO, are not above anything given the dsyfunction going on in that house.

All MOO, of course

Welcome CCKP. Imo, it isn't "out there" to consider the leash angle. Somewhere in one of the books on this case Patsy mentioned that JonBenet and Burke sometimes played "doggies" and, iirc, JonBenet might wear a leash while Burke pretended to lead her around. I may have read this in "Death of Innocence" by John and Patsy Ramsey. If not that book then it was "JonBenet. Inside the Murder Investigation" by Steve Thomas or "Perfect Murder. Perfect Town," by Schiller. It's been so many years that I almost didn't post this because I don't want to mislead due to my poor memory.

I've considered EA playing a role, and to me it makes sense only in BDI theory.

I believe Burke was probably sexually abused, but I won't speculate by whom, I have no idea. Anyway, as you stated, EA is for the gratification of the one being asphyxiated. So I've considered what if Burke's abuser had taught Burke to choke him. The reason being, if the abuser, during the abuse, had one hand on himself and the other hand on Burke, how's he going to choke himself (assuming that's his thing)? So just teach Burke to do it, right?

Simply use the length of cord, without the brush handle so there is no freaky sex toy to be found by anyone who may stumble across it while doing any number of activities in their little play room, only an uninteresting piece of cord. How would he teach him? I assume just tell him, "here, wrap this around my neck like this and keep pulling it tighter until I nod at you"..."yeah, people like this, it's fun"...

Christmas night when Burke is playing doctor or whatever he may have been doing with JBR after coaxing her out of bed by promising to get her favorite snack for her, which he does, he says "hey, try this, people like it." He doesn't tell her to nod and she doesn't know to. He pulls too tight, explaining the first marks on her neck, and limits the blood flow to her brain, causing her to pass out. Once he realizes she's passed out, and won't answer him when he talks to her, he shakes her. She doesn't come to. He gets a little scared. He sees the hammer, decides that will wake her up. He swings the hammer entirely too hard, causing the head trauma. She goes into a seizure from the head trauma, convulsing and puking. The 9-year-old tears out of there, running back up to his room in an attempt to pretend to be asleep. Mom, still awake and packing, hears him and decides to investigate. These kids need to be sleeping, not up playing with their toys, we have an early flight tomorrow. She goes to the kids rooms. "Burke, where's your sister?" He pretends to sleep, not answering her. "Young man, I know you're awake, now tell me where JonBenet is." He rolls over, trying to appear sleepy-eyed. "I dunno, I think she went downstairs." Patsy looks at him, skeptically "You think, or you know?" He realizes he'd better tell, but doesn't want to get into trouble. "We went downstairs and we were playing in the basement and she started tying a rope around her neck and I told her to stop but she wouldn't, then she got sick and puked." "Where is she now Burke?" "Still down there". Patsy hurries down the stairs, Burke following. The scream reported by the neighbor is made by Patsy when she sees the little girl's body.

Sorry, I can get long-winded...anyway, that's pretty much my line of thinking at this point

FreeSafety36 said:

He sees the hammer, decides that will wake her up. He swings the hammer entirely too hard, causing the head trauma.

Click to expand...

Your BDI narrative makes sense except for the part above. It's hard to believe someone at that age would mistakenly hit her so hard as to cause a fatal injury.

CircuitGuy said:

Your BDI narrative makes sense except for the part above. It's hard to believe someone at that age would mistakenly hit her so hard as to cause a fatal injury.

Click to expand...

I did think about that, and it could be that he hit her more than once. Could've hit her lightly the first time, or pinched her and got more scared when she didn't come to. Then he could've decided he needed to hit her hard enough to make her cry. Nine-year-old thinking, "that's what they do to babies, right? Make them cry? I need to make her cry." I'm thinking a nine-year-old wouldn't consider that a blow that hard could cause that kind of damage to her skull.

Of course, it could also be that I'm way off. Thanks for the reply.

Im not sure that a child with rad, or simply a lack of conscience for whatever reason, would care how hard he swung a weapon into his victim's skull. There seems to be a disconnect behind the reasoning that i just dont quite get-- yet no doubt whatsoever that the violence from these children is usually really big overkill.

I dont think its because they "dont know their own strength"; they arent any less intelligent than other children. On the surface it just looks to me like they want to go to the furthest extreme that they possibly can, ie hit the hardest or find the... most unthinkable thing they can think of and then .. do it

I can understand not feeling attached to other people. I can understand being full of anger and wanting to hurt the object of their rage and then doing so spontaneously & within somewhat normal range. And i can certainly also understand employing violent techniques that have already been done to you yourself, and not having to think much about it when you strike-- it would come spontaneously, or at least appear so (when actually its been simmering in your soul though you may be unaware)... I know these things get reported but i cant help but point out that it's probably not as often as we are sometimes led to believe. i think its quite possible that mis-reportings or wrong analysis goes from one person to another and eventually honest smart people take it in as the truth.

Thats why imo you must always start from a skeptical, believe-in-innocence stance BUT (& this is a HUGE but!) if you do that, you have the further obligation to do your own research using original sourcework, and THEN you go where the evidence leads you.

So everything the OP said here I totally agreed with.. until the hammer part.

BUT: i was very happy to read everything else that was said. Its part of my own BDI. Only my theory had no Patsy involvement; I opined that part of getting his sister to go down to the cold dank basement which she hated was her brother saying (around the pineapple breakfast bar): Here! Take mom's sweater, it'll keep you warm...

This fiber-shedding sweater was taken from wherever P had laid it when they'd gotten home. Clothes were starting to become important to JB and this particular garment was (ok could have been) especially so. Afterall, her mother had only gotten it after admiring the same exact sweater on another woman...

So jb put it on, went down with br to wait for Santa's secret visit with a tummy full of a favorite snack and her brother acting kindly and loving towards her........ .... ....... Then once everything was done, the fibers were so prevelent in the evidence because that is what cold dank air does: It tends to stay low to the floor in a sort-of cloud....

(Sorry, cant just edit with the way Im posting) I should have written that thats what FIBERS would do in a cold dank basement.

So embarrassing pretend not to notice!

CCK, its your scenario of playing dogs with leashes that I so agreed with. i think the children played that alot when they were younger and so JB had fond memories of that and was happy to accomodate her brother the night of her death. He was being nice to her again! What loving sister would begrudge benefit of doubt?

And FreeSafety, your vision of burke poking her with escalating force & intrusion, ie train tracks, paint handles... Yes. To me that fits what happened better than starting out directly with a skull-splitting weapon. I dont doubt, however, that thats where it ended up, & that by THAT point, there was malice and intent involved.

Thats just me and Im no expert. Heck, Im lucky if i can just get my thoughts actually posted!

renah said:

So everything the OP said here I totally agreed with.. until the hammer part.

Click to expand...

Just for the record, I made no mention of a hammer. That was another poster.
Personally, based on the skull damage, I have no reason to believe that it was caused by a hammer. Or a flashlight, baseball bat, or golf club for that matter.

Sometime, proponents of EA suggest that the device was fashioned in the past, and used on previous occasions.
However it is reported to have had JBR's hair entwined in the knots. Even the knot at the paintbrush handle. So was it a device made at leisure in the past in anticipation of abuse - or is it something made that night in the heat of the moment?

I say neither. It was either an old TOY that was used as a leash in their game, or a facsimile of same that was fashioned that night.

Also i guess my apology wasnt nearly specific enough. I Am sorry and hope the hammer doesnt get attributted to you, W.

FreeSafety36 said:

I did think about that, and it could be that he hit her more than once. Could've hit her lightly the first time, or pinched her and got more scared when she didn't come to. Then he could've decided he needed to hit her hard enough to make her cry. Nine-year-old thinking, "that's what they do to babies, right? Make them cry? I need to make her cry." I'm thinking a nine-year-old wouldn't consider that a blow that hard could cause that kind of damage to her skull.

Of course, it could also be that I'm way off. Thanks for the reply.

Click to expand...

You have some very cogent thoughts, FreeSafety, so don't let me (or anyone else) discourage you from posting or expressing them even if we disagree. Debate is healthy and makes us each consider things we may not have thought about -- or may have thought about but were too timid to post.

That said, I should point out that the evidence of skull and brain damage rules out the possibility of more than one blow unless any additional blow coincidentally fell in exactly the same spot as the first. I believe all the damage done to JonBenet's head were caused by one blow by an instrument shaped to cause an elliptical depressed fracture of the skull. The linear fractures extend from this "hole" and resulted from the forces created by the shape of this same object. Alternately, many believe it could have been from her head being pushed into something, but I'll let them make that argument. There are many threads and posts where this is discussed.

Welcome to WS.

wengr said:

Hello. When it comes to the faux garrote, there has always been much talk of erotic asphyxiation. Personally, I don't believe that EA had anything to do with this crime. Some reasons:

1 Erotic asphyxiation is often called autoerotic asphyxiation for a reason. It is done for one's own pleasure. How often do we find someone who derives pleasure from witnessing or assisting someone else perform EA?

2 The whole point of EA is to augment orgasm by oxygen derivation. So the point of attempting this with a six year old is what?

3 Two of the three usual suspects, (my favorite two), are not post pubescent males, who account for the majority of EA instances.

4 The device left around JBR's neck is very poorly designed if it was to be intended as an EA device imo.

5 I believe that important items were likely removed from the scene. I surely believe that if the so called garrote was an actual EA device, that it would have been removed as well.

6 EA often comes from JDI's. Where are the people coming out over the years saying - "yeah, when I dated him he was into that". Not a single one to my knowledge.

Imo, there is really nothing at all that supports EA.

Click to expand...

I agree totally with you on this, wengr, and really wish we could put the notion to rest once and for all. But we can't because new people keep picking up the ball and trying carry it, and others don't want to let go of their already formed opinions. I suppose that because of the fact that a ligature is involved, it's only natural to question the possibility. But that is where any similarities between JonBenet's death and EA end. In almost all cases of EA or AEA the device used is never a thin cord. Rather it is something broader and softer so as to leave no tell-tale marks on the person's neck.

Reported cases of accidental death from this averages about two per day. Of those, only about one out of a hundred involve a female. This fact in itself does not rule it out; but add to that the fact that almost all accidental deaths that are the result of this are because it was an individual performing it on himself (or herself in very rare cases) and their planned fail-safe means of escape doesn't work out well -- not because of one person performing it on another.

It's believed (but usually unprovable) that there may be more deaths from this than reported because embarrassed family members who discover it oftentimes try to remove or alter evidence before calling authorities. They prefer to have the death reported as a suicide rather than have it thought to be an accidental death while performing a self-indulging, kinky sex act.

You are correct also about the device found on JonBenet's neck being "very poorly designed" for this purpose. In fact, I'd go further and say it's not even functional for any purpose other than to disguise how the cord actually strangled her.

BOESP said:

I don't think its auto-erotic asphyxiation either. I think the ropes are a part of the "corporal cleansing" procedure Patsy used. Steve Thomas mentions in his book that he believes Patsy subjected JonBenet to "corporal cleansing" but he doesn't define what he meant by that. However, imo, he means that Patsy, in a rage, while cleansing JonBenet, caused the blunt force trauma to JonBenet's skull. So by inference I think JonBenet was restrained using the ropes.

Click to expand...

I have never heard of "corporal cleansing" before.
i am almost afriad to search it up on Google out of fear what might pop up.

IMO, I agree, it is not an EA device. That said, I’ve found this element of the ligature/garotte/leash really confusing. If someone fashioned it as a leash, points to either BR or PR, (BR as in a game which turned awful; PR as in a restraint in order to punish). If someone fashioned it for some kind of dark bondage enactment fantasy, then one might consider the adult male. The one thing I could add relies a little on Cyril Wecht and his theory of what happened. FWIW, his theory seems too out there because of what he thought about the strangulation coming first. But what he brought up about the vagus nerve was interesting and may have some applicability in this case. I’ll leave that to others to ponder, because IDK.

When I looked up information about the vagus nerve, there were things I didn’t know: 1) Great pain can cause a disruption to the signals from the vagus nerve and cause someone to faint. 2) When some individuals have vagus nerve damage, their body might have different symptoms which are rarely picked up on by a medical provider. One of the symptoms is incontinence, that the signals to urinate are not there in the same way. This all gave me pause to consider that if JB did have some vagus nerve injury already present, and she passed out from pain (before screaming), perhaps they could not bring her up out of it. And the rest of the damage to her was done. Maybe this thought is too crazy. It’s just another, probably remote, idea. moo

I think the 'garrote was made for the purpose it was used for-to kill JB. I have a theory, (a so-so one), that the killer couldn't bear to use his/her bare hands to 'finish' JB off, so he made the 'garrote' for a hands-off approach, as a way to distance himself from the actual murdering. I've never thought much of the EA theory, but who knows...nothing would surprise me. I know about that time, the 'choking game', made the news a lot, but that doesn't seem likely either, but again, who knows. The reports of prior abuse make just about anything possible. moo

questfortrue said:

IMO, I agree, it is not an EA device. That said, I’ve found this element of the ligature/garotte/leash really confusing. If someone fashioned it as a leash, points to either BR or PR, (BR as in a game which turned awful; PR as in a restraint in order to punish). If someone fashioned it for some kind of dark bondage enactment fantasy, then one might consider the adult male. The one thing I could add relies a little on Cyril Wecht and his theory of what happened. FWIW, his theory seems too out there because of what he thought about the strangulation coming first. But what he brought up about the vagus nerve was interesting and may have some applicability in this case. I’ll leave that to others to ponder, because IDK.

When I looked up information about the vagus nerve, there were things I didn’t know: 1) Great pain can cause a disruption to the signals from the vagus nerve and cause someone to faint. 2) When some individuals have vagus nerve damage, their body might have different symptoms which are rarely picked up on by a medical provider. One of the symptoms is incontinence, that the signals to urinate are not there in the same way. This all gave me pause to consider that if JB did have some vagus nerve injury already present, and she passed out from pain (before screaming), perhaps they could not bring her up out of it. And the rest of the damage to her was done. Maybe this thought is too crazy. It’s just another, probably remote, idea. moo

Click to expand...

Hi, QFT. Tell me something please. I'm sure you've seen autopsy photos of JonBenet's face (I'll assume everyone has in order to avoid having to post one). Would you describe the color of her face to be pale, red, normal, or blue? I know it's difficult to say with complete certainty because the color in the photos could be off. But each of these four possibilities (excluding livor mortis) points to something different as far as the mechanism of her death.