Wecht vs. Lee

shiloh · Jul 12, 2006

Until very recently, I was under the impression that the chain of events in this case could be deduced from the autopsy report. Dr. Wecht (yes, Wecht) feels that JBR's death occurred as a result of strangulation during a sexual assault, and that the blow to her head came after that, at a point when she was already dead or dying, and states that it could not have happened otherwise, and he explains the reasoning for his conclusions. If his deduction is correct, then ST's theory is wrong, but it would support either the JDI or BDI theories, Singular's viewpoint, as well as a different PDI theory (and a weird one at that).

Without having read the book, my assumption is that Dr. Lee feels that JBR appeared to be dead from the head blow, and that she was alive (but appeared to be dead) while being sexually assaulted, and that strangulation was the actual cause of death. Is this a correct synopsis?

If he feels that she was dead while being sexually assaulted, that would definitely support ST's theory, but I don't know how he could come to that conclusion based on the autopsy report. But I'm surprised he believes the head blow occurred first, considering the very small size of the hematoma.

Does he state how he came to the conclusion that the head blow occurred first, and is this based on the findings in the autopsy report?

Does he explain how she could be alive when struck and yet the hematoma be so small?

Does he give an opinion of what she may have been struck with?

Does he mention anything at all about the maximum amount of time between the head blow and the strangulation and/or sexual assault, and whether he believes that she was alive at the time when she was sexually assaulted?

-- Just trying to make sense of it all.

BBB167893 · Jul 13, 2006

shiloh said:
Until very recently, I was under the impression that the chain of events in this case could be deduced from the autopsy report. Dr. Wecht (yes, Wecht) feels that JBR's death occurred as a result of strangulation during a sexual assault, and that the blow to her head came after that, at a point when she was already dead or dying, and states that it could not have happened otherwise, and he explains the reasoning for his conclusions. If his deduction is correct, then ST's theory is wrong, but it would support either the JDI or BDI theories, Singular's viewpoint, as well as a different PDI theory (and a weird one at that).

Without having read the book, my assumption is that Dr. Lee feels that JBR appeared to be dead from the head blow, and that she was alive (but appeared to be dead) while being sexually assaulted, and that strangulation was the actual cause of death. Is this a correct synopsis?

If he feels that she was dead while being sexually assaulted, that would definitely support ST's theory, but I don't know how he could come to that conclusion based on the autopsy report. But I'm surprised he believes the head blow occurred first, considering the very small size of the hematoma.

Does he state how he came to the conclusion that the head blow occurred first, and is this based on the findings in the autopsy report?

Does he explain how she could be alive when struck and yet the hematoma be so small?

Does he give an opinion of what she may have been struck with?

Does he mention anything at all about the maximum amount of time between the head blow and the strangulation and/or sexual assault, and whether he believes that she was alive at the time when she was sexually assaulted?

-- Just trying to make sense of it all.

I'm afraid I don't know what's in Lee's mind, shiloh, but I do know that Werner Spitz is very clear the head blow came first, and what did it. Ronald Wright said that there could have been an HOUR between her being hit and being strangled. Don't forget: the brain was swollen. That takes a lot of time, which does suggest the head blow came first.

Solace · Jul 13, 2006

SuperDave said:
I'm afraid I don't know what's in Lee's mind, shiloh, but I do know that Werner Spitz is very clear the head blow came first, and what did it. Ronald Wright said that there could have been an HOUR between her being hit and being strangled. Don't forget: the brain was swollen. That takes a lot of time, which does suggest the head blow came first.

SuperDave: I always believed ST's theory that the blow came first but I read Wecht's book also and he says there is not enough blood for that kind of a blow to have happened first; that it had to happen when she was near death and the blood flow slowed considerably. Can anyone help with this. This is one of the first times I have seen it brought up and I am very interested in what everyone has to say.

And then you have ST saying there was massive hemmorhaging. So help me, please?

BBB167893 · Jul 13, 2006

Solace said:
SuperDave: I always believed ST's theory that the blow came first but I read Wecht's book also and he says there is not enough blood for that kind of a blow to have happened first; that it had to happen when she was near death and the blood flow slowed considerably. Can anyone help with this. This is one of the first times I have seen it brought up and I am very interested in what everyone has to say.

And then you have ST saying there was massive hemmorhaging. So help me, please?

He was correct, Solace; there were three separate areas of bleeding, plus a huge bruise and brain-swelling. But Wecht is only one of several pathologists to say it was last. Spitz is one of several to say first.

Solace · Jul 13, 2006

SuperDave said:
He was correct, Solace; there were three separate areas of bleeding, plus a huge bruise and brain-swelling. But Wecht is only one of several pathologists to say it was last. Spitz is one of several to say first.

So you are saying ST is correct or Wecht is correct. Wecht specifically says there was no more than a few tablespoons of blood. If you are saying Steve Thomas and there was massive hemmorhaging, that is not in the autopsy, is it. Not disbelieving you. I just happen to believe that Patsy lost control and hit her first. After you answer this, I have another one for you. Thanks Dave

BBB167893 · Jul 13, 2006

Solace said:
So you are saying ST is correct or Wecht is correct. Wecht specifically says there was no more than a few tablespoons of blood. If you are saying Steve Thomas and there was massive hemmorhaging, that is not in the autopsy, is it. Not disbelieving you. I just happen to believe that Patsy lost control and hit her first. After you answer this, I have another one for you. Thanks Dave

It's a tough call, Solace! But there's a professor of neurology in my area. he said she'd have to be hit first for the brain to swell. I asked him. So that seems to lend creedence to our belief: it happened first.

Ask away!

shiloh · Jul 13, 2006

Solace said:
So you are saying ST is correct or Wecht is correct. Wecht specifically says there was no more than a few tablespoons of blood. If you are saying Steve Thomas and there was massive hemmorhaging, that is not in the autopsy, is it. Not disbelieving you. I just happen to believe that Patsy lost control and hit her first. After you answer this, I have another one for you. Thanks Dave

The hemorrhaging is different from the subdural hematoma. The hemorrhaging was 7 x 4 inches, I believe, and it was the subdural hematoma which was only the size of about 2 teaspoons, which he says is the simply amount that would be present in her capillaries and would have leaked out as a result of breaking, and he uses that as the basis of his opinion that her heart was not beating at the time she was struck, because otherwise it would have been much larger, as they usually are.

BBB167893 · Jul 13, 2006

shiloh said:
The hemorrhaging is different from the subdural hematoma. The hemorrhaging was 7 x 4 inches, I believe, and it was the subdural hematoma which was only the size of about 2 teaspoons, which he says is the simply amount that would be present in her capillaries and would have leaked out as a result of breaking, and he uses that as the basis of his opinion that her heart was not beating at the time she was struck, because otherwise it would have been much larger, as they usually are.

shiloh, I'm going to double-check that.

Solace · Jul 13, 2006

shiloh said:
The hemorrhaging is different from the subdural hematoma. The hemorrhaging was 7 x 4 inches, I believe, and it was the subdural hematoma which was only the size of about 2 teaspoons, which he says is the simply amount that would be present in her capillaries and would have leaked out as a result of breaking, and he uses that as the basis of his opinion that her heart was not beating at the time she was struck, because otherwise it would have been much larger, as they usually are.

So what do you think. Do you think there was enough hemmorrhaging to be called "massive bleeding" and if so, why would Wecht ignore this?
I need a cigarette.

Solace · Jul 13, 2006

SuperDave said:
It's a tough call, Solace! But there's a professor of neurology in my area. he said she'd have to be hit first for the brain to swell. I asked him. So that seems to lend creedence to our belief: it happened first.

Ask away!

Ohhhhhhhhhh, I just read this part about the brian swelling.

I am more inclined to believe that she was hit first in a rage. But it is very hard for me to see Patsy picking up that flashlight and banging her across the head. Do you think it is possible that she hit her head against the bathtub????

BBB167893 · Jul 13, 2006

Solace said:
Ohhhhhhhhhh, I just read this part about the brian swelling.

I am more inclined to believe that she was hit first in a rage. But it is very hard for me to see Patsy picking up that flashlight and banging her across the head. Do you think it is possible that she hit her head against the bathtub????

Now, you're talking! Okay, here goes: JB's brain had TWO areas of bruising: one at the fracture point, on on the opposite side. A coup head injury is where the head is struck. A contre-coup head injury is when the head itself strikes. Now, this opposite bruise suggests to me that her brain bounced back and into the opposite side of the head. That would seem to show that it was a case of her head striking something. But that's just my outlook.

Britt · Jul 13, 2006

Solace said:
SuperDave: I always believed ST's theory that the blow came first but I read Wecht's book also and he says there is not enough blood for that kind of a blow to have happened first; that it had to happen when she was near death and the blood flow slowed considerably. Can anyone help with this. This is one of the first times I have seen it brought up and I am very interested in what everyone has to say.

Actually, Thomas follows Dr. Spitz's theory: manual strangulation (i.e. gripping shirt around neck) followed by head blow followed by garrote strangulation.

The experts don't disagree on the physical stuff, only on their various theories about who did what, e.g. sex game versus enraged Patsy.

Physically, they are all describing the same thing: a strangulation that slowed blood flow, or could have slowed blood flow, and/or caused a vagal nerve response which slowed bodily functions to a near-death point, followed by a head blow, and then death by strangulation.

From everything I've read, the experts are all saying the same thing: strangled - head blow - strangled to death.

Solace · Jul 13, 2006

Britt said:
Actually, Thomas follows Dr. Spitz's theory: manual strangulation (i.e. gripping shirt around neck) followed by head blow followed by garrote strangulation.

The experts don't disagree on the physical stuff, only on their various theories about who did what, e.g. sex game versus enraged Patsy.

Physically, they are all describing the same thing: a strangulation that slowed blood flow, or could have slowed blood flow, and/or caused a vagal nerve response which slowed bodily functions to a near-death point, followed by a head blow, and then death by strangulation.

From everything I've read, the experts are all saying the same thing: strangled - head blow - strangled to death.

I know they don't. But it is important because if she is hit first, it suggests rage and if strangled first, that is something else. I realize that there is a theory that there was a strangulation first (ST's book) and the knuckleprint was then left there. But some believe that the garrotting took place first. I don't believe that. Because if that is true, we are getting into some evil #$@. I think it was a rage killing out of control, not a premeditated sexual thing.

That is why it is important for me to understand why the amount of blood is what Wecht says.

Okay so back to the first strangulation. I have in my mind Patsy infuriated and grabbing JB by her neck and therein the imprint of the knuckle. I guess she could have gone unconscious from that and in her rage patsy knocks her against the bathtub? What do you think?

Also, another thing is this. Was it true that she wet the bed that night?

Britt · Jul 13, 2006

SuperDave said:
Now, you're talking! Okay, here goes: JB's brain had TWO areas of bruising: one at the fracture point, on on the opposite side. A coup head injury is where the head is struck. A contre-coup head injury is when the head itself strikes. Now, this opposite bruise suggests to me that her brain bounced back and into the opposite side of the head. That would seem to show that it was a case of her head striking something. But that's just my outlook.

This is "shaken baby syndrome," isn't it? So it could have been caused by the perp grabbing JB, say by the neck, and shaking her ?

Solace, if the perp grabbed JB by the neck hard enough to strangle her, that certainly suggests a rage attack IMO.

Britt · Jul 13, 2006

Solace said:
Okay so back to the first strangulation. I have in my mind Patsy infuriated and grabbing JB by her neck and therein the imprint of the knuckle. I guess she could have gone unconscious from that and in her rage patsy knocks her against the bathtub? What do you think?

That's basically what I think, too... though I think she may have had the flashlight in her left hand while grabbing/shaking/choking JB with her right, and hit her with the flashlight.

Also, another thing is this. Was it true that she wet the bed that night?

They found evidence of urine stains on the sheets, but I don't know if they could tell when they happened ?

Were JonBenet's sheets urine-stained? Sources from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation say they were.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25700,00.html

They also found JB's jeans on the bathroom floor, inside out, with feces mess still on them. IMO, that could be the toileting issue here.

Nuisanceposter · Jul 13, 2006

I'm pretty sure the panties and long underwear she was found dressed in were urine-stained.

Cypros · Jul 14, 2006

Britt said:
They also found JB's jeans on the bathroom floor, inside out, with feces mess still on them. IMO, that could be the toileting issue here.

Did JB wear jeans at all on Christmas day? If not, when was the last time she is reported to have worn jeans?

LinasK · Jul 14, 2006

Britt said:
This is "shaken baby syndrome," isn't it? So it could have been caused by the perp grabbing JB, say by the neck, and shaking her ?

Britt, you are correct in that a contra-coup injury is what happens in shaken baby syndrome- the brain is reverberating against the inside of the skull bones to be exact, but you can also see this in car accidents and other closed head injuries. If the force of a blow to her head were hard enough (i.e she bounced off the ground), you might still see a contra-coup type of brain injury.

Solace · Jul 14, 2006

Britt said:
That's basically what I think, too... though I think she may have had the flashlight in her left hand while grabbing/shaking/choking JB with her right, and hit her with the flashlight.

They found evidence of urine stains on the sheets, but I don't know if they could tell when they happened ?

Were JonBenet's sheets urine-stained? Sources from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation say they were.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25700,00.html

They also found JB's jeans on the bathroom floor, inside out, with feces mess still on them. IMO, that could be the toileting issue here.

You see, this is why you guys are great. Where did you hear that about the jeans? Don't tell me I missed this in ST's book? It is serious information. This is the first time I have heard this.

BBB167893 · Jul 14, 2006

"They also found JB's jeans on the bathroom floor, inside out, with feces mess still on them. IMO, that could be the toileting issue here."

Now that's news to me! If true, it might shed some light on this. Some people say Patsy wouldn't have flipped over it, she was used to it, blah-blah-blah, but this was way beyond a peed bed. This kid was soiling herself at six-years-old!

"This is "shaken baby syndrome," isn't it? So it could have been caused by the perp grabbing JB, say by the neck, and shaking her ?"

Or, if someone were trying to shake her awake...

"Okay so back to the first strangulation. I have in my mind Patsy infuriated and grabbing JB by her neck and therein the imprint of the knuckle. I guess she could have gone unconscious from that and in her rage patsy knocks her against the bathtub? What do you think?"

Well, if she's enraged enough, when JB slumps in her grip, her first reaction is going to be something along the lines of "you little faker!" So, yeah, that could have happened.

Spitz was sure about one thing: the garrote was staging. But I've never really given this "first strangulation" business a second thought. If so, it might explain the NEED for another strangulation: hiding (at least confusing) the marks.

Wecht vs. Lee

New Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Remembering Little Miss Christmas

Well-Known Member

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case

New Member

Former Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics