Wudge
New Member
A report has Karr saying that Jon Benet died of a chloroform overdose.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20169106-1702,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20169106-1702,00.html
Wow, Is there anyway they could have found that in her system or does that go unoticed?Wudge said:A report has Karr saying that Jon Benet died of a chlorform overdose.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20169106-1702,00.html
Wudge said:A report has Karr saying that Jon Benet died of a chlorform overdose.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20169106-1702,00.html
OK, does this mean that the autopsy report was wrong, and the garrotte around her neck had nothing to do with her death? And if this is what happened why did he strick her with an object after she was already dead?Wudge said:A report has Karr saying that Jon Benet died of a chlorform overdose.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20169106-1702,00.html
michelle said:Wow, Is there anyway they could have found that in her system or does that go unoticed?
It definitely would.Wudge said:I would think that an analyses of lung tissue would reveal the presence of chloroform.
michelle said:Wow, Is there anyway they could have found that in her system or does that go unoticed?
That answers my theory then. I would have guessed if he were mentally off he may have bludgeoned her "for dying". This would have been done in anger.cappuccina said:....acording to the autopsy, she was budgeoned first (with the flaslight), then strangled. The reason they could tell this is because bodies BLEED ONLY WHEN THEY ARE ALIVE...
If she were dead and then hit on the head, she would not have a subdural hematoma, or bleeding of the brain....give it up Wudge, alrighty?
Ceril Wecht (Sp?) the forensic doctor who wrote the book "Who Killed JonBenet" said today on Fox that there was only 1 and 1/2 teaspoons of blood and that the blow came post mortem. I do realize that there are other forensic people out there who have said the opposite of his comment. So there are two camps as to when the blow to the head actually came.cappuccina said:....acording to the autopsy, she was budgeoned first (with the flaslight), then strangled. The reason they could tell this is because bodies BLEED ONLY WHEN THEY ARE ALIVE...
If she were dead and then hit on the head, she would not have a subdural hematoma, or bleeding of the brain....give it up Wudge, alrighty?
The source of many of these controversial reports seems to be the same Thai official who previously told a Western journalist that he had not been present at interrogations. I'm waiting for the dust to settle....Wudge said:A report has Karr saying that Jon Benet died of a chloroform overdose.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20169106-1702,00.html
Here is the report:dragonfly707 said:Ceril Wecht (Sp?) the forensic doctor who wrote the book "Who Killed JonBenet" said today on Fox that there was only 1 and 1/2 teaspoons of blood and that the blow came post mortem. I do realize that there are other forensic people out there who have said the opposite of his comment. So there are two camps as to when the blow to the head actually came.
Does anyone know what the autopsy report actually said about the blow to the head?
guppy said:It is beginning to get a bit suspicious that all of his statements don't match what is known about the crime. Don't false confessors usually get at least one thing right?
Chanler said:The source of many of these controversial reports seems to be the same Thai official who previously told a Western journalist that he had not been present at interrogations. I'm waiting for the dust to settle....
stonewall said:It has been stated these statements about the drugging and sex came from Thai authorities who didn't hear it first hand. It's possible it's a bad report like the one at the beginning stating he had been held on unrelated sex charges.
On a positive note, since it has been reported that he sent several letters to Patsy and if she really did forward them to the police, I imagine they have at least had the handwriting analyzed against the ransom note and have a positive match on that crucial piece of evidence AND who knows, maybe he licked the stamp and the envelope and they already have a DNA match too!
stonewall said:<snip>On a positive note, since it has been reported that he sent several letters to Patsy and if she really did forward them to the police, I imagine they have at least had the handwriting analyzed against the ransom note and have a positive match on that crucial piece of evidence AND who knows, maybe he licked the stamp and the envelope and they already have a DNA match too!
It has been reported that he corresponded thru email to the professor and also that he sent letters directly to Patsy telling her he was sorry her child died.KatK said:
I do believe it was e-mail correspondence, not postal mail correspondence. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.