"IT WAS AN ACCIDENT"

New Posts

gaia

gaia

Cat Servant
Joined
Aug 14, 2003
Messages
940
Reaction score
7
Website
Visit site
Experts disagree on whether or not the blow to the head came before the garrotte essentially "killed" JonBenet. I guess I've always leaned toward the theory the garrotte was a sexual stimulation toy and also used to control her. I thought the blow to the head came first, but by only a fraction. Perhaps it happened because she was struggling while being denied air and fighting for her life, so the perp got nervous and hit her with something.

So many think it's ludicrous for Karr to say "it was an accident" if he loved JonBenet and all that crap. I say it isn't at all. I believe people who do these things REWRITE HISTORY when it comes to what they do in the passion of the moment. I think he didn't mean to kill her, but it happened, so now he says it was accidental. Also, to him, it makes him look and feel better about the outcome plus he probably thinks it might help to decide a slightly easier punishment.

I'm still of the belief if this guy was soooo obsessed with JonBenet, he'd have found a way to keep her quiet, but keep her alive, and take her with him...not leave her there.

Was it an accident, as Karr says?
 
Karr is full of *hit, I wouldn't believe anything he says at this point.
 
the garrotte was a sexual stimulation toy

Sexual asphyxiation is NOT done because the stangling is stimulating but because being out of oxygen can to some be a stimulant, so if not the perp was imagining JBR would like to be out of oxygen this idea does not make sense.
 
gaia said:
Experts disagree on whether or not the blow to the head came before the garrotte essentially "killed" JonBenet. I guess I've always leaned toward the theory the garrotte was a sexual stimulation toy and also used to control her. I thought the blow to the head came first, but by only a fraction. Perhaps it happened because she was struggling while being denied air and fighting for her life, so the perp got nervous and hit her with something.

So many think it's ludicrous for Karr to say "it was an accident" if he loved JonBenet and all that crap. I say it isn't at all. I believe people who do these things REWRITE HISTORY when it comes to what they do in the passion of the moment. I think he didn't mean to kill her, but it happened, so now he says it was accidental. Also, to him, it makes him look and feel better about the outcome plus he probably thinks it might help to decide a slightly easier punishment.

I'm still of the belief if this guy was soooo obsessed with JonBenet, he'd have found a way to keep her quiet, but keep her alive, and take her with him...not leave her there.

Was it an accident, as Karr says?
Click to expand...

I really do not think experts disagree. The blow to her head was delivered after JonBenet was dead.

If Karr is the murderer, her death may have been an accident in his mind. However, given the garrote and the blow to her head, I suspect a jury would not find it to have been an accident.
 
Hey, tumble, I know what you mean, but it has been explained to me just watching the child being denied the air is sexually stimulating plus he could be actually stimulating her at the time as well...eeeekkk, ewwwww! Plus, the garrotte might just be a stimulus in and of itself to the perp - just making it and placing it around her neck...and it was a great control mechanism. :cool:
 
gaia said:
Hey, tumble, I know what you mean, but it has been explained to me just watching the child being denied the air is sexually stimulating plus he could be actually stimulating her at the time as well...eeeekkk, ewwwww! Plus, the garrotte might just be a stimulus in and of itself to the perp - just making it and placing it around her neck...and it was a great control mechanism. :cool:
Click to expand...
OK, I see where my imagination reaches its limits ;)
 
Wudge said:
I really do not think experts disagree. The blow to her head was delivered after JonBenet was dead.

If Karr is the murderer, her death may have been an accident in his mind. However, given the garrote and the blow to her head, I suspect a jury would not find it to have been an accident.
Click to expand...
There are experts that believe the blow was struck first. And it makes more sense, if you study the lack of function in how the garrote was constructed, being tied with her hair entagled in the knot, not something you do on a concious victim. The garrote smells staging.
 
tumble said:
There are experts that believe the blow was struck first. And it makes more sense, if you study the lack of function in how the garrote was constructed, being tied with her hair entagled in the knot, not something you do on a concious victim. The garrote smells staging.
Click to expand...
Oh, like I said before, I just really think that blow was struck first also. Deal is, old Cyril Wecht said there was only a teaspoon or two of blood in the hemorraging from the blow, so he thinks the child was choked to death and while she was dying, the blow was struck. To me, it's kinda like apples and oranges if these things happened that close together!
 
gaia said:
Oh, like I said before, I just really think that blow was struck first also. Deal is, old Cyril Wecht said there was only a teaspoon or two of blood in the hemorraging from the blow, so he thinks the child was choked to death and while she was dying, the blow was struck. To me, it's kinda like apples and oranges if these things happened that close together!
Click to expand...
Yes, they happend close together, not more than an hour between.
It is important though which happened first. A blow could have been delivered without the purpose of killing in a rage, strangling someone seems more premediated.
 
tumble said:
There are experts that believe the blow was struck first. And it makes more sense, if you study the lack of function in how the garrote was constructed, being tied with her hair entagled in the knot, not something you do on a concious victim. The garrote smells staging.
Click to expand...


I do not recall an "expert" who thought as you said. Do you have particulars?
 
Last night druing CNN Anderson Cooper there were blurbs shown from various early CNN shows (blurbs from when the case was new and up until now) There was one very short blurb from a previous Larry King show where a person (It appeared to be Clint Van Zandt (Sp?) ) was saying "I think her death was an accident...")

Back when statements such as this were coming out I believe the context was that sexual play and kidnapping had been the intent of the killer.

Whether or not JMK is the guy, it is possible that he heard and remembers statements like this within the media and now repeats them to suit his needs.
 
Wudge said:
Link? (thank you)

I have no recollection whatsover of Dr. Lee saying that.
Click to expand...
Links does not tell you everything do they.

On May 22, 2001 Adrienne Mand reported that forensic scientist Henry Lee told Connecticut TV station WFSB-TV that he wonders if JBR was even murdered.

Lee said it's possible JonBenet’s death was an accident, which was covered-up to make it look like a homicide, in which case there really isn’t a killer.
 
tumble said:
Links does not tell you everything do they.

On May 22, 2001 Adrienne Mand reported that forensic scientist Henry Lee told Connecticut TV station WFSB-TV that he wonders if JBR was even murdered.

Lee said it's possible JonBenet’s death was an accident, which was covered-up to make it look like a homicide, in which case there really isn’t a killer.
Click to expand...


Dr. Lee avoids playing the role of a forensic pathologist, and I don't see it taking place in your post either.
 
Originally Posted by tumble
Lee said it's possible JonBenet’s death was an accident, which was covered-up to make it look like a homicide, in which case there really isn’t a killer.
Click to expand...
No killer??? Uh... how is it that you strangle someone with a garrote to the point where a deep grove is left all the way around their neck and bash their head hard enough to create an 8.5 inch fracture that removes a section of their skull all of which causes them to die NOT make someone a killer??? If you willfully and intentionally inflict severe injury upon someone that causes them to die you not only are a killer, you are a MURDERER.

This poor innocent six year old child was not only murdered, she was grossly TORTURED. And this FREAK Dr. Lee has the absolute solid brass dingle-dangles to even IMAGINE that there was NO killer???

PERP: "Well, gee, I strangled her for awhile and bashed her head really hard, but for some weirdo, bat poop, kooky reason she died! Who woulda thunk?"

PULEEEEEEEEEASE!

Who is this crazy Dr. Lee, who ties his shoes for him, and why is he allowed out of his padded rubber room unchaparoned???

UGH! I'm disgusted... utterly and completely disgusted.

Pardon me while I attempt to scrape my jaw up off the floor.
 
PagingDrDetect said:
No killer??? Uh... how is it that you strangle someone with a garrote to the point where a deep grove is left all the way around their neck and bash their head hard enough to create an 8.5 inch fracture that removes a section of their skull all of which causes them to die NOT make someone a killer??? If you willfully and intentionally inflict severe injury upon someone that causes them to die you not only are a killer, you are a MURDERER.

This poor innocent six year old child was not only murdered, she was grossly TORTURED. And this FREAK Dr. Lee has the absolute solid brass dingle-dangles to even IMAGINE that there was NO killer???

PERP: "Well, gee, I strangled her for awhile and bashed her head really hard, but for some weirdo, bat poop, kooky reason she died! Who woulda thunk?"

PULEEEEEEEEEASE!

Who is this crazy Dr. Lee, who ties his shoes for him, and why is he allowed out of his padded rubber room unchaparoned???

UGH! I'm disgusted... utterly and completely disgusted.

Pardon me while I attempt to scrape my jaw up off the floor.
Click to expand...


Dr. Lee is not quoted here.
 
dragonfly707 said:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/18.html


The Denver area media is still reluctant to let the Ramseys off. The Rocky Mountain News wrote on April 26, 2003 that Dr. Henry Lee, "the most prominent criminologist to work on the JonBenet Ramsey case remains unsure whether the child was murdered or died in what started as an accident."
Click to expand...

From a statement made on Larry King by Dr. Henry Lee:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0103/24/lklw.00.html
LEE: Ramsey case, unfortunately, the first six hours were really lost at crime scene. Now, of course, over the year, a tremendous effort put into this case. Boulder District Attorney's Office, Alexander (ph) and, he's a member of his team (ph) and a Boulder Police Department investigator. However, the case has come boil down to a simple issue. Is it only intruder, or inside, somebody from the inside. Also, we have to examine the basic issue here. Is that really a homicide or just a bizarre accident and subsequently the scene was staged?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 90 more.
Total: 3,975 (members: 91, guests: 3,884)

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
3,884
Total visitors
3,975
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,117
Messages
17,963,503
Members
228,687
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top