1127 users online (236 members and 891 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 79
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    616

    Garrote

    An important clue which MUST be known by the medical examiner/police is whether the garrotte was what strangled JB.

    If the garrote did not cause the strangulation marks then the situation was DEFINITELY staged (strongly implicating the parents). If the garrote did cause the strangulation then the sex scene seems real.

    Shouldn't the ME be able to tell if the strangulation marks where likely caused by the garrote or not? Maybe I've been watching too much CSI but it seems like they should be able to tell the size/type of strangulation material.

    Does the John Karr arrest signal that they know the garrote really did cause the strangulation marks?
    IMHO

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    818
    I'm pretty sure they've already found the ligature, and death thereof, were caused by the garrote.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    "If the garrote did not cause the strangulation marks then the situation was DEFINITELY staged (strongly implicating the parents). If the garrote did cause the strangulation then the sex scene seems real."

    You don't understand, tuppence. The garrote did cause the marks, yes. But that changes nothing. it was staging. The garrote was a completely haphazard device, totally lacking in efficiency and was actually made on her body. That's proven by the fact that her hair was tied into it. There was hardly any damage to the internals of the neck and there were no defensive wounds on her body. THAT's how they know it was staging. JonBenet just wasn't quite dead yet.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,868
    As I understand the autopsy report, the official story is that she was strangled with the garrote.

    However, if you ready the skull fracture thread, there are alot of people who disagree and say that the garrote was done only as "staging".

    So, I guess no matter what the official determination is, people who want to believe otherwise will disagree with that determination.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    I'm no expert, but from the looks of her neck on the autopsy pics,I don't see how the garrotte could cause that large red area beneath it.My guess is manual strangulation with a shirt or nightgown perhaps,then it was staged to appear as if a ligature did it all.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221
    "So, I guess no matter what the official determination is, people who want to believe otherwise will disagree with that determination."

    It's not that, luthersmama. The garrote was intended as staging. The person just didn't know that JB wasn't dead yet.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave
    "If the garrote did not cause the strangulation marks then the situation was DEFINITELY staged (strongly implicating the parents). If the garrote did cause the strangulation then the sex scene seems real."

    You don't understand, tuppence. The garrote did cause the marks, yes. But that changes nothing. it was staging. The garrote was a completely haphazard device, totally lacking in efficiency and was actually made on her body. That's proven by the fact that her hair was tied into it. There was hardly any damage to the internals of the neck and there were no defensive wounds on her body. THAT's how they know it was staging. JonBenet just wasn't quite dead yet.

    SuperDave,

    You seem to know a lot about the case so maybe you can help me with something I'm confused about -

    When you say the internals of the neck were hardly damaged, isn't that exactly what is supposed to happen with a garrotte? I mean, people use these things (this type of garrotte - as oppossed to other types which are meant to kill quickly) for erotic asphyxiation - it stands to reason that it's suppossed to asphyxiate w/o doing permanent damage to the internals of the neck. Isn't it possible that a garrotte could kill someone w/o doing much damage?

    We know she really was strangled, either with the garrotte or manually, or with some other object, and we know the internals weren't damaged badly. Why couldn't it have been done with the garrotte?

    To save time, I understand the garrotte wasn't "professional". I understand there are better ways to make them, and that typically they wouldn't be built on the body. But it seems to me this one could have worked -inefficiently- by wrapping the long tail around the hand a few times so as to shorten it up, and then pulling it tight.

    I guess I'm just asking couldn't it possibly have been the garrotte, even if that's not the most probable scenario?

    The reason I ask about this in particular is that I think the evidence points heavily towards the R's. But the business of staging a garrotting has always seemed bizzare (Yes I know people do bizzare things sometimes). Parents who weren't into the pervy world of EA probably wouldn't think of making a garrotte. People who would think of it are probably into pervy EA play. It's seems at least a possibility that the garrotte was made by someone making a first ameturish attempt and going too far with it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    616
    In my mind the only way the garrote "staging" makes sense is if there were already other marks on the neck the killer was trying to cover up.

    It's just a weird thing to stage - there are a lot easier ways to make it look like a sex crime (assuming that was necessary for some reason).
    IMHO

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by tuppence
    An important clue which MUST be known by the medical examiner/police is whether the garrotte was what strangled JB.

    If the garrote did not cause the strangulation marks then the situation was DEFINITELY staged (strongly implicating the parents). If the garrote did cause the strangulation then the sex scene seems real.

    Shouldn't the ME be able to tell if the strangulation marks where likely caused by the garrote or not? Maybe I've been watching too much CSI but it seems like they should be able to tell the size/type of strangulation material.

    Does the John Karr arrest signal that they know the garrote really did cause the strangulation marks?
    tuppence,

    Coroner Meyer's report states:
    Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.
    Also itemized is ligature strangulation.

    Now the confusing factor is the garrote which was added after she was killed.

    Its perfectly feasable that she was strangled with the cord on its own.

    There are also contusions and abrasions which lie beneath the ligature which imo result from a manual strangulation.

    So either the ligature was used to finish her off, or the head bash was, or both may be staging to mask the manual strangulation. This would still be consistent with Coroner Meyer's report e.g. asphyxia by strangulation.

    I doubt the garrote played any part in her death at all, its functionless, the knotting is fixed, and JonBenet's hair is embedded into the knotting on the painthandle limiting any movement!

    imo the only marks made by the ligature is the circumferential furrow around her neck.


    The evidence for staging is what really incriminates the Ramseys, even more than any forensic evidence that links them, since no intruder has a motive never mind the knowledge to organize all the crime-scene elements.


    .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    tuppence,

    Coroner Meyer's report states:
    Also itemized is ligature strangulation.
    Now the confusing factor is the garrote which was added after she was killed.
    Its perfectly feasable that she was strangled with the cord on its own.
    There are also contusions and abrasions which lie beneath the ligature which imo result from a manual strangulation.
    So either the ligature was used to finish her off, or the head bash was, or both may be staging to mask the manual strangulation. This would still be consistent with Coroner Meyer's report e.g. asphyxia by strangulation.
    I doubt the garrote played any part in her death at all, its functionless, the knotting is fixed, and JonBenet's hair is embedded into the knotting on the painthandle liniting any movement!

    imo the only marks made by the ligature is the circumferential furrow around her neck.

    .
    If there was manual strangulation would the ME be able to tell? If so this would be important evidence that has not been disclosed to the public.
    IMHO


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by tuppence
    If there was manual strangulation would the ME be able to tell? If so this would be important evidence that has not been disclosed to the public.
    tuppence,

    I should think he would, its possible that the reports conclusions are generalisations, which omit some details.

    Its obvious that the Autopsy was provisional, Coroner Meyer had his own opinions, whch he never committed to ink, he was also aware it may end up in court where he would be called upon to opine.

    So its possible he documented the staging, knowing that is what it was, whilst simply itemizing some aspects, and omitting others. He and the police would know precisely what would be relevant if it came to a court case?

    Given the nature of the bruising beneath the ligature, its very doubtful if the ligature caused this, so it was likely manual possibly in tandem with the neck of a sweater?


    .

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    713

    Luthersmama

    It's a tad hurtful the way you've worded your comment. Everyone has read that autopsy, many people numerous times, and I can't think of anyone who says that the garotte didn't contribute to her death. Plainly, it did. No one is in denial, or contends that the autopsy report is "wrong." Our contention (or I should say mine) is that the headblow came first, the perp thought the child was dead, and used the garotte as staging, not knowing that the child was still alive. A brain injury like that causes hypopnea - the person appears not to be breathing, there are no external signs of breathing and the skin feels clammy and cold to the touch.

    I agree with UK Guy, that the garotte was used to cover up other marks - the facts are that there are no neck injuries, the cord is absolutely horizontal and the knot in the back shows no signs on the skin that it was pulled upward as is usually the case in garotte or ligature strangulation. If you look at the autopsy photos, you can see other furrows around the neck and at the anterior base of the neck, there is a bruise which look like knuckle marks on the skin.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Why cover up manual strangulation with garrotte strangulation ? I don't see the need, even for the sex murder scene.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrishope
    Why cover up manual strangulation with garrotte strangulation ? I don't see the need, even for the sex murder scene.
    My guess is that it was done to point attention away as much as possible from what really happened. If JBR was grabbed and strangled in an angry outburst, the person could only deflect attention so far - strangulation is strangulation, so tossing her into the bathtub, as an example, wouldn't convince anyone she had really drowned, right? So the best way to cover up a strangulation is with another form of strangulation - this one being the garrote - which at least muddies the waters as to motive somewhat (especially in concert with a Ransom Note) imo

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by sandraladeda
    My guess is that it was done to point attention away as much as possible from what really happened. If JBR was grabbed and strangled in an angry outburst, the person could only deflect attention so far - strangulation is strangulation, so tossing her into the bathtub, as an example, wouldn't convince anyone she had really drowned, right? So the best way to cover up a strangulation is with another form of strangulation - this one being the garrote - which at least muddies the waters as to motive somewhat (especially in concert with a Ransom Note) imo
    Ok, that makes sesne. However, why not just wrap rope around her neck and pull? The garrotte just seems to suggest knowledge of really pervy sex acts, and thsat doesn't seem to fit with "normal" parents.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Why BOTH Garrote & Head Bash?
    By Rupert in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 338
    Last Post: 10-30-2017, 06:03 PM
  2. Garrote VS manual srangulation.
    By wengr in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 02-20-2013, 11:30 PM
  3. The garrote points to........
    By madeleine in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 12:57 AM
  4. Garrote,Scarves,Wikipedia
    By Eagle1 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-27-2005, 08:36 PM