Murder by Manual and Ligature Strangulation

UKGuy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
11,136
Reaction score
3,900
From: Murder by Manual and Ligature Strangulation
Profiling Crime Scene Behaviors and Offender Characteristics

Summary:
This chapter is based on a number of research projects on offender profiling and homicidal crime scene behavior carried out at the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation. This specific study investigated homicidal strangulation in Finland during a 7-year period and analyzed and compared offense and offender characteristics in manual and ligature strangulation cases. The
results diverge in many respects from the previous research findings attributed to homicidal strangulation and emphasize the need to identify possible culture-specific patterns and psychopathological offender characteristics in homicidal behavior.

INTRODUCTION
Homicidal strangulation accounts for approximately 10–20% of all homicidal deaths in various countries (1–4). In strangulation, the cause of death is cerebral hypoxia secondary to compression and thereby an occlusion of the vessels supplying blood to the brain (5). It has been estimated that applying pressure on the neck causes unconsciousness in approximately 5–15 seconds (6–8). Homicidal strangulation can be made manually or by using a ligature. In ligature strangulation, pressure on the neck is applied by a constricting band (e.g., belt, electric cord, rope) that is tightened by some force other than the body weight. In manual strangulation, pressure is applied by hand, forearm, or other limb. Research results regarding which one of the homicidal strangulation methods is more frequent are mixed (6,9–11).

Research on homicidal strangulation has shown that in a high percentage
of cases, the offender and the victim have a family relationship (1,9,12) and
that as much as 75% of the victims are females and infants (1,9,11–13). In
previous studies, the most frequent motives for homicidal strangulation have
been rape (6), sexual jealousy, and personal rivalry (9,11). Predomination of female victims in homicidal strangulation has been explained by quarrels in relationships and unrehearsed violence applied by bare hands as well as by physical disadvantage and incapability of resistance of female victims 9,11,14). The latter rationale has been explicated relative to homicides by firearms. Fisher et al. (14) cite Dotzauer and Jarosch (15), who suggest that firearms are more frequently used against male victims, because they permit the offender to keep a greater distance from the victim, whose physical strength may be feared.

It has also been suggested that females predominate as victims in
homicidal strangulation, because they are more likely to be targets of sexual
assaults, and strangulation may occur to overcome their resistance during the
sexual act (1). In previous studies, strangulation has been firmly associated with sexual and sadistic murders (16–19). Strangulation has been found to be the cause of death in 67% of sexual murders (20), 63% of sexual murders of elderly females (21), 61% of sexual sadistic murders (22), and 59% of serial sexual murders (19). Furthermore, Gratzer and Bradford (23) studied three samples of sexual offenders, and their results indicated that strangulation, particularly by a ligature, is more frequent in sexual sadistic than nonsadistic murders. However, ligature strangulation accounted only for 20% of the causes of death in sexually sadistic murders; blunt force trauma and stabbing were both more frequent causes of death. In a study on sexual murder, Kocsis et al. (24) analyzed crime scene behavior and provided an empirical model with distinct behavior clusters. Their study suggested that in sexual murders, ligature strangulation is associated with deliberate and cruel crime scene behavior, suggesting a “predator” murder pattern.

Predomination of strangulation as a cause of death in sexual and sadistic
murders has been interpreted in various ways. Based on his clinical work with
sexual murderers, Brittain (25) suggested that for the sadistic murderer, the
method of killing is almost always asphyxial. It may be due to the positions
of the murderer and his victim in a sexual attack, which, according to Brittain,
makes strangulation an “easy and convenient” way of killing and prevents
the victim from crying out. Furthermore, both Brittain (25) and Gratzer and
Bradford (23) concluded that the offender is able to exert greater control and
power over the victim by strangulation.
 
From: Murder by Manual and Ligature Strangulation
Profiling Crime Scene Behaviors and Offender Characteristics

Its possible it was a sadistic sexual murder. Its been suggested here before that the RN could've even been part of a sadistical plot.
 
Its possible it was a sadistic sexual murder. Its been suggested here before that the RN could've even been part of a sadistical plot.

WHY didn't the "three intruders" take JB OUT OF THE HOUSE...if it was for the purpose of a sadistic sexual murder? They could have held her captive and abused her for DAYS AND DAYS. What was the purpose of the bogus RN, if their attention was to murder her all along??
 
WHY didn't the "three intruders" take JB OUT OF THE HOUSE...if it was for the purpose of a sadistic sexual murder? They could have held her captive and abused her for DAYS AND DAYS. What was the purpose of the bogus RN, if their attention was to murder her all along??

Another poster suggested that the RN could've given false hope of JBR's return, to further add to sadistical nature of the crime.
 
Its possible it was a sadistic sexual murder. Its been suggested here before that the RN could've even been part of a sadistical plot.

Holdon, Roy Hazelwood's work is a good place to start if you're interested in finding out about sadistic sexual predators and how they operate. The trauma (sexual and otherwise) on JonBenet's body as described in the autopsy doesn't come close to fitting that inflicted by a sexual sadist.

Have you read John Douglas's profile of the killer? For the most part, it sounds just like he could be describing Patsy Ramsey.
 
Holdon, Roy Hazelwood's work is a good place to start if you're interested in finding out about sadistic sexual predators and how they operate. The trauma (sexual and otherwise) on JonBenet's body as described in the autopsy doesn't come close to fitting that inflicted by a sexual sadist.

Have you read John Douglas's profile of the killer? For the most part, it sounds just like he could be describing Patsy Ramsey.

Physical injuries aren't the only manifestation of sadism. You're forgetting about psychological sadism.
 
Physical injuries aren't the only manifestation of sadism. You're forgetting about psychological sadism.

Holdon, just how is it you presume to know what another poster remembers or forgets?
 
Holdon, just how is it you presume to know what another poster remembers or forgets?

Claiming that 'fat cats' is an exclusively American term is either forgetting or purposely excluding that the term is international. Claiming that sadism manifests itself only in physical cruelty is also either forgetting or purposely excluding psychological cruelty.

So are we forgetting, or purposely excluding? I bet I know.
 
Claiming that 'fat cats' is an exclusively American term is either forgetting or purposely excluding that the term is international. Claiming that sadism manifests itself only in physical cruelty is also either forgetting or purposely excluding psychological cruelty.

So are we forgetting, or purposely excluding? I bet I know.

I believe you are posting in the wrong topic, however, I will reply by saying you are the person who first said, "Its possible it was a sadistic sexual murder." No where did I say "sadism manifests itself only in physical cruelty." This is the "Strangulation" thread, which is a physical act. Maybe you need to open a "Psychology" thread.
 
Claiming that 'fat cats' is an exclusively American term is either forgetting or purposely excluding that the term is international. Claiming that sadism manifests itself only in physical cruelty is also either forgetting or purposely excluding psychological cruelty.

So are we forgetting, or purposely excluding? I bet I know.

You said that FAT CAT was a "foreign slang"....I simply posted a link that stated it was first used in AMERICA...in the 1920's to describe people that gave money to the American political parties. I never said that someone foreign wouldn't know the term. I just posted proof that it is an ORIGINAL AMERICAN SLANG TERM.
 
You said that FAT CAT was a "foreign slang"....I simply posted a link that stated it was first used in AMERICA...in the 1920's to describe people that gave money to the American political parties. I never said that someone foreign wouldn't know the term. I just posted proof that it is an ORIGINAL AMERICAN SLANG TERM.

Who cares?

What matters is who used the term in 1996, not 1920! In 1996, the term was used in Europe, Asia, and America. It was used in politically charged conversations dealing with status and wealth, of which the RN was one.

You're dealing with a Kaczynski. A socioeconomic basket case who has never had an original thought. Sexual murders on children has happened before, ransoms have happened before, and the Rn author couldn't even make up his own lines, had to use canned expressions from violent films.
 
Who cares?

What matters is who used the term in 1996, not 1920! In 1996, the term was used in Europe, Asia, and America. It was used in politically charged conversations dealing with status and wealth, of which the RN was one.

You're dealing with a Kaczynski. A socioeconomic basket case who has never had an original thought. Sexual murders on children has happened before, ransoms have happened before, and the Rn author couldn't even make up his own lines, had to use canned expressions from violent films.

Wasn't he American?
 
Who cares?

What matters is who used the term in 1996, not 1920! In 1996, the term was used in Europe, Asia, and America. It was used in politically charged conversations dealing with status and wealth, of which the RN was one.

You're dealing with a Kaczynski. A socioeconomic basket case who has never had an original thought. Sexual murders on children has happened before, ransoms have happened before, and the Rn author couldn't even make up his own lines, had to use canned expressions from violent films.

WE care...it just goes to show that by you saying that it was "FOREIGN SLANG" that you don't do your research before you post your cr@p on here. Of course, we all knew that all along....
 
Who cares?

What matters is who used the term in 1996, not 1920! In 1996, the term was used in Europe, Asia, and America. It was used in politically charged conversations dealing with status and wealth, of which the RN was one.

You're dealing with a Kaczynski. A socioeconomic basket case who has never had an original thought. Sexual murders on children has happened before, ransoms have happened before, and the Rn author couldn't even make up his own lines, had to use canned expressions from violent films.

Show me a link anywhere...that says that in 1996 the word FAT CAT was used in Europe and Asia (I know that it was used in Amercia, because we invented it). Maybe they DID use it there, I don't know...I don't live there. But I would like some proof... you can't just make stuff up as you go along holdon.
 
Look at *why the RN author would use the term 'fat cat'.I think it was because Patsy wanted to say that this was another person of the same social status as JR was,or was trying to make the writer appear others think he was anyway,(whether he was or not ),and or to cause the reader to think this person was trying to be a smart aleck ; a threat of some sort by using that term.IOW-'You're not the only big guy around', is what she was trying to say.Or,to say it another way-'fear me,fear me !! I'm just as big as you are !' (as far as wealth,power,etc.).
I have my own thoughts about who she was trying to make it sound like it was from,I'll get to that later.I do think she had input from JR on it though.I know some don't agree,but when it switches to first person in the last paragraph-that's what convinces me.It wasn't Patsy talking to JR,IMO...it was JR's input,in trying to cause it to appear the '2 gentlemen' and the author were the perps;former disgruntled AG employees.(I don't think it was Patsy trying to set up the housekeeper...if so,then who would the 2 gentlemen be? I think she said that as an excuse to pick up the note (just as she did w going down to make coffee)...she said she thought before she read it that it was about LHP needing money before they left).
Anyway.."Don't try to grow a brain,John"...it switches to first person in an attempt to say the writer knows JR on a first name basis.I think this is whom they were trying to appear it to be from..
Try this:

Jeff Merrick: "Don't try to grow a brain,John...you are not the only fat cat around..."

JM had made threats to JR.It's an attempt to sound male,IMO.
As opposed to Patsy trying to say it all as if it were coming from her...Patsy was certainly not a 'fat cat' business woman...she was a SAHM.
I think this was their attempt to frame JM and friends.

That's only my opinion..no one has to agree.I'm only saying I think it's worth taking a second look at.Patsy was obviously so flustered that I really think she had help on it,at least as far as whom to attempt to point to...JR KNEW JM was angry with him and had made threats..what better person to try to frame at the time????
 
Yes he was. So what? Are you saying that Kaczynski type people only happen in America? There goes another massive assumption.

Holdon, You are starting to make me nervous again. Please read your post: "What matters is who used the term in 1996, not 1920! In 1996, the term was used in Europe, Asia, and America. It was used in politically charged conversations dealing with status and wealth, of which the RN was one.

You're dealing with a Kaczynski."

You appeared to be assuming that a Kaczynski was a European when you said "You're dealing with a Kaczynski". And the Squishified who replied "wasn't he American" was correct in assuming that is what you were saying.

Comeon watch what you post before you do it and then when someone questions your post, you won't have to get angry. :furious:
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
2,422
Total visitors
2,493

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,934
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top