Dna

New Posts

UKGuy said:
DeeDee249,
The subject of my post was the wiping down timeline not the cause of the bleeding. If you post a topic on it, we can discuss this further.




Thats fine, how do you know where in the sequence of events the size-12's were placed onto JonBenet?

There is absolutely nothing to prevent the size-12's being applied upstairs, as part of a prior staging, which would encompass the entirety of your timeline, making it consistent with nearly all the forensic evidence, then you could apply your postmortem release, then discovered in the basement, yielding another wipe down, one observed by Coroner Meyer?
Click to expand...

I don't KNOW the sequence. Nor does anyone else who was not there. It just makes sense to me. If she had the panties on before she was wiped, they would HAVE to have more blood on them. It is also odd that the longjohns do not have blood, yet the blanket and pink nightie do. Was it also droplets? OR a spatter. Forensics can tell the difference and sometimes that helps to decide what happened. In this case, I do not see any official opinion on the blood on the blanket or nightie. The blood on the sweatshirt isn't made much of either by LE it seems. There is evidence of tan mucus on her right sleeve and cheek and it is easy to see how that got there. But the blanket, nightie and pillowcase all had blood on them, presumably HER blood, yet not much was said about it by investigators. The blood appears in her bedroom on the pillowcase and in the basement on the blanket, nightie and her panties, yet not the longjohns. How this all fits together is still the mystery.
Then we have JR's comment to LE when shown a picture of the blanket in the wc and he sees the nightie and says "that wasn't supposed to be there". Of course not, neither was the dead child in the blanket.
So what happened where? Certainly a bedroom assault is a possibility - wearing the pink nightie and her own panties. Or was the nightie stuck to the blanket by static cling and played no part. Then where and how did the blood get on it? It seems as if some blood splattered right there in the wc. How? Her head bash made no wound. I am wondering if it happened during wiping her down or if there was perhaps more blood coming from her nose than has been noted.
We can see by the photos and interviews that police established with Patsy that JB's bed was tidy at the foot section and that it was obvious that NO blanket could have been pulled off the bed and still have the foot section remain neat. So there is a 3-stage crime scene here- the bedroom and the basement outside the where the tote was found and the wc itself. The panties come into the picture at one of these locations, and actually- there is more than one possible way it could have happened.
 
I have posted this before, and stated a week or two ago why everything cannot be whittled down to its simplest form in this case - especially in assuming when/why the pineapple is where it is (due to the crime scene changing that morning when everyone was there), as well as now, in assuming the simplest, easiest form/method of killing her.... it's NOT SO SIMPLE.

Don't take it from me -

http://books.google.com/books?id=6bXjPEjzyLcC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=oversimplifying+crime+scenes+and+occam's+razor&source=bl&ots=q1YjPa9bu_&sig=eb_UnQfC6UXSmpCLZ2WDOnDUEzo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BHIEUNSKIcHTqgH6nv2wDA&sqi=2&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=oversimplifying%20crime%20scenes%20and%20occam's%20razor&f=false

"Oversimplification and Occam’s Razor –

Before we can discuss crime reconstruction practice standards, we must deconstruct the popular yet mistaken assumption that it is a simple and certain enterprise based solely on careful observation and experience.

Oversimplification occurs when a complex situation is described in simplistic terms that neglect its complexity in order to achieve a greater measure of certainty. These days oversimplification has become common-place in entertainment, political rhetoric, and even journalism. But it has no place in the justice system.

Oversimplification is too common a vice in the forensic disciplines, from scene processing to laboratory analysis to crime reconstruction. It manifests itself in the supplanting of a formal scientific education with short courses, rote technical training, and learning on the job. It manifests itself with appeals to experience instead of scientific fact. It manifests itself in the form of appeals to common sense for the sake of intellectual ease. It Manifests itself when reconstructionists admonish others not to get “bogged down by all the facts,” when the facts actually provide the context needed for informed and accurate interpretation. It manifests itself in these forms and others, wherever there is a desired conclusion and the full weight of the scientific method is perceived to be the long way or the wrong way.

Those with a basic grasp of logic and reasoning might stop us right there and invoke Occam’s razor. They might suggest that the scientific method reveals simplicity, and that complexity relates directly to improbability – the more complex a theory, the less probable – given Occam’s razor.

Occam’s razor is an often misstated principle that, ironically, has been reduced for mass consumption to the point of misapplication. Not uncommonly, it is stated as something along the lines of “all things being equal, the simplest explanation is most often the Correct one”. Although this interpretation of Occam’s razor sounds good and has the virtue of popping up in a television show or Movie every now and again, it is inaccurate.

….We would do better to recall Albert Einstein’s cautionary, which provides, “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler”. In other words, we are encouraged to embrace both the complexity of reality and the simplicity of direct logical reasoning without irrevelant encumbrances.

Reconstruction is particularly susceptible to oversimplification because many of those currently involved, as discussed in the Preface, do not come from a scientific background of any kind.…

...Practice standards for the reconstruction of a crime -

….11. Reconstructionists must demonstrate an understanding of establishing the conditions of transfer (Locard’s Exchange Principle and evidence dynamics):

Identifying and individuating physical evidence is only part of crime reconstruction. Equally important is the need to establish the source of evidence and the conditions under which it was transferred to where it was ultimately found. Reconstructionists must not be quick to oversimplify complex issues, such as the examination and interpretation of physical evidence, or to disregard those circumstances that can move, alter, or obliterate that evidence. "
____

....Which is exactly why you cannot assume that the condition of the physical evidence as it was that morning, in those photos, was exactly the way they were the night before... especially since people moved and changed evidence in that chaos that morning.... photos were taken days later, and even photo-takers stated the 'photos lied'!!

...Same thing goes for what may or may not have been 'needed' to get the 'job done' in the crime....Besides, if we were discounting evidence in crimes based on that over-simplification, then any crime that had unnecessary ways/means of killing someone, would all be considered staging and not part of the 'real' crime.... That's just not the case. There is 'overkill' in multitudes of crimes based on the mental condition of the criminals...

You must account for all the complexities... you just must.
 
DeeDee249 said:
I don't KNOW the sequence. Nor does anyone else who was not there. It just makes sense to me. If she had the panties on before she was wiped, they would HAVE to have more blood on them. It is also odd that the longjohns do not have blood, yet the blanket and pink nightie do. Was it also droplets? OR a spatter. Forensics can tell the difference and sometimes that helps to decide what happened. In this case, I do not see any official opinion on the blood on the blanket or nightie. The blood on the sweatshirt isn't made much of either by LE it seems. There is evidence of tan mucus on her right sleeve and cheek and it is easy to see how that got there. But the blanket, nightie and pillowcase all had blood on them, presumably HER blood, yet not much was said about it by investigators. The blood appears in her bedroom on the pillowcase and in the basement on the blanket, nightie and her panties, yet not the longjohns. How this all fits together is still the mystery.
Then we have JR's comment to LE when shown a picture of the blanket in the wc and he sees the nightie and says "that wasn't supposed to be there". Of course not, neither was the dead child in the blanket.
So what happened where? Certainly a bedroom assault is a possibility - wearing the pink nightie and her own panties. Or was the nightie stuck to the blanket by static cling and played no part. Then where and how did the blood get on it? It seems as if some blood splattered right there in the wc. How? Her head bash made no wound. I am wondering if it happened during wiping her down or if there was perhaps more blood coming from her nose than has been noted.
We can see by the photos and interviews that police established with Patsy that JB's bed was tidy at the foot section and that it was obvious that NO blanket could have been pulled off the bed and still have the foot section remain neat. So there is a 3-stage crime scene here- the bedroom and the basement outside the where the tote was found and the wc itself. The panties come into the picture at one of these locations, and actually- there is more than one possible way it could have happened.
Click to expand...

DeeDee249,
I don't KNOW the sequence. Nor does anyone else who was not there.
Click to expand...
Sure, but you might be able to work it out, either partially or completely by elimination. Consider the wipe-down event that Coroner Meyer alludes to. If you know that occured last then you can place the redressing in the size-12's further back in the theoretical sequence. This for me why Coroner Meyer's opinion is important.

So there is a 3-stage crime scene here- the bedroom and the basement outside the where the tote was found and the wc itself. The panties come into the picture at one of these locations, and actually- there is more than one possible way it could have happened.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more. Note bloodstains are the common factor, so we can infer from the bloodstains either context or relationship, e.g. JonBenet wore the Barbie Nightgown, and that it is out of context?

If you allow the word tote to represent the area where the tote was found. And the bold emphasis to represent a wipe-down event, then it might look like this:


1. bedroom, tote, wine-cellar.

2. bedroom, tote, wine-cellar.

3. bedroom, tote, wine-cellar.

Although 3. is possible, we can put it to one side assuming, once JonBenet was laid into the wine-cellar, nobody unwrapped her to wipe her down?

So that leaves either 1. and 2. as separate outcomes, or if you merge them, thus so:

1.&2. bedroom, tote, wine-cellar?

If you now consider the bloodstain evidence along with Coroner Meyer's opinion. This might suggest JonBenet was last wiped down at the tote area, but due to postmortem release, Coroner Meyer spotted this?

No bloodstains on the longjohns suggests they were placed on last, after the cleanup? Now the blanket and Barbie Nightgown are both bloodstained, is this because they once shared the same environment, consider the size-12's, could the last wipe down event have led to these bloodstains? Which might suggest the tote area? Blood drops onto the Barbie Nightgown as JonBenet is wiped down, and if she is lying on the blanket, similarly?

Now with a bloodstain on her pillow, we can place her in her bedroom, I reckon its safe to assume she was cleaned up and redressed upstairs, again the Barbie Gown scenario could be played out here, this is more variable than the wipe down, it could have happened at either location but the tote area seems more logical?


So for me the most probable sequence of events is:
1.&2. bedroom, tote, wine-cellar?


.
 
Whaleshark said:
I have posted this before, and stated a week or two ago why everything cannot be whittled down to its simplest form in this case - especially in assuming when/why the pineapple is where it is (due to the crime scene changing that morning when everyone was there), as well as now, in assuming the simplest, easiest form/method of killing her.... it's NOT SO SIMPLE.

Don't take it from me -

http://books.google.com/books?id=6bXjPEjzyLcC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=oversimplifying+crime+scenes+and+occam's+razor&source=bl&ots=q1YjPa9bu_&sig=eb_UnQfC6UXSmpCLZ2WDOnDUEzo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BHIEUNSKIcHTqgH6nv2wDA&sqi=2&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=oversimplifying%20crime%20scenes%20and%20occam's%20razor&f=false

"Oversimplification and Occam’s Razor –

Before we can discuss crime reconstruction practice standards, we must deconstruct the popular yet mistaken assumption that it is a simple and certain enterprise based solely on careful observation and experience.

Oversimplification occurs when a complex situation is described in simplistic terms that neglect its complexity in order to achieve a greater measure of certainty. These days oversimplification has become common-place in entertainment, political rhetoric, and even journalism. But it has no place in the justice system.

Oversimplification is too common a vice in the forensic disciplines, from scene processing to laboratory analysis to crime reconstruction. It manifests itself in the supplanting of a formal scientific education with short courses, rote technical training, and learning on the job. It manifests itself with appeals to experience instead of scientific fact. It manifests itself in the form of appeals to common sense for the sake of intellectual ease. It Manifests itself when reconstructionists admonish others not to get “bogged down by all the facts,” when the facts actually provide the context needed for informed and accurate interpretation. It manifests itself in these forms and others, wherever there is a desired conclusion and the full weight of the scientific method is perceived to be the long way or the wrong way.

Those with a basic grasp of logic and reasoning might stop us right there and invoke Occam’s razor. They might suggest that the scientific method reveals simplicity, and that complexity relates directly to improbability – the more complex a theory, the less probable – given Occam’s razor.

Occam’s razor is an often misstated principle that, ironically, has been reduced for mass consumption to the point of misapplication. Not uncommonly, it is stated as something along the lines of “all things being equal, the simplest explanation is most often the Correct one”. Although this interpretation of Occam’s razor sounds good and has the virtue of popping up in a television show or Movie every now and again, it is inaccurate.

….We would do better to recall Albert Einstein’s cautionary, which provides, “everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler”. In other words, we are encouraged to embrace both the complexity of reality and the simplicity of direct logical reasoning without irrevelant encumbrances.

Reconstruction is particularly susceptible to oversimplification because many of those currently involved, as discussed in the Preface, do not come from a scientific background of any kind.…

...Practice standards for the reconstruction of a crime -

….11. Reconstructionists must demonstrate an understanding of establishing the conditions of transfer (Locard’s Exchange Principle and evidence dynamics):

Identifying and individuating physical evidence is only part of crime reconstruction. Equally important is the need to establish the source of evidence and the conditions under which it was transferred to where it was ultimately found. Reconstructionists must not be quick to oversimplify complex issues, such as the examination and interpretation of physical evidence, or to disregard those circumstances that can move, alter, or obliterate that evidence. "
____

....Which is exactly why you cannot assume that the condition of the physical evidence as it was that morning, in those photos, was exactly the way they were the night before... especially since people moved and changed evidence in that chaos that morning.... photos were taken days later, and even photo-takers stated the 'photos lied'!!

...Same thing goes for what may or may not have been 'needed' to get the 'job done' in the crime....Besides, if we were discounting evidence in crimes based on that over-simplification, then any crime that had unnecessary ways/means of killing someone, would all be considered staging and not part of the 'real' crime.... That's just not the case. There is 'overkill' in multitudes of crimes based on the mental condition of the criminals...

You must account for all the complexities... you just must.
Click to expand...

Whaleshark,
The reference to Occam is when it is simply being used as a nostrum, a magic fix, since the definition given is patently false!

You must account for all the complexities... you just must.
Click to expand...
Sure and to do all that accounting its nice to have some method, to limit the growth of complexity so you can get a handle on things. This is where occam plays a role, its not an answer or proof, simply a logical heuristic.


.
 
UKGuy said:
Whaleshark,
The reference to Occam is when it is simply being used as a nostrum, a magic fix, since the definition given is patently false!

Sure and to do all that accounting its nice to have some method, to limit the growth of complexity so you can get a handle on things. This is where occam plays a role, its not an answer or proof, simply a logical heuristic.
Click to expand...

You are the one who quotes it often, so you're saying you use it as a 'magical fix'... but I'm trying to do more than a magical fix, so you're proving my point, then?

Yes, it's nice to have some method - and Occam's Razor is not the correct one, in this case -- or in crime reconstruction, in general, as per the Crime Reconstruction authors quoted above.

So, are we on this forum for 'magical fixes', or are we trying to figure this thing out?

If we're trying to figure this thing out, then we need to quit referring to Occam's Razor, and quit deciding what we think is 'needed' or not or what the exact only application of a 'garrotte' would be, etc.

If you only consider your absolute necessities, and do not account for things like children playing dog-on-a-leash as to why there is a ligature with a handle, or that the victims advocates moved that pineapple to the table that morning since there was a lot of people there, then you are not considering the complexities, based on what you find out about the situation, or the behavior of the people involved.

You simplify it too much, you have nothing but your repeated stances that you refuse to budge on...

...And I don't know why you refused to see it, but there was blood in her vaginal vault as noted per the autopsy, and those areas could have, and most likely did, leak onto that size 12 underwear. Just because the blood was not on the outermost external part of the vulva/lips, doesn't mean it didn't drip down from those areas that were noted in the autopsy still containing blood....

...Ask me how i know this is possible, and i can explain to you from firsthand experience what it's like to be a woman with female parts and how things can 'drip' out without being coated all on the external parts....didn't want to go there with you, but since you insist that the external absence of blood noted by Coroner Meyer means that the underwear HAD to be on before wiping, and then taken down again to wipe... it doesn't have to be the case.. and again, it most likely isn't, or there would be a lot more blood on those size 12s....
 
Sheesh.

Alls I can say is I hope Tricia and her source come through for us, because I'm beat down, dead tired of trying to figure this mystery out.

:pullhair::slapfight::bigfight::eek:fftobed:​
 
Whaleshark said:
You are the one who quotes it often, so you're saying you use it as a 'magical fix'... but I'm trying to do more than a magical fix, so you're proving my point, then?

Yes, it's nice to have some method - and Occam's Razor is not the correct one, in this case -- or in crime reconstruction, in general, as per the Crime Reconstruction authors quoted above.

So, are we on this forum for 'magical fixes', or are we trying to figure this thing out?

If we're trying to figure this thing out, then we need to quit referring to Occam's Razor, and quit deciding what we think is 'needed' or not or what the exact only application of a 'garrotte' would be, etc.

If you only consider your absolute necessities, and do not account for things like children playing dog-on-a-leash as to why there is a ligature with a handle, or that the victims advocates moved that pineapple to the table that morning since there was a lot of people there, then you are not considering the complexities, based on what you find out about the situation, or the behavior of the people involved.

You simplify it too much, you have nothing but your repeated stances that you refuse to budge on...

...And I don't know why you refused to see it, but there was blood in her vaginal vault as noted per the autopsy, and those areas could have, and most likely did, leak onto that size 12 underwear. Just because the blood was not on the outermost external part of the vulva/lips, doesn't mean it didn't drip down from those areas that were noted in the autopsy still containing blood....

...Ask me how i know this is possible, and i can explain to you from firsthand experience what it's like to be a woman with female parts and how things can 'drip' out without being coated all on the external parts....didn't want to go there with you, but since you insist that the external absence of blood noted by Coroner Meyer means that the underwear HAD to be on before wiping, and then taken down again to wipe... it doesn't have to be the case.. and again, it most likely isn't, or there would be a lot more blood on those size 12s....
Click to expand...

Whaleshark,
You are the one who quotes it often, so you're saying you use it as a 'magical fix'... but I'm trying to do more than a magical fix, so you're proving my point, then?
Click to expand...
The authors you quote are referring to Occam as per the bolded text. You should reread what I posted and the definition of occam as per your post. That definition is dysneyland stuff.

When we are attempting to establish a valid RDI theory, my approach is KISS and Occam, not because they offer true results, but because they allow you to grow your theory slowly and organically. You will very quickly be heading for the headache pills if you attempt to integrate or analyse complex theories in their entirety.

...And I don't know why you refused to see it, but there was blood in her vaginal vault as noted per the autopsy, and those areas could have, and most likely did, leak onto that size 12 underwear. Just because the blood was not on the outermost external part of the vulva/lips, doesn't mean it didn't drip down from those areas that were noted in the autopsy still containing blood....
Click to expand...
I do see it, I refer to it as postmortem release. We simply might have different interpretations of the evidence, and thats fine. I amend my RDI once I have evidence that contradicts some feature of my RDI, I've done this many times over the years.

but since you insist that the external absence of blood noted by Coroner Meyer means that the underwear HAD to be on before wiping, and then taken down again to wipe... it doesn't have to be the case.. and again, it most likely isn't, or there would be a lot more blood on those size 12s....
Click to expand...
This is why we are discussing this subject, so to pin the wipe down sequence, I'll be happy if you can demonstrate that I am 100% incorrect, then we can move forward.



.
 
brit1981 said:
Whoever did this was an evil piece of work, strangling the life of a child, with a rope and a piece of wood to tighten it further is sadistic. Strangulation is not quick, and it is painful. She was six years old.
Click to expand...

Her parents did it.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2
 
rpgman said:
Her parents did it.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Lol.

Maybe we should just agree with RPGman here and be done with it... :)

Cuz this is not good for my health either... I feel like banging my head against a wall sometimes ... Especially when I know UKGuy is going to come right back with his persistent 'logic'.. Sigh... My head hurts!
 
Whaleshark said:
Lol.

Maybe we should just agree with RPGman here and be done with it... :)

Cuz this is not good for my health either... I feel like banging my head against a wall sometimes ... Especially when I know UKGuy is going to come right back with his persistent 'logic'.. Sigh... My head hurts!
Click to expand...

LOL- Mine too!:banghead:
 
So what if we change the subject a little bit.... Even though this is the DNA forum - you know how we roll on these threads... :)

On forums for justice, I just reviewed FR brown's avatar close-up of the mark on jonbenet's face again... I've decided that it is most definitely a partial imprint of a nautical anchor design as seen on buttons/snaps on clothes.

If the nautical anchor was on the jacket vest thing she was wearing, what does this mean for the crime? Was it part of a clothing power struggle with Patsy? Horseplay or fighting with Burke?
If that's a nautical anchor: can we do more of that overlay/ matchup work and find the exact nautical anchors used in the gap outfits for her size... Assuming it really was a Gap outfit, that is...either way, it might be refreshing to discuss this piece of evidence for a while...
 
Whaleshark said:
So what if we change the subject a little bit.... Even though this is the DNA forum - you know how we roll on these threads... :)

On forums for justice, I just reviewed FR brown's avatar close-up of the mark on jonbenet's face again... I've decided that it is most definitely a partial imprint of a nautical anchor design as seen on buttons/snaps on clothes.

If the nautical anchor was on the jacket vest thing she was wearing, what does this mean for the crime? Was it part of a clothing power struggle with Patsy? Horseplay or fighting with Burke?
If that's a nautical anchor: can we do more of that overlay/ matchup work and find the exact nautical anchors used in the gap outfits for her size... Assuming it really was a Gap outfit, that is...either way, it might be refreshing to discuss this piece of evidence for a while...
Click to expand...

I forgot that impression looked like an anchor.
Thanks for reminding me.

And the thought that it was a button impression.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2
 
I think there also was some speculation the impression was an imprint from one of Patsy's rings. The anchor shape perhaps being from a ring prong.
 
BOESP said:
I think there also was some speculation the impression was an imprint from one of Patsy's rings. The anchor shape perhaps being from a ring prong.
Click to expand...

Yes I remember that also
I've seen blown up pics of this impression but I can't remember where.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2
 
Chrishope said:
Garrotte is used so broadly that it really can't be said there is on or two types.
Click to expand...

Okay, to be more exact, there are two main types: Executioner’s Garrote and Assassin’s Garrote. The Executioner’s Garrote consists of a chair (usually) where the victim is restrained while a device around his neck is tightened by some means (varies) behind him. An Assassin’s Garrote consists of a flexible length of wire, cord, rope, twine, etc. with the two ends terminating at some sort of device for easily pulling (handles, knobs, rings, or as in the case of James Bond bad guy Red Grant -- a watch with a retractable wire and pull-ring: http://www.yourprops.com/Red-Grant-Garotte-Wrist-Watch-other-replicas-movie-props-James-Bond-From-Russia-With-Love-1963-prop-42333.html). It is usually not left behind by the person using it -- he keeps it with him for the next time it’s needed.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that you will not see at any other crime scene a device quite like the ligature found around JonBenet's neck, and for supposed professionals to call it a garrote is just ludicrous.

BTW, on a side note, not long ago I saw a guy demonstrating that he had made a small garrote with chopstick handles and a tiny wire. He used it for slicing hard-boiled eggs smoothly and perfectly in half. Worked nicely!


You are absolutely right that the handle was not twisted to pull tighter on the cord around her neck.
Click to expand...
We certainly agree on that. :smile:
.
 
Chrishope said:
I'm not saying I disagree, just trying to go into this in more detail.

Notice both upper and lower points of constriction show petechial hemorrhages. If she was killed by the first constriction would PHs be possible? Petechial hemorrhages are cause by differential pressure between the arteries and veins. Veins are smaller and nearer the surface so they constrict more readily under a given amount of pressure. Once she died, there would be no more pressure, at least not from the heart pumping.

So, I wonder if the ligature/garrote could cause pressure that would produce PHs? I don't know the answer, perhaps someone following this thread knows?

If PHs cannot be caused after death, then the lower constriction cannot have been fatal.

This might suggest the lower constriction was a first attempt? I can't size the marks to anyone's hands, but that might be interesting. I'm thinking the first attempt was unsuccessful because the perp was too small/weak. PR or BR?
Click to expand...

I am not an expert on the medical aspects, but my understanding is that petechiae are formed on the surface of the skin due to the small capillaries bursting, rupturing, or even breaking down after death (or due to various illnesses not related to discussion). When there are many of them grouped together in a small area, we might call it a bruise (think of a hickey -- that’s what it is). Of course, everyone knows about looking for petechial hemorrhaging in and around the eyes of a homicide victim. But they are also seen in other areas for different reasons. I don’t know if a medical examiner can tell without other evidence the cause of petechiae on the surface of the skin, or whether they occurred prior to or after death. It would be good if they could, but it would probably be beyond the knowledge of a coroner who wouldn’t even check internal body temps of a homicide victim or take a vitreous specimen.




Another question is - would postmortem swelling be sufficient to cause that kind of furrow? I don't know. If the first attempt were successful and the garrotte merely staging, then why not place the garrotte over that spot?
Click to expand...
The ligature around her neck (IMO) was moved so the actual cause of death would not be obvious. Actually, that’s not right. Rather than the cause of death (which was strangulation either way), I should say the manner of strangulation. Also more than likely, whoever did this was not criminally sophisticated enough to know that the blanched area would remain. Or... working in the dark with only a flashlight (a “torch” for the Brits), the blanched area might not have even been noticed.

Another speculated reason for the two locations is that the cord could have moved on its own (assuming the pulling force is upward rather than backward) after depressing and overcoming the laryngeal prominence. This would also account for some of the petechia/purpura in the area between the two sites. I tend to not subscribe to this because of the lack of damage noted in the autopsy that should be seen from such an occurence.

As to the post mortem swelling, my understanding is yes, although the amount is debatable. But I don't believe all of the difference in skin elevation is due to swelling. Simply the fact that the skin was depressed for such a length of time by the cord would cause some of the depression to remain after its removal. This is not at all uncommon in strangulation victims, but it is horrible to look at -- especially when it is a child.
.
 
otg said:
Okay, to be more exact, there are two main types: Executioner’s Garrote and Assassin’s Garrote. The Executioner’s Garrote consists of a chair (usually) where the victim is restrained while a device around his neck is tightened by some means (varies) behind him. An Assassin’s Garrote consists of a flexible length of wire, cord, rope, twine, etc. with the two ends terminating at some sort of device for easily pulling (handles, knobs, rings, or as in the case of James Bond bad guy Red Grant -- a watch with a retractable wire and pull-ring: http://www.yourprops.com/Red-Grant-Garotte-Wrist-Watch-other-replicas-movie-props-James-Bond-From-Russia-With-Love-1963-prop-42333.html). It is usually not left behind by the person using it -- he keeps it with him for the next time it’s needed.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that you will not see at any other crime scene a device quite like the ligature found around JonBenet's neck, and for supposed professionals to call it a garrote is just ludicrous.

BTW, on a side note, not long ago I saw a guy demonstrating that he had made a small garrote with chopstick handles and a tiny wire. He used it for slicing hard-boiled eggs smoothly and perfectly in half. Worked nicely!


We certainly agree on that. :smile:
.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your definitions. I'm just saying that both LE and especially Team Ramsey use the term over and over, and not always with much precision.
 
otg said:
I am not an expert on the medical aspects, but my understanding is that petechiae are formed on the surface of the skin due to the small capillaries bursting, rupturing, or even breaking down after death (or due to various illnesses not related to discussion). When there are many of them grouped together in a small area, we might call it a bruise (think of a hickey -- that’s what it is). Of course, everyone knows about looking for petechial hemorrhaging in and around the eyes of a homicide victim. But they are also seen in other areas for different reasons. I don’t know if a medical examiner can tell without other evidence the cause of petechiae on the surface of the skin, or whether they occurred prior to or after death. It would be good if they could, but it would probably be beyond the knowledge of a coroner who wouldn’t even check internal body temps of a homicide victim or take a vitreous specimen.




The ligature around her neck (IMO) was moved so the actual cause of death would not be obvious. Actually, that’s not right. Rather than the cause of death (which was strangulation either way), I should say the manner of strangulation. Also more than likely, whoever did this was not criminally sophisticated enough to know that the blanched area would remain. Or... working in the dark with only a flashlight (a “torch” for the Brits), the blanched area might not have even been noticed.

Another speculated reason for the two locations is that the cord could have moved on its own (assuming the pulling force is upward rather than backward) after depressing and overcoming the laryngeal prominence. This would also account for some of the petechia/purpura in the area between the two sites. I tend to not subscribe to this because of the lack of damage noted in the autopsy that should be seen from such an occurence.

As to the post mortem swelling, my understanding is yes, although the amount is debatable. But I don't believe all of the difference in skin elevation is due to swelling. Simply the fact that the skin was depressed for such a length of time by the cord would cause some of the depression to remain after its removal. This is not at all uncommon in strangulation victims, but it is horrible to look at -- especially when it is a child.
.
Click to expand...


That all makes sense to me. We seem to have the same understanding of petechia. I had thought, like you, that perhaps the reason for giving up on the initial strangling point (the lower point) was to avoid giving away the manner. But I'm not sure it's successful, as it still looks like a manual strangulation to me.
 
UKGuy said:
(snipped)

More input is required on this topic, since it is quite detailed. Some might claim the lower trauma represents a failed first attempt at using the garrote? Although I am sympathetic towards your view, since I regard the garrote as staging, it was not required to kill JonBenet, by all accounts she was already comatose, a pillow would have been sufficient?
.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that had a failed attempt at strangulation occurred, there would be no blanching (blanching occurs when blood fails to return to surface of skin after heart stops pumping). There might be the petechial spotting that we see in the photos around an unsuccessful attempt, but no blanching. DeeDee249 and SunnyRN are really more knowledgeable on this than I, so maybe they (or one of our other resident experts) would like to address it.

I believe that that lower area (the blanched area) is the one which (along with the head blow) actually caused her death. It’s my opinion that the cord was moved shortly after her death occurred. The paintbrush was added after that.
.
 
Whaleshark said:
So what if we change the subject a little bit.... Even though this is the DNA forum - you know how we roll on these threads... :)

On forums for justice, I just reviewed FR brown's avatar close-up of the mark on jonbenet's face again... I've decided that it is most definitely a partial imprint of a nautical anchor design as seen on buttons/snaps on clothes.

If the nautical anchor was on the jacket vest thing she was wearing, what does this mean for the crime? Was it part of a clothing power struggle with Patsy? Horseplay or fighting with Burke?
If that's a nautical anchor: can we do more of that overlay/ matchup work and find the exact nautical anchors used in the gap outfits for her size... Assuming it really was a Gap outfit, that is...either way, it might be refreshing to discuss this piece of evidence for a while...
Click to expand...

I don't see the anchor in the mark. Could you show me where you see it?! Thanks!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 192 more.
Total: 3,810 (members: 193, guests: 3,617)

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
3,617
Total visitors
3,810
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,428
Messages
17,968,722
Members
228,767
Latest member
Dont4get
Back
Top