Expanding Dr.Wecht's series of events...

Surely you are kidding?

I haven't changed my mind, I'm putting forward how things would work if we accept the way Dr.Wecht spelled out how things happened in his opinion.

I just said it was done by one parent, the "conspiracy" you mention is probably very hard to pull off on your own.

Anyway, like Science, theories change as evidence evolves or is discovered.
Has it been evolving for the IDI? I think not.
IDI is the faith based effort to solve the case.

Given Lou SMit's actions, it's LITERALLY faith-based!
 
Motive is pretty important don't you think? Especially when you have two people that you suggest covering for each other. And these people are pillars of society with no background of violence. The only motive that makes any sense is covering for Burke. That is it. That is the only plausible example that these two parents would kill and THEN CONSPIRE a coverup in such a brutal fashion.

A motive? Okay, how does this hit you: fear of what would happen in prison. I'm tempted to quote Robin Williams, but I won't just now.

Agh, I know I am wasting my breath on this with you guys.

Gee, I can't IMAGINE why that might be! :innocent:
 
One thing that seems to be missing from IDI musings about "motive".

It must be considered that "motive" in this case may not be motive for COMMITTING the crime, but motive to HIDE the prior sexual abuse. The "hidden" secret contained in poor JB's little body. Erosion, bruising, inflammation, a vaginal opening many times larger than normal (even allowing for common anatomical differences) for a child that age- all which did NOT take place the night of the crime. "Motive" to keep the secret. Pretty strong motive there, if you ask me.

BTW, even if you are too stubborn to recognize that erosion takes more than one occasion to occur, you have to understand that the widening of the vaginal canal doesn't happen from one night of penetration. It takes several events of sexual contact over time to cause it.
 
One thing that seems to be missing from IDI musings about "motive".

It must be considered that "motive" in this case may not be motive for COMMITTING the crime, but motive to HIDE the prior sexual abuse. The "hidden" secret contained in poor JB's little body. Erosion, bruising, inflammation, a vaginal opening many times larger than normal (even allowing for common anatomical differences) for a child that age- all which did NOT take place the night of the crime. "Motive" to keep the secret. Pretty strong motive there, if you ask me.

BTW, even if you are too stubborn to recognize that erosion takes more than one occasion to occur, you have to understand that the widening of the vaginal canal doesn't happen from one night of penetration. It takes several events of sexual contact over time to cause it.

"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306)

I tend to believe the FBI over people on payrolls and authors of books - whatever their credentials. Meyer never said there were signs of chronic sexual abuse. He only commented on the digital penetration that occurred that night.

Mind you, I lean a little toward prior sexual abuse....but I'm not seeing anything that leads me to believe it was ongoing for a long time prior to her death. IMO
 
This is an excellent point. I am sure they also knew that people would be watching BR's reactions to everything going on. I also feel certain that at some point that morning, the Rs KNEW that JB's body was going to be "found" by someone, and did not want BR there when it happened. Getting him out of the house was the only way to handle it. Of course, as they knew there really was no kidnapper, there was no fear of sending BR off with then-friend FW. Otherwise, I can think of NO reason- NONE- where parents of a kidnapped child let their OTHER child out of their sight for a MOMENT. Didn't Patsy say "Keep your babies close to you"? Right.

BEM: I think this makes perfect sense.
 
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2011/08/15/websleuths-radio
Websleuths Radio The Truth About The JonBenet Ramsey Case


(15:33) CW: Well there would be a sound, but that sound, not a sound that carries. So, that sound that would have been produced by such a blow, assuming that it occurred in the room in which she was found, or any other place. Is not a sound that would have reverberated elsewhere through the house,
let alone anywhere out doors. So the sound is of no consequence .
With regard to to other part of your comment and question about the furrowing.
As far as I can determine from the autopsy report and everything that I've read and heard from Dr. Myers and from others, except that they have been published, suggests nothing other that that particular garrote, that particular rope having been applied in producing the furrowing. And of course, on the rope around the neckwhat's very important to note is that it was used as a garrote. It was not just a rope and
somebody tieing it, or encircling the neck and turning it. There was a piece of wood that was used as a tourniquet.
So that you turn the wood, and just as you would a tourniquet, somebody's bleeding from a lacerated artery in their arm or leg and you want to apply a tourniquet to stop the hemorrhaging.

KK?

If as CW suggests, the paint brush was turned, would that tourniquet type of application be evidenced by a puckering of the skin around the center point of rotation.
 
A motive? Okay, how does this hit you: fear of what would happen in prison. I'm tempted to quote Robin Williams, but I won't just now.



Gee, I can't IMAGINE why that might be! :innocent:

These theories are about as likely as little green men jumping down my chimney with both of them in on it. At least in this case. And your hero Wecht now claims strangling came first. That kind blows a hole in your theory does it not?

I guess upon eating some bad food or something The R's said lets play sex games with our daughter and murder her in some god awful way. We are old and lets garner up some attention for ourselves.
 
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2011/08/15/websleuths-radio
Websleuths Radio The Truth About The JonBenet Ramsey Case


(15:33) CW: Well there would be a sound, but that sound, not a sound that carries. So, that sound that would have been produced by such a blow, assuming that it occurred in the room in which she was found, or any other place. Is not a sound that would have reverberated elsewhere through the house,
let alone anywhere out doors. So the sound is of no consequence .
With regard to to other part of your comment and question about the furrowing.
As far as I can determine from the autopsy report and everything that I've read and heard from Dr. Myers and from others, except that they have been published, suggests nothing other that that particular garrote, that particular rope having been applied in producing the furrowing. And of course, on the rope around the neckwhat's very important to note is that it was used as a garrote. It was not just a rope and
somebody tieing it, or encircling the neck and turning it. There was a piece of wood that was used as a tourniquet.
So that you turn the wood, and just as you would a tourniquet, somebody's bleeding from a lacerated artery in their arm or leg and you want to apply a tourniquet to stop the hemorrhaging.

KK?

If as CW suggests, the paint brush was turned, would that tourniquet type of application be evidenced by a puckering of the skin around the center point of rotation.


All I can tell you is what I believe: I believe Dr. Wecht got confused on this because of the issue with the paintbrush used on the "garrote." It happens to all of us who have been around this case so long; details get mixed up when it's been a while since you have thought about them or talked about them.

I think Wecht was confused because a true garrote actually does use something like the paintbrush handle to twist the cord tighter around the neck. Traditionally that was the actual definition of a garrote, but of course through time it has expanded. We've had many discussions about the correctness of that term, but we use it because loosely defined what was used on JB was and is often called a garrote. It's just shorter than "strangulation device" when you're writing.

I've never seen anyone argue that there is evidence on the body that the paintbrush was placed under the cord on the neck and turned to tighten it. I think we'd see different bruising than what was left by the simple pulling of the noose of the cord with the long end of it, using the paintbrush as a handle. I also don't see any evidence that the paintbrush was inserted into the dangling cord to "twist" it rather than pull.

Edit: I think it's best if you want to google up "garrote" or "garotte" yourself, rather than me posting a link; that stuff is very dicey.... :eek:

So all I can say is I think Dr. Wecht misspoke. I cut him slack on this because he's done so many autopsies, speaking extemporaneously on a case this old is a challenge even for him. I don't in fact know anyone who has ever spoke or written much about this case through the years who hasn't made mistakes.

Here's something funny: more than once I've actually read forum posts I found while googling a topic of the case, which I read and thought, "Oh, that's interesting, I never thought of that," only to look at the top of the post to see who wrote it--and it was ME! lol :blush:
 
Here's something funny: more than once I've actually read forum posts I found while googling a topic of the case, which I read and thought, "Oh, that's interesting, I never thought of that," only to look at the top of the post to see who wrote it--and it was ME! lol :blush:

That should be the definition of when you know you've been doing something too long.... eek!
 
That should be the definition of when you know you've been doing something too long.... eek!

No kidding! I blame Tricia! To quote a famous movie villain: "I keep trying to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!" Godfather III

Then he had a heart attack.
 
I truly believe that if this was a sexual game 'gone wrong', that another device was used for the 'game' and the 'garrote' was used as staging. Since John put a scarf in JonBenets coffin, that is still my choice of a 'sex game toy'.

Even if Burke was in no way involved, with his sisters death, what and when do you think he learned some/all of what happened? Do you think John would be despicable enough to blame Patsy, after she died, even if he himself were guilty?
 
How many murders will get away with it because people cannot grasp the idea that there is not AWAYS a motive? Sometimes things get carried away and death results when none was intended. But the "risky" activity that caused the death is illegal in its own right?

That'd do the trick for me on this case.
Excellent post, DeeDee.
 
All I can tell you is what I believe: I believe Dr. Wecht got confused on this because of the issue with the paintbrush used on the "garrote." It happens to all of us who have been around this case so long; details get mixed up when it's been a while since you have thought about them or talked about them.

I think Wecht was confused because a true garrote actually does use something like the paintbrush handle to twist the cord tighter around the neck. Traditionally that was the actual definition of a garrote, but of course through time it has expanded. We've had many discussions about the correctness of that term, but we use it because loosely defined what was used on JB was and is often called a garrote. It's just shorter than "strangulation device" when you're writing.

I've never seen anyone argue that there is evidence on the body that the paintbrush was placed under the cord on the neck and turned to tighten it. I think we'd see different bruising than what was left by the simple pulling of the noose of the cord with the long end of it, using the paintbrush as a handle. I also don't see any evidence that the paintbrush was inserted into the dangling cord to "twist" it rather than pull.

Edit: I think it's best if you want to google up "garrote" or "garotte" yourself, rather than me posting a link; that stuff is very dicey.... :eek:

So all I can say is I think Dr. Wecht misspoke. I cut him slack on this because he's done so many autopsies, speaking extemporaneously on a case this old is a challenge even for him. I don't in fact know anyone who has ever spoke or written much about this case through the years who hasn't made mistakes.

Here's something funny: more than once I've actually read forum posts I found while googling a topic of the case, which I read and thought, "Oh, that's interesting, I never thought of that," only to look at the top of the post to see who wrote it--and it was ME! lol :blush:

Thanks for feedback, KK.

I had wondered about the tourniquet type of application. There would only be certain positions along bound neck in which the paint prush handle could be rotated. I wondered if the abrasions on JBR's face, and back could be close to equal distance from the pivot point (center point).
 
"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." (PMPT pg 306)

I tend to believe the FBI over people on payrolls and authors of books - whatever their credentials. Meyer never said there were signs of chronic sexual abuse. He only commented on the digital penetration that occurred that night.

Mind you, I lean a little toward prior sexual abuse....but I'm not seeing anything that leads me to believe it was ongoing for a long time prior to her death. IMO

I'm not getting in your business, vlpate, but I believe you have misinterpreted that passage. The FBI was saying that the vaginal trauma from THAT NIGHT was not done for sexual gratification.
 
These theories are about as likely as little green men jumping down my chimney with both of them in on it.

Like I said, pilgrim, it's a lot easier to say that without the numerous examples I could list.

At least in this case.

And just WHAT makes this case so special?

And your hero Wecht now claims strangling came first. That kind blows a hole in your theory does it not?

Number one, he ain't my hero. I'm not really sure how you came up with that one.

Number two, he's always claimed that, but I don't buy it.

I guess upon eating some bad food or something The R's said lets play sex games with our daughter and murder her in some god awful way. We are old and lets garner up some attention for ourselves.

I'm wondering if SOMEONE ate some bad food, all right! What in God's name are you talking about?
 
No kidding! I blame Tricia! To quote a famous movie villain: "I keep trying to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!" Godfather III

God, don't I know what you mean! I'm in a similar quandary NOW!

Then he had a heart attack.

I seem to be headed that way, myself.
 
One thing that seems to be missing from IDI musings about "motive".

It must be considered that "motive" in this case may not be motive for COMMITTING the crime, but motive to HIDE the prior sexual abuse. The "hidden" secret contained in poor JB's little body. Erosion, bruising, inflammation, a vaginal opening many times larger than normal (even allowing for common anatomical differences) for a child that age- all which did NOT take place the night of the crime. "Motive" to keep the secret. Pretty strong motive there, if you ask me.

BTW, even if you are too stubborn to recognize that erosion takes more than one occasion to occur, you have to understand that the widening of the vaginal canal doesn't happen from one night of penetration. It takes several events of sexual contact over time to cause it.




DeeDee, I need your help in sorting something out please... Its well known and documented that JB was wiped down prior to the redressing. We also know that urine was found in her panties. Wouldnt that mean she died after she was wiped down and redressed? And before she was strangled? I mean wouldnt her body have evacuated that urine at the time of death? So this would mean she was alive for most of what took place? The blood that was wiped off in my opinion was from a vaginal trauma that occurred before the paintbrush was ever introduced. The paintbrush was the diversion....

I know there has to be a thread that covers this and I'm sure I've been on it, but I cant seem to find one at the moment.... TIA!!!!
 
DeeDee, I need your help in sorting something out please... Its well known and documented that JB was wiped down prior to the redressing. We also know that urine was found in her panties. Wouldnt that mean she died after she was wiped down and redressed? And before she was strangled? I mean wouldnt her body have evacuated that urine at the time of death? So this would mean she was alive for most of what took place? The blood that was wiped off in my opinion was from a vaginal trauma that occurred before the paintbrush was ever introduced. The paintbrush was the diversion....

I know there has to be a thread that covers this and I'm sure I've been on it, but I cant seem to find one at the moment.... TIA!!!!
Hey AC, good to see you back.

Take a look here:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5684171&postcount=231"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - A rather "personal" question about female part[/ame]

and…
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5684231&postcount=232"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - A rather "personal" question about female part[/ame]
 



Those were exactly the posts I was thinking about and could not remember where I had read them.. You as always are amazing and thank you Cynic for the warm welcome back and the fast response with the exact answer....

I really believe that this all started in her room that night....

Again thank you and you rock as always!!!!!!
 
I was very surprised to hear that the strangulation must have come first as for me it raises the question of "What was the point of the head injury?".
If the head injury had occurred first, I can see that the garrote would have been applied as an it displays an obvious cause of death before an autopsy, but why strike her, leaving a non-visable injury to her skull after death?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
184
Guests online
2,133
Total visitors
2,317

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,128
Members
228,014
Latest member
Back2theGardenAgain
Back
Top