Cords, Knots, and Strangulation Devices

otg said:

Thomas described it as a "splinter" after he knew the results of the analysis. The phrase "birefringent foreign material" was an observation made during the autopsy of the visual appearance of something that didn't belong where it was found. But again, I say pay close attention to the exact wording. Maybe I am over-interpreting, and this is only my opinion, but I think it is in the same sentence with another observation for a reason. Also, he doesn't state or estimate the amount, so my interpretation of that leaves open the possibility that there may have been more than just a couple of pieces.

All this = MHO

Click to expand...

otg,

Sure they may be more. A piece of the paintbrush handle is still missing, but could conceivably, have been left inside JonBenet. This would be consistent with the phrase birefringent foreign material.

The use of the phrase birefringent foreign material in the autopsy can be a device to mask its identity, since many materials are birefringent.


.

madeleine said:

This is an enlarged photo of her neck&cheek injuries.

http://connect.in.com/jonbenet-ramsey/photos-48n29sp-3c887beae3d2bb0e.html

I just don't think that the cord would have left so many marks....especially if it was applied as staging.
Could it be that she was strangled with her necklace?The one with the cross on it?

Click to expand...

Her necklace was wound up with the cord, so it would have pressed against her neck, but I think a thin chain like that would break under the force that would be needed to strangle her, and not only that, if used alone it would have dug a deeper, more narrow furrow and may actually have cut into her flesh and that was not noted.

madeleine said:

And look at that abrasion,no way is that a stun gun mark.I always thought it looks like a burn (cigarette boxes found in the basement) but I guess the coroner would have noticed it if so,or?
So what on earth caused all those abrasions on her body?

Click to expand...

I always though it looked like a cigarette burn also. But I would imagine a coroner would have been able to tell that. He described them as "abrasions", not burns, which would look different in person.
There was a CIGAR box found in the WC, not cigarette boxes.

DeeDee249 said:

I always though it looked like a cigarette burn also. But I would imagine a coroner would have been able to tell that. He described them as "abrasions", not burns, which would look different in person.
There was a CIGAR box found in the WC, not cigarette boxes.

Click to expand...

DeeDee249,

The abrasions might be consistent with JonBenet falling backwards onto something or being dragged bodily along a floor.

.

UKGuy said:

otg,

Sure they may be more. A piece of the paintbrush handle is still missing, but could conceivably, have been left inside JonBenet. This would be consistent with the phrase birefringent foreign material.

The use of the phrase birefringent foreign material in the autopsy can be a device to mask its identity, since many materials are birefringent.

.

Click to expand...

I can't disagree with a word of that, as you stated it. Our interpretations may be different, but I wouldn't completely exclude that as a possibility.

DeeDee249 said:

Her necklace was wound up with the cord, so it would have pressed against her neck, but I think a thin chain like that would break under the force that would be needed to strangle her, and not only that, if used alone it would have dug a deeper, more narrow furrow and may actually have cut into her flesh and that was not noted.

Click to expand...

madeleine said:

Maybe it would tighten if you pulled both tails of cord trailing from the knot.But what was the purpose of the stick then.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Follow me on this one, folks: what if (WHAT IF) the person used the cord like a real garrote first, crossing the ends behind the neck, THEN tied the ligature as we see it?

UKGuy said:

DeeDee249,

The abrasions might be consistent with JonBenet falling backwards onto something or being dragged bodily along a floor.

.

Click to expand...

Maybe the ones noted on the back of her legs, but the one on her cheek an the pair on her back are not the type that would result from being dragged, That type would look more like a scrape than the circular marks we see. The one on her cheek certainly wouldn't happen from a fall backwards. Also, a fall would produce a bruise. The ones on her back are above the small of her back and in an area that would be unlikely to hit anything in a fall as well as also being too circular.
There was a bruise noted on her shoulder. It can be seen on some sites that post the autopsy photos, but interestingly, it does not appear on most sites , including ACR.
We have nor seen any photos of the abrasions on the legs.

DeeDee249 said:

Maybe the ones noted on the back of her legs, but the one on her cheek an the pair on her back are not the type that would result from being dragged, That type would look more like a scrape than the circular marks we see. The one on her cheek certainly wouldn't happen from a fall backwards. Also, a fall would produce a bruise. The ones on her back are above the small of her back and in an area that would be unlikely to hit anything in a fall as well as also being too circular.
There was a bruise noted on her shoulder. It can be seen on some sites that post the autopsy photos, but interestingly, it does not appear on most sites , including ACR.
We have nor seen any photos of the abrasions on the legs.

Click to expand...

DeeDee249,

Well that was me running with the accident theory. It seems JonBenet has a varied range of injuries , abrasions, bruises, and internal injuries e.g. her split cranium.

These injuries do not seem to be consistent with a bedwetting episode followed by an enraged parent.

I wonder if JonBenet was being abused physically, prior to her death, and that this was part of someone enacting a deviant role culminating in sexual contact, as Coroner Meyer remarked.

The injuries seem extreme assuming it was all accidental followed by a staging?


.

UKGuy said:

DeeDee249,

Well that was me running with the accident theory. It seems JonBenet has a varied range of injuries , abrasions, bruises, and internal injuries e.g. her split cranium.

These injuries do not seem to be consistent with a bedwetting episode followed by an enraged parent.

I wonder if JonBenet was being abused physically, prior to her death, and that this was part of someone enacting a deviant role culminating in sexual contact, as Coroner Meyer remarked.

The injuries seem extreme assuming it was all accidental followed by a staging?


.

Click to expand...

Only the skull fracture is extreme, and that wasn't visible until the autopsy. Her other injuries fall into external or internal categories. Internal injuries consist of bruising, abrasions, erosion and small amounts of blood. They are suggestive of sexual contact, and in a child that makes it horrible, but in and of themselves they are not extreme injuries. We know she bled, but there was no severe wound reported, internally or externally.
It has been mentioned, and I agree, that had this been a true pedophile attack, her injuries would have been much more extreme.
Her external injuries consist of the round, small abrasions on her cheek and back, some scratches on the back of her legs, and a large bruise on her posterior shoulder. Not really extreme.
The ligature furrow, though horrible to see, really isn't an injury per se, but the result of the cord being tight around her neck. Petechiae are not injuries either. They are also conditions resulting from her strangulation.

otg said:

(My, my -- such and impatient group.) I'm trying to cover the physical evidence left at the scene and what it tells us, and everyone wants to know the answers before we even know all of the questions.

Okay, let me say this... I have a theory based on what the evidence tells me, but the very same evidence may tell you something else. We will never know with certainty what happened. Sorry to disappoint, but that is the one thing that is almost certain. All we (or investigators) can do is look at what we know and what we don’t know, and then draw conclusions based on the best information we have. And then remember too that investigators have information we don’t; and because of spin and misdirection, we probably have information that is incorrect. Then filter that through where we get our information (newspapers, magazines, tabloids, television, radio, and internet) and tell me what the chances are of getting a real clear picture of what happened.





The problem here (as is often the case) is that the "evidence" we know about is a mixture of elements. Those elements are:

1. Items from what actually happened -- both pertinent and non-pertinent (Examples: Does food in the refrigerator have anything to do with JonBenet’s death? No. But if I tell you there was pineapple from the refrigerator in a bowl on the counter, and that pineapple was found in her stomach, suddenly it is (or at least might be) pertinent. The task here is recognizing the difference.)
2. Items unrelated to the “initial event” added afterward as staging (Examples: A doll placed next to her body? Some people might say the ransom note had nothing to do with her death, but was added later -- of course, making that a separate crime.)
3. Items from the "initial event" that were altered or moved to misdirect (Example: Maybe a suitcase used for one purpose was moved to another location for the purpose of misdirection.)

Virtual Truth, you ask about the paint brush. Let me direct you to the pieces of evidence that you, the police, and everyone here already knows and see if you draw the same conclusion I draw about that.

For now, don’t focus on the entire “crime”, and forget about any conclusions you’ve already made. I won’t spell it out, but I’ll simply point out which pieces of evidence I see as “pertinent” in this and let you figure it out.

1. An artist’s paint brush (with it’s factory finish deteriorating and coming off) broken into three pieces -- brush end found in a paint supply tray, middle piece attached to a piece of cord left around the decedent’s neck, and the end piece (notably) missing.
2. A family conscious of “social standing” and public image.
3. Coroner’s report describing atypical findings of a pre-pubescent girl’s genitalia.
4. Coroner’s report describing “birefringent foreign material” in the vaginal mucosa. It really would be best if you (and everyone else) read the coroner’s exact wording on that again to understand exactly what he is saying (IMO).
5. (Now this item is admittedly my interpretation, but I feel it is obvious, and pertinent, and therefore evidentiary.) The parents of an assumedly murdered child lying to, and later evading questions from, investigators.

Got it? Five items. Why did the end piece have to disappear?

Click to expand...

I don't know that the end piece "had" to disappear at all. Viewing the paintbush, both ends are broken off. Did this happen when the strangulation occurred as a result of force or when the perp fashioned the ligature?

Logical answer: when it was fashioned. Why else would the brush end be placed back neatly into the paint supply tray (makes me think of the pen being neatly placed back in its holder after the ransom note was written). Also a force break occurs in ONE place at the weakest point. This brush was broken at either end.

The cellulose material found tells me that the acute injury was caused by a wooden object. Let's make the unlikely assumption that evidence was tested and scrutinized carefully, and no other paintbrush down there had evidence of vaginal fluids/blood on it. If so, then the brush end from the ligature was the brush that was inserted to cause the acute trauma.

The autopsy results would seem to support this, even beyond the cellulose material: (From the JonBenet Ramsey case encyclopedia)

A 1 cm red-purple area of abrasion is located on the right posterolateral area of the 1 X 1 cm hymenal orifice.
The area of abrasion is present at approximately the 7:00 position and appears to involve the hymen and distal right lateral vaginal wall and possibly the area anterior to the hymen.

1 cm. About the size of the head of the paintbrush? Methinks yes.

Using your instructions and forgetting my theory, here are possibilities:

1) Unlikely intruder (ok, I fudged. I can't forget my theory. STILL) :

The intruder would not care one bit where the paintbrush head was. However, where it was found would show the intruder's attitude toward the victim. If left in the vagina, it would show a desire to further degrade the victim. If tossed aside, it would mean that the intruder was finished with his/her fantasy toy. If taken, it would mean the intruder wanted a souvenir to remember the crime later.

2) RDI:

They couldn't leave that paintbrush end inside the victim. It would be terribly degrading. It had to be done to mimic a sexual assault but would be horrifying to look at, to hang on to, its mere existence would be anathema.

The brush came from their home. They had to assume the police would know this. How do you show that it wasn't you? What if that end of the paintbrush, used for such a horrible purpose, was missing? That would point to an unknown intruder taking it and also allow you to get rid of the awful thing.

There are my reasons for why that paintbrush end had to disappear. What are your reasons?

iWithin the past 48 hours I have heard or read that the 'stun gun bruises' when viewed with a magnifying glass showed a picture from a snap on Jon Benets clothing. Un fortunately I can not remember if it was on 'a candy rose' to in ST book! Too much information, along with a lack of sleep due to work. If anyone else has read this can you please post a link. Thank you.

Found it:

CBS 48Hours 10-04-2002
Dr. Warner Spitz, Pathologist
Says No Stun Gun
Screen capture by ACandyRose

October 4, 2002 8pm DST CBS 48 Hours Investigates - Searching for a Killer

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Three other pathologists agreed but the Boulder Police are relying instead on this man's opinion."

Erin Moriarty: "How sure are you that it's not a stun gun?"

Dr. Werner Spitz: "Well I'm a hundred percent sure because stun gun injuries don't look that way."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Dr. Werner Spitz, a nationally known pathologist who has worked on major cases including the assassination of J.F. Kennedy."

Erin Moriarty: "This was now on her and this was done on a pig skin."

Dr. Werner Spitz: "Are you telling me that this looks to you like the other one, the one that JonBenet has? They don't look like that to me at all. A stun gun injury is an electrical burn, it's a burn essentially. And these don't look like burns."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Instead, Spitz believes the large dark mark on JonBenet's face was left by a snap on a piece of clothing"

Dr. Werner Spitz: "You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. If you look at it closely with a magnify glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries."

Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "Unfortunately with only photographs to go by no expert, not Dr. Spitz and not Dr. Dobersen can be one hundred percent sure."

The reason this was significant to me, is because about 5 years ago I was talking to a ME I worked with at a hospital. He showed me pictures of a young woman who had been murdered by strangulation. He told me she was killed the 'same way as that little girl in CO'. On her neck she had the same shaped 'bruise' area as Jon Benet had on her neck. The ME stated she had been choked with a material, like a scarf or a silky type blouse. She also had one mark below her ear. When I asked him what it was from, he said most likely a button.

At that point I had not ever seen the autopsy pictures of Jon Benet. Could it be that she was first strangled with a softer object, maybe clothing with snaps, then the cord was placed around her neck as part of the staging? When I looked at her autopsy photo and read the article on a candy rose, I remembered the ME, at that hospital in CA and what he said to me about the marks and how the young woman had gotten them.

Ok, now the hair is standing up on the back of my neck!

DeeDee249 said:

I always though it looked like a cigarette burn also. But I would imagine a coroner would have been able to tell that. He described them as "abrasions", not burns, which would look different in person.
There was a CIGAR box found in the WC, not cigarette boxes.

Click to expand...

Wasn't there one box that JR didn't recognize?Romeo and Juliet or something?

SuperDave said:

Hmm. Follow me on this one, folks: what if (WHAT IF) the person used the cord like a real garrote first, crossing the ends behind the neck, THEN tied the ligature as we see it?

Click to expand...

I was thinking about that but IMO the shorter tail is too short.

I was thinking that no way does that kind of knot tighten when you pull because IMO it looks like there are two separate knots.But my partner looked at it and told me there are not two knots,looks more like a knot sailors use to make .He made such a loop around my hand ,same type of knot and pulled ,and it does tighten.BUT you have to position the cord and the knot a second time in order to tighten it to the max.And you have to pull by holding the knot down with one hand(NOT the neck or shoulder or back/in this case) and the longer tail with the other.
Agh I don't know how to explain better.

madeleine said:

I was thinking that no way does that kind of knot tighten when you pull because IMO it looks like there are two separate knots.But my partner looked at it and told me there are not two knots,looks more like a knot sailors use to make .He made such a loop around my hand ,same type of knot and pulled ,and it does tighten.BUT you have to position the cord and the knot a second time in order to tighten it to the max.And you have to pull by holding the knot down with one hand(NOT the neck or shoulder or back/in this case) and the longer tail with the other.
Agh I don't know how to explain better.

Click to expand...

madeleine:
IMO, your partner is right. It's not any kind of exotic, complicated, or profession-specific knot, just a simple knot tied on the cord itself that allows it (depending on how tight it was tied) to slip and tighten.
.

tragco said:

I don't know that the end piece "had" to disappear at all. Viewing the paintbush, both ends are broken off. Did this happen when the strangulation occurred as a result of force or when the perp fashioned the ligature?

Logical answer: when it was fashioned. Why else would the brush end be placed back neatly into the paint supply tray (makes me think of the pen being neatly placed back in its holder after the ransom note was written). Also a force break occurs in ONE place at the weakest point. This brush was broken at either end.

The cellulose material found tells me that the acute injury was caused by a wooden object. Let's make the unlikely assumption that evidence was tested and scrutinized carefully, and no other paintbrush down there had evidence of vaginal fluids/blood on it. If so, then the brush end from the ligature was the brush that was inserted to cause the acute trauma.

The autopsy results would seem to support this, even beyond the cellulose material

Click to expand...

Very good! (my bold)

tragco said:

Using your instructions and forgetting my theory, here are possibilities:

1) Unlikely intruder (ok, I fudged. I can't forget my theory. STILL) :

The intruder would not care one bit where the paintbrush head was. However, where it was found would show the intruder's attitude toward the victim. If left in the vagina, it would show a desire to further degrade the victim. If tossed aside, it would mean that the intruder was finished with his/her fantasy toy. If taken, it would mean the intruder wanted a souvenir to remember the crime later.

2) RDI:

They couldn't leave that paintbrush end inside the victim. It would be terribly degrading.

Click to expand...

Yes (to everything in the previous quote).

tragco said:

It had to be done to mimic a sexual assault...

Click to expand...

I disagree with that one. I think an attempt was made to cover up the sexual aspects of what happened. In fact, (and this is only my opinion) I think that that was the entire reason behind the staging that was done.
.

The only thing I don't get if JDI or PDI is why use Patsy's brush for the garrote??Especially if the garrote was meant only as staging.I DON'T GET IT.
And let's say BR played with it,an accident happened.
Why did the parents leave it on JB's neck?

I mean,they were so careful to remove the practice notes,the set of Bloomies,cord,tape.....but they use Patsy's paintbrush?

Something doesn't make sense,dunno what but.........