Dna

New Posts

I put a comparison photo together which may illustrate what I meant in my last post regarding the "white" area of the ligature marking on the neck at autopsy, located approx. where the knot would have finally rested after it worked its way to the right as it was pulled from behind.

WARNING: AUTOPSY PHOTOS!

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=190215&postcount=32"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - JonBenet Ramsey autopsy photos - CAUTION GRAPHIC![/ame]
 
KoldKase said:
There are abrasions on the neck that are visible with the naked eye which, in my layperson's opinion, could be from the small chains links being rolled up the neck, under pressure from the ever-tightening ligature.

The ligature was never removed after it was tightened. I in fact had to cut the cord off my own leg once I tightened it similar to the furrow in the photos.

There are no bruises from fingerprints left on the neck to indicate anyone strangled the child manually.

Also, it's a common mistake for people to think the "paintbrush handle" was somehow used to "twist" the cord. It was not. It was simply pulled: you couldn't possibly twist the attached cord itself and make the noose around the neck do anything in terms of effectively tightening it. Using the ligature like a true garrote--i.e. with the noose encircling the neck and looped over the stick itself, which is then turned like a faucet to tighten the noose, execution-style--would have left further bruising and abrasion on the neck skin at the site of that kind of friction. There is none. In fact, if you notice the area under the knot of the ligature on the neck is actually the least bruised section; it appears to me that the cord was lifted slightly away from the neck from behind as the handle was pulled to tighten it. Of course, I'm just guessing.

The hair tied into the knot of the ligature at the neck was still attached to the scalp, it's true. Why wouldn't it be? She had very long hair and the ligature noose only rolled up the neck in the front for a few inches, whereas in the back it was rather turning in the same location.

The hair tied into the handle: if it was still attached, I'll have to revisit my thoughts on this, but I don't remember that it was stated that was still attached to the head. I could be simply forgetting or misunderstood that piece of info. If you remember off the top of your head, could you direct me to that particular statement of the evidence? Don't look it up or go to any trouble, but just if you have it on hand. I've forgotten so much by now. :blush:

[I made a composite picture which I posted in my next post, #101, which may clarify what I mean--and please don't think I believe I'm absolutely, 100% right. I'm just fumbling along here, waiting for an expert to explain it to us one fine day.]
Click to expand...

KoldKase,
I forget the source, but I think it is an autopsy photograph. If the garrote was used more as a noose than a garrote and an explanation is forthcoming for the lack of trauma beneathe the necklace, then I'll revise my opinion to accept JonBenet was killed with the garrote, and not simply by the ligature, although I still think the garrote is staging.


.
 
KoldKase said:
I put a comparison photo together which may illustrate what I meant in my last post regarding the "white" area of the ligature marking on the neck at autopsy, located approx. where the knot would have finally rested after it worked its way to the right as it was pulled from behind.

WARNING: AUTOPSY PHOTOS!

Forums For Justice - View Single Post - JonBenet Ramsey autopsy photos - CAUTION GRAPHIC!
Click to expand...

KoldKase,
In the image on the right, there seems to be clear evidence of a prior constriction, lying directly beneath the upper circumferential furrow, inflcited whether by hand, collar or ligature. This is one reason why I reckon the garrote is staging, even if functionally it did kill JonBenet?


.
 
UKGuy said:
KoldKase,
In the image on the right, there seems to be clear evidence of a prior constriction, lying directly beneath the upper circumferential furrow, inflcited whether by hand, collar or ligature. This is one reason why I reckon the garrote is staging, even if functionally it did kill JonBenet

.
Click to expand...


As you state, in the picture on the right, there is evidence of another constriction. If one imagines that the hands were placed around the neck with fingers towards the back of the neck and thumbs towards the front, then the dark red mark could be from where the two thumbs joined and pressed hard, the lighter red mark at the lower right, under the darker mark could be from the portion of the hand between forefinger and thumb?

Just speculation. I don't know what a manual strangulation is supposed to look like, but we can see clearly there is no furrow associated with the lower constriction.
 
Chrishope said:
As you state, in the picture on the right, there is evidence of another constriction. If one imagines that the hands were placed around the neck with fingers towards the back of the neck and thumbs towards the front, then the dark red mark could be from where the two thumbs joined and pressed hard, the lighter red mark at the lower right, under the darker mark could be from the portion of the hand between forefinger and thumb?

Just speculation. I don't know what a manual strangulation is supposed to look like, but we can see clearly there is no furrow associated with the lower constriction.
Click to expand...

Chrishope,
Yes, well spotted. Not only that but from having discussed this topic many times before, its similar to the Barbie Nightgown, from memory and the autopsy photographs should confirm this. The lower trauma is not circumferential. From the back in one of the autopsy photographs, there is no lower furrow! This is what led me to suspect years ago that there had been a prior strangulation and that the garrote wa staging?

That the garrote killed JonBenet rather confuses the above assumption.

Again to reiterate this is how I view the death of JonBenet, as a series of stepwise stagings, at each stage, attempts are made to eliminate errors from the previous.


.
 
UKGuy said:
DeeDee249,

This is precisely, over many posts, what I quoted to you, e.g. verbatim opinion. For the record, do you give precedence to either of Coroner Meyer's manner of communication?


As far as you can see? Well he did and I will elucidate it for you:



1. Red stains observed on size-12's, assumed to be blood.
2. No blood observed on the exterior pubic area, located next to the areas of the size-12's containing the red stains.
=================
Conclusion:
=================
3. JonBenet was wiped down

Coroner Meyer's conclusion reached from separate facts observed at autopsy are to be read in the last sentence in the above verbatim opinion.


Your theory has some merit, but relates to the volume of blood having exited, at some point, from JonBenet. A subject which Coroner Meyer also offers no opinion on!

Whilst the original subject was that JonBenet was already wearing the size-12's prior to being wiped down, and that is my inference, and it is based on something Coroner Meyer opined on, and if queried on oath, I'm certain he would agree?


That is two different subjects are being conflated, e.g.

1. The timeline in which JonBenet was wiped down: prior to being redressed in the size-12's or after?

2. The volume of blood exiting from JonBenet.



.
Click to expand...

Once again- Mayer reached NO conclusion about what may have caused the bleeding he simply wrote what he found. Stating that she had been wiped by a cloth, to me, is an observation, not a conclusion. We still have nothing in writing from the coroner about how these injuries (and the resulting bleeding) were caused. But if it makes you feel better, call it a "conclusion". To me, a conclusion is the "end"- a final statement. The final part of this observation is missing- as there is nothing that indicated the cause.

For the record, I prefer Mayer's WRITTEN observations over those spoken to those present at the autopsy. I think most people would agree.

I doubt Mayer would agree, under oath or not, that JB was wearing the size 12 panties before she was wiped down. There would have been more blood on them, and the blood on the panties would be in a different location. This he has already said- that the blood drops do not match the area on her body where she had been wiped down. I simply cannot spin it any other way and simply cannot see how there is anything that indicates she was wearing them before she was wiped down.
Here is my timeline:
1. assault causing bleeding occurs
2. bleeding necessitated wiping
3. panties needed replacing.
4. replacement panties found in basement, wrapped up in a gift box, possibly with other items.
5. size 12 panties put on JB.
 
Some years ago, iirc, in one of the depositions, Patsy was asked if JonBenet and Burke ever played "horse" or some similar game. I believe Patsy replied that sometimes she pretended to be a dog and Burke would put a leash of sorts around her and lead her around. Does anyone else remember this?
 
BOESP said:
Some years ago, iirc, in one of the depositions, Patsy was asked if JonBenet and Burke ever played "horse" or some similar game. I believe Patsy replied that sometimes she pretended to be a dog and Burke would put a leash of sorts around her and lead her around. Does anyone else remember this?
Click to expand...

I do recall that. I also recall Patsy saying that BR was always "trying to make a boat or something" (her words) with a rope.

This family knew about ropes and knots. They were sailors and BR was a scout and JR was in the Navy.
 
Please, please, please. The “handle” that was attached to one of the tailpieces of the ligature that was found on JonBenet’s neck was never twisted to tighten it. It was dysfunctional in that respect, and probably impossible to do because of the hair that was caught up in the knot. Her hair was shorter than the length of cord between the ligature and the “handle”, so neither was it pulled to tighten the ligature. The simple logistics of how this would work makes impossible to be anything other than something that was added on to a lifeless body as nothing more than staging.

I had wondered before (and even asked on this forum) if anyone knew whether the hair caught in the knot attached to the broken paintbrush was pulled out by the roots, or did the coroner have to cut the hair in order to remove it. After a little closer scrutiny of the picture taken of her body lying on the floor in her home, I believe her hair to still be attached and caught up in the knot on the paintbrush, which would verify (in my mind anyway) that the device found around her neck was not functional .

Just google images of garrotes and you’ll find two types: the type that was used in formal executions in Spain for several centuries, and the type that assassins use -- the latter always having two ends that are pulled away from one another when used:

(http://dailygunpictures.blogspot.com/2010/10/daily-gun-pictures-presents-garotte.html)

.
 
UKGuy said:
The lower trauma is not circumferential. From the back in one of the autopsy photographs, there is no lower furrow! This is what led me to suspect years ago that there had been a prior strangulation and that the garrote was staging?
Click to expand...
Or... perhaps the back part of the two circumferences is confluent.

Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).

I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching.
.

 
DeeDee249 said:
I do recall that. I also recall Patsy saying that BR was always "trying to make a boat or something" (her words) with a rope.

This family knew about ropes and knots. They were sailors and BR was a scout and JR was in the Navy.
Click to expand...


I think too much is made of this sailor stuff. For two reasons;

One, and most important, there was nothing very sophisticated about the garrotte. In fact the windings around the paint brush handle are more skillful than the knot at JBR's neck.

Second, I served in the navy and I can only make a few basic knots. That's all I ever need. People who sail boats need to know some knots, but one doesn't have to be a sailor to know how to tie a simple slip knot.

Actually there is a third reason, and it's this - why would the Rs want to show off their knot tying skills under these circumstances. Isn't it better not to have the knots linked with their "special skills" ?
 
otg said:
Please, please, please. The “handle” that was attached to one of the tailpieces of the ligature that was found on JonBenet’s neck was never twisted to tighten it. It was dysfunctional in that respect, and probably impossible to do because of the hair that was caught up in the knot. Her hair was shorter than the length of cord between the ligature and the “handle”, so neither was it pulled to tighten the ligature. The simple logistics of how this would work makes impossible to be anything other than something that was added on to a lifeless body as nothing more than staging.

I had wondered before (and even asked on this forum) if anyone knew whether the hair caught in the knot attached to the broken paintbrush was pulled out by the roots, or did the coroner have to cut the hair in order to remove it. After a little closer scrutiny of the picture taken of her body lying on the floor in her home, I believe her hair to still be attached and caught up in the knot on the paintbrush, which would verify (in my mind anyway) that the device found around her neck was not functional .

Just google images of garrotes and you’ll find two types: the type that was used in formal executions in Spain for several centuries, and the type that assassins use -- the latter always having two ends that are pulled away from one another when used:

(http://dailygunpictures.blogspot.com/2010/10/daily-gun-pictures-presents-garotte.html)

.
Click to expand...


Garrotte is used so broadly that it really can't be said there is on or two types.

You are absolutely right that the handle was not twisted to pull tighter on the cord around her neck.
 
DeeDee249 said:
Once again- Mayer reached NO conclusion about what may have caused the bleeding he simply wrote what he found. Stating that she had been wiped by a cloth, to me, is an observation, not a conclusion. We still have nothing in writing from the coroner about how these injuries (and the resulting bleeding) were caused. But if it makes you feel better, call it a "conclusion". To me, a conclusion is the "end"- a final statement. The final part of this observation is missing- as there is nothing that indicated the cause.

For the record, I prefer Mayer's WRITTEN observations over those spoken to those present at the autopsy. I think most people would agree.

I doubt Mayer would agree, under oath or not, that JB was wearing the size 12 panties before she was wiped down. There would have been more blood on them, and the blood on the panties would be in a different location. This he has already said- that the blood drops do not match the area on her body where she had been wiped down. I simply cannot spin it any other way and simply cannot see how there is anything that indicates she was wearing them before she was wiped down.
Here is my timeline:
1. assault causing bleeding occurs
2. bleeding necessitated wiping
3. panties needed replacing.
4. replacement panties found in basement, wrapped up in a gift box, possibly with other items.
5. size 12 panties put on JB.
Click to expand...

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.


Here is my timeline:
1. assault causing bleeding occurs
2. bleeding necessitated wiping
3. panties needed replacing.
4. replacement panties found in basement, wrapped up in a gift box, possibly with other items.
5. size 12 panties put on JB.
Click to expand...

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?
 
otg said:
Or... perhaps the back part of the two circumferences is confluent.

Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).

I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching.
.
Click to expand...

otg,
Or... perhaps the back part of the two circumferences is confluent.
Click to expand...
Good point, is this distinct from the lower trauma simply being the origin of the garrote, which under pressure moves upwards, thus yielding the circumferential furrow?

Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).
Click to expand...
Yes, again good point, does lack of the distinct v-shape indicate it was definitely not a hanging, or could it indicate manual ligature constriction from above, e.g. with JonBenet kneeling or lying on her back?

I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching.
Click to expand...
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?

P.S. Here is that view of the back of her neck:
backneck.jpg


e.g. Just one furrow not two!


.
 
There are a lot of photos of strangulation victims at FFJ in the autopsy section, as well as at CrimeShots. You can see how a ligature rolls up the neck, as well as how the V shaped bruise on the neck happened during that process.

Bruising on the neck clearly proves the cord rolled up the neck, IMO, and rested in the location where it was found at autopsy. It wasn't applied post mortem; the bruises prove that, I believe.

I'm not saying the child was hanged. When I use the term "noose" I simply mean the circle of cord around her neck, tied on her with a slip knot which, when pulled, tightened that noose and strangled her.

Remember she was laying on her stomach at that point. So the force used to pull on the handle on the cord would have pulled the body up, as well. I've speculated that the bruise on her upper back/shoulder blade on the right was from being held down as the cord was being pulled tighter. I may be wrong, of course, but things don't just lay there when you pull on them unless they're bolted down or something.

I've very confused as to why the term "twist" keeps being used in relation to the cord around the neck. If you don't believe the cord was tightened by the pulling of the broken paintbrush tied onto the end, okay. I still don't understand the use of the word "twist," though; there is nothing logical I can see in "twisting" a long, limp piece of cord in relation to this ligature around the neck. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what y'all mean by "twist."

I've also never seen any evidence the hair tied into the paintbrush handle was still attached to the child's scalp. As I remember it, Thomas said the hair tied into the knot at the neck was still attached to the scalp, but I have no recollection of anyone every claiming that was also true of the hair tied into the paintbrush handle. Maybe I'm simply confused, but I've never seen this in many years of reading and discussions...or at least, I don't remember it. Anyone have a source for that info?

I've missed noticing any photo where one can see hair tied into the paintbrush knot and attached to the scalp of the child, but I'd like to see that. Perhaps you can post the link to that? And thanks in advance.
 
KoldKase said:
There are a lot of photos of strangulation victims at FFJ in the autopsy section, as well as at CrimeShots. You can see how a ligature rolls up the neck, as well as how the V shaped bruise on the neck happened during that process.

Bruising on the neck clearly proves the cord rolled up the neck, IMO, and rested in the location where it was found at autopsy. It wasn't applied post mortem; the bruises prove that, I believe.

I'm not saying the child was hanged. When I use the term "noose" I simply mean the circle of cord around her neck, tied on her with a slip knot which, when pulled, tightened that noose and strangled her.

Remember she was laying on her stomach at that point. So the force used to pull on the handle on the cord would have pulled the body up, as well. I've speculated that the bruise on her upper back/shoulder blade on the right was from being held down as the cord was being pulled tighter. I may be wrong, of course, but things don't just lay there when you pull on them unless they're bolted down or something.

I've very confused as to why the term "twist" keeps being used in relation to the cord around the neck. If you don't believe the cord was tightened by the pulling of the broken paintbrush tied onto the end, okay. I still don't understand the use of the word "twist," though; there is nothing logical I can see in "twisting" a long, limp piece of cord in relation to this ligature around the neck. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what y'all mean by "twist."

I've also never seen any evidence the hair tied into the paintbrush handle was still attached to the child's scalp. As I remember it, Thomas said the hair tied into the knot at the neck was still attached to the scalp, but I have no recollection of anyone every claiming that was also true of the hair tied into the paintbrush handle. Maybe I'm simply confused, but I've never seen this in many years of reading and discussions...or at least, I don't remember it. Anyone have a source for that info?

I've missed noticing any photo where one can see hair tied into the paintbrush knot and attached to the scalp of the child, but I'd like to see that. Perhaps you can post the link to that? And thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

KoldKase,
Why was the garrote used, it was not required. A simple ligature was enough to kill JonBenet?

Here are some of the garrote photographs:
garrote1.jpg


garrote2.jpg


garrote3.jpg

Note the hair embedded into the knotting

garrote4.jpg

Note the hair embedded into the knotting

.
 
There WERE bloodstains on the blanket - see below:

Screen Capture of DNA Lab Report -- Lists all the places there is blood found/tested....

"Two lines BLACKED OUT
DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A, #15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??"
 
Whaleshark said:
There WERE bloodstains on the blanket - see below:

Screen Capture of DNA Lab Report -- Lists all the places there is blood found/tested....

"Two lines BLACKED OUT
DATE COMPLETED/JANUARY 13, 1997
EXTRACT(?) DESCRIPTION
#5A,5B# (?) Bloodstains from shirt
#7 Bloodstains from panties
#14B Bloodstain ????? from JonBenet Ramsey
#14J DNA? Or Swab? with Saliva????
#14L, #14M Right and Left hand fingernails from JonBenet Ramsey
#15A, #15B Samples from tape
Bloodstains from white blanket
#17A, #17C Bloodstains from nightgown??"
Click to expand...

Whaleshark,
Yes, I remember this now. Those bloodstains were explained away as contamination via the Barbie Nightgown. Still its yet another item that should not have bloodstains?


.
 
UKGuy said:
KoldKase,
Why was the garrote used, it was not required. A simple ligature was enough to kill JonBenet?
Click to expand...


Why were there two causes of killing: head blow AND strangulation, if only one would suffice?



...UKGuy, ok already -- just BECAUSE something may not have been 'needed', doesn't make it not so. It may only take someone one hard stabbing to kill someone, so why stab someone 84 times? Yet it happens...

...Just because it wasn't NEEDED, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
otg said:
Or... perhaps the back part of the two circumferences is confluent.

Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).

I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching.
.
Click to expand...


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?

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 126 more.
Total: 3,807 (members: 127, guests: 3,680)

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
3,681
Total visitors
3,808
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,674
Messages
17,957,372
Members
228,584
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top