Cords, Knots, and Strangulation Devices

[Chrishope]

otg

Thanks for the link to post 5, I see your point now.

I'll have another look at the photos.


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5524361&postcount=30"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The Turtleneck Theory[/ame]

It does appear there is a classic hanging ligature mark.

 

[DeeDee249]

Chrishope, thank you for expressing your doubts. I've been looking forward to convincing you.

See Post - 5 (and the discussion posts around it) for the discussion about the markings on her neck. I believe the blanched area in the photo was where the hanging caused her strangulation. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough in this post that where the furrow became evident was part of the staging. I believe the location of the cord around her neck was moved from it's location when it strangled her. I can't tell you why it was moved (it's too speculative and not based on any evidence), but I suspect it was because it was a natural parental response to want to remove or loosen the cord when she was found. When it was placed back, it was placed in another location, the postmortem swelling began, and the furrow was formed.
.

I don't see the garrote as having been moved at all. It was pulled twice before death, possibly wrapped once after death (the white mark). Why remove it, only to put it back on her again?
As far as postmortem swelling, I don't see great evidence of that on JB's neck, nor on the small portion of her head we see in the photos (the one where we see her open mouth and chin). As you probably know, hanging victims will always have marked swelling above the neck, and none was noted by the coroner or by the officer present when she was found- this was 18 hours and 12 hours after death, respectively. Her tongue was not protruding, either, as happens with a hanging, but it is visible because her mouth is open. The coroner did not note any marked swelling in her tongue, noting only a "slight drying artifact".

Come to think of it, what exactly was that "slight drying artifact" that Mayer noted? he never stated what it was, though by definition any artifact is something that does not belong there, it is something foreign that has been placed or ends up in a location.
It would be very helpful if we knew what it was- a piece of the brush? A paint flake? Cellulose? Fibers? Pineapple?

 

[otg]

I've always been resistant to BDI theories, and this is no exception.

I understand your resistance, and I sympathize with you. I don't want to believe it either, but I can't exclude it as a possibility, and by the evidence -- I think, a probability.

For one thing, it seems unlikely to me that the parents would go to these lengths to cover up (I'm assuming both are in on the staging) to protect a 9 year old. If BDI, Burke was not going to prison. Psychiatric help would be required, but this is no more embarrassing than implicating one's self in a murder.

Yes, yes, yes, and no. They didn't know that he would not be taken away. But try to imagine the embarrassment to a family that was so aware of their "social standing".

I can understand that some RDI theorists believe JR may have had motive to cover up to hide his own prior acts, but that doesn't explain PR getting involved.

No, it doesn't.

Another reason I'm reluctant about BDI is that the theories -yours in particular- have Burke acting in ways that are bizarre for a 9 year old. I'd expect a 9 year old's sexual curiosity to be expressed by playing doctor, or post office. The idea that a 9 year old ties his sister to pipes in the basement is really bizarre. The more oddly Burke is made to act in a BDI theory, the less compelling I find the theory.

This all seems too perverted to be "child's play". This was, IMO, the work of an adult.

Call it "perverted" if you like. I, too, don't believe it is the "normal" way that a ~10-year-old would act out or satisfy his curiosity. But we don't know what he might have been told by slightly older friends or peers that might have caused him to act that way. I just see it as less likely that it would be something that a father, a mother, or even an intruder would do than a prepubescent boy trying to find out about the differences between himself and a female.
.

 

[otg]

You were making sense, until this, you started off so well too. It's totally unbelievable, so please don't ever criticise my IDI theories again as unlikely!!

I never did, Murri, criticize (or criticise, for the Brits ) them as unlikely. I've discussed with you what I might disagree with, and I've agreed with you on points I accepted -- all based on what we know, or what we think we know. Perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else?

I will however continue to express myself if I disagree with you, as I invite you to do the same with me (and hope you will) in a civil debate.
.

 

[otg]

You were making sense, until this, you started off so well too. It's totally unbelievable, so please don't ever criticise my IDI theories again as unlikely!!

Oh, can you tell me more than just than just that "it's totally unbelievable?" What about it is unbelievable? Some particulars would be appreciated more than just personal opinion.
.

 

[DeeDee249]

otg

Thanks for the link to post 5, I see your point now.

I'll have another look at the photos.


Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - The Turtleneck Theory

It does appear there is a classic hanging ligature mark.

It doesn't appear like that to me. First of all, that photo is "rotated"- made to look like JB's head is upright. In reality, that photo is of her on the autopsy table, lying flat, before she was undressed for the autopsy.
There is no "classic" hanging ligature mark. The sole white mark had to have been made postmortem during the early "blanching" phase of livor mortis. IF someone "hung" her at that point after she was dead, or suspended her with her head upright, the livor pattern would indicate that, It did not. The livor pattern showed blood pooling on he right side of her face and cheek, indicating her head cocked to the right, exactly as she was found.
You have to consider ALL of it- the livor patterns, rigor mortis, the circumferential deep red furrows. The smear of vomit/mucus on her right cheek. Not just the one, slightly angled white mark.
It can't be BOTH ways. The white mark can't have been made during blanching phase if the livor pattern found on her face/cheek doesn't match. It doesn't. And vice-versa- if she was hung after livor was fixed (non-blanching phase) then the white mark wouldn't have been there.
The angle of the white mark can just as easily have occurred while she was lying flat on her stomach, while the cord was wrapped and pulled from behind. It isn't that much of an angle. Hanging victims have furrows that are much more angled.

To me, the white mark indicates the cord was pulled once MORE around her neck, AFTER she was dead, during the early non-blanching stage of livor.

 

[otg]

Hi, DD. I've been waiting to hear from you.
:wave:

I believe the head bash followed her scream, for sure. But the ligature furrow marks do not indicate she was hung or suspended in any way.

No, I agree, the furrow does not. The blanched area below it does.

As for her hair being wrapped around the stick and cord- at the autopsy, Mayer reported having to cut JB's hair in order to separate the garrote completely from her as it was tangled up in the cord, so I don't believe her hair was pulled out by the perp(s).

Nor do I. I asked the question because I haven't heard it addressed. Where did the coroner say that?

Mayer also reported cutting the cord in various places in order to remove it- and he marked the places where he had made the cut with magic marker. This is pretty standard- the knots should not be untied by the coroner because the way in which they are tied is considered evidence as well, not to mention any forensic evidence that may be in the knot or on the cord. In JB's case, there is ongoing debate about the knots and whether they are simple knots anyone would tie or something more complex. At least two people in the house knew about knots- JR because he was in the Navy and also because he owned boats. BR because he was a scout, and I belive he also sailed. I don't know whether Patsy or JAR knew about knots, but I'd bet they did.

Yes, the marking of the cord before cutting is standard, I believe. But it was only cut in one place to remove it from her neck.

As for BR's behavior that morning, eventually JR did admit that BR was awake that morning and BR also admitted it, saying he heard a lot of loud talking and running around but stayed in his room pretending to be asleep. Whether this is true or not can't be known, but I do believe he did come down to the kitchen at the time of the 911 call, and was told by his parents to go back to his room and stay there until someone came to get him. And I think that is what he did. There was no need for BR to ask about why they weren't going on their trip that morning because by the time he was taken from his room to go to the White's (really, to get him OUT of the house and away from LE) he already KNEW something BAD had happened to his sister. Removing him from the house not only prevented LE from asking him if he may have seen or heard anything unusual (he DID- the loud talking, running about and who knows what else) and also prevented any of the R "guests" that morning from asking him anything as well.

They admitted he was awake after they were confronted with the evidence that his voice was on the 911 call.

I agree on the reason for removing him from the house. No telling what he might have said if anyone talked to him or asked him a question. But do you not think it odd that he didn't ask any questions or communicate anything to anyone as he was being led through the circus (at least, according to the reports we have heard)?
.

 

[otg]

It doesn't appear like that to me. First of all, that photo is "rotated"- made to look like JB's head is upright. In reality, that photo is of her on the autopsy table, lying flat, before she was undressed for the autopsy.
There is no "classic" hanging ligature mark. The sole white mark had to have been made postmortem during the early "blanching" phase of livor mortis. IF someone "hung" her at that point after she was dead, or suspended her with her head upright, the livor pattern would indicate that, It did not. The livor pattern showed blood pooling on he right side of her face and cheek, indicating her head cocked to the right, exactly as she was found.
You have to consider ALL of it- the livor patterns, rigor mortis, the circumferential deep red furrows. The smear of vomit/mucus on her right cheek. Not just the one, slightly angled white mark.
It can't be BOTH ways. The white mark can't have been made during blanching phase if the livor pattern found on her face/cheek doesn't match. It doesn't. And vice-versa- if she was hung after livor was fixed (non-blanching phase) then the white mark wouldn't have been there.
The angle of the white mark can just as easily have occurred while she was lying flat on her stomach, while the cord was wrapped and pulled from behind. It isn't that much of an angle. Hanging victims have furrows that are much more angled.

To me, the white mark indicates the cord was pulled once MORE around her neck, AFTER she was dead, during the early non-blanching stage of livor.

Who is it who once said:

"There is a very clear indication of a WHITE ligature mark on her neck, beneath the furrow where the cord is embedded. As you know, a WHITE mark is produced when something presses into the flesh in a corpse in the early, blanching (NON-fixed) stage of livor mortis. It is a mark made shortly AFTER death. That, to me, says even more significantly that the garrote was staging, even if the strangulation was done while she was still (barely) alive."

Yes, it all depends on timing -- timing of the onset of livor mortis, when the ligature was moved, and how long it was in each of those positions.
.

 

[MurriFlower]

Oh, can you tell me more than just than just that "it's totally unbelievable?" What about it is unbelievable? Some particulars would be appreciated more than just personal opinion.
.

Hmm, Ok, well I quote otg who apparently allows himself to have a personal opinion and express them, but not so those who disagree

I will however continue to express myself if I disagree with you, as I invite you to do the same with me (and hope you will) in a civil debate.
.

I'm disappointed in that you appeared to be quite rational in your thinking, and then, the final analysis is just an old "BR sexual experiment leading to an accident" theory!! Excuse me for expecting more. I am merely expressing myself in disagreement with you. I could go into details about why I don't think a 9 yo with no prior history of bizzare sexual behaviour would do such an outrageous act, which is then covered up by his parents, but I feel that sadly, it would fall on deaf ears.

Gosh, and all that good work with the knots, cords, etc, all gone to waste. I've got to say that it would be more believeable to me if you substituted an IDI for her loving 9yo brother, who has been forever scarred by her death. I can somehow understand when people on this forum try to blame her parents, they had a high profile and were rich and influential, which can cause envy related hatred. But to try and implicate her young brother is inexplicible. I don't think a debate on this subject would lead to a happy ending.

 

[DeeDee249]

Hmm, Ok, well I quote otg who apparently allows himself to have a personal opinion and express them, but not so those who disagree

I'm disappointed in that you appeared to be quite rational in your thinking, and then, the final analysis is just an old "BR sexual experiment leading to an accident" theory!! Excuse me for expecting more. I am merely expressing myself in disagreement with you. I could go into details about why I don't think a 9 yo with no prior history of bizzare sexual behaviour would do such an outrageous act, which is then covered up by his parents, but I feel that sadly, it would fall on deaf ears.

Gosh, and all that good work with the knots, cords, etc, all gone to waste. I've got to say that it would be more believeable to me if you substituted an IDI for her loving 9yo brother, who has been forever scarred by her death. I can somehow understand when people on this forum try to blame her parents, they had a high profile and were rich and influential, which can cause envy related hatred. But to try and implicate her young brother is inexplicible. I don't think a debate on this subject would lead to a happy ending.

That is rather insulting to suggest that RDI blame the parents because they are rich and we are jealous. We don't hate them because we envy them. We blame them because that is where the evidence leads us. The younger brother can be implicated in the absence of a known perp simply because he was in the house. ALL residents of the house known to be at home at the time she was killed are viable suspects, regardless of their age or who has "exonerated" them. No one can be cleared until the killer is NAMED.

I don't think anyone knows for a fact wether BR has been forever scarred by the death of his sister. This crime still haunts him, that's for sure, because there is the perception of "renewed interest" (we'll see). I would think it would be of great help to him to clear up a lot of things, but he has chosen to remain silent.

 

[MurriFlower]

That is rather insulting to suggest that RDI blame the parents because they are rich and we are jealous. We don't hate them because we envy them. We blame them because that is where the evidence leads us. The younger brother can be implicated in the absence of a known perp simply because he was in the house. ALL residents of the house known to be at home at the time she was killed are viable suspects, regardless of their age or who has "exonerated" them. No one can be cleared until the killer is NAMED.

I don't think anyone knows for a fact wether BR has been forever scarred by the death of his sister. This crime still haunts him, that's for sure, because there is the perception of "renewed interest" (we'll see). I would think it would be of great help to him to clear up a lot of things, but he has chosen to remain silent.

We blame them because that is where the evidence leads us. The younger brother can be implicated in the absence of a known perp simply because he was in the house.

my bold

There is no evidence against any of the Rs. Simply being in the house does not automatically implicate the Rs in the death. This is the same as saying the neighbours would be the next suspects in line due to proximity.

 

[Chrishope]

my bold

There is no evidence against any of the Rs. Simply being in the house does not automatically implicate the Rs in the death. This is the same as saying the neighbours would be the next suspects in line due to proximity.

For starters there's the RN written by PR.

 

[MurriFlower]

For starters there's the RN written by PR.

There is no evidence of this.

 

[Chrishope]

There is no evidence of this.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[MurriFlower]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Yep, RDI demonstrate this daily/hourly/minutely.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

my bold

There is no evidence against any of the Rs. Simply being in the house does not automatically implicate the Rs in the death. This is the same as saying the neighbours would be the next suspects in line due to proximity.

I explained to certain RDI years ago that the R's house has windows and doors and everything. More recently, with BPD going dry on local suspects including the R's, it lends more credence to the ransom note. Need to check foreign factions now.

Lately, though I've been thinking more about the house. JBR slept on separate floor, the house had a basement, and security was not high. They had no active security system, motion lighting, or big dogs.

There's nothing in the ransom note that definitively proves the ransom note author knew JR previously. In fact there is indication he didn't.

So, the intruders could've had more than one potential target or victim, staked them out, and chose JBR because of the house. The house lends itself to criminal activity such as this because of the active lack of security, JBR in her own room, and the basement. These characteristics of the house would be superfluous to any IDI theory where the perp knew JR.

Would these characteristics that lend themselves to criminal activity just be a coincidental advantage to intruders who already knew JR and decided to kidnap/kill his daughter? Or was the house and family the primary choice among others that were cased first?

 

[otg]

(my bold) I don't see the garrote as having been moved at all. It was pulled twice before death, possibly wrapped once after death (the white mark). Why remove it, only to put it back on her again?

I can’t give you an answer to that. The only thing I can guess is that the first reaction from John (as it would be for any father) would be to loosen the cord from her neck before he realized she was dead, and before he knew that he would be altering the evidence. I don’t think it was his plan from the start.

As far as postmortem swelling, I don't see great evidence of that on JB's neck, nor on the small portion of her head we see in the photos (the one where we see her open mouth and chin). As you probably know, hanging victims will always have marked swelling above the neck, and none was noted by the coroner or by the officer present when she was found- this was 18 hours and 12 hours after death, respectively.

I don’t know by any measured standards how much swelling had occurred. I would think that to be something the coroner should have measured, but it may be another of those things that was done but not recorded, or simply not done. I do believe there was swelling; I think that is why the ligature furrow was as deep as it is. I think it probably also looks to be deeper than it actually is due to the dark discoloration at the center.

Her tongue was not protruding, either, as happens with a hanging, but it is visible because her mouth is open. The coroner did not note any marked swelling in her tongue, noting only a "slight drying artifact".

If my theory is correct, she would not have been hanging long enough for all of the reactions typically associated with hanging to occur. I believe she was cut down within thirty minutes at most.

Come to think of it, what exactly was that "slight drying artifact" that Mayer noted? he never stated what it was, though by definition any artifact is something that does not belong there, it is something foreign that has been placed or ends up in a location.
It would be very helpful if we knew what it was- a piece of the brush? A paint flake? Cellulose? Fibers? Pineapple?

I don’t know what it is either, DD. I’ve tried to imagine what it might mean, but without more information it’s one of those things I guess we’ll have to wait and hope we find out one day. I can offer my best guess -- but again, I don’t know. I had at one time thought that it could be simply that the end of the tongue (being the smallest part) would dry out first. But there is that word: “artifact”. I don’t think the coroner would use that word for no reason when he is noting that the end of the tongue had begun drying out. I suppose it could be where the tip of the tongue had touched up against the sticky side of the tape, but that too is only a guess. What do you think the significance of that might be?
.

 

[Toltec]

Well...seems to me whomever fashioned the "garotte" was a perfectionist..notice the strands are almost perfectly wrapped around the paintbrush stick...

What killer/kidnapper takes the time to make the "garrote" look tidy...

Who in the home is a perfectionist or for lack of a better word anal/retentive???

 

[otg]

Hmm, Ok, well I quote otg who apparently allows himself to have a personal opinion and express them, but not so those who disagree

I'm disappointed in that you appeared to be quite rational in your thinking, and then, the final analysis is just an old "BR sexual experiment leading to an accident" theory!! Excuse me for expecting more. I am merely expressing myself in disagreement with you. I could go into details about why I don't think a 9 yo with no prior history of bizzare sexual behaviour would do such an outrageous act, which is then covered up by his parents, but I feel that sadly, it would fall on deaf ears.

Gosh, and all that good work with the knots, cords, etc, all gone to waste. I've got to say that it would be more believeable to me if you substituted an IDI for her loving 9yo brother, who has been forever scarred by her death. I can somehow understand when people on this forum try to blame her parents, they had a high profile and were rich and influential, which can cause envy related hatred. But to try and implicate her young brother is inexplicible. I don't think a debate on this subject would lead to a happy ending.

Murri, where do I begin to respond to that? It would be much easier to simply agree with your last sentence and agree to disagree. But I’ll give you the benefit of a longer response because I feel you deserve it, and because I don’t want you to be so disappointed in my conclusions.

Apparently, you thought that I “appeared to be quite rational in (my) thinking”, until I came to a different conclusion than the one you had wanted to hear. Believe me, I don’t like thinking that JonBenet might have been killed by her brother. But I don’t believe it was intentional, and I wouldn’t even go as far as you did to call it “bizarre sexual behavior” or an “outrageous act”.

I suppose you would find it more “believable” had I “substituted an IDI for her loving 9yo brother”, but that would be trying to fit a wannabe conclusion to the known facts rather than letting the evidence dictate the conclusion. You see, that’s the difference between my theory and your belief. I am not “trying to implicate her young brother” at all. While my opinion of what the evidence tells us may be wrong (There is after all a lot we don’t know, and a lot that we think we know that may be wrong -- but I recognize that and allow for it.), I didn’t form the opinion first and then try to manipulate the evidence to support it.

One more thing I should point out, Murri, is that since you don’t know the social or financial status of anyone you speak to here, it’s a long stretch to say that everyone who disagrees with your opinion does so because of “envy related hatred”, even if you “can somehow understand” it.

If you choose to calm down discuss the evidence, I will gladly do so, and I promise you I will treat you with respect even though you disagree with me. But I can’t debate you on your opinion -- I can, and will probably, disagree with it, but I can’t debate it, and I won't try to.
.

 

[DeeDee249]

my bold

There is no evidence against any of the Rs. Simply being in the house does not automatically implicate the Rs in the death. This is the same as saying the neighbours would be the next suspects in line due to proximity.

That is faulty logic. The neighbors were not actually THERE to commit the murder, the Rs were. In order to kill someone, you have to be in the same place as they are. Unless a next-door neighbor shot her through the window, which obviously we know did not happen. Being in the house, from an LE point of view, makes anyone of sufficient age (and yes, that means BR) there at the time a potential suspect UNTIL a name is associated with the killer. This isn't just MY idea.