Dna

[UKGuy]

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

I believe that that lower area (the blanched area) is the one which (along with the head blow) actually caused her death. It’s my opinion that the cord was moved shortly after her death occurred. The paintbrush was added after that.
.

otg,
Interesting, so due to the blanching, the lower trauma might actually represent the point of asphyxiation? That would certainly explain everything if that was so. I remember someone commenting that the upper furrow is so due to postmortem expansion giving the furrow a more active appearance?

If the lower trauma is consistent with manual strangulation then it fits nicely with someone attempting to silence JonBenet to prevent her crying out when she was assaulted. Alternatively it plays into the PDI, with Patsy enraged at JonBenet, say for bedwetting, grabs her neck constricting it, and not realizing her own strength, say due to prescription drugs or too much wine etc, leaves JonBenet comatose.

Yes if DeeDee249 or SunnyRN can confirm what you suggest this could be a turning point?


.

 

[otg]

otg,
Interesting, so due to the blanching, the lower trauma might actually represent the point of asphyxiation? That would certainly explain everything if that was so. I remember someone commenting that the upper furrow is so due to postmortem expansion giving the furrow a more active appearance?

If the lower trauma is consistent with manual strangulation then it fits nicely with someone attempting to silence JonBenet to prevent her crying out when she was assaulted. Alternatively it plays into the PDI, with Patsy enraged at JonBenet, say for bedwetting, grabs her neck constricting it, and not realizing her own strength, say due to prescription drugs or too much wine etc, leaves JonBenet comatose.

Yes if DeeDee249 or SunnyRN can confirm what you suggest this could be a turning point?

.

mmmmmmmmmm.............. I guess that's where we will have to part ways, UKGuy.

If by manual strangulation you mean using one's bare hands on the throat, I see no evidence of that. The blanched area is from the same cord (IMO) wrapped around her neck and causing her death (along with the head blow). I believe the cord was then moved up to its final position and tightened just enough to be somewhat tight. Post mortem swelling then caused the rest of the depth of the furrow.

But, hey! That's all just my opinion. You know what they say about opinions...
.

 

[UKGuy]

mmmmmmmmmm.............. I guess that's where we will have to part ways, UKGuy.

If by manual strangulation you mean using one's bare hands on the throat, I see no evidence of that. The blanched area is from the same cord (IMO) wrapped around her neck and causing her death (along with the head blow). I believe the cord was then moved up to its final position and tightened just enough to be somewhat tight. Post mortem swelling then caused the rest of the depth of the furrow.

But, hey! That's all just my opinion. You know what they say about opinions...
.

otg,
Sure, but its fine to have the manual strangulation discarded, its better to narrow down our options.

If you are correct then we have some answers to what took place in the basement, and if Coroner Meyer is also correct, then she might have been wiped down here also?


.

 

[Whaleshark]

I don't see the anchor in the mark. Could you show me where you see it?! Thanks!!

Oh man...I may have to draw the outline of it for you, playing with it in Paint or something...and paste a photo of a nautical anchor next to it....may be able to work on it later tonight...

For now, if you can imagine, the anchor shape in her closeup photo is sideways - so imagine if the nautical anchor was straight up - the one in her wound is tilted diagonally to the left, and you're looking at the bottom part of the anchor mainly.... well, let me see if I can quickly paste some in here for now, and see if you can see it; otherwise, I'll try to draw it in over the pic later...

(Keep in mind, there are all types of styles, but I'll try to find the closest I can... with a point at the bottom, no rope around the anchor in her wound shape, and not as pointed on the ends as some anchors are):

Her wound may have overlap and partial impressions as well....

...For what it's worth, I think her wound shape is more like the fatter anchor style in the bottom picture...

 

[Whaleshark]

I don't disagree with your definitions. I'm just saying that both LE and especially Team Ramsey use the term over and over, and not always with much precision.

But, of course....because as long as the Ramseys' Spin Team (ie Lou Smit) called the simple rope with a handle a 'complicated garrotte with expert knots' and intended to be used for such purpose only, then it had to steer the guilt away from the Ramseys...

Which is why I continue to say, remove the term 'garrotte' from this, and quit worrying about it supposed to be staging only because it did not function as an intended 'garrotte' would, and so therefore it must not have been used as part of the item that killed her and had to only be staging.

IT WASN'T A GARROTTE ANYWAY!! That's a Ramsey red herring term... just like the other 'clever and sophisticated methods' this intruder employed....

But just because it wasn't a garrotte, doesn't mean it didn't function to kill her.

 

[Chrishope]

But, of course....because as long as the Ramseys' Spin Team (ie Lou Smit) called the simple rope with a handle a 'complicated garrotte with expert knots' and intended to be used for such purpose only, then it had to steer the guilt away from the Ramseys...

Which is why I continue to say, remove the term 'garrotte' from this, and quit worrying about it supposed to be staging only because it did not function as an intended 'garrotte' would, and so therefore it must not have been used as part of the item that killed her and had to only be staging.

IT WASN'T A GARROTTE ANYWAY!! That's a Ramsey red herring term... just like the other 'clever and sophisticated methods' this intruder employed....

But just because it wasn't a garrotte, doesn't mean it didn't function to kill her.

But just because it wasn't a garrotte, doesn't mean it didn't function to kill her.

Right.

 

[DeeDee249]

Mayer described the cord as a ligature, and never described it as a garrote. That was RST/LouSmit babble.

As for the ligature furrows- this is how livor mortis works: The red marks (which are also deep) were caused when she was alive. The white mark (which is much more shallow, near the surface) occurred after she was dead. The blanching (also known as "Non-fixed") stage of livor mortis causes a white mark to appear under the skin where the blood is pushed away under pressure. Because the heart is no longer pumping, the blood does not return to the area. By then, it has begun to thicken, and become more like gel than a liquid. My opinion is that any white marks were caused by pressure AFTER her death and this includes the white ligature mark around her neck as well as various white marks seen on her back that represent where folds and wrinkles in her clothing (including the pressure from the elastic waistband of her panties/longjohns) pressed against her back as she lay on the hard concrete floor (which even thought she had a blanket under her), would have been hard enough to cause those pressure marks from the fabric. Bottom line- forensically speaking, she HAD to be dead when the white mark was made, whether the person(s) strangling her knew it or not whether it fits into any theory or not.
Mayer noted "semi-liquid" blood in her vagina, and while the bleeding began before she died, the blood had begun to gel. Because some of it was semi-liquid, I believe it is the source of the small blood drops on the panties. The larger amount of blood had been wiped away, and clean panties put on, and at that point, the blood had thickened enough due to postmortem changes, that there was only a tiny amount still in the liquid state that could have seeped out. If you can imagine a gruesome scene, before livor began to form, as JB's body was placed in the wineceller, she may have been tilted upright as she was moved into the wc, and GRAVITY caused those tiny drops. Dead people don't bleed, but blood can ooze and drip from a corpse under certain conditions. THis is very different from the exsanguination (blood draining) that occurs spontaneously as a corpse decomposes. In that case, huge blood blisters form and break, as blood pools in the lower areas of the body. In a body on its back- the livor (and later blisters) will form on the back. In a body lying prone (on the stomach) the livor and blisters) form on the stomach. JB (thankfully) had not reached that stage, but had JR not decided to "find" her, it would have within a day or so under average room temps. JR had described their basement as warm (from the furnace) and stated that was why he didn't rush to repair that broken window.

 

[otg]

See? I told ya’ DD knew her stuff!

But just to clarify one little thing... The blanching had to occur after death -- yes. But that is not to say that the object causing the blanching had to be applied after death.

Also, I should point out that since the cord (assuming that to be what it was) had to be in that area long enough after death to cause the blanching, but not long enough to have caused a prominent furrow, it will give an approximate window of time that the cord would have remained in that position before it was removed (or moved).
.

 

[otg]

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.

KoldKase, if you mean the V shaped bruise that Meyer referred to as “roughly triangular shaped” and “parchment-like”, have I got a thread for you: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123333"]The “roughly triangular, parchment-like rust colored abrasion” - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

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 don’t completely disagree with you. I don’t think it was untied, and then retied in the final location. But I don’t think it rolled up on its own and then tightened up on its own. The geometry of the two angles tells me that the first circumference of cord (the one that appears as the whitish area below the adam’s apple and runs up at an angle to the back of the neck into the furrow) would have to have been larger than the final one which was found on the body. Also, I think that if it was rolled up while it was as tight as it is shown in autopsy photos, it probably would have done more damage to the internal structures of her throat than was described by Dr. Meyer in the autopsy report.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

I'm not saying the child was hanged.

I know. I am. I have. That is the “accident”, I believe, that Dr. Lee referred to.

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.

(I knew what you meant.)
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

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."

Completely agree with you on the illogic in twisting a 17” long piece of nylon cord. Makes no sense whatsoever.
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

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.

KK, in the past, I had posed the question as to whether anyone had any information that I might have missed on whether the hair caught in the paintbrush knot was still attached to her scalp or if it had been pulled out by the roots. It had to be one or the other. Right? And the answer would tell us a great deal. (I’m assuming everyone understands the significance of that.)

If in the autopsy report, Dr. Meyer had noted that he cut the attached hair when he cut the ligature from around her neck, we would know. But he didn’t note that. Does that mean he didn’t have to cut it, or does it simply mean he didn’t make note of it?

I don’t know the answer, but I have come to the conclusion that it was still attached, and Meyer didn’t make note of cutting it. Here’s why:

Length of cord between paintbrush and ligature knot is 17”, which is longer than the length of the longest strands of JonBenet’s hair. This means that with her hair caught in the paintbrush knot, it couldn’t be pulled 17” without pulling her hair. Look at the photo of the paintbrush with the wraps of cord around it and the entangled hair. None of the entangled hair is as long as JonBenet’s hair was, which makes me suspect that it was cut. Add to that the fact that there are no visible roots on the ends of the hair as one would expect were they pulled out at the scalp (Yes, I’ve seen pulled out hair.). Also, the knot that was tied on the cord going around her neck had hair entangled in it; and although Meyer mentions marking and cutting the cord, he doesn’t mention that he had to cut the attached hair. Now, one other photo (which I don’t remember seeing until a couple of years ago) that I looked at a little closer recently is one apparently shown on Court-TV. In it, it appears that the paintbrush is lying close to her head and at least a couple of strands of hair are going directly into the wraps of cord around the paintbrush. The strands are somewhat straight (like they’re being pulled) between the paintbrush and her head.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Mayer described the cord as a ligature, and never described it as a garrote. That was RST/LouSmit babble.

As for the ligature furrows- this is how livor mortis works: The red marks (which are also deep) were caused when she was alive. The white mark (which is much more shallow, near the surface) occurred after she was dead. The blanching (also known as "Non-fixed") stage of livor mortis causes a white mark to appear under the skin where the blood is pushed away under pressure. Because the heart is no longer pumping, the blood does not return to the area. By then, it has begun to thicken, and become more like gel than a liquid. My opinion is that any white marks were caused by pressure AFTER her death and this includes the white ligature mark around her neck as well as various white marks seen on her back that represent where folds and wrinkles in her clothing (including the pressure from the elastic waistband of her panties/longjohns) pressed against her back as she lay on the hard concrete floor (which even thought she had a blanket under her), would have been hard enough to cause those pressure marks from the fabric. Bottom line- forensically speaking, she HAD to be dead when the white mark was made, whether the person(s) strangling her knew it or not whether it fits into any theory or not.
Mayer noted "semi-liquid" blood in her vagina, and while the bleeding began before she died, the blood had begun to gel. Because some of it was semi-liquid, I believe it is the source of the small blood drops on the panties. The larger amount of blood had been wiped away, and clean panties put on, and at that point, the blood had thickened enough due to postmortem changes, that there was only a tiny amount still in the liquid state that could have seeped out. If you can imagine a gruesome scene, before livor began to form, as JB's body was placed in the wineceller, she may have been tilted upright as she was moved into the wc, and GRAVITY caused those tiny drops. Dead people don't bleed, but blood can ooze and drip from a corpse under certain conditions. THis is very different from the exsanguination (blood draining) that occurs spontaneously as a corpse decomposes. In that case, huge blood blisters form and break, as blood pools in the lower areas of the body. In a body on its back- the livor (and later blisters) will form on the back. In a body lying prone (on the stomach) the livor and blisters) form on the stomach. JB (thankfully) had not reached that stage, but had JR not decided to "find" her, it would have within a day or so under average room temps. JR had described their basement as warm (from the furnace) and stated that was why he didn't rush to repair that broken window.

DeeDee249,
So someone had already constricted JonBenet's neck with some ligature, it was removed after she was killed, but was in place long enough for the blanching effect to take place?

Taken along with the upper circumferential furrow this suggests the garrote is staging?

Since the lower trauma is not circumferential this might mean JonBenet was asphyxiated from behind. One example might be is she was seated, and someone applied a ligature from behind, or if she was kneeling, even hanging, and of course the obvious lying on her stomach?

The important question is can we estimate the timeframe in which the upper circumferential furrow and the lower furrow took place?

she may have been tilted upright as she was moved into the wc, and GRAVITY caused those tiny drops.

Perfectly possible, similarly as I mentioned before, it could have occured as JR carried JonBenet upstairs. Wonder why Coroner Meyer never considered this when reaching his wipe down conclusion?


.

 

[UKGuy]

KoldKase, if you mean the V shaped bruise that Meyer referred to as “roughly triangular shaped” and “parchment-like”, have I got a thread for you: The “roughly triangular, parchment-like rust colored abrasion” - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community



I don’t completely disagree with you. I don’t think it was untied, and then retied in the final location. But I don’t think it rolled up on its own and then tightened up on its own. The geometry of the two angles tells me that the first circumference of cord (the one that appears as the whitish area below the adam’s apple and runs up at an angle to the back of the neck into the furrow) would have to have been larger than the final one which was found on the body. Also, I think that if it was rolled up while it was as tight as it is shown in autopsy photos, it probably would have done more damage to the internal structures of her throat than was described by Dr. Meyer in the autopsy report.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
I know. I am. I have. That is the “accident”, I believe, that Dr. Lee referred to.


(I knew what you meant.)
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Completely agree with you on the illogic in twisting a 17” long piece of nylon cord. Makes no sense whatsoever.
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT] KK, in the past, I had posed the question as to whether anyone had any information that I might have missed on whether the hair caught in the paintbrush knot was still attached to her scalp or if it had been pulled out by the roots. It had to be one or the other. Right? And the answer would tell us a great deal. (I’m assuming everyone understands the significance of that.)

If in the autopsy report, Dr. Meyer had noted that he cut the attached hair when he cut the ligature from around her neck, we would know. But he didn’t note that. Does that mean he didn’t have to cut it, or does it simply mean he didn’t make note of it?

I don’t know the answer, but I have come to the conclusion that it was still attached, and Meyer didn’t make note of cutting it. Here’s why:

Length of cord between paintbrush and ligature knot is 17”, which is longer than the length of the longest strands of JonBenet’s hair. This means that with her hair caught in the paintbrush knot, it couldn’t be pulled 17” without pulling her hair. Look at the photo of the paintbrush with the wraps of cord around it and the entangled hair. None of the entangled hair is as long as JonBenet’s hair was, which makes me suspect that it was cut. Add to that the fact that there are no visible roots on the ends of the hair as one would expect were they pulled out at the scalp (Yes, I’ve seen pulled out hair.). Also, the knot that was tied on the cord going around her neck had hair entangled in it; and although Meyer mentions marking and cutting the cord, he doesn’t mention that he had to cut the attached hair. Now, one other photo (which I don’t remember seeing until a couple of years ago) that I looked at a little closer recently is one apparently shown on Court-TV. In it, it appears that the paintbrush is lying close to her head and at least a couple of strands of hair are going directly into the wraps of cord around the paintbrush. The strands are somewhat straight (like they’re being pulled) between the paintbrush and her head.

.

otg,
I've always assumed because JonBenet's hair was embedded into the ligature knotting that it did not function as advertised. This is corroborated by a lack of trauma on JonBenet's neck where the necklace and ligature coincide.

If it had been employed as advertised then JonBenet's hair would have been pulled out at the roots, and Coroner Meyer should have written this into his autopsy notes, since it is relevant.

For some reason he has omitted detailing that he cut the hair?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

See? I told ya’ DD knew her stuff!

But just to clarify one little thing... The blanching had to occur after death -- yes. But that is not to say that the object causing the blanching had to be applied after death.

Actually, it DOES mean it had to have been applied AFTER death. If it had been applied before death, the mark would be reddish. Even if it wasn't deep.

 

[Whaleshark]

Actually, it DOES mean it had to have been applied AFTER death. If it had been applied before death, the mark would be reddish. Even if it wasn't deep.

I'm sorry.... No disrespect, but I don't think so... I just read up on this and saw a body with blanching and lividity over the body, with the explanation...

As the blood settles, it pools due to gravity and you get the purple coloration wherever the blood settled since it is not circulating anymore.... And so anything the body is resting on, or something applying enough pressure on the body when it dies will cause blanching in that pressured area, because the blood cannot settle there. So if an item is tight enough on a body or pressed against it - like a blanket, rope, chair or anything... Is pressed against the body when it dies, the blood can't pool in that location and will show blanching rather than lividity... And this is how they can know if a body was moved... Depending on the blanching and lividity patterns... So something does not have to have been applied only after death to cause blanching... But pressed against the body as it died....

Here's a link:
http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/06/06/estimating-the-time-of-death-livor-mortis/

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm sorry.... No disrespect, but I don't think so... I just read up on this and saw a body with blanching and lividity over the body, with the explanation...

As the blood settles, it pools due to gravity and you get the purple coloration wherever the blood settled since it is not circulating anymore.... And so anything the body is resting on, or something applying enough pressure on the body when it dies will cause blanching in that pressured area, because the blood cannot settle there. So if an item is tight enough on a body or pressed against it - like a blanket, rope, chair or anything... Is pressed against the body when it dies, the blood can't pool in that location and will show blanching rather than lividity... And this is how they can know if a body was moved... Depending on the blanching and lividity patterns... So something does not have to have been applied only after death to cause blanching... But pressed against the body as it died....

Here's a link:
http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/06/06/estimating-the-time-of-death-livor-mortis/

Yes- I see, but the words "as it dies" is important. The blood is slowing, as the heart is slowing, so it doesn't make the same kind of mark that will result when the person is still alive (though in the process of being killed). Certainly she could have lain in the wineceller for a short while, left for dead, and still been alive, though dying. I can easily see how that could have happened- so if that one white mark had been the last one to have been made (the last time the cord was wound around her neck) and left in place, it could account for why it was white.
I didn't think they'd actually come back later and wind it one more time "just to be sure", so leaving her dying (and being unaware of it) makes sense.

 

[Whaleshark]

So, if anything, the item that caused the blanching on her neck, or anywhere else had to be there before/as she died, so the blood could not pool there - no lividity in that area. And if we had full pics of her we should be able to tell with some certainty when/if she was moved or repositioned after death....depending on patterns

 

[DeeDee249]

So, if anything, the item that caused the balancing on her neck, or anywhere else had to be there before she died, so the blood could not pool there - no lividity in that area, as she died. So the blanching is evidence of something pressing against her as or shortly after she died, within a certain period of time, which did not allow the blood to pool and cause the lividity in that area?

The way I see it is that the reddish, seep ligature furrows were made first, and the white mark was made last (while she was closer to death). As it was tight next to her throat (but not so tight as to make a deep furrow) it pressed there as she died and made the white mark.

 

[otg]

I haven’t caught up yet on all the posts since yesterday’s great webcast (Thanks, Tricia!), but just to make sure we’re all on the same page on the blanching/lividity issue before moving on...

See? I told ya’ DD knew her stuff!

But just to clarify one little thing... The blanching had to occur after death -- yes. But that is not to say that the object causing the blanching had to be applied after death.

Also, I should point out that since the cord (assuming that to be what it was) had to be in that area long enough after death to cause the blanching, but not long enough to have caused a prominent furrow, it will give an approximate window of time that the cord would have remained in that position before it was removed (or moved).
.

I'm sorry.... No disrespect, but I don't think so... I just read up on this and saw a body with blanching and lividity over the body, with the explanation...

As the blood settles, it pools due to gravity and you get the purple coloration wherever the blood settled since it is not circulating anymore.... And so anything the body is resting on, or something applying enough pressure on the body when it dies will cause blanching in that pressured area, because the blood cannot settle there. So if an item is tight enough on a body or pressed against it - like a blanket, rope, chair or anything... Is pressed against the body when it dies, the blood can't pool in that location and will show blanching rather than lividity... And this is how they can know if a body was moved... Depending on the blanching and lividity patterns... So something does not have to have been applied only after death to cause blanching... But pressed against the body as it died....

Here's a link:
http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/06/06/estimating-the-time-of-death-livor-mortis/

Yes- I see, but the words "as it dies" is important. The blood is slowing, as the heart is slowing, so it doesn't make the same kind of mark that will result when the person is still alive (though in the process of being killed). Certainly she could have lain in the wineceller for a short while, left for dead, and still been alive, though dying. I can easily see how that could have happened- so if that one white mark had been the last one to have been made (the last time the cord was wound around her neck) and left in place, it could account for why it was white.
I didn't think they'd actually come back later and wind it one more time "just to be sure", so leaving her dying (and being unaware of it) makes sense.

So, if anything, the item that caused the blanching on her neck, or anywhere else had to be there before/as she died, so the blood could not pool there - no lividity in that area. And if we had full pics of her we should be able to tell with some certainty when/if she was moved or repositioned after death....depending on patterns

The way I see it is that the reddish, seep ligature furrows were made first, and the white mark was made last (while she was closer to death). As it was tight next to her throat (but not so tight as to make a deep furrow) it pressed there as she died and made the white mark.

DD, I hope you know how much I value your knowledge. I don’t have the medical background you do, so I can only follow along on the discussions about the reasons that certain things happen (metabolic, chemical, etc. changes). I do know though that if you press on the skin of a living person, when you remove the pressure it will be white for a few seconds because the blood has been suppressed. With the pressure removed and as the blood returns, it will come back to its natural color. Not that I have ever tried this, but if I did the same thing to the skin of a dead person (depending of course on how long after death), when I remove the pressure, the blood will not return (because of all the reasons you stated above).

The reason for clearing that up is because we can disagree on the interpretation of what that means, but we need to agree first on the facts.

Based on all this, if I understand your theory correctly, you believe the blanched area to have been formed by something other than the cord after the upper ligature was in place and after death had occurred. I can’t disagree with that as a possibility based on our understanding of the physiological aspects.

However, I do believe in a little different sequence of events, which I don’t believe you can dispute by the same understanding of those physiological aspects. I believe the blanched area occurred first and caused her death (along with the head blow). Because of the angle of the lower circumference, it tells us the direction of force pulling on the cord (I believe the same cord that was left on her neck). Because of the direction of the force pulling on the cord there, it is unlikely that it was done facing her. IOW, the person or force pulling on the cord had to have been behind her when it happened. The reason for no defensive scratch marks on her neck is because she was unconscious from the head blow. Shortly after she expired, the cord was moved to the upper position where it remained until her body was found about 12 hours later. (Again, note the angle of the furrow in the relation to the blanched circumference.)
.

 

[otg]

otg,
I've always assumed because JonBenet's hair was embedded into the ligature knotting that it did not function as advertised. This is corroborated by a lack of trauma on JonBenet's neck where the necklace and ligature coincide.

If it had been employed as advertised then JonBenet's hair would have been pulled out at the roots, and Coroner Meyer should have written this into his autopsy notes, since it is relevant.

For some reason he has omitted detailing that he cut the hair?

.

I too, UKGuy, have suspected that all along, but didn't have a enough to go on to presume it until recently when I put several things together (which I posted in my response to KoldKase).
.

 

[UKGuy]

I too, UKGuy, have suspected that all along, but didn't have a enough to go on to presume it until recently when I put several things together (which I posted in my response to KoldKase).
.

otg,
I'm glad you did, it really underlines that the wine-cellar was all about staging JonBenet.

So which asphyxiation killed JonBenet the lower or the upper? Since there are no injuries from JonBenet's necklace. I do not think much force was used in regard to that ligature.

Patently Coroner Meyer surely knows about all this, he just detailed the injuries and cause of death etc?



.

 

[otg]

otg,
I'm glad you did, it really underlines that the wine-cellar was all about staging JonBenet.

So which asphyxiation killed JonBenet the lower or the upper? Since there are no injuries from JonBenet's necklace. I do not think much force was used in regard to that ligature.

Patently Coroner Meyer surely knows about all this, he just detailed the injuries and cause of death etc?

.

:moo: MOO (my opinion only?): Lower.

.