Interpreting the "evidence"

[RedChief]

The only purpose that I can see for the DOUBLE LOOP KNOT was to tie her ankles together. IOW, it appears that JonBenet had been hog-tied and strung up with her arms and legs pointing up. I sketched out this scene and drew in the cords as described in the autopsy report and everything fitted.BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

Ankles bound together? hmmmmm You could be right.....but are either of the loops large enough to encircle an ankle? Moreover, are either of the loops large enough to fit over the ankle and heel in the removal process?

Does it appear to you that by pulling on the longer tail of the "wrist" cord the knot would be undone?

Have you read EW's discussion of this double-loop knot, and, if so, what is your opinion?

From the one photo, it's tempting to guess that the neck knot is a slip-knot, because the mind wants to continue (connect) the two segments of the cord that are approximately in line, even though, they disappear into the knot.

There's no evidence (in the photos or otherwise) that the hands were bound together. And, if they were bound together, as you suggest, and that binding didn't include the double-loop knot (so-called), how was that accomplished?

Back to the neck knot: since there is hair in the knot (depends on what you call "knot"), aren't there at least two possible explanations for it? Though it's possible that the hair was drawn into the "knot" when the cord was tightened around the neck, isn't it also possible that the hair became entwined in the knot as it was being tied? That seems to be the case with the handle knot.

More about terminology: a slip knot, in this discussion, consists of that portion of the cord which surrounds the portion of the cord which ends in the long tail (the part that is pulled). Granted, it would be possible to fashion a double knot, through which passed that portion of the cord which is described as the long tail. The cord which passed through such a knot wouldn't be a component of the knot. Granted it would be possible to fashion a simple knot through which that portion of the cord which formed the noose would pass, and NOT SLIP once tension in the tail (pulled upon to tighten the noose) were released. But was this done, and would it have required a handle at the end of the tail to accomplish the tightening?

Does it matter whether the neck knot allowed slippage or did not? Does it matter whether the neck knot allowed slippage in only one direction or did not?

 

[BlueCrab]

IOW, he took a scene that was already likely to convince the authorities that the family wasn't involved, and made it into a scene that caused them to suspect family involvement?

RedChief,

IMO John knew that Burke was somehow involved, so he had to soften the scene just in case he was accused.

Also, as I have stated, John likely wanted to give JonBenet a measure of dignity in death, so he cut her down immediately. I purposely didn't say where I think the stick on the end of the 17" long cord was probably inserted. It wasn't a sight for Patsy nor anyone else to have imprinted permanently into their memories, so he changed it.

The fake ransom note and other staging sufficed to point to an intruder.

 

[BlueCrab]

LE seems to think that at one time the "double loop knot" was fitted around JonBenet's left wrist; so, they're mistaken about this?

RedChief,

If that's what LE said then LE is wrong. JonBenet's hands were bound together at the wrists. Follow the coroner's description of the cord:

"Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt, is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double loop knot."

The knot on the right wrist was at the opposite end of the double loop knot -- 15.5 inches away. The double loop knot had nothing to do with the wrist knot. The only practical use left for it was to tie the ankles together and hog tie JonBenet. The wrists were bound by simply wrapping the cord from the knot on the right wrist once around the left wrist. That's why it fell off so easily once the strain on it was removed.

BlueCrab

 

[RedChief]

RedChief,

If that's what LE said then LE is wrong. JonBenet's hands were bound together at the wrists. Follow the coroner's description of the cord:

"Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt, is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double loop knot."

The knot on the right wrist was at the opposite end of the double loop knot -- 15.5 inches away. The double loop knot had nothing to do with the wrist knot. The only practical use left for it was to tie the ankles together and hog tie JonBenet. The wrists were bound by simply wrapping the cord from the knot on the right wrist once around the left wrist. That's why it fell off so easily once the strain on it was removed.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

I take it you meant to say you THINK the wrists were bound together when John "found" her and you meant to say you THINK the double loop knot had been employed to bind the ankles, correct?

There are always many possible interpretations of evidence, therefore do you think it's fair to say that the ONLY practical use for the double loop was to bind the ankles?

If, as you suspect, the wrists were bound, by simply wrapping the cord from the knot at the right wrist, once around the left wrist, boy, that isn't likely to convince anyone that the wrists were tightly bound, is it? Must have convinced John though, 'cause he says he struggled to untie the wrists but the knots were too tight.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying that in the 'hanging from the chair' scenario, the wrists were bound as mentioned above (one turn arond the left wrist) and that the tension in the cord kept the whole apparatus intact?

 

[RedChief]

The fake ransom note and other staging sufficed to point to an intruder.

BlueCrab,

OK. Yeah, that dang ransom note; it's kind of turned into a boomerang and headed right back toward the Ramseys. Big mistake on their part, if you ask me. Betcha they're gettin' mighty tired o' that darned ole umbrella.

 

[RedChief]

Do my eyes deceive me or do I see some significant differences between two of the photos of the neck?

One shows a frontal view of the neck and chin, with the bright white cord plainly visible throughout it's length from side to side; i.e., the flesh above the cord and the flesh below the cord don't come anywhere near touching. Another photo, shot from the side, shows the flesh above and below the cord very nearly touching, and the cord is not white, nor bright, despite that the rule, placed at the foreground, is white and bright.

Can anyone explain these discrepancies? Has the head been tipped forward in the latter photo, and/or tipped backward in the former? Doesn't even look like the same cord in both photos.

Also, the cord appears more deeply embedded in the latter photo. Could this be due to post-mortem swelling? I doubt it.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

I take it you meant to say you THINK the wrists were bound together when John "found" her and you meant to say you THINK the double loop knot had been employed to bind the ankles, correct?

There are always many possible interpretations of evidence, therefore do you think it's fair to say that the ONLY practical use for the double loop was to bind the ankles?

If, as you suspect, the wrists were bound, by simply wrapping the cord from the knot at the right wrist, once around the left wrist, boy, that isn't likely to convince anyone that the wrists were tightly bound, is it? Must have convinced John though, 'cause he says he struggled to untie the wrists but the knots were too tight.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying that in the 'hanging from the chair' scenario, the wrists were bound as mentioned above (one turn arond the left wrist) and that the tension in the cord kept the whole apparatus intact?

RedChief,

Yes, so long as the weight of the partially suspended body (in this scenario she would have been on her back on the floor but with head and shoulders and legs suspended) kept the cords taught, the left wrist cord would have stayed tightly in place with one or two wraps, but when the body was moved and the tension released, the left wrist cord would have fallen off -- which it did as John carried her upstairs.

And yes, I'm certain the hands were bound together at the wrists.

From the 1998 interviews:

MIKE KANE: "I'm not really clear -- you said that they were tied tight. But were her hands tied closely together or were they wide apart?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "No, it was like that."

MIKE KANE: "They were crossed like that?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "I remember, yeah, her hands were close together."

MIKE KANE: "And you tried to untie one of them? Were you successful?"

JOHN RAMSEY: "Partly. I mean, I sort of started to get them untied, but I guess I was starting to realize that that wouldn't do any good."

Since the coroner said that one end of the cord was tied to the right wrist, and John said the hands were crossed and bound together, then that takes care of one end of that 21 inch long cord. So what do you think the opposite end of that same cord, with the double loop knot, could have been used for if not to bind the ankles together?

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

Assuming a Ramsey or an accomplice killed JonBenet, why do they need to hogtie her?

At six-years old she presents next to no resistance to any adult. There is no evidence of any attempt to silence her vocally, other than the basement staging tape!

Why should she be posed indecently prior to her basement relocation, indecent displaying in homicides is normally correlated with sexual assaults, but when was she sexually assaulted, e.g. prior to being relocated to the basement or in the basement to facilitate staging?

 

[BlueCrab]

Assuming a Ramsey or an accomplice killed JonBenet, why do they need to hogtie her?

At six-years old she presents next to no resistance to any adult. There is no evidence of any attempt to silence her vocally, other than the basement staging tape!

Why should she be posed indecently prior to her basement relocation, indecent displaying in homicides is normally correlated with sexual assaults, but when was she sexually assaulted, e.g. prior to being relocated to the basement or in the basement to facilitate staging?

UKGuy,

Remember now, this is only one of several BDI theories I have. But the evidence of a stun gun having been used, and the evidence of possibly hog tying JonBenet, makes me begin to lean in this direction -- the direction of a "small foreign faction", such as the Asian Pacific American Coalition (APAC). But Burke remains even in this scenario because of the Ramsey's obvious coverup. They wouldn't be covering up for any other reason other than Burke's direct involvement somehow.

If JonBenet was grotesquely posed, IMO it was to defile her and send a political message. For instance, in the mind of a political pervert JonBenet was likely a privileged little white with a rich daddy who got where they are by taking advantage of the less fortunate. Her high profile beauty queen status made her a target.

This WAS a sexual assault; and it appeared to involve torture, and multiple serious injuries. The brutal killing seemed to be based on hatred. They would have hog tied her to inflict as much humiliation as possible on this symbol of everything they disliked politically about the U.S.

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

BlueCrab:

You may be correct, its not inconsistent for prior sexual abuse to have taken place at the hands of some trusted person, and another exploiting that knowledge, possibly motivated by your anti-capitalist/western agenda.

 

[RedChief]

BlueCrab,

Yes, that's one possibility. I can't think of another at the moment. I'll give it some thought. Meanwhile, answer me this, does the double loop knot look like it would untie (come apart) easily if one yanked on the tail end?

I've tied temporary knots like this, so I can easily untie them when the time comes. It's kind of like a half-bow, if you know what I mean.

 

[RedChief]

Taking into account the possibility (if not the certainty) of post-mortem swelling of the neck tissue, and considering that no strap muscle hemorrhaging, etc. (deep injury), was noted, do you consider it certain, on the basis of what the photos show, that the noose was tight enough to produce the neck petechiae and strangle a living child? There is one photo, the one which gives an oblique view of the neck, wherein the noose doesn't look all that tight; just an optical illusion, I guess.

Alternatively, is it possible (if not probable) that the noose was loosely (as opposed to tightly) applied around the neck of the dying child?

Comment: A long time ago, when this case was in it's infancy, it was reported that some investigators felt that this was a "gentle" strangulation; whatever that might mean. I guess that raised some eyebrows.

 

[BlueCrab]

A long time ago, when this case was in it's infancy, it was reported that some investigators felt that this was a "gentle" strangulation; whatever that might mean. I guess that raised some eyebrows.

In AEA and EA the rope, or belt, or whatever, wrapped around the neck to purposely shut off oxygen to the brain is often padded to prevent tell-tale abrasions on the neck. The padding could be a towel or a piece of clothing. If a 1/4" wide cord such as was around JonBenet's neck was being used for a breath control masturbation game then padding would have been a necessity. The padding would have created a "gentle" strangulation, causing death without injuring the strap muscles nor the hyoid bone in the neck.

 

[RedChief]

What evidence might lead you to believe that the body had been wiped, either before or after JBR's death?

In PMPT, the paperback, on page 57, there is some discussion of this: "In addition, JonBenet's underpants bore stains that appeared to be blood. The corresponding areas of her skin in the pubic area, however, showed no matching stains. The coroner told the police that the blood smears on the skin and the fibers found in the folds of the labia indicated that the child's pubic area had been wiped with a cloth. The blood smears also contained traces of fibers."

Is it your understanding that the "blood smears on the skin" mentioned above were on the skin in the pubic area, or is Schiller referring to the blood smears on the thighs, that were originally thought to be semen? My guess is the former, because at the time that the above observations were made, it was not known that the smears on the upper thighs were also blood. Also, curiously, it was not known (rather it was surmised) that the smears on the skin of the pubic area (assuming that's the skin Schiller is referring to) was either, at the time of it's discovery.

So my question is, were these dark fibers also found adhering to the blood smears on the thighs? Incidentally (to refresh your memory), fibers similar to these (naked eye?) were found not only in the pubic area but also on the OUTSIDE of JonBenet's outer garment.

Now, that there were no "stains" on the skin of the pubic area (would you even call them stains? I'm not aware that blood stains skin.) that matched (corresponded to) the stains on the underpants is significant? How so?

Are we to infer that there had once been matching "stains" on the skin but that they had been removed in the wiping process? Are we to infer that the stains in the underpants are unrelated to the apparent wiping of the pubic area? What ARE we to infer?

Well, let me ask you this: if you conjecture that the pubic area had been wiped to remove evidence (you decide whether this is so and what form this evidence may have taken), and that the evidence that had been removed was visible blood (whether traces or a whole bunch), then what had been accomplished by removing this evidence (assuming it was blood--JBR's blood), and leaving behind the blood on the underpants?????????

Aren't you inclined to believe that, if the wiping was undertaken in an attempt to hide the fact of the vaginal injury (this seems a reasonable assumption to me), but the underpants were stained with blood, that the underpants that JBR was wearing at the time of discovery of the body, weren't the same underpants she was wearing (if any) at the time of the postulated wiping? And, if you are so inclined, how do you account for the blood stains on the underpants? How did they get there, and when?

I have postulated that those stains on the underpants were made post mortem, and were deposited during the course of moving the body. However, now, I'm not so sure of this. How is it possible that, if this were the case, there were no corresponding blood spots on the body, no matter whether the blood appeared post mortem or pre mortem? In either case, the source of the blood would be the same.

Though one might account for the several red areas of staining by observing that those stains may have been produced while the body (and clothing) were in relative motion, if the underpants were in CONTACT with the pubic area, shouldn't there be some "corresponding" stain or stains there, regardless?

Well, there is at least one other possible explanation for the lack of corresponding stains: the stains in the oversized underpants were OLD stains.

There is still the apparent fact--let's call it a "fact"--that if there were blood on the underpants at the time of urination, it weren't diffused, coalesced or washed through the underpants. What's your explantion for that? And, would you expect to find OLD stains in fresh underpants?

So, had the body been wiped or not, and, if so, what might that indicate? Might it indicate that someone had attempted to "hide" (to satisfy UKGuy) the "fact" (to satisfy sissi) of the vaginal injury, or of the bleeding, or of both?

What stranger/intruder can you imagine would want to erase this evidence?

stymied in stalingrad

 

[UKGuy]

There is still the apparent fact--let's call it a "fact"--that if there were blood on the underpants at the time of urination, it weren't diffused, coalesced or washed through the underpants. What's your explantion for that? And, would you expect to find OLD stains in fresh underpants?

Although the blood may not be there by diffusion. The urine could have arrived on her size-12 underwear by simple osmosis!

Currently only BPD know if these were fresh, clean on underwear, straight out of the bloomingdales see through wrapper, a wednesday pair also!

Thats assuming they have done forensic analysis, and fiber testing etc. Since if they are fresh on after she had been killed then there will be NO black velvet pant fibers on them, or probably any other fibers from her dresses or dress pants etc.

So here in lies the nub of the issue and slightly more inferred evidence of prior staging, ie when was she re-dressed in those size-12 panties, and did the person who wiped her down, change those panties or was it someone else?? Since its assumed the wiping down took place after the underwear change since there are no corresponding blood marks on her skin.

So its likely in what I described as "other staging" and what BlueCrab has specified as her being "grotesquely posed" JonBenet's body was staged differently to the basement scenario?

What stranger/intruder can you imagine would want to erase this evidence?

Any intruder may do this to remove forensic evidence ie semen/sperm and confuse investigators!

 

[BlueCrab]

Here's my take (there could be a more horrifying scenario than this one):

The sexual assault on JonBenet caused vaginal bleeding. The killer wiped down the body in the crotch and thighs areas to remove the blood, and evidence of him, and to try to hide the sexual aspects of the death. The perp likely used his own piece of clothing, such as a shirt, for the wipe-down because the piece of fabric used was never found. The fabric left the dark fibers on the body.

He then replaced JonBenet's original size 6 panties on her, only to have the blood seep through and stain them in the crotch. This required a trip upstairs to JonBenet's bathroom to fetch a fresh pair of panties from the panty drawer. He found a pair with Wednesday on them from an unopened package and scurried back downstairs and put them on her. However, unknown to him they were size 12-14, a size for a girl twice the size of JonBenet. He finished redressing JonBenet and pocketed the size 6 panties (they are missing from the crime scene).

After the longjohns were replaced on JonBenet a small amount of blood continued to come from the vagina and stained the size 12-14 panties. Some urine was also released. This occurred while JonBenet was temporarily positioned on her stomach.

Despite the wiping down and the changing of the panties, the killer missed cleaning up one very important item of DNA evidence -- mixed in with JonBenet's blood was just enough of his saliva to obtain 10 DNA markers.

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

BlueCrab:
Thanks for that, something along those lines, how more horrific can it become?

After the longjohns were replaced on JonBenet a small amount of blood continued to come from the vagina and stained the size 12-14 panties. Some urine was also released. This occurred while JonBenet was temporarily positioned on her stomach.
BlueCrab

Have I got this wrong or misinterpreted stuff?

If she was bleeding onto her size-12 underwear and there is no corresponding forensic blood on her genitalia, just where you might expect it to be. Does this mean she was re-dressed in those pants prior to being wiped down, or re-dressed as you suggest then the perp re-wiped her down?

 

[SisterSocks]

JonBenet was alive and trying to save herself from the "noose", proven by the little fingernail scratch marks in the area Iagree Eagle.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab:
Thanks for that, something along those lines, how more horrific can it become?


Have I got this wrong or misinterpreted stuff?

If she was bleeding onto her size-12 underwear and there is no corresponding forensic blood on her genitalia, just where you might expect it to be. Does this mean she was re-dressed in those pants prior to being wiped down, or re-dressed as you suggest then the perp re-wiped her down?

UKGuy,

There was external blood around the genitalia. From the autopsy report:

"On the anterior aspect of the perinium (the area between the vagina and the anus), along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood."

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

There was external blood around the genitalia. From the autopsy report:

"On the anterior aspect of the perinium (the area between the vagina and the anus), along the edges of closure of the labia majora, is a small amount of dried blood."

Ok thanks for that, seems I've assumed she was not wiped down as much as I thought.