I'm not playing around with my words. This is why I included the article of information from this site earlier, which I guess you didn't read:
http://www.donrearic.com/main.html
Dont take it from me take it from this guy who trains people:
Some people say, "Well, the garrotte is a..." and then they define it to the exclusion of anything else. The simple fact of the matter is, a "Garrotte" was an execution device that was utilized in Spain up until the mid-1970s. A few other countries used it now and again. And there were many different types of garrottes used as execution devices.
The important thing to remember is, if someone says, "No, thats not a garrotte, this is a garrotte..." And they are speaking in absolutes or anything other than an execution device, theyre incorrect. More on that later.
Any belt, length of rope, cord, a telephone cord, whatever is at hand, can be a garrotte. You can carry a very strong bandana or scarf with that being carried with the intent to be used as a flexible weapon. A jacket or light coat can be used as a garrotte, like the belt, it is a common, every day item. The everyday items that are all around us."
Since your point is that adding the stick made it a garrote
and a garrotte only --
Then answer me this, please -
Assuming your definition of a simple ligature strangulation is that the cord was pulled only by hand to tighten and asphyxiate her, you are saying:
Cord was knotted around neck, killer pulled long end of cord to tighten with hand only (because it is all that is needed), and she is dead.
But if the stick is put on the end of the cord, could the person not do the same exact thing as above? No, because its not allowed, because its not necessary? Why cant the killer have pulled the cord with the stick at the end to possibly use it as a handle/grip?
Your logic is no - it became a garrotte when the stick was added only meant to look like it was to be used a certain way, therefore cannot then be used for killing any other way - because there is only one way to use the garrotte and that was not necessary in this case.
Okay....but even if not in a tourniquet fashion even if not that, why couldn't it have been used for pulling the cord in the simple strangulation method also, that you suggest, just as if the person hadn't used a stick in the handle end?
You then said that if that was the case, then, the stick would do just fine for its purposes without needing to be broken down to that size.
Well, that is also true - that it didn't
need to be broken down to that size for that purpose. But thats assuming the paintbrush was only broken for the purposes of using it as the handle or tourniquet or garrotte purpose, though, doesn't it?
What if the brush was broken for another reason originally/entirely?
What if it was already broken or whittled by Burke (or someone else) before being used in the ligature? I know there were shards in the area, and there was the knife found down in that area of the house.
But when was the paintbrush broken exactly? In what sequence, at what time, where?
If part of the paintbrush stick was found inside JonBenet, maybe it was broken for using on her first, then used in the simple ligature strangulation? Maybe it was already in the paint tray in a broken state, and had been whittled or broken at a completely different time.
Maybe thats even why they cant find the other piece of the paintbrush?
When you are only considering the simplest scenarios you are not taking all the possibilities into account. If you only think in terms of what was needed, and discount things because they aren't what may/may not be generally considered necessary - you do not consider what possibly could be important to that particular perp. or what all possible unique sequences of events may have occurred - outside of what was only necessary or needed for that crime - as it looks in its simplest form.
For example, the tourniquet-type ligature was not needed for A. Shore to commit stranglings (as I pointed out before - but bear with me), and he did not use one initially --
until he hurt his finger and switched to a different method. Should an investigator not have considered the possibility that the latter stranglings done with a tourniquet were by him, or were only staging for some shock effect, because they should not have been needed, and because they were done differently than his original MO?
Occam's would tell you so, right?
...Except that all possibilities are not brought into account then, are they? Surely the lead investigator would have thought it absurd if a rookie suggested that maybe it was A. Shore doing those killings too, but that maybe A. Shore just had to switch his MO for some reason, like maybe if he hurt his finger or something? No doubt the lead investigator would have made a laughing stock out of the new rookie....
But that
is what happened, and it was
not staging, and it was
not absurd.
If Arthur had never said why he had switched, though, they never would have known or considered that particular circumstance. And how
could they know?
But if they never even allow that something other than the simplest of simple explanations are to be considered, then they are never open to any other possibilities either....
Here's something to consider when deciding to use Occam's Razor -
(but you probably won't read this either):
Excerpt from the book
Crime Reconstruction by W. Jerry Chisum and Brent E. Turvey:
Oversimplification and Occams Razor
Before we can discuss crime reconstruction practice standards, we must deconstruct the popular yet mistaken assertion that it is a simple and certain enterprise based solely on careful observation and experience. This is an oversimplification.
Oversimplification occurs when a complex situation is described in simplistic terms that neglect its complexity. It can happen out of ignorance or out of a desire to achieve a greater measure of certainty than would be possible by a consideration of all the facts and information.
These days oversimplification has become commonplace in entertainment, political rhetoric, and even journalism. But it has no place in the justice system.
Oversimplification is too common a vice in the forensic disciplines, from scene processing, to laboratory analysis, to crime reconstruction. It manifests in the supplanting of a formal scientific education with short courses, rote technical training, and learning on the job. It manifests with appeals to experience instead of a full investigation and appreciation of scientific fact. It manifests in the form of appeals to common sense for the sake of intellectual ease. It manifests when reconstructionists admonish others to not get bogged down by all the facts, when these facts provide the context needed for an informed and accurate interpretation of evidence and events. It manifests in these forms and others, wherever there is a desired conclusion and the full weight of the scientific method is perceived to be long way or the wrong way.
The Razor
Reconstructionists with a basic notion of logic and reasoning might invoke Occams razor to defend oversimplified interpretations. They might suggest that the scientific method reveals simplicity and that complexity relates to direct improbability the more complex a theory, the less probable, given Occams razor. This would be a misunderstanding, and an abuse, of the concept.
Occams razor is an often-misstated principle that, ironically, has been reduced for mass consumption to the point of misapplication. Not uncommonly, it is stated as something along the lines of all things being equal, the simplest explanation is most often the correct one. Although this interpretation of Occams razor sounds good and has the virtue of popping up in a television show or movie now and again, it is inaccurate.
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate. Translation: Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily or plurality should not be posited without necessity. In the 14th century, a Franciscan friar and philosopher named William of Occam (a.k.a. Ockham; 1288-1348) used this principle so frequently in his writings that modern scientists and logicians have come to call it Occams razor. It is a useful concept and has been adapted to provide a basis for scientific modeling and theory building. Generally, it may be summoned as a reminder to choose the least blended hypotheses from any otherwise equivalent test models or reasoning, and to remove the extraneous and the nonessential from subsequent interpretations.
The secret to applying Occams razor is determining what of ones hypothesis is necessary in interpretation and what is not. Occam, for example, assumed the existence of God in all modeling and theory building. Not all modern scientists would be willing to make this assumption, nor would most be eager to factor it into their reconstructions of crime.
Simplified, but not Simpler
Occams razor demands fewer blended theories, fewer assumptions, and the eradication of phenomenology. This is a far cry from the fatuousness of dont get bogged down by the facts and the simplest explanation is most likely correct. Occams razor and its progeny are important tools, but should not be used as a substitute for reason or as an excuse to ignore relevant information because it makes a preferred conclusion easier to prove.
We would do better to recall Albert Einsteins cautionary, which provides, everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.
In other words, we are encouraged to embrace both the complexity of reality and the simplicity of direct logical reasoning without irrelevant encumbrances.
....On the surface it may not seem like a bad way to approach a reconstruction go to the crime scene, look at the evidence, make observations, call them facts, and that is a reconstruction. Simple.
But simplicity is actually the problem here, as several crucial steps are absent from this method. The bare observation of a crime scene technician are painted as factual interpretation of events, and it is further suggested that this be offered as factual evidence of a reconstruction in court. This is not just misleading, it is dangerous to the cause of justice.
The first problem is that such an approach advocates a confirmatory mind-set, intentionally or otherwise. There is no accounting for how facts are to be separated from assumptions....
____
P.S. - no matter how simple or complex this crime is, I am not advocating more complexity in assistance to an IDI case... simple does not have to equate to RDI and Complex to IDI - I think that is a Lou Smit and co-conspirator driven fallacy.... It could (and probably is) as complicated as all get-out, and still be RDI...
lease: