Premeditated?

[otg]

While the furrow formation is essentially an after death phenomena I don’t think it is correct to say that it is “a result of the body’s swelling.” Also, swelling cannot account for the ecchymosis, petechia, abrasion, etc.

If the ligature had been immediately removed, than a mark may have remained around the neck, but there would be no furrow. The furrow formed because the ligature remained around the neck after death. So, the ligature was tight enough to cause the furrow. It was tight enough to cause the furrow, ecchymosis, petechia and death.

Things “settle” around the ligature: the flesh will “move around” to equilibriate the pressure around the neck, there could be transudation and accumulation of fluid etc., this all contributes to formation of the furrow, but I don’t think these processes are necessarily swelling, at least not what one usually thinks of when contemplating “the body’s swelling.”
...

AK

There are two issues about the “furrow” that we probably should separate. The furrow itself is simply the depression left in the surface of the skin (I’m right on that -- look up the word). There is also the unnatural color of the surface beneath the ligature which is also something that develops postmortem. These two aspects are often associated with one another when using the word furrow because they are each a result of the ligature which causes them. I didn’t go into enough of an explanation in my post because I thought the quoted passages and their linked references would be enough to understand that I was explaining the depth of the “groove” being mostly from the known phenomenon of postmortem edema. There is nothing in what you wrote in your post that I can disagree with, and in fact, it is discussed in depth in the links I provided. It would be helpful to anyone to read if they want to know as much about it as you demonstrate that you know.

So to summarize what you and I are both saying, I should qualify what I previously posted to say the following: If a ligature is used on a person, there will be different effects of each of the two aspects (the “groove” itself, and the color of the skin underneath) depending on when it is removed and how tight it was when originally tied. Agreed, AK?

 

[Anti-K]

There are two issues about the “furrow” that we probably should separate. The furrow itself is simply the depression left in the surface of the skin (I’m right on that -- look up the word). There is also the unnatural color of the surface beneath the ligature which is also something that develops postmortem. These two aspects are often associated with one another when using the word furrow because they are each a result of the ligature which causes them. I didn’t go into enough of an explanation in my post because I thought the quoted passages and their linked references would be enough to understand that I was explaining the depth of the “groove” being mostly from the known phenomenon of postmortem edema. There is nothing in what you wrote in your post that I can disagree with, and in fact, it is discussed in depth in the links I provided. It would be helpful to anyone to read if they want to know as much about it as you demonstrate that you know.

So to summarize what you and I are both saying, I should qualify what I previously posted to say the following: If a ligature is used on a person, there will be different effects of each of the two aspects (the “groove” itself, and the color of the skin underneath) depending on when it is removed and how tight it was when originally tied. Agreed, AK?

I have only been making reference to the depression left in the surface of the skin: the furrow.

And, I strongly disagree with your declaration that the depth of the groove is mostly from post-mortem swelling. See, my last post (140) above.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I hope none of this comes across as if I’m picking on you.

I’m not familiar with this term, “argent line.” I googled the heck out of it, “argent line,” “argent line” + asphyxia, “argent line” + ligature, “argent line” + strangulation, “argent line” + forensic... it’s really hard to find any reference to this. But, I believe you.

If I correctly understand what you’re saying, you think that the argent line was caused by the initial strangulation, and that after death the cord moved from that position and into the position that we all see in the autopsy photos. I’m going to write as if that interpretation of what you’ve said is correct.


The first linear mark is the furrow left by the ligature (garrote). This ligature was tightened sufficiently to cause the damage noted in the AR and that we see in the autopsy photos; therefore, she was alive when it was tightened in the position that we see it, and, the tightening of this ligature, in the position as we see it, is what caused her death (associated with...).

Even if the ligature as we see was not the initial cause, it was the final cause.
If the second “linear mark” you reference is an argent line, than it was made post-mortem, after she was asphyxiated to death by the ligature. Which means that it must have been made by something other than the ligature.

..

“Damage” above the line is attributable to the ligature found embedded, and below the line there is no “damage and only lividity. This line does not cross the neck, and seems to trace less than a quarter of the way around, perhaps as little as half of that.

This line, such as it is, could simply be a product of lividity. What about the lines we see in the victim’s back? WARNING: autopsy photos http://tinyurl.com/mm59h8p (scroll down) Are these argent lines? Or, are they simply products of lividity?

I think the problem with interpreting the second linear line is that photographs are occasionally misleading and often difficult to interpret. There are two or three pictures relevant to this that are publicly available (I know, you’ve seen and studied them many times) and in each one this second supposed linear line appears differently – more visible here, less visible there, etc. So, what does the AR say about it? Nothing.

Is the second linear mark an argent line? Probably not.
...

AK

 

[chlban]

I've never written out everything in one single post. But not too long ago, I posted what I think happened to cause the injuries here. Everything else is scattered throughout my posts from here to who-knows-where :giggle: .

Excellent theory otg. I have vacillated between PDI and BDI. I have never felt JDI. Your theory is well thought out and makes a lot of sense. At least for now I am back in the BDI camp.

 

[DeeDee249]

Excellent theory otg. I have vacillated between PDI and BDI. I have never felt JDI. Your theory is well thought out and makes a lot of sense. At least for now I am back in the BDI camp.

Me too.

 

[otg]

I have only been making reference to the depression left in the surface of the skin: the furrow.

And, I strongly disagree with your declaration that the depth of the groove is mostly from post-mortem swelling. See, my last post (140) above.
...

AK

I don’t think we really disagree over the issue, AK. You’ve simply taken exception to my wording, which might have been better were I trying to go into an in-depth answer. What I said originally was:

The deep ligature furrow was formed postmortem. It is not an indication of how tightly the ligature was pulled while she was being strangled. It forms as a result of the body's swelling, and the color is because of the ligature's effect on blood and other fluids under the surface of the skin.

I’m sure this won’t be a very appealing subject to most here -- a couple wonks droning on about the finer details of what happens when a person dies from ligature strangulation. So anyone is welcome to scroll on by if they so choose. I’ll try to explain what I meant, and if the explanation isn’t enough, or if I don’t do an adequate job at it, we’ll just have to leave it there rather than try to dominate the thread with our ramblings.

I have never claimed to be an expert on this or any other subject. I’ve never been strangled, I’ve never strangled anyone, and I’ve never examined the body of anyone who was strangled. All I know is from the material I’ve read. If you want to question it, you really should question the authors I’m repeating. And I know I might misinterpret something, or “misremember” something, so I don’t mind checking to see if I’m correct about something I state.

We both know (as I’m sure everyone here knows) that there would be no furrow, no discoloration of the underlying flesh, and no evidence of a ligature (other than its presence) if it was not tight enough to depress the flesh on a victim and compress the tissue enough to have any effect at all. But unless the tightening of the ligature was enough to cause immediate (acute) damage to her neck, it would leave nothing behind after it was removed (as you demonstrated in your video). However, left on for a long enough period of time, it would. Even on a living person, if it was left on for a long enough period of time it would have an effect. That effect would be different from the effect on a deceased person because of the different types of response.

If you notice in your video that when you tightened the cord, the surrounding flesh raised up because of the pressure applied at the ligature. Dead or alive, if it is removed at that point in time, the surrounding flesh would settle back down and there would be no furrow. But leave it in place for a long enough period of time, and the underlying flesh would be affected by the continued pressure. In a dead person, that effect would be the leaking of fluids from the cells under pressure into adjacent cells (transudation). This would eventually result in the unrecoverable depression under the ligature (the furrow) as well as the swelling of the surrounding tissue from the displaced fluids (edema is actually the better term here because it refers to the process rather than simply the effect). Since we are only talking about the physical appearance of the furrow (“the depression left in the surface of the skin”), this doesn’t account for the discoloration of the underlying flesh from the effect on blood in the tissue which is usually considered a part of the appearance of the furrow.

If that same ligature is left in place (with pressure applied) until only shortly after death during the blanching phase, but before the full effect can be developed into a furrow, it would leave a white line where it had been (I’ll have to look later for a reference somewhere to this being called an argent line). This is due to the blood being forced out from the capillary bed and venules at the surface of the skin which typically give it its natural color. Some of that displaced blood will burst from its vessels because of the additional pressure -- causing the petechiae we see underneath the furrow on JonBenet’s neck. [You do know, don’t you, that petechiae are more likely to be found above the ligature than below it. But please don’t ask me to explain the reasons for that without first reading the sources I linked previously.] During the blanching phase, that blood does not return after the pressure is removed because of the halt in blood circulation. This is why I believe the ligature had been in the lower position when she died. We don’t have a good enough picture showing whether or not the line is also present on her left side, but the one that does show on her right side and in the front are in an exact oblique angle toward the back as might be found in a partial suspension.

Looking back on your posts that I couldn’t respond to while I was occupied with other things, I see I should touch on a couple more items:

While the furrow formation is essentially an after death phenomena I don’t think it is correct to say that it is “a result of the body’s swelling.”

You’re right -- my bad. The wording I used should have been, “a result of the body’s swelling around the ligature.” The ligature didn't cause her entire body to swell up.

Also, swelling cannot account for the ecchymosis, petechia, abrasion, etc.

Again, here we have to separate the “furrow” (or the “groove” remaining in the neck) from the coloration of the underlying flesh. Swelling has nothing to do with the color of the skin underneath, the petechial hemorrhages, or any possible abrasions. But then you said this in Post #142:

I have only been making reference to the depression left in the surface of the skin: the furrow.

If the ligature had been immediately removed, than a mark may have remained around the neck, but there would be no furrow. The furrow formed because the ligature remained around the neck after death.

Exactly. But if we are going to be parsing one another’s words, you should have said, “The furrow formed because the ligature remained around the neck long enough after death for the body to respond.”

Things “settle” around the ligature: the flesh will “move around” to equilibriate the pressure around the neck, there could be transudation and accumulation of fluid etc., this all contributes to formation of the furrow, but I don’t think these processes are necessarily swelling, at least not what one usually thinks of when contemplating “the body’s swelling.”

Maybe an illustration would help here. Attached at the bottom is a quick sketch I did in MS Paint that shows what I believe happens after a ligature is tightened around the neck. Three sketches: The first shows what happens in the moment a ligature is tightened. The tissue underneath is depressed causing the surrounding tissue to rise above its normal level. There is no furrow -- only the area underneath the ligature pressed below the normal surface of the skin (which will recover after removal). The second sketch shows what begins to happen a shortly after death. The ligature settles in deeper, surrounding flesh begins to “settle” (as you appropriately put it), and some edema (better term than “swelling”) begins forming immediately around the ligature causing it to become more hidden. In the third sketch, you see that the flesh in the area of the ligature has flattened out somewhat away from the ligature; but the ligature itself has continued to sink further into the flesh, and the flesh adjacent to it has “swelled” enough that it almost hides the cord itself. This third sketch hopefully shows what is described in the quote I provided earlier saying:

Occasionally, when the ligature is still in position when the body is examined, it may appear to be deeply embedded in the skin, sometimes almost out of sight, and on its removal a deep groove may be seen in the skin. This embedding may be accentuated by edema of the tissues, especially above the ligature. Presumably, some passive transudation of tissue fluid continues even after the circulation has stopped, and as such, edema may continue to develop to some extent even after death, accentuating the depth of the groove.​

Referring to your video, you said:

Go back to that 30 second mark. What if I died right at that moment, with the ligature embedded in my flesh? The furrow – which is already there – would form such that it would remain even after the ligature is loosened. This is what is meant by “the furrow being mainly a postmortem phenomenon.” If I’m alive, and the ligature is removed - no furrow. If I’m dead and the ligature is removed – furrow.

There is no furrow in your arm (or a neck) when you remove the ligature right after death. It is formed over time as the body reacts.

The furrow is caused by the compression of flesh as the ligature is tightened, and it remains after death because – well, because you’re dead.

The furrow is not formed simply because the person dies. It forms because the ligature remains in place long enough after death for the body to respond.

If I correctly understand what you’re saying, you think that the argent line was caused by the initial strangulation, and that after death the cord moved from that position and into the position that we all see in the autopsy photos.

Correct.

The first linear mark is the furrow left by the ligature (garrote). This ligature was tightened sufficiently to cause the damage noted in the AR and that we see in the autopsy photos; therefore, she was alive when it was tightened in the position that we see it, and, the tightening of this ligature, in the position as we see it, is what caused her death (associated with...).

:waitasec: I don’t think so. I believe the white line is from the initial strangulation where the ligature remained until after death when blood circulation stopped. After that, I believe the ligature slipped over her Adam’s apple where it remained until after she was removed from suspension. At that time, the ligature would settle and come to rest in the circumferential position where remained until it was removed by Dr. Meyer. (But that’s just my theory -- we don’t have to discuss that if you would rather not.)

Even if the ligature as we see was not the initial cause, it was the final cause.
If the second “linear mark” you reference is an argent line, than it was made post-mortem, after she was asphyxiated to death by the ligature. Which means that it must have been made by something other than the ligature.

Sorry if I’ve not made it clear enough, AK. I think she died from strangulation with the same ligature found on her neck where the first (IMO) white line is found. This caused her death (along with cerebral trauma from the head blow). Where we see the furrow is where I believe the ligature slipped upwards after she was already dead.

This line, such as it is, could simply be a product of lividity.

If the line is because of livor mortis, what caused it to not be present along that line? DeeDee has suggested it might be from her head being turned. While I agree with her that a wrinkle in the flesh will certainly cause a white area within the lividity, I can’t see that the angle of this mark would be from any natural crease in the neck. Indeed, in one of the books or articles I read it points out that a medical examiner can find out if that is the cause of a white line by moving the head to see if a natural crease forms along the line. Of course, we can’t do that, and we don’t know if Meyer did it (or even knew to do it).

What about the lines we see in the victim’s back? Are these argent lines? Or, are they simply products of lividity?

My guess is that they are either results of a natural crease from the body’s position, or because of a wrinkle in her clothes or the blanket underneath her.

I think the problem with interpreting the second linear line is that photographs are occasionally misleading and often difficult to interpret. There are two or three pictures relevant to this that are publicly available (I know, you’ve seen and studied them many times) and in each one this second supposed linear line appears differently – more visible here, less visible there, etc. So, what does the AR say about it? Nothing.

That’s all true. But does the AR mention the white lines on her back that we’ve seen in the photos? Apparently Meyer didn’t think any of that was important enough to mention, and without the “leaking” of the autopsy photos, we wouldn’t know about any of them.

Is the second linear mark an argent line? Probably not.

If you are referring to the one on her neck, we’ll have to disagree on that one, AK. That’s fine -- most people do. (But that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.)

.

 

[Anti-K]

I didn’t think it was necessary to say “long enough after death.” I thought that was a given as we are talking about a case where the ligature remained in place for hours after death.

While I appreciate the effort you’ve put into researching this topic, and, of course, the time you’ve spent considering and responding to my posts – BUT – I think you have misinterpreted the evidence, your own sources, what you’re seeing in my video, and, me.

I know, that’s a lot. And, I don’t hardly know where to begin. So, I’m just going to set this aside for now. But, I will be back.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

I think there's substantial evidence of pre-meditation.

For example, and I realize this might be an unpopular opinion, the garrote handle appears to have been constructed prior to application, as hair seems to be wrapped, twisted, tangled, around the knot on the stick. The hair does not appear to be within the knot/wrapping itself, rather it appears to incircle the exterior of the knot & the handle.

WARNING MAY BE GRAPHIC (Victim not shown.)
http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote2.jpg

Contrarily, the "noose" knot appears to have been tied during the application of the ligature onto the neck as the hair is incorporated, or tied into, this knot.

WARNING MAY BE GRAPHIC (Victim not shown.)
http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote4.jpg

 

[ZBob]

I think there's substantial evidence of pre-meditation.

For example, and I realize this might be an unpopular opinion, the garrote handle appears to have been constructed prior to application, as hair seems to be wrapped, twisted, tangled, around the knot on the stick. The hair does not appear to be within the knot/wrapping itself, rather it appears to incircle the exterior of the knot & the handle.

WARNING MAY BE GRAPHIC (Victim not shown.)
http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote2.jpg

Contrarily, the "noose" knot appears to have been tied during the application of the ligature onto the neck as the hair is incorporated, or tied into, this knot.

WARNING MAY BE GRAPHIC (Victim not shown.)
http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote4.jpg

Are you thinking pre-meditation as in the Komrik 3 weeks in advance and we will do it on Christmas time frame kind or more simply, we thought she was dead and now we need to finish her so we will construct a garrote and then use that to strangle her with like 15 minutes of pre-meditation? Obviously these are both pre-meditation but have vastly different implications.

 

[Mama2JML]

Are you thinking pre-meditation as in the Komrik 3 weeks in advance and we will do it on Christmas time frame kind or more simply, we thought she was dead and now we need to finish her so we will construct a garrote and then use that to strangle her with like 15 minutes of pre-meditation? Obviously these are both pre-meditation but have vastly different implications.

True. I don't have a solid opinion as to how far, in advance, planning commenced with regard to this element of the crime. Overall, I tend to believe the planning process, fantasizing, began days or weeks before the murder. It's possible some elements were considered long before, some at the spur of the moment, & some in between...

It appears, to me, that the cord was wrapped/tied to the paintbrush handle before the application of the neck ligature as hair is not incorporated/within the knot on the "garrote" handle. Evidence noted in the AR & my observation of the injuries/marks on the neck do not support the notion that this device was constructed and used for staging purposes.

 

[Anyhoo]

I think there's substantial evidence of pre-meditation.

For example, and I realize this might be an unpopular opinion, the garrote handle appears to have been constructed prior to application, as hair seems to be wrapped, twisted, tangled, around the knot on the stick. The hair does not appear to be within the knot/wrapping itself, rather it appears to incircle the exterior of the knot & the handle.

WARNING MAY BE GRAPHIC (Victim not shown.)
http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote2.jpg

Contrarily, the "noose" knot appears to have been tied during the application of the ligature onto the neck as the hair is incorporated, or tied into, this knot.

WARNING MAY BE GRAPHIC (Victim not shown.)
http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote4.jpg

Using the garrote handle as evidence of premeditation does not seem sound to me. This was a part of a paint brush taken from a tray down in the basement, so it appears to me that someone just grabbed whatever was in sight and used it in the staging after JB was dead. That is not my definition of premeditation.

We seem to have a different of premeditation. My definition of premeditation is that the crime was planned in advance before it happened, and not just a few minutes before it happened but at least hours (if not longer) before it happened. There may be evidence of premeditation but what you cited here does not qualify, IMO.

 

[Mama2JML]

RSBM

Using the garrote handle as evidence of premeditation does not seem sound to me. This was a part of a paint brush taken from a tray down in the basement, so it appears to me that someone just grabbed whatever was in sight and used it in the staging after JB was dead.

...after she was dead for staging? I disagree with both points.

That is not my definition of premeditation.

It's not mine either.

 

[Anyhoo]

RSBM
...after she was dead for staging? I disagree with both points.

You disagree with which points? That the garrote handle was part of a paint brush taken from a tray down in the basement? That the garrote handle was staging after she was dead?

 

[Mama2JML]

You disagree with which points? That the garrote handle was part of a paint brush taken from a tray down in the basement? That the garrote handle was staging after she was dead?

I disagree that the the device was:
1. "...used in the staging"
2. "...after JB was dead."

 

[ZBob]

RSBM
...after she was dead for staging? I disagree with both points. It's not mine either.

I think a key point in this short discussion is that the hair not being intertwined in the garrote could be because it was made 3 weeks in advance or 5 minutes in advance of it's use by someone 2 feet away from her. I don't see how the lack of hair has any major relevance.

 

[Anyhoo]

I disagree that the the device was:
1. "...used in the staging"
2. "...after JB was dead."

If you disagree on these two points, you think that the garrote handle was used in the strangulation itself and was not just staging? But you admit that the garrote handle came from that paint tray in the basement, right? So you think instead of being an afterthought (used in staging after the murder), that someone used the stick to fashion the garrote before the murder? If so, how much time do you say elapsed between the time the garrote was made and the time it was used to strangle JB?

 

[Mama2JML]

If you disagree on these two points, you think that the garrote handle was used in the strangulation itself and was not just staging? But you admit that the garrote handle came from that paint tray in the basement, right? So you think instead of being an afterthought (used in staging after the murder), that someone used the stick to fashion the garrote before the murder? If so, how much time do you say elapsed between the time the garrote was made and the time it was used to strangle JB?

I don't know, hours maybe? I also think the RN was written beforehand, though. These are just my opinions, but they're based on evidence, scientific research, & expert analyses.

 

[Mama2JML]

I think a key point in this short discussion is that the hair not being intertwined in the garrote could be because it was made 3 weeks in advance or 5 minutes in advance of it's use by someone 2 feet away from her. I don't see how the lack of hair has any major relevance.

Thus, we should consider the AR, injuries & marks on the body, and scientifically validated research. The "totality" of this evidence suggests the device was used with intent in the commission of the assault & 1st degree homicide. The "garrote" was not devised & applied for purposes of staging.

 

[Anyhoo]

I don't know, hours maybe? I also think the RN was written beforehand, though. These are just my opinions, but they're based on evidence, scientific research, & expert analyses.

So you think the murder was premeditated? While I consider that possible, it is less likely than the alternative: that the murder was not premeditated and someone improvised and staged after the fact to confuse LE.

 

[ZBob]

Thus, we should consider the AR, injuries & marks on the body, and scientifically validated research. The "totality" of this evidence suggests the device was used with intent in the commission of the assault & 1st degree homicide. The "garrote" was not devised & applied for purposes of staging.

No disagreement, but the hair being intertwined or not is just not a driver in planned pre-meditation or reactive pre-meditation if that makes sense.