THE BLOW TO THE HEAD...an ACCIDENT...

[angelwngs]

Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine was quoted as saying the following about the timeline in regards to the blow to the head and the strangulation. His opinion was that the blow came first, and did not cause her death:

The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said. "She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.'' He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation. The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.'' And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead. "I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said. "I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm

Thank You, Guy. I had read about the petechial hemmorage theory but did not have any idea what expert stood by it.

By the way... we are neighbors, Guy. I'm a Georgian. too. Welcome to WS! I enjoy reading your posts!

 

[Guy_in_Georgia]

Thank You, Guy. I had read about the petechial hemmorage theory but did not have any idea what espert stood by it.

By the way... we are neighbors, Guy. I'm a Georgian. too. Welcome to WS! I enjoy reading your posts!

Thanks Angelwngs!

 

[Nuisanceposter]

~~~~~~~~~~
I had just written a 'blow by blow' of a possible intruder theory. My words came from a very emotional place. They did NOT say JBR's injuries were the work of a "sexual sadist". I am sure that there is a checklist of the characteristics found in murders done by sexual sadists that are used as criterior to determine the profile of the 'who did it'. I agree, this murderer would scarcely fit that profile. However, having a paint brush repeatedly shoved inside a 6 year old child is, in my opinion, in itself, a sexually, sadistic act which makes me sick to my stomach to think about much less write about.

I wondered how long it would take someone to jump on my emotionally driven wording, misintrepret my intent and give me a detailed list of the MO of a sexual sadist. I almost edited my words, but thought it not worth the effort. Now, I see it would have saved me at least two paragraphs............

Make it three..........I am thankful that my personality is not agressively driven. My mother always told me that it is best not to repond to people with a "Know it All" attitude or you may find yourself, not only often proven wrong, but at the end of your days old, alone and bitter....... I'm glad I listened.

Hmmm, it seems to me you were ready to take any response to your post personally before you even heard it. I didn't mean for you take my reply to you as any kind of set-back, please don't take it as such. It's a good thing I don't take message board posts personally, or I'd be offended by the way you replied to me.

 

[BBB167893]

"Does anyone know if that was proven at all? Is it possible that the flashlight actually "fit" that hole in the skull?"

Werner Spitz did a skull construction like on "CSI." Good enough?

"And...I think I have heard mention of some golf club incident before?"

Burke hauled off and hit her in the face with one

"Oh SuperDave, was it known that Patsy was taking tranquilizers and showing peculiar or angry behavior prior to JBRs death? Is there anywhere to read about that which is known about this?"

It's well known that they weren't seeing eye-to-eye very much at the time. I don't know if she was taking them then, but she was stoned off her fanny in several interviews, so you have to wonder!

"I think if someone was strangled while they were conscious, they'd have scratch marks around their neck from trying to pull the rope off. Or, if their hands were tied, they'd have bruises around their wrist from trying to pull free. And even if they were unconscious, I thought being strangled caused a person's eyes and tongue to protrude."

And none of that happened.

"I thought DNA of her fingernails showed some of her own DNA and it was concluded that she had most likely attempted to pull at the garrote as it was choking her"

Sorry, but that's another one for your hubby!

"My goodness, angelwngs, what you see with JonBenet is nowhere near the work of a sexual sadist. Not to be crude or gross, but a sexual sadist would have torn JB's bottom to ribbons. You would see a lot more damage than just digital penetration, extensive tearing and bleeding, and a sadist would have most likely assaulted her anally as well as vaginally. A sadist would not have bothered to go find clothes and redress her, either, although I can see the wiping perhaps as a form of evidence removal. A sadist is proud of his work and would not undo it by clothing the victim and covering her up afterwards. That's the indicator of someone who cares for her, not someone who has attacked her to hurt her in the worst way possible out of the sheer pleasure of it."

He's right.

"I doubt a pedo ring would have not been found out by now, and I doubt they all would have remained silent all these years, especially if there was video footage."

SHHHHH! My brother is lurking about! If he hears this, he'll launch into his huge spiel about how JonBenet videos could fetch millions in Amsterdam!

"JonBenet's DNA under her nails is not proof she scratched at her neck. I have my own DNA under my nails from just scratching an itch on my arm. JonBenet's skin under her nails would be an indication that she scratched at her neck, and I've never heard that they found her skin under nails, or any corresponding marks on her neck. If she was able to pull at the cord around her neck while being strangled, she would have left furrowed lines on her neck from her nails and her skin would be under her nails. Strangling victims claw themselves up pretty good when they try to get the pressure off - any damage or pain incurred while struggling to breathe is nothing compared to the desperate need to breathe."

Right again.

"I am sure that there is a checklist of the characteristics found in murders done by sexual sadists that are used as criterior to determine the profile of the 'who did it'."

There is!

 

[K777angel]

Dr. Henry Lee stated that the blow to the head was consistant with that of an accident. John Mark Karr said her death was an 'accident'. If an intruder caused this accidental blow to her head, how could it have happened? I found this post below on an old thread here titled "Head Blow".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Quote earlier post Under Thread named Head Blow-

"JonBenet was struck hard on the side of her head. Dr. Meyer stated during the autopsy that her head injuries were consistent with a "blow to the head".
What position must JonBenet have been in to have recieved this blow to her head? To try and strike a blow on the side of the head to someone lying down would have been very awkward - like golfing. Not very likely at all. She must have been upright then.
Which means she had to have been STRUCK first - and then strangled.
Because she could not have been in an upright position to have that object swung to the side of her head - had she been strangled and unconscious/near death.
It makes no sense that someone struck her head when she was lying down.
And supposedly dead from being strangled."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was actually my quote above. And I continue to believe that is how it happened. The head blow came FIRST. What followed was staging to explain why JonBenet lay dead. (Because they were faced with the fact that there was no VISIBLE indication of why she was dead! No gunshot wound. No stab wound. No blood.)

Again, logistically, the head blow had to have come first.
It makes NO sense to consider that she lay dead from being strangled (lay is the operative word here) - and someone decides to take a SIDE SWING - like a golf swing - to strike her?
No.
She was upright when that blow to her head came.

And it nearly killed her in itself. That is why there was such little blood.

Thinking she was already dead, the perp and/or stager then realized they had to put something VISIBLE on her to indicate how she died.
There was just enough life left in her to actually cause petichial hemorrages.
But no strap muscles in her neck were injured (commonly seen in strangulations) and the cord around her wrists were "loose" according to the coroner.
Because they were for staging purposes only.

And why duct tape on her mouth when she was rendered unconcious or dead already?

 

[txsvicki]

If JonBenet weren't stun gunned to cause immobilization at the beginning of the attack then I can't see why there are no other bruises. It looks like there would have been at least some defensive wounds to the arms from raising them when the person raised the weapon to hit the head. If she weren't immobile then there should be some more bruising or at least mold on the clothes from trying to get away on that moldy basement floor or to her body from trying to get the garrotte loose. If the head was hit by an intruder upstairs, it would have made a very loud cracking noise. The garrotting and bounding had to either be staging or for sadistic sexual purposes after JonBenet was either immobilized from stunning or from the head injury. BTK bound and strangled his victims and didn't usually leave any other wounds or rape. I don't see why the experts can't decide which injury came first.

 

[LinasK]

If JonBenet weren't stun gunned to cause immobilization at the beginning of the attack then I can't see why there are no other bruises. It looks like there would have been at least some defensive wounds to the arms from raising them when the person raised the weapon to hit the head. If she weren't immobile then there should be some more bruising or at least mold on the clothes from trying to get away on that moldy basement floor or to her body from trying to get the garrotte loose. If the head was hit by an intruder upstairs, it would have made a very loud cracking noise. The garrotting and bounding had to either be staging or for sadistic sexual purposes after JonBenet was either immobilized from stunning or from the head injury. BTK bound and strangled his victims and didn't usually leave any other wounds or rape. I don't see why the experts can't decide which injury came first.

Txvicki, I just read a very interesting theory on another thread which would explain why JB didn't struggle- that John put Patsy's tranquilizer in JB's pineapple to make her compliant. If she was dopey, she wouldn't be actively clawing.

 

[lovebites]

Txvicki, I just read a very interesting theory on another thread which would explain why JB didn't struggle- that John put Patsy's tranquilizer in JB's pineapple to make her compliant. If she was dopey, she wouldn't be actively clawing.

After an autopsy isn't it customary to preserve certain amounts of tissue in case future testing needs to be done?
Meaning, could they still test for this drug?

 

[roseofsharon]

Well, first I want to say that I believe that the Ramsey's are innocent of this crime, however, I just thought I would throw this theory out as food for thought (excuse the pun). Here is a possible scenario ... (the scenario is only feasible if the bowl was made from a heavy type of material (not plastic).

It has been reported that the Ramsey's arrived home at approximately 10:00 p.m. Everything probably went smoothly and everyone was finally in bed. JB was possibly over excited from Christmas Day, couldn't sleep and decided to go to the kitchen for some pineapple.

One of the parents suddenly hears something happening downstairs, (I would guess around midnight) so a parent goes to check it out. They see JB standing there with the fridge open eating the fruit from the bowl. The parent becomes enraged, as they were frightened thinking they may encounter an intruder, so they are so angry, they grab the bowl and raise it
over their head and bring it down on the poor little soul's skull, not realizing how hard they did this. We know how the rest of this fateful night played out.

So question to ask -- did the fridge open from the left or the right. I think the fractured skull was on the right side of the head, so the fridge door opened to the left side of the room and could a pottery or heavy ceramic bowl cause the severity of the injury. Have we ever seen the bowl that held the pineapple. My guess is, it wouldn't be plastic.

It would be interesting to know this. I can't remember the layout of the appliances in the kitchen.

As I mentioned above, this is only a scenario, and I do believe in the R's innocence because I cannot believe a parent(s) could ever carry out the horrific events of that night.

The above is just my opinion.