Which is strongest RDI evidence?

[allysasaurus]

Dr.WS: She did have a circulation....she did have blood clots, she did have heart beat, she did breathe, for awhile, after the head injury.[/I]

.......saddest thing ive read today.[emoji24]

 

[Mama2JML]

Mama2JML, I'm gonna let that opportunity glide right by and reply like a gentleman.

Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine told the Rock Mountain News:

"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."

More from Brennan's 07.16.97, RMN article quoted above:

Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.

''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.

"She's had vaginal penetration.''
Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.

The experts reviewed the autopsy report released Monday by a judge's order.

...

"Somebody's injured her vagina,'' said Wright. "And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?''

Wright said the presence of a small amount of food in JonBenet's small intestine -- possibly pineapple fragments -- indicates she died well after her final meal, most likely late at night or early in the morning.

...

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.''​

​

(A side note: Hypoxia, a result of asphyxiation, contributes to cerebral edema.)

And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.​

​

The argument is NOT that the victim had expired before the head blow was inflicted. The argument is that the perpetrator subjected JonBenét to partial (-OR- extended, repeated, attempted, etc.) strangulation prior to the final & complete strangulation which ultimately killed her and, in fact, did occur after the head blow.

"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.​

​

Forensic pathologist Tom Henry told FOXNews:

"The fact that she's got this extensive injury described as a blood clot in the scalp indicates a little longer period of time that she had to survive ... a little more blood pumping under pressure for a longer period of time," he said.

..."a little longer", "a little more"? Okay. No argument here.

Henry Lee described the head wound as "fully developed" in his book, Cracking More Cases.

I do not have Lee's book, so I am unsure how he came to this conclusion. If you can share an excerpt, I would like to read more of his analysis, and (of course) I would be grateful.

The autopsy report describes the areas of brain hemorrhage as displaying no evidence of organization and lacking the presence of inflammatory infiltrate. So, when Lee describes "the head wound" as being "fully developed", to what specific injury is he referring and what evidence does he cite in determining this conclusion?

Which brings me to:



Yes, I had heard that. ST wrote about that in his book. Even so, this is what Spitz had to say:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03172000spitzondiscovery.htm

You believe JBR was hit on the head first, and then strangled.

Dr. WS: Yes.

LC: But in reports published this week, a former detective, who also worked on the case, claimed the head wound did not bleed enough to be the first injury, but Spitz says, he can prove his case, and it's believed the Boulder police agree.

Dr.WS: Because there was hemmoraging in the brain.

LC: There was hemmoraging in the brain?

Dr.WS: There was hemmoraging in the scalp, in the skin,in other words,

LC: Spitz says those hemmorages would not have formed if JB was already dead of strangulation when she suffered the head injury.

Dr.WS: She did have a circulation....she did have blood clots, she did have heart beat, she did breathe, for awhile, after the head injury.

I'm not aware of Spitz mentioning "nail gouges."

Thomas, Kolar, and Schiller have written about WS's analysis.

On p. 65-66 of FF: WRKJB, Kolar attributes the following sequence of injuries to the analysis Spitz shared with the BPD:

1. Bruising & abrasions on the front and sides of the throat from initial constriction.

2. Fingernail gouges/abrasions on the throat; defensive wounds.

3. Skull fracture, from blow to the head with the Maglite or similar object.

4. Vaginal abrasions, bleeding, & (acute) inflammation/vascular congestion from insertion of the paintbrush.

5. Final ligature strangulation from tightening of 'the garrote'.

 

[BBB167893]

The argument is NOT that the victim had expired before the head blow was inflicted.

That's news to me, Mama2JML. As far back as I can remember, that was ALWAYS Lou Smit's argument: that she was dead when her head was smashed.

I do not have Lee's book, so I am unsure how he came to this conclusion. If you can share an excerpt, I would like to read more of his analysis, and (of course) I would be grateful.

The autopsy report describes the areas of brain hemorrhage as displaying no evidence of organization and lacking the presence of inflammatory infiltrate. So, when Lee describes "the head wound" as being "fully developed", to what specific injury is he referring and what evidence does he cite in determining this conclusion?

Mama, I'm in mood to oblige you. But if it might help, here you go:

Cracking More Cases pg 222-223:

"They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time.

Thomas, Kolar, and Schiller have written about WS's analysis.

On p. 65-66 of FF: WRKJB, Kolar attributes the following sequence of injuries to the analysis Spitz shared with the BPD:

1. Bruising & abrasions on the front and sides of the throat from initial constriction.

2. Fingernail gouges/abrasions on the throat; defensive wounds.

3. Skull fracture, from blow to the head with the Maglite or similar object.

4. Vaginal abrasions, bleeding, & (acute) inflammation/vascular congestion from insertion of the paintbrush.

5. Final ligature strangulation from tightening of 'the garrote'.

Even if I agreed completely with that idea, it doesn't go against me, does it?

 

[Anti-K]

More from Brennan's 07.16.97, RMN article quoted above:

Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.

''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.

"She's had vaginal penetration.''
Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.

The experts reviewed the autopsy report released Monday by a judge's order.

...

"Somebody's injured her vagina,'' said Wright. "And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?''

Wright said the presence of a small amount of food in JonBenet's small intestine -- possibly pineapple fragments -- indicates she died well after her final meal, most likely late at night or early in the morning.

...

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.''​

​

(A side note: Hypoxia, a result of asphyxiation, contributes to cerebral edema.)

And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.​

​

The argument is NOT that the victim had expired before the head blow was inflicted. The argument is that the perpetrator subjected JonBenét to partial (-OR- extended, repeated, attempted, etc.) strangulation prior to the final & complete strangulation which ultimately killed her and, in fact, did occur after the head blow.

"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.​

​

..."a little longer", "a little more"? Okay. No argument here.

I do not have Lee's book, so I am unsure how he came to this conclusion. If you can share an excerpt, I would like to read more of his analysis, and (of course) I would be grateful.

The autopsy report describes the areas of brain hemorrhage as displaying no evidence of organization and lacking the presence of inflammatory infiltrate. So, when Lee describes "the head wound" as being "fully developed", to what specific injury is he referring and what evidence does he cite in determining this conclusion?

Thomas, Kolar, and Schiller have written about WS's analysis.

On p. 65-66 of FF: WRKJB, Kolar attributes the following sequence of injuries to the analysis Spitz shared with the BPD:

1. Bruising & abrasions on the front and sides of the throat from initial constriction.

2. Fingernail gouges/abrasions on the throat; defensive wounds.

3. Skull fracture, from blow to the head with the Maglite or similar object.

4. Vaginal abrasions, bleeding, & (acute) inflammation/vascular congestion from insertion of the paintbrush.

5. Final ligature strangulation from tightening of 'the garrote'.

I haven’t read Lee’s book, either. I probably never will. I’m not very impressed with Lee, and am saddened to know that may people are.

Anyway, SD posted this quote from Lee’s book for you:
"They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time. [sic]

I’m not sure who “they” refers to. SD bolded “though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time.”

I’m going to bold things differently: They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time.

The head blow had to have occurred before or during the asphyxiation. It could not have occurred after the asphyxiation. The asphyxiation (associated with...) killed her. She was alive when the head blow was struck. So, the question becomes how much time passed between the two events.

I’ve experimented quite a bit, timing this and that and whatever else, and I think that this crime could have been committed entry to exit (if IDI) in about 30 minutes. Minus 5 minutes for entry/exit and going up/down stairs and we have about 25 minutes (minimum) between head blow and asphyxiation.
...

AK

 

[inspector rex]

I haven’t read Lee’s book, either. I probably never will. I’m not very impressed with Lee, and am saddened to know that may people are.

Anyway, SD posted this quote from Lee’s book for you:
"They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time. [sic]

I’m not sure who “they” refers to. SD bolded “though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time.”

I’m going to bold things differently: They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time.

The head blow had to have occurred before or during the asphyxiation. It could not have occurred after the asphyxiation. The asphyxiation (associated with...) killed her. She was alive when the head blow was struck. So, the question becomes how much time passed between the two events.

I’ve experimented quite a bit, timing this and that and whatever else, and I think that this crime could have been committed entry to exit (if IDI) in about 30 minutes. Minus 5 minutes for entry/exit and going up/down stairs and we have about 25 minutes (minimum) between head blow and asphyxiation.
...

AK

Why does it seem no one proposes the theory that the IDI went to her in her bed, hit her on the head and then tied her up and took her downstairs for the strangulation?
He would not have known the head blow would have eventually been fatal, but that didn't matter, as his intention was to kill.
I think he intended to subdue and kill.

Not kidnap. Not torture. Not assault.

So this makes me think either an accomplice wrote the RN or this person was bi-polar.

 

[Tawny]

RDI evidence thread, y'all.

 

[andreww]

Why does it seem no one proposes the theory that the IDI went to her in her bed, hit her on the head and then tied her up and took her downstairs for the strangulation?
He would not have known the head blow would have eventually been fatal, but that didn't matter, as his intention was to kill.
I think he intended to subdue and kill.

Not kidnap. Not torture. Not assault.

So this makes me think either an accomplice wrote the RN or this person was bi-polar.

Intruder? That would mean the Ramseys were telling the truth! And that would mean the JB was asleep the entire time after they arrived home from the Whites. AND THAT WOULD MEAN THERE WOULD BE NO PINEAPPLE IN HER STOMACH!

 

[Anti-K]

I haven’t read Lee’s book, either. I probably never will. I’m not very impressed with Lee, and am saddened to know that may people are.

Anyway, SD posted this quote from Lee’s book for you:
"They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time. [sic]

I’m not sure who “they” refers to. SD bolded “though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time.”

I’m going to bold things differently: They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time.

The head blow had to have occurred before or during the asphyxiation. It could not have occurred after the asphyxiation. The asphyxiation (associated with...) killed her. She was alive when the head blow was struck. So, the question becomes how much time passed between the two events.

I’ve experimented quite a bit, timing this and that and whatever else, and I think that this crime could have been committed entry to exit (if IDI) in about 30 minutes. Minus 5 minutes for entry/exit and going up/down stairs and we have about 25 minutes (minimum) between head blow and asphyxiation.
...

AK

Oops forgot to bold. Here is the quote bolded as in intended.

“They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time.”
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

RDI evidence thread, y'all.

I hope we can discuss the time between head blow and asphyxiation without reference to IDI or RDI. But, you're right. This thread is an RDI thread. I
wonder if anyone is interested in moving the discussion to a more appropriate thread? Or, is it olay here as long as no reference to IDI is made?
...

AK

 

[inspector rex]

RDI evidence thread, y'all.

Really? I thought this forum was for discussion about JonBenet's murder?

Are you saying you can only discuss the "Ramseys Did It" theory?

 

[andreww]

Really? I thought this forum was for discussion about JonBenet's murder?

Are you saying you can only discuss the "Ramseys Did It" theory?

I dont believe this is a RDI only thread. Say what you like, we welcome the challenge.

 

[Tawny]

The thread title is asking what is strongest RDI evidence. Discuss it all you like, I'm just remembering how admonished RDI are when they bring in RDI theories to the IDI thread.

 

[inspector rex]

Ok, so I understand that some people have very fixed ideas and don't want to hear other opinions or debate on the subject.

Perhaps there should be a RDI -v- IDI thread especially for the purpose of debating the conflicting evidence?

 

[Tawny]

Eh, that's pretty much every other thread (Like, pineapple snack, ransom note, etc).

 

[OliviaG1996]

I think it's great to have conflicting opinions and ideas because it helps bring more awareness to the case and gives a glimmer of hope that the case may be solved someday (if it isn't already). Remember, we're all friends here! We're all after the same goal- learning the truth of what happened (whether it's the JBR case or any other). No need for the RDI/IDI only shenanigans! :happydance:

 

[Tawny]

I seriously have zero problem with differing opinions and questioning each other's theories. Tried to do that, to question the IDI theory so we could all learn from each other and so I could learn how IDI comes to their conclusions. Got hand slapped LOL. >.<

Back to the regularly scheduled thread though!

I still hold that the biggest evidence that R's were involved is the ransom note. The handwriting is way too similar and PR was the ONLY person they tested that couldn't be eliminated as a potential author. Add that to the way she changed her handwriting after (and decided to type letters from then on)... definitely suspicious to me.

 

[BBB167893]

I haven’t read Lee’s book, either. I probably never will. I’m not very impressed with Lee, and am saddened to know that may people are.

Anyway, SD posted this quote from Lee’s book for you:
"They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time. [sic]

I’m not sure who “they” refers to. SD bolded “though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time.”

I’m going to bold things differently: They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded the garroting with scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time.

The head blow had to have occurred before or during the asphyxiation. It could not have occurred after the asphyxiation. The asphyxiation (associated with...) killed her. She was alive when the head blow was struck. So, the question becomes how much time passed between the two events.

I’ve experimented quite a bit, timing this and that and whatever else, and I think that this crime could have been committed entry to exit (if IDI) in about 30 minutes. Minus 5 minutes for entry/exit and going up/down stairs and we have about 25 minutes (minimum) between head blow and asphyxiation.
...

AK

But what would be the point?

 

[BBB167893]

RDI evidence thread, y'all.

Sure, they kick us off "their" thread. What's good for the goose, and all that...

 

[BBB167893]

Intruder? That would mean the Ramseys were telling the truth! And that would mean the JB was asleep the entire time after they arrived home from the Whites. AND THAT WOULD MEAN THERE WOULD BE NO PINEAPPLE IN HER STOMACH!

More than that, andreww, what would be the point? IF the intent was to kill, if she's already hit and unconscious, it would be easy to kill her without all the rigmarole inspector rex suggests.

 

[inspector rex]

More than that, andreww, what would be the point? IF the intent was to kill, if she's already hit and unconscious, it would be easy to kill her without all the rigmarole inspector rex suggests.

rigmarole?