Expanding Dr.Wecht's series of events...

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,
One of the R's abused JonBenet that fateful night, then she was whacked on the head, then she was strangled, wiped down, redressed and placed into the wine-cellar. I can think of only one reason why there was collusion to fake an abduction.


.

Thanks for the reply.

I personally disagree with that order of events. Whilst I try to look at other viewpoints, I'm still firmly committed to the strangulation first then head-blow.Of course, that's only my opinion and is not an absolute fact on the case.

Of course, I agree there was a sexual element to the death.Perhaps I just take a differing view.

Here's some reservations from me:

If JonBenet was hit over the head with say, the flashlight by the mother, it requires so much speculation. We need to speculate that there was an incident to which Patsy got so annoyed that she used a flashlight and struck JonBenet with such force to crack her skull and render her dead (at least to the eyes of the perpetrator). We have no quantifiable proof that Patsy would behave like this or that she did. We also have to invent an incident for which to base these assumptions on.

Additionally, after the child has been hit on the head 'accidentally', say by Patsy, why weren't the police called? It was an accident after all. Further, instead of calling the police, Patsy (and John) decide upon 'staging' to create the myth of the intruder. And they decide to make the death appear very sexual what with the garrotte etc. Their 6 year old little girl is dead from an accident and they spend a fair amount of time tying ropes around her dead/dying body.

So, JonBenet was being molested that night, then got hit over the head for whatever reason and then the garrotte was added for staging.

I really have trouble buying this. But my previous post where I postulate a hypothetical scenario for the head-bash first scenario was an attempt to try to envision it.

Also, the lack of blood found in the brain is not what is normally expected if the head-blow came first. It's not to say that such anomolies don't occur i.e relatively low amounts of blood recovered after serious head-bash, but it's not the expected outcome.

The reasons why I personally think the evidence is more congruent with the strangulation first scenario is:

-The lack of blood found in the brain after such a horrific skull trauma is totally in keeping with the fact that had the heart had stopped beating as a result of the vagus nerve being pressed too hard little or no blood was likely to be in the brain. We don't need any speculations whatsoever here -- hardly any blood was recovered and a garrotte was actually found on the body. These things actually did exist.

- JonBenet was both acutely and chronically abused. This in conjunction with the garrotte appears to support the sex-game gone wrong theory. The fact a piece of apparatus was found that had a sexual connotation aswell as the fact that sexual abuse had occurred seems pretty compelling.

- The very likely weapon used to inflict the head injury -- the flashlight -- was wiped down and placed in the kitchen, almost begging to be found. I think the flashlight was 'put on show' because the Ramseys wanted it found because it was the weapon used to 'stage' the crime after the initial strangulation. It had significance.

-JonBenet had bruising to her temporal lobes -- this most likely occurred from JonBenet being shaken. I believe that, after she 'died' or went unconscious to the perpetrator, they panicked and did what anyone, on finding such a thing would do -- they shook the body to try to revive it. But JonBenet was dead/dying. Hence why bruises formed exactly where bruises would form in such an instance.

-Markings on the skin (little haemorrhages) testify to the fact that the garrotte was placed on her neck and tightened when she was still technically alive. I find it more plausible that these marks exist because the garrotte was added first and the strangulation was the primary cause of death (later the head-blow). To view the other way, we need to imagine the hypothetical and unproven incident with which caused someone to be so angry they hit the child on the head and 'killed' them. And then, before she was 'fully' dead, the perpetrators had the gusto to think up and execute the whole garrotte thing in just enough time so that the tell tale marks on the skin appeared to show asphyxiation had occurred whilst she was still 'alive' in technical terms.

My theory is this: ongoing sexual abuse > garrotte part of sex games > sex game goes wrong > head wound inflicted to make the crime appear horrific and add to intruder theory > ransom note further staging to embellish intruder theory.

I think it's easier to make one hit to head after an accidental asphyxiation as part of some staging exercise than it is to stage a garrotte/kinky sex game incident after an accidental head-bash. The former scenario is less traumatic for the perp to do and easier. The latter scenario is more time consuming more emotionally arduous for the perp considering all the body contact they would need with their dead kid.It's also less likely since it takes more time, and we know there's only a limited amount of time after a body dies until certain tell tale signs show that certain actions occurred wither before or after total death of the body.

However, I'm still left with many questions. There's things I can't resolve.

Some of my queries:

1. Who was the perpetrator in the strangulation scenario. Was it the same person who wrote the ransom note? And if not, why would the author of the ransom note involve themselves into the crime when such a heinous act had been done to their child?

2. Did 2 perpetrators do the crime hence they both acted to save each others skin?

3. If the strangulation came first, and was done by the dad, why would he leave the garrotte on when it might set alarm bells of in his wife's head when she found out? Did she know what was going on?

 

[armywife210]

Do we know if the peice of wood that acted as a lock toward the top or on the top of the door was nailed was tight, meaning that you would have to manually turn it? Or loose, meaning that you would have to turn it just to shut the door, and it would fall back down?
I'm sure it has been stated somewhere, but I have been in and out on this case for years and I forget what I already know.

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks for the reply.

I personally disagree with that order of events. Whilst I try to look at other viewpoints, I'm still firmly committed to the strangulation first then head-blow.Of course, that's only my opinion and is not an absolute fact on the case.

Of course, I agree there was a sexual element to the death.Perhaps I just take a differing view.

Here's some reservations from me:

If JonBenet was hit over the head with say, the flashlight by the mother, it requires so much speculation. We need to speculate that there was an incident to which Patsy got so annoyed that she used a flashlight and struck JonBenet with such force to crack her skull and render her dead (at least to the eyes of the perpetrator). We have no quantifiable proof that Patsy would behave like this or that she did. We also have to invent an incident for which to base these assumptions on.

Additionally, after the child has been hit on the head 'accidentally', say by Patsy, why weren't the police called? It was an accident after all. Further, instead of calling the police, Patsy (and John) decide upon 'staging' to create the myth of the intruder. And they decide to make the death appear very sexual what with the garrotte etc. Their 6 year old little girl is dead from an accident and they spend a fair amount of time tying ropes around her dead/dying body.

So, JonBenet was being molested that night, then got hit over the head for whatever reason and then the garrotte was added for staging.

I really have trouble buying this. But my previous post where I postulate a hypothetical scenario for the head-bash first scenario was an attempt to try to envision it.

Also, the lack of blood found in the brain is not what is normally expected if the head-blow came first. It's not to say that such anomolies don't occur i.e relatively low amounts of blood recovered after serious head-bash, but it's not the expected outcome.

The reasons why I personally think the evidence is more congruent with the strangulation first scenario is:

-The lack of blood found in the brain after such a horrific skull trauma is totally in keeping with the fact that had the heart had stopped beating as a result of the vagus nerve being pressed too hard little or no blood was likely to be in the brain. We don't need any speculations whatsoever here -- hardly any blood was recovered and a garrotte was actually found on the body. These things actually did exist.

- JonBenet was both acutely and chronically abused. This in conjunction with the garrotte appears to support the sex-game gone wrong theory. The fact a piece of apparatus was found that had a sexual connotation aswell as the fact that sexual abuse had occurred seems pretty compelling.

- The very likely weapon used to inflict the head injury -- the flashlight -- was wiped down and placed in the kitchen, almost begging to be found. I think the flashlight was 'put on show' because the Ramseys wanted it found because it was the weapon used to 'stage' the crime after the initial strangulation. It had significance.

-JonBenet had bruising to her temporal lobes -- this most likely occurred from JonBenet being shaken. I believe that, after she 'died' or went unconscious to the perpetrator, they panicked and did what anyone, on finding such a thing would do -- they shook the body to try to revive it. But JonBenet was dead/dying. Hence why bruises formed exactly where bruises would form in such an instance.

-Markings on the skin (little haemorrhages) testify to the fact that the garrotte was placed on her neck and tightened when she was still technically alive. I find it more plausible that these marks exist because the garrotte was added first and the strangulation was the primary cause of death (later the head-blow). To view the other way, we need to imagine the hypothetical and unproven incident with which caused someone to be so angry they hit the child on the head and 'killed' them. And then, before she was 'fully' dead, the perpetrators had the gusto to think up and execute the whole garrotte thing in just enough time so that the tell tale marks on the skin appeared to show asphyxiation had occurred whilst she was still 'alive' in technical terms.

My theory is this: ongoing sexual abuse > garrotte part of sex games > sex game goes wrong > head wound inflicted to make the crime appear horrific and add to intruder theory > ransom note further staging to embellish intruder theory.

I think it's easier to make one hit to head after an accidental asphyxiation as part of some staging exercise than it is to stage a garrotte/kinky sex game incident after an accidental head-bash. The former scenario is less traumatic for the perp to do and easier. The latter scenario is more time consuming more emotionally arduous for the perp considering all the body contact they would need with their dead kid.It's also less likely since it takes more time, and we know there's only a limited amount of time after a body dies until certain tell tale signs show that certain actions occurred wither before or after total death of the body.

However, I'm still left with many questions. There's things I can't resolve.

Some of my queries:

1. Who was the perpetrator in the strangulation scenario. Was it the same person who wrote the ransom note? And if not, why would the author of the ransom note involve themselves into the crime when such a heinous act had been done to their child?

2. Did 2 perpetrators do the crime hence they both acted to save each others skin?

3. If the strangulation came first, and was done by the dad, why would he leave the garrotte on when it might set alarm bells of in his wife's head when she found out? Did she know what was going on?

Let_Forever_Be View Post,
I am not hung up on the order of events or whether JonBenet was manually asphyxiated, I think the latter has a high probability, since I regard the garrote as pure staging, and its true function is an attempt to mask any manual strangulation.

There were no EA sex games, if so, why leave the evidence on the neck but attempt to mask it down below, also the garrote could never function as advertised.

- The very likely weapon used to inflict the head injury -- the flashlight -- was wiped down and placed in the kitchen, almost begging to be found. I think the flashlight was 'put on show' because the Ramseys wanted it found because it was the weapon used to 'stage' the crime after the initial strangulation. It had significance.

So why not just leave it in the wine-cellar, what does finding it imply for any investigator, if there was a ball of nylon cord lying on a kitchen top what would this imply for any other investigator?

I think it's easier to make one hit to head after an accidental asphyxiation as part of some staging exercise than it is to stage a garrotte/kinky sex game incident after an accidental head-bash. The former scenario is less traumatic for the perp to do and easier. The latter scenario is more time consuming more emotionally arduous for the perp considering all the body contact they would need with their dead kid.It's also less likely since it takes more time, and we know there's only a limited amount of time after a body dies until certain tell tale signs show that certain actions occurred wither before or after total death of the body.

But we have no evidence of EA. It is also questionable to assume forensic evidence, that is in all probability staged, can be employed to generate a sound theory, especially the garrote.

JonBenet's body has been staged, the wine-cellar has not, whomever redressed JonBenet and added the garrote were wanting to hide something from you, and offer you a biased interpretation of prior events. This was the stagers intention, it was not to assist you or Wecht to assume the truth in plain sight, because she had been sexually assaulted and a garrote had been applied.


.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be View Post,

There were no EA sex games, if so, why leave the evidence on the neck but attempt to mask it down below, also the garrote could never function as advertised.


So why not just leave it in the wine-cellar, what does finding it imply for any investigator, if there was a ball of nylon cord lying on a kitchen top what would this imply for any other investigator?


But we have no evidence of EA. It is also questionable to assume forensic evidence, that is in all probability staged, can be employed to generate a sound theory, especially the garrote.

I disagree. To say the garrotte 'could not' act as it was intended is a complex subject.

1. It might have been misused by the perpetrator.
2. It might have been used in a manner by the perpetrator not known to you.

The simple fact is, we don't know how it was used. To say it 'couldn't' do its job is something I strongly disagree with. Erotic asphyxiation is the act whereby intentional restriction of oxygen to brain in order to generate a sexual arousal is conducted. It requires a pressure device to restrict oxygen.To what extent it was professional is debatable.

We know that the cause of death was listed as asphyxiation in conjunction with the head trauma. We know there was tell-tale haemorrhages on the body that means the asphyxiation occurred when alive.We know JonBenet was being sexually molested both at the time of death and before.

Of course, I have questions too and do question aspects of this theory. Perhaps the perp decided to leave the garrotte visibly shown because after the body was wiped down as part of the attempt to remove forensic evidence, it was assumed/hoped that links to the perp would not show up and that the garrotte could be attributed to the 'intruder'. The garrotte couldn't be disposed off anyway.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

[UKGuy]

I disagree. To say the garrotte 'could not' act as it was intended is a complex subject.

1. It might have been misused by the perpetrator.
2. It might have been used in a manner by the perpetrator not known to you.

The simple fact is, we don't know how it was used. To say it 'couldn't' do its job is something I strongly disagree with. Erotic asphyxiation is the act whereby intentional restriction of oxygen to brain in order to generate a sexual arousal is conducted. It requires a pressure device to restrict oxygen.To what extent it was professional is debatable.

We know that the cause of death was listed as asphyxiation in conjunction with the head trauma. We know there was tell-tale haemorrhages on the body that means the asphyxiation occurred when alive.We know JonBenet was being sexually molested both at the time of death and before.

Of course, I have questions too and do question aspects of this theory. Perhaps the perp decided to leave the garrotte visibly shown because after the body was wiped down as part of the attempt to remove forensic evidence, it was assumed/hoped that links to the perp would not show up and that the garrotte could be attributed to the 'intruder'. The garrotte couldn't be disposed off anyway.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Let_Forever_Be,
Disagreement is fine, but it does not demonstrate how the garrote was functional.

Your EA theory would be on stronger ground if you asumed the EA was applied manually, and the garrote is staging to mask this?

The simple fact is, we don't know how it was used.

Precisely my point, and this includes the option that it was never used as an EA device.

You should start with the assumption that the garrote is staging, then demonstrate that it could function as a garrote, and as an EA device, this would then corroborate Wecht's EA theory.

JonBenet may have been ligature strangled upstairs, with the paintbrush handle deliberately added once she was brought downstairs, or it may have all happened in the basement.

To me it is obvious that the addition of the paintbrush handle is staging, why would any R come down stairs, prior to enacting EA, then go back upstairs to continue EA. Were there not knives, handles, sticks, rods etc upstairs?

The EA theory was interesting initially but it has long been disregarded, once you know nearly all of JonBenet's person was staged and the wine-cellar was not. Then the question about the purpose of the paintbrush handle becomes an open one, e.g. was it also staging?


.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,


The EA theory was interesting initially but it has long been disregarded, once you know nearly all of JonBenet's person was staged and the wine-cellar was not. Then the question about the purpose of the paintbrush handle becomes an open one, e.g. was it also staging?

.

The EA theory hasn't long been discredited. You're conflating your opinion with an absolute fact on the issue.

Who discredited it? Yourself? Law Enforcement? Was the culprit found and the 'correct' theory ascertained?

To accept that the head-bash was the absolute cause of death means we have to speculate, that is, make absolutely unquantifiable assumptions, that JonBenet's head trauma was caused by being hit over the head before any staging took place. No known incident exists to which we know backs this stance up. We have to speculate that JonBenet soiled herself for example and then we need to speculate that a Ramsey adult, most likely Patsy, acted so angrily that she hit JonBenet over the head. There isn't any proof for such an incident. And why would a parent hit their child over the head, with such precision as was needed to cause the skull fracture all because the child maybe had a toilet-related accident. It was well known JonBenet had certain issues -- and it is well known Patsy was trying to deal with them. Why on that night would she have hit her kid?

And then, after the child had been killed, the adults decide to 'stage' events via a garrotte within the allocated time-frame that allowed the tell-tale haemorrhages to appear on the skin to show it had been execture when she was till technically alive. That is, after the head-bash occurred, the parent --likely Patsy-- was able to think up the plan and execute the plan of 'staging' the garrotte. Not only had her child just died, she's now spending lots of time touching her dead body, wrapping it in cords etc whilst never once calling the police. So, we need to speculate again as to why Patsy never called the police to report the accident but instead decided upon an elaborate staging of the crime to implicate an intruder.

We also need to speculate how the molestation fits into the scenario since we know that night, JonBenet was being abused.

Things might have been like this. But I don't think the evidence is as supportive of this as the sex-game gone wrong theory.

JonBenet was found with a garrotte on her. She was found baring the effects of molestation. She was found with the tell-tale heamorrhages meaning the neck trauma was done when she was still alive. She was found with hardly any blood in her brain testifying, most likely, to the fact her heart had stopped beating before the head trauma was done hence the lack of blood found in the brain. She was found with bruising to her temporal lobes -- again, this most likely occured from beings shaken after the perp thought she was dead and tried to revive her.

There's just less speculation involved in this scenario in my opinion.

When someone is hit on the head like JonBenet was, it takes a while for them to die since all the main faculties of the brain sit at the base of neck, not the top.

To me, it appears the lack of blood found in the brain is congruent with the fact that the head-blow came after the absolute cause of death -- the neck trauma or the sex-game gone wrong. The heart had stopped pumping blood by the time the head was struck.The evidence absolutely supports such a stance.

Thus, you might not accept this theory and that's fine, but to say it has been discredited long ago is disingenuous.

 

[UKGuy]

The EA theory hasn't long been discredited. You're conflating your opinion with an absolute fact on the issue.

Who discredited it? Yourself? Law Enforcement? Was the culprit found and the 'correct' theory ascertained?

To accept that the head-bash was the absolute cause of death means we have to speculate, that is, make absolutely unquantifiable assumptions, that JonBenet's head trauma was caused by being hit over the head before any staging took place. No known incident exists to which we know backs this stance up. We have to speculate that JonBenet soiled herself for example and then we need to speculate that a Ramsey adult, most likely Patsy, acted so angrily that she hit JonBenet over the head. There isn't any proof for such an incident. And why would a parent hit their child over the head, with such precision as was needed to cause the skull fracture all because the child maybe had a toilet-related accident. It was well known JonBenet had certain issues -- and it is well known Patsy was trying to deal with them. Why on that night would she have hit her kid?

And then, after the child had been killed, the adults decide to 'stage' events via a garrotte within the allocated time-frame that allowed the tell-tale haemorrhages to appear on the skin to show it had been execture when she was till technically alive. That is, after the head-bash occurred, the parent --likely Patsy-- was able to think up the plan and execute the plan of 'staging' the garrotte. Not only had her child just died, she's now spending lots of time touching her dead body, wrapping it in cords etc whilst never once calling the police. So, we need to speculate again as to why Patsy never called the police to report the accident but instead decided upon an elaborate staging of the crime to implicate an intruder.

We also need to speculate how the molestation fits into the scenario since we know that night, JonBenet was being abused.

Things might have been like this. But I don't think the evidence is as supportive of this as the sex-game gone wrong theory.

JonBenet was found with a garrotte on her. She was found baring the effects of molestation. She was found with the tell-tale heamorrhages meaning the neck trauma was done when she was still alive. She was found with hardly any blood in her brain testifying, most likely, to the fact her heart had stopped beating before the head trauma was done hence the lack of blood found in the brain. She was found with bruising to her temporal lobes -- again, this most likely occured from beings shaken after the perp thought she was dead and tried to revive her.

There's just less speculation involved in this scenario in my opinion.

When someone is hit on the head like JonBenet was, it takes a while for them to die since all the main faculties of the brain sit at the base of neck, not the top.

To me, it appears the lack of blood found in the brain is congruent with the fact that the head-blow came after the absolute cause of death -- the neck trauma or the sex-game gone wrong. The heart had stopped pumping blood by the time the head was struck.The evidence absolutely supports such a stance.

Thus, you might not accept this theory and that's fine, but to say it has been discredited long ago is disingenuous.

Let_Forever_Be,

Thus, you might not accept this theory and that's fine, but to say it has been discredited long ago is disingenuous.

You must demonstrate that the ligature and paintbrush handle can function both as a garrote and an EA device. In two posts you fail to do this and offer speculation on the sequence of JonBenet's injuries, a topic I have already told you I hold no firm view.

I actually said it had been disregarded, you seem to be the only person promoting it. If you have a consistent theory then it will coincide with the forensic evidence.

IMO the garrote is staging, I have seen no forensic evidence that allows me to alter this view.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

The garrote may not have been a true garrote, and may not have operated as a true garrote, but ANY cord wound around a neck and pulled tight will operate as a strangulation device. The deep ligature furrows show that it was certainly pulled tight enough to choke her and "ligature strangulation" was noted as one of the causes of death. By the same token, any cord wound round the neck could also be used as an EA device, so just that alone puts it in the category of "possible EA device".
I am on the fence about whether the garrote was part of any sexual activity. I don't think so, even though the cords around the wrists were really too loose to be anything but visual bindings- they were not actually binding her. We know there was some sexual activity that night, and we know there was a vaginal penetration harsh enough to cause bleeding from that area. Blood was seen in and on the vagina, as well as bruising in both places. SOMETHING sexual happened and something caused the perp to bash her on the head.
Because I can think of NO scenario where an unconscious child needs to be bashed, I have never wavered in my theory that the bash came last, in response to her scream.
There WAS more blood than you think. Had she lived longer, there would have been more, possibly. Open head wounds bleed a lot, but this was a closed scalp wound. The mild swelling in the brain combined with the lack of organization (minimal white blood cells to the rescue) tell the coroner that she did not live long after the head bash, but the estimates vary from minutes to up to an hour.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

The garrote may not have been a true garrote, and may not have operated as a true garrote, but ANY cord wound around a neck and pulled tight will operate as a strangulation device. The deep ligature furrows show that it was certainly pulled tight enough to choke her and "ligature strangulation" was noted as one of the causes of death. By the same token, any cord wound round the neck could also be used as an EA device, so just that alone puts it in the category of "possible EA device".
I am on the fence about whether the garrote was part of any sexual activity. I don't think so, even though the cords around the wrists were really too loose to be anything but visual bindings- they were not actually binding her. We know there was some sexual activity that night, and we know there was a vaginal penetration harsh enough to cause bleeding from that area. Blood was seen in and on the vagina, as well as bruising in both places. SOMETHING sexual happened and something caused the perp to bash her on the head.
Because I can think of NO scenario where an unconscious child needs to be bashed, I have never wavered in my theory that the bash came last, in response to her scream.
There WAS more blood than you think. Had she lived longer, there would have been more, possibly. Open head wounds bleed a lot, but this was a closed scalp wound. The mild swelling in the brain combined with the lack of organization (minimal white blood cells to the rescue) tell the coroner that she did not live long after the head bash, but the estimates vary from minutes to up to an hour.

Great post.

 

[UKGuy]

The garrote may not have been a true garrote, and may not have operated as a true garrote, but ANY cord wound around a neck and pulled tight will operate as a strangulation device. The deep ligature furrows show that it was certainly pulled tight enough to choke her and "ligature strangulation" was noted as one of the causes of death. By the same token, any cord wound round the neck could also be used as an EA device, so just that alone puts it in the category of "possible EA device".
I am on the fence about whether the garrote was part of any sexual activity. I don't think so, even though the cords around the wrists were really too loose to be anything but visual bindings- they were not actually binding her. We know there was some sexual activity that night, and we know there was a vaginal penetration harsh enough to cause bleeding from that area. Blood was seen in and on the vagina, as well as bruising in both places. SOMETHING sexual happened and something caused the perp to bash her on the head.
Because I can think of NO scenario where an unconscious child needs to be bashed, I have never wavered in my theory that the bash came last, in response to her scream.
There WAS more blood than you think. Had she lived longer, there would have been more, possibly. Open head wounds bleed a lot, but this was a closed scalp wound. The mild swelling in the brain combined with the lack of organization (minimal white blood cells to the rescue) tell the coroner that she did not live long after the head bash, but the estimates vary from minutes to up to an hour.

DeeDee249,

The garrote may not have been a true garrote, and may not have operated as a true garrote,

This is how I see things, simply viewing the forensics picture will tell you it will not function as advertised, IMO its ad-hoc staging.

but ANY cord wound around a neck and pulled tight will operate as a strangulation device. The deep ligature furrows show that it was certainly pulled tight enough to choke her and "ligature strangulation" was noted as one of the causes of death.

Yes, this is Coroner Meyers stated opinion.

By the same token, any cord wound round the neck could also be used as an EA device, so just that alone puts it in the category of "possible EA device".

As would anything wound round her neck. But it is the addition of the paintbrush handle that gave rise to the claim of EA activity, not the application of a ligature. Claiming the ligature can substitute as an EA Device is a new theory distinct from the garrote inspired theory, which assumes the paintbrush handle was added as staging?

Although ligature inspired EA activity is difficult to refute, it appears to me that JonBenet's circumferential neck furrow represents one event in time, e.g. not some EA activity, followed by ligature strangulation?

So I reckon JonBenet was ligature strangled with the paintbrush handle added as staging, if the paintbrush handle or similar rod had originated upstairs, then I reckon allegations of EA activity would be on firmer ground.

One of the R's was molesting JonBenet that night. Whether her head trauma was accidental or deliberate and preceded her asphyxiation, and whether the latter was manual or ligature inspired or both does not prevent us from arriving at the point where JonBenet has been sexually assaulted and is now comatose!

The comatose JonBenet is then cleaned up and redressed, probably in stages, e.g. size-12's. Someone decided to kill JonBenet, this can be rationalized away as a Mercy Killing or Elimination of a Witness, so she was ligature strangled with the paintbrush handle then added as deliberate ad-hoc staging.

IMO we have a sexually motivated homicide staged as IDI, its that simple.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

This is how I see things, simply viewing the forensics picture will tell you it will not function as advertised, IMO its ad-hoc staging.


Yes, this is Coroner Meyers stated opinion.


As would anything wound round her neck. But it is the addition of the paintbrush handle that gave rise to the claim of EA activity, not the application of a ligature. Claiming the ligature can substitute as an EA Device is a new theory distinct from the garrote inspired theory, which assumes the paintbrush handle was added as staging?

Although ligature inspired EA activity is difficult to refute, it appears to me that JonBenet's circumferential neck furrow represents one event in time, e.g. not some EA activity, followed by ligature strangulation?

So I reckon JonBenet was ligature strangled with the paintbrush handle added as staging, if the paintbrush handle or similar rod had originated upstairs, then I reckon allegations of EA activity would be on firmer ground.

One of the R's was molesting JonBenet that night. Whether her head trauma was accidental or deliberate and preceded her asphyxiation, and whether the latter was manual or ligature inspired or both does not prevent us from arriving at the point where JonBenet has been sexually assaulted and is now comatose!

The comatose JonBenet is then cleaned up and redressed, probably in stages, e.g. size-12's. Someone decided to kill JonBenet, this can be rationalized away as a Mercy Killing or Elimination of a Witness, so she was ligature strangled with the paintbrush handle then added as deliberate ad-hoc staging.

IMO we have a sexually motivated homicide staged as IDI, its that simple.


.

Yes, pretty much. Not sure myself about "sexually motivated" homicide, however. There WAS sexual activity, certainly. But was that the reason she was killed? (in other words, to silence a witness? Or was she killed accidentally in the course of the sexual activity?

 

[Chris_Texas]

Okay, I will bite.

Henry Lee threw out the possibility of the DNA found in the panties was from an Fruit of a Loom Inspector 12. I know you are not going to admit it but that theory went to hell in a handbasket in 2002 and especially in 2006. Dr. Lee is old old news and we need to move on.

There is plenty of evidence of an Intruder. Had the police protected the crime scene there would probably be much much more. And here is a question for ya. If LE was so certain that an intruder was not possible why did they let tons of people in the house, clean the house, not properly search the house, and then go away and leave the Ramsey's with an inexperience female officer?

No, actually there is almost no evidence that even suggests an intruder, and this despite the fact that the home was crawling with people. Further, evidence aside (and I hate even typing those words, but this is important) it is hillariously difficult to fabricate a scenario that explains the evidence and ALLOWS FOR an intruder.

I don't believe the note looks much like PR's but I can buy she can't be excluded from writing it. The Ramsey or Ramsey lawyers never really needed to challenge evidence such as this. A 100 different document examiners usually give 80 different opinions. I think any three of your options are farfetched but of the three I would say number one as well. The problem is that is not that close and team Ramsey or any Joe Blow attorney would blow this out of the water.

Not going to comment on the handwriting as there is a lot more to it than surface appearance. If an intruder was in the home (which I do not believe) he would have found thousands of samples of Patsy's writing to mimic. However, the sheer zanyness of the note, and it's very existence actually, point to a cover up more than an intruder. Remember, this note is not just odd, it is unprecedented -- the longest or second longest in history if I recall. Something like that anyway.

Motive is pretty important don't you think? Especially when you have two people that you suggest covering for each other. And these people are pillars of society with no background of violence. The only motive that makes any sense is covering for Burke. That is it. That is the only plausible example that these two parents would kill and THEN CONSPIRE a coverup in such a brutal fashion.

Actually, covering for each other happens as often as not. It is, in fact, normal. And in a case like this one, whoever you theoretically select as the perp, there is a strong motive for the other to cover up the crime and NO motive for turning them in.

Agh, I know I am wasting my breath on this with you guys. But the great ST and other LE even knew that their could be only one bad egg in that house. The other parent had to be bamboozled by the other. And let me say this--John is the only one who makes sense on committing the crime itself. The Ransom note is a piece of garbage. If it is truly RDI, John wrote the note.

Respectfully.... nonsense!

It seems likely that only one person killed her. I doubt one did the braining and the other the choking, but it is certainly possible both parents were doing illegal things with the child, and it looks as if both were involved in the cover up. And I think you have it backwards as far as who did what.

No way did Patsy dress her in those panties -- she would have known better.
And there is no way John wrote that note. He was a business exec and would never write something like that -- that sucker has Patsy all over it. I suspect she was upstairs writing while John was downstairs cleaning up the body.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, pretty much. Not sure myself about "sexually motivated" homicide, however. There WAS sexual activity, certainly. But was that the reason she was killed? (in other words, to silence a witness? Or was she killed accidentally in the course of the sexual activity?

DeeDee249,
The reason I use sexually motivated homicide is that it may be partially correct in that the head trauma was an accident, but encompasses the initial motive, e.g. sexual gratification, and also includes the possibility that JonBenet was denied medical assistance and was killed because she was a witness to sexual assault?

Otherwise why bother hiding her internal injuries from view, whilst ramping up the visual context by adding a garrote? Patently whomever wiped her clean using the skin cleanser, anyone have the brand-name, and redressed her in the size-12's did not want anyone to immediately observe a sexual assault?

Yet that, as I iterate above, seems to be the agreed motive for the initial occurrence leading to JonBenet's death, by both RDI and IDI.


.

 

[BBB167893]

No, actually there is almost no evidence that even suggests an intruder, and this despite the fact that the home was crawling with people. Further, evidence aside (and I hate even typing those words, but this is important) it is hillariously difficult to fabricate a scenario that explains the evidence and ALLOWS FOR an intruder.



Not going to comment on the handwriting as there is a lot more to it than surface appearance. If an intruder was in the home (which I do not believe) he would have found thousands of samples of Patsy's writing to mimic. However, the sheer zanyness of the note, and it's very existence actually, point to a cover up more than an intruder. Remember, this note is not just odd, it is unprecedented -- the longest or second longest in history if I recall. Something like that anyway.



Actually, covering for each other happens as often as not. It is, in fact, normal. And in a case like this one, whoever you theoretically select as the perp, there is a strong motive for the other to cover up the crime and NO motive for turning them in.



Respectfully.... nonsense!

It seems likely that only one person killed her. I doubt one did the braining and the other the choking, but it is certainly possible both parents were doing illegal things with the child, and it looks as if both were involved in the cover up. And I think you have it backwards as far as who did what.

No way did Patsy dress her in those panties -- she would have known better.
And there is no way John wrote that note. He was a business exec and would never write something like that -- that sucker has Patsy all over it. I suspect she was upstairs writing while John was downstairs cleaning up the body.

Chris Texas, watching you let him have it...gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling.

That aside, he doesn't seem to realize the inherent contradiction in his statement about motive and people being pillars of the community; that is, people of status. That alone would give them more motive than most to cover up what they had done. The simple fact is that those who have the most have the most to lose. History is filled with examples of powerful people who, out of foolish pride and greed, refused to give up what they had earned/taken when under extreme duress, even though their societies, families and even they themselves would have been better served if they had simply admitted their failures.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,

You must demonstrate that the ligature and paintbrush handle can function both as a garrote and an EA device. In two posts you fail to do this and offer speculation on the sequence of JonBenet's injuries, a topic I have already told you I hold no firm view.

I actually said it had been disregarded, you seem to be the only person promoting it. If you have a consistent theory then it will coincide with the forensic evidence.

IMO the garrote is staging, I have seen no forensic evidence that allows me to alter this view.


.

No. You said it had been 'discredited'. I asked you by whom and when and in what capacity? I wasn't aware the full truth of what happened was known.........

The thing is, just because YOU don't accept the sex-game gone wrong theory doesn't mean it isn't true. Until your theory (or any theory) is PROVEN to be true, and is not just speculation, the theory advocated by Mr Wecht has not been 'discredited' or 'disregarded'. To say "I'm the only one" advocating this theory is a lie. But even if it were -- so what? Truth isn't based on popularity.

Likewise, your constant claim that the cords found weren't an EA device because 'they couldn't function as one' has not been demonstrated. That's your subjective view. An EA device's purpose is to cut off oxygen to the brain in order to generate a sexual high. Thus, a very minor cord is only needed to do this at a minimum level. The cords on display absolutely could have functioned as an EA device since the perp only needed some cord to wrap around a neck. Nothing more. Whether it did act as an EA device is a different proposition all-together.

The device, as it was found may not have been used properly, may have been used over-zealously by the perp etc. It may have been the first time such a device was used hence its lack of total professionalism i.e. household goods forming its construction.

But the device, as it was found did relate to the cause of death i.e asphyxiation.

We know asphyxiation in conjunction with a head-blow was related to the death of JonBenet. There's debate (even amongst world leading professionals) as to what came first -- the neck trauma or the head trauma.

But all this 'sex-game gone wrong theory' stuff has not been discredited for the full story still remains elusive and this theory does make use of all the evidence without much speculation -- certainly less than involved with the Head-bash coming first theorists. That's not to say it's the correct theory however, just that it hasn't been disregarded yet.

I can't say with certainty HOW the cord was used. I simply cannot. But I can espouse several facts: 1. JonBenet was found dead. 2. She suffered acute/chronic molestation. 3. The 'neck trauma' was conducted when she was still technically alive. 4. She was found with a ligature around her neck, wrist etc.

But likewise, I cannot disprove the ligature as an EA device. I can't say 'it couldn't work as one' because an EA device only really needs a cord over the neck applied correctly to work.

In the scheme of things however, there remains a lot of 'whys'. I don't claim to have all the answers. Why was the paintbrush handle there? Maybe it was used in a way we don't know. Maybe it was staging since it had the word 'Korea' on it hence tied into the 'foreign faction' aspect of the Ransom note. But that doesn't render the ligature around the neck meaningless because asphyxiation, the act of cutting off oxygen from the organism and killing it did happen.

 

[dodie20]

No, actually there is almost no evidence that even suggests an intruder, and this despite the fact that the home was crawling with people. Further, evidence aside (and I hate even typing those words, but this is important) it is hillariously difficult to fabricate a scenario that explains the evidence and ALLOWS FOR an intruder.



Not going to comment on the handwriting as there is a lot more to it than surface appearance. If an intruder was in the home (which I do not believe) he would have found thousands of samples of Patsy's writing to mimic. However, the sheer zanyness of the note, and it's very existence actually, point to a cover up more than an intruder. Remember, this note is not just odd, it is unprecedented -- the longest or second longest in history if I recall. Something like that anyway.



Actually, covering for each other happens as often as not. It is, in fact, normal. And in a case like this one, whoever you theoretically select as the perp, there is a strong motive for the other to cover up the crime and NO motive for turning them in.



Respectfully.... nonsense!

It seems likely that only one person killed her. I doubt one did the braining and the other the choking, but it is certainly possible both parents were doing illegal things with the child, and it looks as if both were involved in the cover up. And I think you have it backwards as far as who did what.

No way did Patsy dress her in those panties -- she would have known better.
And there is no way John wrote that note. He was a business exec and would never write something like that -- that sucker has Patsy all over it. I suspect she was upstairs writing while John was downstairs cleaning up the body.

about your last paragraph...how can you be so sure PR wouldn't dress JonBenet in the size 12? If she was crunched for time, wouldn't she just grab the 1st pair that was accessible? Did JR know about the gift? I'm not sure, but he didn't seem like the kind of man who would know what little gifts his wife bought for kids. Also, if these 2 were in on a cover-up together, she could have corrected it. And she didin't, so it doesn't look like the size 12, bothered her at the time. IDK why, but I can't imagine PR writing, while JR was tending to the body. Wouldn't this be the exact opposite of their more natural roles? IMO, all of this seems like either P acted alone, or they did both things together. I CAN imagine J helping with some of the ransome note wording, though. Business exec or not, IMO, he wasn't any more intelligent or mature, than P.

 

[Chrishope]

My understanding of EA is that the asphyxiation is usually self induced, by a male. It's possible the perpetrator found "excitement" in strangling his victim, but I'm not sure this is properly called EA.

The head blow and "garroting" come too close together to say with certainty which came first. I think it unlikely that the head bash was for the purpose of silencing a scream. If the airway was restricted there could not have been much screaming, and a hand over the mouth would be just as effective, and less apt to cause death. (I'm assuming killing JBR, intentionally, was not part of the plan for the evening's "entertainment".)

Another problem with the Wecht theory is that we have a largely innocent P who in a mere few hours after finding her daughter brutally killed agrees to participate in a cover up. If she was not involved prior to the death of JBR I doubt she'd participate in the cover up.

P wrote the RN, and fiber evidence places her in the basement that night as well, so it's likely she helped with the staging.

It seems likely to me that JBR was killed (or at least gravely injured) in her bedroom. The basement is just staging.

An intruder has no reason to wipe down the body or re-dress it. An intruder only needs to get out of Dodge at that point.

There is no way the killer(s) could count on the body not being found quickly. Anyone anticipating the actions of the police after the 911 call would have to expect a K9 unit. This didn't happen, but that could not have been counted upon. This means that if it was an inside job, the killer(s) could not have counted on several hours passing prior to the discovery of the body. If it was an intruder/kidnapper (and it wasn't) they could not have anticipated actually collecting ransom because they'd have to figure on the body being found fairly quickly after the child's disappearance.

Placing the body in the WC is the only way to make the RN "believable" even for a short period of time. The 911 call could not have been placed with the "apparent" belief that the child had been abducted unless the body was hidden away, out of sight.

Motive can't always be determined prior to solving the crime. Nobody fits the profile of a killer until they become a killer.

 

[dodie20]

My understanding of EA is that the asphyxiation is usually self induced, by a male. It's possible the perpetrator found "excitement" in strangling his victim, but I'm not sure this is properly called EA.

The head blow and "garroting" come too close together to say with certainty which came first. I think it unlikely that the head bash was for the purpose of silencing a scream. If the airway was restricted there could not have been much screaming, and a hand over the mouth would be just as effective, and less apt to cause death. (I'm assuming killing JBR, intentionally, was not part of the plan for the evening's "entertainment".)

Another problem with the Wecht theory is that we have a largely innocent P who in a mere few hours after finding her daughter brutally killed agrees to participate in a cover up. If she was not involved prior to the death of JBR I doubt she'd participate in the cover up.

P wrote the RN, and fiber evidence places her in the basement that night as well, so it's likely she helped with the staging.

It seems likely to me that JBR was killed (or at least gravely injured) in her bedroom. The basement is just staging.

An intruder has no reason to wipe down the body or re-dress it. An intruder only needs to get out of Dodge at that point.

There is no way the killer(s) could count on the body not being found quickly. Anyone anticipating the actions of the police after the 911 call would have to expect a K9 unit. This didn't happen, but that could not have been counted upon. This means that if it was an inside job, the killer(s) could not have counted on several hours passing prior to the discovery of the body. If it was an intruder/kidnapper (and it wasn't) they could not have anticipated actually collecting ransom because they'd have to figure on the body being found fairly quickly after the child's disappearance.

Placing the body in the WC is the only way to make the RN "believable" even for a short period of time. The 911 call could not have been placed with the "apparent" belief that the child had been abducted unless the body was hidden away, out of sight.

Motive can't always be determined prior to solving the crime. Nobody fits the profile of a killer until they become a killer.

which brings us to JR finding her body. Could this have been a coincidence? or maybe him simply suspecting she was there? or did he know? I've never been convinced of anything really, except that the killer was one or the other. A lot of things seemed to have been going on, that could be directly involved, but then again, matbe not. A lot of people think PR walked in, caught JR molesting JonBenet, and injured her, while attempting to hit J. I never really bought this, because her going from that kind of rage at her husband, to an immediate partnership, doesn't make much sense. But, IMO, from what I've read, prior abuse was going on, and it's unlikely, again IMO, that it didn't play into motive. Here on websleuths, I've read about dr appointments and a potential intervention, among other things, so it appears to me, that the stress of secrets maybe being found out, might have been a motivating factor...especially with some of the staging. Honestly, I can't think of any other explanation for some of the brutality that was heaped on JonBenet's body. If anybody can help explain something logical, I'm all ears. Thanks

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

about your last paragraph...how can you be so sure PR wouldn't dress JonBenet in the size 12? If she was crunched for time, wouldn't she just grab the 1st pair that was accessible? Did JR know about the gift? I'm not sure, but he didn't seem like the kind of man who would know what little gifts his wife bought for kids. Also, if these 2 were in on a cover-up together, she could have corrected it. And she didin't, so it doesn't look like the size 12, bothered her at the time. IDK why, but I can't imagine PR writing, while JR was tending to the body. Wouldn't this be the exact opposite of their more natural roles? IMO, all of this seems like either P acted alone, or they did both things together. I CAN imagine J helping with some of the ransome note wording, though. Business exec or not, IMO, he wasn't any more intelligent or mature, than P.

I suspect there was co-operation of some kind on both the dressing/redressing of the body and the ransom note.

We know there is forensic evidence linking both John and Patsy to the crime scene in a not-so-innocent way. The father's fibres were found in her brand-new underwear. And Patsy's fibres were on her too via the ligature I believe.

I can't fathom that only one person wrote the note -- whilst it probably was Patsy who wrote it, I would find it hard for John to just let her have total free reign. I think he chipped in, dictated parts etc.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

My understanding of EA is that the asphyxiation is usually self induced, by a male. It's possible the perpetrator found "excitement" in strangling his victim, but I'm not sure this is properly called EA.

But sexual abuse was being perpetrated upon JonBenet. We simply don't know the mind/desires of the perp. However, such kinky sex-games do happen (sadly they're VERY common) and such a scenario whereby an adult gets off on the disgusting abuse of a minor does indeed happen.

The head blow and "garroting" come too close together to say with certainty which came first. I think it unlikely that the head bash was for the purpose of silencing a scream. If the airway was restricted there could not have been much screaming, and a hand over the mouth would be just as effective, and less apt to cause death. (I'm assuming killing JBR, intentionally, was not part of the plan for the evening's "entertainment".)

This makes the assumption of when the scream happened. We don't how and when it occurred. Thus to say "the airway was restricted there could not have been much screaming" assumes certain events were in place i.e the ligature was so tight around her neck to prevent JonBenet from screaming. But what if the ligature only got pulled tight on hearing a scream? What if the ligature was never very tight, but gentle etc?

Another problem with the Wecht theory is that we have a largely innocent P who in a mere few hours after finding her daughter brutally killed agrees to participate in a cover up. If she was not involved prior to the death of JBR I doubt she'd participate in the cover up.

But we know Patsy Ramsey did participate in the cover-up. In all likelyhood, she wrote the ransom note. So, she had a vested interest in spinning the 'intruder' theory. As for saying this is another problem in Wecht's theory he also openly says Patsy could have been the abuser -- women DO abuse kids sadly too although it is more common for men to do it.

P wrote the RN, and fiber evidence places her in the basement that night as well, so it's likely she helped with the staging.

It seems likely to me that JBR was killed (or at least gravely injured) in her bedroom. The basement is just staging.

Or the sex-games started there and moved elsewhere. Remember, she was molested that night -- perhaps the 'intimate' nature of such heinous and sick molestation occurred in the intimate setting of the bedroom before the other stuff did?

An intruder has no reason to wipe down the body or re-dress it. An intruder only needs to get out of Dodge at that point.

Yes. And an 'intruder' with a ransom should actually take the thing they are using for ransom -- the body.

There is no way the killer(s) could count on the body not being found quickly. Anyone anticipating the actions of the police after the 911 call would have to expect a K9 unit. This didn't happen, but that could not have been counted upon. This means that if it was an inside job, the killer(s) could not have counted on several hours passing prior to the discovery of the body. If it was an intruder/kidnapper (and it wasn't) they could not have anticipated actually collecting ransom because they'd have to figure on the body being found fairly quickly after the child's disappearance.

Yes. I think once the police call was made, the perp(s) were just rolling with things so to speak. However, the Ramseys did phone friends over so this had the effect of creating commotion, giving them people to deflect attention onto so that they didn't have to deal with LE, and helped them distance themselves from the events via distractions.

Placing the body in the WC is the only way to make the RN "believable" even for a short period of time. The 911 call could not have been placed with the "apparent" belief that the child had been abducted unless the body was hidden away, out of sight.

Yes. The body was placed in a dark, obscure room at the bottom of the house. This helped reinforce the idea the 'intruder' was in the house, sussing it out and logistically, placing it in the WC seemed the natural choice. If the body was in the bedroom, then all kinds of questions arise -- namely, why wouldn't people have heard?

Motive can't always be determined prior to solving the crime. Nobody fits the profile of a killer until they become a killer.

If the death was accidental (which I believe it was) then the motive obviously isn't about killing someone but rather what prevents the perps from not being honest i.e what stuff happened in order for them to not go to the police. Why?