Finding a focus to the constellation of lies

Chrishope said:
We know she was alive when she was garrotted, due to the marks on the neck and damage to the eyelids. (You can look up the big words in the autopsy report) If Burke hit her in the head, they'd at least check her breathing, one would think. She might be unconcious, but they'd have had to immediately jump to the conclusion that JBR was dead and they'd have had to quickly make the garrote and strangle her before the head injuries really did kill her. It doesn't seem very likely.
Elsewhere, you wrote that this garrote was not complicated. I read somewhere that Boy Scouts learn that particular knot. What if he thought of covering it up when he thought that he had killed his sister? Wasn't the body dragged? An adult would have lifted a six year old's body, not drag it, I would think.

Edited to add: there are 9 year-olds that are smarter (or not) than a lot of adults.

JMO
 
SleuthingSleuth said:
I had thought it had been proven it was pineapple in her...and even more, it was pineapple from the bowl in the breakfast room (that has to be more than mere coincidence).

The pineapple is not a smoking gun...but it raises questions...and ones still unanswered.
No - it was never proven to be pineapple, or pineapple from that bowl. In fact the time she ate it was not proved either; that was assumed. It could not have been eaten right before her death, because it was already partly digested along with other food that was totally digested. It's in the autopsy, but people have always interpreted it differently, or assumed things. One mystery is the Ramseys not remembering putting the bowl on the table. Patsy said "that is not my set-up". I.e. she would not put the bowl there with an overlarge spoon in it. And why would she or anyone leave it out all night.

Recently we have been given the possible red herring or possible truth that Karr fed her pineapple or ate it with her on the stairs at "the party" (still not identified; had to be the open house on the 23rd). I can totally believe he made this up. It sounds ridiculous, as if he is toying with the long held obsession with the pineapple, in all the reports. But we cannot be sure about this either. The constant presence of pineapple in every story may be just a red herring or may be actually a key event in the murder.
 
Hyatt said:
Wasn't the body dragged? An adult would have lifted a six year old's body, not drag it, I would think.

Edited to add: there are 9 year-olds that are smarter (or not) than a lot of adults.

JMO
Nobody knows if her body was dragged versus picked up and carried. Nobody but the perp. And God.
 
Hyatt said:
Elsewhere, you wrote that this garrote was not complicated. I read somewhere that Boy Scouts learn that particular knot. What if he thought of covering it up when he thought that he had killed his sister? Wasn't the body dragged? An adult would have lifted a six year old's body, not drag it, I would think.

Edited to add: there are 9 year-olds that are smarter (or not) than a lot of adults.

JMO

Even if a 9 year old thought of covering it up by making a garrotte - which I don't buy for a minute- why would he take a piece of paintbrush and make abrassions in her vagina? Just doesn't add up - IMO.
 
I actually tend to believe that either or both of the adult Ramseys WOULD have called 911 in the event of unconsciousness brought about by an accidental blow, even in anger. I don't know why I had previously written off the brother as unlikely to have thought of any staging but now I am thinking that had a child dealt a blow to a younger child who became unconscious, they would probably assume that they had killed them. So what would they do then? It would depend on the amount of fear they felt, I think. I'm not sure that they would know enough to go running to their parents at that point.

I guess that the reason that I never previously seriously entertained this possibility (though I recall 7 years ago a poster here called La Contessa was convinced that the brother had been responsible) was that I never thought that a 9 year-old could dream up the strangling or the ransom note. But maybe that 9 year-old could do just one (or both of those things) if they were feeling sheer terror and panicking trying to find a way out.

Don't know. This now seems more plausible to me than it did in 2000. Perhaps because back then I kept thinking that the non-guilty parent would come forth and express eventual suspicion of the spouse. But that never happened and I wonder why.

Edited to add: Can someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the purpose of the garrote to make strangulation easier? (sorry about that sick thought, it makes me shudder too but still isn't that the point of the garotte?) With an adult, people assumed that maybe it was some sicko sexual trip but maybe it was just a practical thing, done by a child in a panic.



JMO
 
Chrishope said:
Even if a 9 year old thought of covering it up by making a garrotte - which I don't buy for a minute- why would he take a piece of paintbrush and make abrassions in her vagina? Just doesn't add up - IMO.
Were the abrasions old, fresh or both?
 
Chrishope said:
Even if a 9 year old thought of covering it up by making a garrotte - which I don't buy for a minute- why would he take a piece of paintbrush and make abrassions in her vagina? Just doesn't add up - IMO.
Well, it looks to me like the LE people didn't entertain this possibility seriously either, and frankly, nor did I for a long time. Would a kid think of covering something like that up? I think so but I mean not many kids find themselves in that situation to begin with. Would they think of a garrotte? I agree with you that this seems more far-fetched, but maybe not if it was just a practical move, without the notion of "the garrotte" attached to it.

Regardless, the parents could still have participated in the cover-up, but I guess that I am saying is that the degree to which they could have done it could vary.

JMO
 
I just thought of something. What if "the practice note" was not at all a practice note but the brother's first attempt at such a note? And what if, the parents or maybe just one, in a state of panic simply thought to elaborate on a cover-up with more sophistication?

JMO
 
Hyatt said:
Edited to add: Can someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the purpose of the garrote to make strangulation easier? (sorry about that sick thought, it makes me shudder too but still isn't that the point of the garotte?) With an adult, people assumed that maybe it was some sicko sexual trip but maybe it was just a practical thing, done by a child in a panic.



JMO
Yes...they're meant to make it rather easy. Once you have it around a neck tightly...it's very easy.

However, I have heard the garrote in the Jonbenet case wasn't a very practical one...in that, it didn't really perform that great.
Perhaps it was only meant to look a certain part, pulled tight to give that impression.

In reality, a real garrotte would strangulate a person like crazy.
 
The abrasions are mentioned in the autopsy report. It doesn't say if they were fresh or old. It does say some bleeding was caused, so I guess we can assume that was done on the murder night.
 
SleuthingSleuth said:
Yes...they're meant to make it rather easy. Once you have it around a neck tightly...it's very easy.

However, I have heard the garrote in the Jonbenet case wasn't a very practical one...in that, it didn't really perform that great.
Perhaps it was only meant to look a certain part, pulled tight to give that impression.

In reality, a real garrotte would strangulate a person like crazy.
I now remember having read something about the garrotte not being very effective. But then, if it was NOT then don't all theories regarding Karr-like intruder types go out the window? Meaning, the whole thing becomes mere staging with no so-called "erotic" notions attached to it? I fail to see why any intruder would feel the need to stage anything at all.

JMO
 
Hyatt said:
I now remember having read something about the garrotte not being very effective. But then, if it was NOT then don't all theories regarding Karr-like intruder types go out the window? Meaning, the whole thing becomes mere staging with no so-called "erotic" notions attached to it? I fail to see why any intruder would feel the need to stage anything at all.

JMO
Well, if an intruder had used a real garrotte on Jonbenet, and knew what he was doing...there'd be no need to bash her head in. You could get a garrotte around a grown man and kill him easily if the you know what you're doing. Pretty much, a garrotte is meant to more than you could with just your hands.

If the garrotte on Jonbenet was not hugely effective...it means it was made by someone who did know much about such items.
 
Incidentally...here's an example of a real garrotte:

05_Garrotte.jpg


Pretty different than the one in this case.
 
Thanks for the links, Sleuth. Those things give me the creeps. I'm just thinking that maybe the reason why the entire staging was so absurd and unbelievable was that maybe too many people contributed to it.

JMO
 
Hyatt said:
I actually tend to believe that either or both of the adult Ramseys WOULD have called 911 in the event of unconsciousness brought about by an accidental blow, even in anger. I don't know why I had previously written off the brother as unlikely to have thought of any staging but now I am thinking that had a child dealt a blow to a younger child who became unconscious, they would probably assume that they had killed them. So what would they do then? It would depend on the amount of fear they felt, I think. I'm not sure that they would know enough to go running to their parents at that point.

I guess that the reason that I never previously seriously entertained this possibility (though I recall 7 years ago a poster here called La Contessa was convinced that the brother had been responsible) was that I never thought that a 9 year-old could dream up the strangling or the ransom note. But maybe that 9 year-old could do just one (or both of those things) if they were feeling sheer terror and panicking trying to find a way out.

Don't know. This now seems more plausible to me than it did in 2000. Perhaps because back then I kept thinking that the non-guilty parent would come forth and express eventual suspicion of the spouse. But that never happened and I wonder why.

Edited to add: Can someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the purpose of the garrote to make strangulation easier? (sorry about that sick thought, it makes me shudder too but still isn't that the point of the garotte?) With an adult, people assumed that maybe it was some sicko sexual trip but maybe it was just a practical thing, done by a child in a panic.



JMO
From what we have learned, the garotte is a fantasy of John Karr's. When he saw little girls in his classrooms with necklaces he thought of garottes. This is on one of the tapes that have not been played yet on TV but it was quoted on Larry King. Many investigators have written about the use of a garotte by certain types of criminals. It's not a practical thing, it's done for their personal desire or fantasy.
 
aspidistra said:
From what we have learned, the garotte is a fantasy of John Karr's. When he saw little girls in his classrooms with necklaces he thought of garottes. This is on one of the tapes that have not been played yet on TV but it was quoted on Larry King. Many investigators have written about the use of a garotte by certain types of criminals. It's not a practical thing, it's done for their personal desire or fantasy.
Well, I gotta tell you - I don't think this Karr guy ever even met JonBenet. I think he just got caught in some internet lies with Tracey. But it seems to me that both Tracey and Hutchens were involved in some form of entrapment or egging him on. That said, I think this guy is very strange, though I'm not sure yet of exactly how so and don't want to jump to conclusions. If he is so eager to confess to this crime, why didn't he just turn himself in a while back? It makes NO SENSE to me.

JMO
 
I like the way you think. I have gone over every possible scenario, and the only two theories that seem plausible to me are that Burke killed Jonbenet,
and both parents are covering for him, or that John killed her, and Patsy
was covering for him.

Why would patsy cover for John?
No one may ever know the answer to that, but if I were to
speculate, it could be that she depended on John for financial stability,
social status and she didn't want Burke to suffer through an ugly divorce.

Also, many women stay with their husbands after they find out that the
husband molested their daughter. It's awful, but it happens.

I have an elaborate "John did it" theory, but since most people strongly
feel that either Patsy, Burke or an intruder killed Jonbenet, I'm reluctant
to expound upon it.
 
The knot was not a complicated knot. This piece of misinformation really boils my potatoes. It was a standard double knot, and anyone who can tie a shoelace can make one.

The "garotte", which should never be called that imo, was not a garotte. It was a cord tied around her neck with 17 inches of length going to a handle that never would have served its purpose as a functioning garotte due to the incredible amount of length.

I believe the head wound preceded the strangulation, and I think so because the head wound was developed, and her brain was swollen and pressed against her skull. That takes time to develop, at least ten minutes.

Also indicating this in my opinion is the complete lack of a struggle we see from JonBenet. She did not fight the person who put the cord around her neck, her hair is entwined in the knot (along with fibers from Patsy's jacket), and she did not claw at it in attempt to relieve the pressure. The interior of her neck was not as badly damaged as you would see if she was conscious and struggling with her assailant to get away and catch a breath. Usually choking victims end up biting the insides of their cheeks and tongue when being choked, and there's none of that in JB's mouth. Her wrists show no marks as if she was restrained and struggled against the restraints to try to free herself.

As for the 911 call, we aren't listening to the first generation tape, and we don't have near the level of sophisticated equipment that experts have. No offense, but if one of us listens and hears nothing, that doesn't mean anything.

I have a hard time believing Burke could have been the perp, because there is no evidence of him ever acting jealous or violent towards his sister before the murder (the golf club accident is, by all accounts, an accident), and there is no evidence of him acting jealous or violent like that towards anyone else. If he was the type of person who could do something so sinister as a nine year old boy, there would have been previous indications (cruelty towards pets comes to mind) and he certainly would not have stopped and never exhibited the ability to do such after he successfully got away with such a crime. I also do not believe he would have held up under questioning had he known what happened or been a party to it.

And pineapple - Steve Thomas says in his book that the material in JonBenet's intestine was examined and was pineapple consistent down to the rind with what was found in the bowl on the breakfast table. There's no question that JonBenet ate some of that pineapple, and she ate it after she ate the cracked crab at the White's, which was farther digested into her large intestine. The rate of digestion indicates that JonBenet ate it one to two hours before she died. Patsy tried to claim she didn't recognize the bowl and spoon and "set up", but both John and Burke said that they recognized that bowl as belonging to them. Patsy's and Burke's prints were on it, indicating Patsy did recognize it and n felt the need to lie.

Why? Why all the lies? Why all the conflicting stories and staged evidence? The Ramseys know who did this, and are covering for that person - and in my opinion, the only person they would cover for this hard and this long is one of their own.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
The knot was not a complicated knot. This piece of misinformation really boils my potatoes. It was a standard double knot, and anyone who can tie a shoelace can make one.

The "garotte", which should never be called that imo, was not a garotte. It was a cord tied around her neck with 17 inches of length going to a handle that never would have served its purpose as a functioning garotte due to the incredible amount of length.

I believe the head wound preceded the strangulation, and I think so because the head wound was developed, and her brain was swollen and pressed against her skull. That takes time to develop, at least ten minutes.

Also indicating this in my opinion is the complete lack of a struggle we see from JonBenet. She did not fight the person who put the cord around her neck, her hair is entwined in the knot (along with fibers from Patsy's jacket), and she did not claw at it in attempt to relieve the pressure. The interior of her neck was not as badly damaged as you would see if she was conscious and struggling with her assailant to get away and catch a breath. Usually choking victims end up biting the insides of their cheeks and tongue when being choked, and there's none of that in JB's mouth. Her wrists show no marks as if she was restrained and struggled against the restraints to try to free herself.

As for the 911 call, we aren't listening to the first generation tape, and we don't have near the level of sophisticated equipment that experts have. No offense, but if one of us listens and hears nothing, that doesn't mean anything.

I have a hard time believing Burke could have been the perp, because there is no evidence of him ever acting jealous or violent towards his sister before the murder (the golf club accident is, by all accounts, an accident), and there is no evidence of him acting jealous or violent like that towards anyone else. If he was the type of person who could do something so sinister as a nine year old boy, there would have been previous indications (cruelty towards pets comes to mind) and he certainly would not have stopped and never exhibited the ability to do such after he successfully got away with such a crime. I also do not believe he would have held up under questioning had he known what happened or been a party to it.

And pineapple - Steve Thomas says in his book that the material in JonBenet's intestine was examined and was pineapple consistent down to the rind with what was found in the bowl on the breakfast table. There's no question that JonBenet ate some of that pineapple, and she ate it after she ate the cracked crab at the White's, which was farther digested into her large intestine. The rate of digestion indicates that JonBenet ate it one to two hours before she died. Patsy tried to claim she didn't recognize the bowl and spoon and "set up", but both John and Burke said that they recognized that bowl as belonging to them. Patsy's and Burke's prints were on it, indicating Patsy did recognize it and n felt the need to lie.

Why? Why all the lies? Why all the conflicting stories and staged evidence? The Ramseys know who did this, and are covering for that person - and in my opinion, the only person they would cover for this hard and this long is one of their own.
Great post -- interesting that PR referred to the pineapple bowl and spoon as a "set-up."
IMO, the facts of the case just make it more mysterious. Sure would be nice to get some matching DNA or any other clear indicator of guilt.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
2,240
Total visitors
2,419

Forum statistics

Threads
589,970
Messages
17,928,523
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top