Happenings of December 26

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by midwest mama, Apr 10, 2013.

  1. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    what if the garotte was not a strangling device but a toy?used as a leash or something?I disagree with those who claim it's looks sophisticated...to me it looks...childish,dunno
    maybe they were playing walk the dog or something,she started to protest because he was pulling too hard and he hit her head while she was on her knees?

    just a crazy idea
     


  2. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    but could all those marks around the ligature have been caused by pulling the cord only ONCE?
     
  3. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,204
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    madeleine,
    Sure it could be thats what they were doing but it all went wrong.

    It looks to me as if JonBenet was accidently asphyxiated leading to coma. Now playing around with a toy leash could do that.

    The one part of the RDI theory I cannot process is the head blow, here's why: Consider the person sexually assaulting JonBenet, now in most theories, JonBenet screams out in pain so her abuser whacks her on the head.

    Where does the object used to whack JonBenet come from, and how come JonBenet's skull is so close to hand?

    Also another family member surely did not need to whack JonBenet on the head to silence her, an intruder might do this, but another R had other options.

    Your standard assault usually goes something like this: Head Blow, Sexual Assault, Asphyxiation.

    So if I am wrong about the sequence of events it looks like JonBenet might have been restrained in such a manner that if she was released in a hurry there was a risk she might fall on her head?

    .
     
  4. midwest mama

    midwest mama Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you are able to look at the actual photos which have been posted on this website: WARNING, explicit!! http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html
    you will see additional purple and rust colored marks and abrasions, which are also clearly referenced on the official autopsy report - in addition to those referenced above, and not including the large rust-colored triangular abrasion which has been identified separately, and has been since referenced as most likely pooled blood under the skin. There is also another white mark on her neck, which has been also been chalked up to a loose end of the ligature somehow, IIRC?

    I can agree none of the other abrasions may have been attributed directly to fingernails, but I do wonder what could have caused those additional abrasions referenced in the autopsy report. I also wonder if we can attribute the lower set of purple marks on the front of her neck to the final ligature somehow, or if it is possible something else was pressed against the front of her throat, kind of like a choke hold done with the forearm or some object which would have put pressure on her throat if she was being restrained somehow from behind.

    The grabbed-from-the-front twisted shirt collar is one theory for those other marks on the front, I know. Though the deep furrow and circumferential white mark are so easily observed, those other marks are what call for so much speculation, IMHO.
     
  5. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Probably not.

    Here's why - No skin was found under her nails, and as DeeDee points out in her post above, no fingernail marks on the neck. Had she been choked when the "leash" was pulled too tight she'd certainly have given up on the dog imitation and started clawing at the ligature in a frantic effort to loosen it so that she could breathe. As far as we can tell, she didn't. I think there are a few other reasons to doubt this scenario, but the lack of evidence that she tried to remove the ligature should be enough, by itself, to set this aside.

    I suppose it's possible he hit her if she protested, but it seems drastically out of place if the kids were genuinely playing a game. The blow to the head was a very very hard blow. Perhaps more than one blow.
     
  6. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,053
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I have looked at the autopsy photos many times, as I feel all who post and comment here should do. How else can you form an opinion?
    Remember that we do not know exactly how the cord was pulled or wound. It can be surmised, though. There is bruising, of course- after all, the soft tissue of her neck WAS injured, so it is not surprising that there are bruises and abrasions, made as the cord was either pulled or wound. But there is NO evidence of scratches made by her fingernails, and NO blood or tissue (hers or anyone else's) was found under her fingernails. The nearly perfectly level and circumferential marks on her throat indicate no movement, no struggle. She was unconscious from the head bash when she was strangled.
     
  7. midwest mama

    midwest mama Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    ITA that JB was unconscious from the head bash when the cord was pulled and tightened. What I am having a hard time with is trying to decide if the cord was already around her neck for some reason, as madeliene also wonders, or if it was put around her neck after she became unconscious strictly for the purpose of ending her life.

    If she died near the paint tray from the strangulation (urine release in the carpet and on the front of her longjohns, panties as well, which she was wearing when found in the WC), but there were cord fibers found in her bed, I think she might have been assaulted in her bed, and had the ligature on at the time, with it staying in place during the redressing and cleanup, and then tightened as the last measure in ending her life.

    I think she was taken unconscious down to the basement from her room, laid next to the paint tray, where the brush was obtained that was broken, used as a penetration device to make the attack look vicious enough for a "kidnapper" to have done it. There could have been more cleanup done of JB's vaginal area, as well as of the brush handle before it was tied into a dangling end of the cord so it could be used to pull the cord tight enough for the circumferential strangulation. I can allow that during the process of handling, maybe even flipping JB over, she would have received some of the additional bruising, marks and abrasions to her neck
     
  8. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    there would have been more injuries (inside her) if someone would have used the stick to assault her IMO
    I think the splinters ended up there by transfer (the one who assembled the garotte digitally penetrated her then OR it happened when trying to clean the area)
    which means the assembling of the garotte happened first?
     
  9. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    wasn't thinking of scratch marks...but it's important how many times the cord was pulled....if you wanna finish her off all it takes is pull hard one time...if it was a sex game gone wrong then the cord was probably tightened more than once...if it was put there only to cover for a manual strangulation then it's there just as an accessory...anyway,the white mark suggests the cord was repositioned
     
  10. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,204
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    madeleine,
    There can be only one of two explanations as to why the splinter arrived inside JonBenet, i.e. transfer during a sexual assault, or transfer during a staged assault.

    Whichever you select will determine your RDI theory. ST seems to have picked PDI. This might have been tactical a move designed to pressure PR who was viewed as a weak link, or/and threat of litigation from the R's in response to any allegations of incest, which was realistic, since nobody had been charged.

    I reckon ST was chosen specifically because he had no homicide experience, his day job in Boulder was drug-stings. ST's personality and political views were completely different from most of his superiors, particularly in the DA's office where deal making was the preferred route to conflict resolution. I think ST was basically setup to fail, the inner circle knew what the game-plan was, ST did not. Also if you want to make sure you can get rid of someone you limit their promotion opportunities, eventually ST saw the writing on the wall, and resigned.

    If the splinter arrived during the sexual assault and the splinter can be sourced to the paintbrush handle then we know there was something going on with the paintbrush? It could be that the person assaulting JonBenet was using both the paintbrush and finger to alternately assault JonBenet?

    A staged sexual assault allows for either a finger or the paintbrush, or both, to be the source of the splinter.

    I'm assuming since other aspects of JonBenet's person were staged then someone either used the missing piece of paintbrush handle or their finger to injure JonBenet in an attempt to mask the initial sexual assault.

    I think the clue lies with Coroner Meyer confirming his opinion that JonBenet had suffered Digital Penetration.

    .
     
  11. questfortrue

    questfortrue Active Member

    Messages:
    992
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Not that Kolar’s book does n’ t contain some information that we don’t all agree on, but his book is where I obtained the bulk of my understanding of JB’s sexual injuries. I’m putting it out there, in case there is other information from other sources which brings clarity.
    From Kolar’s book: Regarding the acute injury (i.e., the paintbrush or other foreign object, Dr. Meyer observed: “there was fresh trauma located at the 7:00 o’clock position at the hymeneal opening. The area was inflamed and had been bleeding, and it appeared to Dr. Meyer that the object had been inserted into JonBenet’s genitalia at or near the time of her death.” The pathologist revealed that the ‘cellulose material’ in the membrane of the hymeneal opening was consistent with the wood of the paintbrush used as a handle in the cord of the garrote. He “didn’t consider this injury the result of a particularly vicious assault with a foreign object. “
    Dr. Meyer also observed signs of chronic inflammation around the vaginal opening, and thought they had been inflicted days or weeks before the acute injury.
    A number of different physicians and forensic pathologists were consulted and came to the opinion that JonBenet had been subjected to sexual intrusion prior to the insertion of the foreign object that had created the injury at the time of her death. They concluded that the type of injury with the hymen suggested several differ contacts had been made in the past and that digital penetration was consistent with this type of injury. They were unable to date the previous injury(ies) or specifically quantify the number of times JonBenet had been assaulted. End of excerpt from Kolar book.
    It does not sound as though they established that she had been assaulted sexually on the night of her attack (beyond the paintbrush). My interpretation was that there was not a conclusion that the chronic damage included digital penetration That Night. Maybe since the parent(s) cleaned her body there was. Also, since the coroner called the paintbrush insertion “gentle, “ and since her body was washed, it seems like this was not necessarily staging, but appears to be for “cover” of sexual abuse – chronic or from that night. This does lead one to ponder how much the parents knew prior to this night. moo
     
  12. midwest mama

    midwest mama Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,302
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Thanks for your good, logical posts UKGuy and questfortrue. It helps to be reminded that we should remember that the chronic abuse is validated, and that we can look at the broken paintbrush as a possible object of penetration that night.

    Without considering there might have been a separate sexual assault either attempted or achieved that night, prior to the insertion of an object at or near her time of death, can we continue to consider this a "sexually motivated homicide"?

    Or must we discount that aspect and look more at this being an accident or rage attack, with the sexual aspect being strictly done as a masque to hide former abuse - which then tells us for sure that there was knowledge of the chronic abuse by her killer.

    I have to stick with a sexually motivated homicide, which then allows me to consider the ligature as part of the sexual activity, possibly re-positioned prior to the final pull. I think the killer became enraged during the process of the sexual molestation, which led to the head bash. Plus, the killer knew of her chronic abuse, and attempted to dispel that by creating a pedo kidnapper scenario. And the killer was still enraged, yet controlled enough, to decide that a pedo kidnapper could take the wrap for a horrendous attack on an unconscious child, and thereby possibly get the killer off the hook of suspicion that might fall upon them.
     
  13. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I’ve been trying to get around to responding to a lot of posts that I just can’t keep up with. So instead, I’ll just try and put it all in one post and see if anyone can find fault in what I propose as a scenario as it relates to the evidence we know and what we realize we might not know. I know it will bore some who’ve heard it before (I can just imagine DeeDee rolling her eyes now.). But for the sake of the nubes who haven’t considered this type of “accident”, I’ll try and describe what I believe happened after I address a few other items.

    Chrishope, most of your scenarios stem from the basic assumption that a decision was made by someone to deliberately kill JonBenet. Then it becomes a choice of how to do it. I still maintain, as I have for years, that both the head blow and the strangulation were not done with the intent to kill -- but we can disagree on that :sigh:.

    UKGuy, you’ve brought up several times the possibility of suffocation, and Darlene and Madeline have also questioned this. I know we all want to account for all of the clues we’ve heard about, and since the possibility of JonBenet’s blood on her pillow might suggest this, it might also be nothing more than from her having picked her nose, or it could have been a smear from something else or even someone else. We just don’t know where it came from, but we should know that there was no suffocation from what was written in the AR. While suffocation actually causes the same mechanisms of trauma as strangulation (asphyxia, hypoxia, anoxia), it will cause other signs that are absent in strangulation partly because it involves only the deprivation of oxygen to the lungs. In the AR, Meyer made note of these things which discount suffocation with a pillow. When suffocation with something like a pillow is done, enough pressure has to be applied to cut off the victim’s ability to breathe. It takes less pressure than this though to cause bruising of the inside lining of the mouth where it is pressed against the teeth or gums (“no buccal mucosal trauma”), or bruise the nose or nostrils (“the nostrils are both patent”). This image shows both these injuries in a victim who was smothered. Sometimes the nasal septum may be fractured as well -- particularly in a violent struggle. Also, the most common and apparent sign of suffocation is “bloodshot” eyes of the victim (“The sclerae are white”). The redness is caused by inflammation of the tiny vessels on the surface, or can additionally be from their having ruptured causing subconjunctival hemorrhaging (between the conjunctiva and the sclera).

    Maddie, your idea about the cord being used as a “toy” is not crazy. You’re absolutely correct that the “garrote” that was found on JonBenet’s neck looks more childish than it does sophisticated. Just do an image search for “garrote” and you’ll likely find two types. I posted about this a long time ago [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5721057&postcount=1"]here[/ame].

    Chrishope, the problem I have with either twisting paintbrush on the loose end of the cord, or using the paintbrush as a tourniquet should be obvious -- each is almost physically impossible (Hopefully I don’t need to explain why on this, and it seems you agree on that point.). The problem I have with the ligature being pulled by the paintbrush is that her hair is entangled in the knot tied on it. At 17”, it can’t be pulled without pulling out her hair by the roots. There is a picture taken while she was lying on the floor in the hellhole where it appears to show the hair tangled in the knot and pulling on the hair while still attached to her scalp. Cynic tried valiantly to try and get Kolar during one of Tricia's webcasts to say whether or not the coroner had to cut her hair in order to pull the paintbrush away from her head, because he understands just how critical it is to the purpose of the ligature. Unfortunately, he couldn’t get a confirmation on it, and frankly I don’t think Kolar saw the significance in the short amount of time Cynic was allowed. Hopefully (if true) you can see why this would completely discount that it had ever been pulled after the paintbrush was attached.

    So I believe the paintbrush was tied to the cord after JonBenet was already dead from the strangulation. IOW: it (attachment of the broken paintbrush) is complete staging, for the purpose of hiding what actually happened, and what the paintbrush had actually been used for. What actually happened is (IMO) that for whatever reason you want to attribute it, a cord was tied loosely (with a simple, generic slipknot) around her neck and attached to something overhead. (I know kids do dumb things without thinking out the possible consequences -- I’ve seen it, and I’ve done dumb things myself.) Call this cord arrangement a “faux restraint”, or say BR was pretending to tie-up his “pet” on a leash, or some might speculate that maybe it was some kind of precocious sexual fantasy (which I doubt). Whatever the reason, her neck had the cord tied loosely around it and restrained above. The paintbrush was being used separately for exploration (before it was broken). When the exploration became too rough and caused pain (and add to that the likelihood that she might have looked down and seen her own blood), she let out a scream. Then out of panic to shut her up, something nearby is grabbed and swung at her. With a solid blow from a cylindrical object coming straight down on her head, she immediately collapses, the weight of her body causing the cord to tighten around her neck. Unconscious from the head blow, she is unable to reach for the cord to try and loosen it (there are no scratch marks around the ligature on her neck). The stunned assailant is too slow to react as the ligature shuts off the blood going to her brain. (If she hadn’t already been unconscious from the head blow, the occlusion of oxygen-rich blood going to her brain would cause it in less than fifteen seconds.) Within minutes she is dead from the combination of the head blow and the strangulation. An attempt is made to lift her lifeless body and relieve the strain of the noose (which may have been the when it slipped upwards on her neck to its final resting place). From Pathology of Neck Injury, by Peter Vanezis:
    "It is not unusual in homicidal ligature strangulation to find that there is more than one ligature mark, each of varying intensity and crossing each other, in parallel or at an angle to each other. Together with such an appearance, one quite commonly sees abrasions caused by movement of a ligature across the neck."
    Does this not describe exactly what is seen on JonBenet’s neck? This accounts for the “areas of petechial hemorrhage and abrasion encompassing an area measuring approximately 3x2 inches” mentioned in the AR that DeeDee mentioned earlier and midwest mama questioned (but not the large triangular area which I believe is explained [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123333"]here[/ame]).

    (BTW, midwest mama, I’ve gotta give you credit for being able to read OSOS for the cause. I’ve grown desensitized to viewing pictures of dead, dissected, and mutilated bodies, but I still don’t think I could stomach reading the balderdash from John Ramsey.)

    She may have been cut down at this point with the pocket knife found later lying on the WC floor. This could be the reason for some of the scrapes/abrasions on her body. I think that probably PR heard the scream and went through the hellhole looking for the kids. She may have wakened JR at that time, or she may have done that after she discovered what had happened. It is also possible that they didn’t hear the scream, but instead they were wakened by a scared child who didn’t know what to do other than tell them she needed help. (Physical evidence doesn't always give us the answers to all questions.) When JR considered all the possibilities, he made the decision to fake the whole crime scene to make it appear to be something entirely different from what actually happened with PR’s assistance. The paintbrush was broken to use in his staging and get rid of the tip which would have had evidence on it as to what it had actually been used for. Her legs and genitals were cleaned to remove evidence that it had happened because of a sexual act.

    However perplexing, convoluted, and incomprehensible it all seems, the plan was to throw every possible motive for her death into the mix other than the sexual aspect and hide what actually happened. (Even much later when asked about her having been molested, JR says something to the effect that “we just don’t really know that, Larry.”) There is no single, coherent plan that everything points to other than the initial ruse that it was a kidnapping and “an inside job”. Once they called 911 under this pretense, the R’s were tied to one another for the rest of their lives. They were committed to the lie that “it looked like a real ransom note to me.” (It probably did -- since they wrote it!) Not one of them will ever admit to any guilt. No one can ever prosecute BR because of his age at the time, PR is gone, and no DA will ever take a chance on trying to prosecute JR. (Statutes of limitation have run out on all of the lesser crimes that were committed that night and prevent anyone from being prosecuted for anything less than the homicide itself.) So this case will forever be speculated about and debated (but by fewer and fewer people as we die off). One day it will be just another unsolved mystery along with Jack the Ripper, Lizzie Borden, the Black Dahlia, Taman Shud, and the Zodiac. (But my frustration is starting to show now, so I’ll end this here.)

    I welcome any comments, questions, or discussion.
     
  14. madeleine

    madeleine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,972
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    but if the garotte was some sort of toy ...they didn't find BR's dna/prints on it,which means someone wiped the piece of brush off,right?....wouldn't it have been easier to just get rid of it?
     
  15. Nom de plume

    Nom de plume Member

    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    OTG - You have a very well thought out, and very well stated, theory here. I know you are completely BDI, and if I was also BDI, I would think this is exactly what happened. I believe a very similar scenario happened, but with a different killer. Why is it you only see BR being the killer? Why couldn't it just have easily been JR? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just interested in why you discount him.
     
  16. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,204
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    otg,
    Smothering by hand is not the only mechanism that can result in asphyxiation.

    If the forensic evidence rules out any form of antemortem asphyxiation then I reckon we will have to consider if JonBenet was posed in some manner, so to facilitate a sexual assault, but resulting in her whacking her head on something?

    To me the head blow looks as if it was meant to kill, just like the paintbrush ligature, but the head blow failed.

    .
     
  17. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,204
    Likes Received:
    1,959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    questfortrue,
    Thanks for the quote. Which confirms the cellulose as originating from the paintbrush.

    So what do you think Kolar is saying, i.e. there was a sexual assault with a finger and a further assault with the paintbrush.

    Or is he just saying that there was one acute assault using the paintbrush handle?


    .
     
  18. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0


    We do agree on that.



    I don't have a problem with the notion that the paintbrush handle was added later. More time was spent on that end of the garrotte than at the knot on the other end.

    It's possible, but I'm doubtful. A slip knot which doesn't release easily usually doesn't tighten easily either. Her weight might have tightened the "noose" but I doubt the knot at the back of her neck would be tight against her neck -well, more than tight, tight enough to continue the furrowing. I'd suspect an injury that happened as you describe would not have a complete furrow. I'd expect some "relief" at the back of the neck. There are a lot of variables having to do with the slipperiness of the rope and the ease with which the "noose" could be tightened. All in all it looks to me much more like an injury caused by holding the body down with one hand (pretty much at or near the knot) and pulling the end (very possibly w/o the brush handle attached at that point) to tighten. I suppose we will never really know.

    I of course have a very different take on the scream (not at all sure it ever happened) and the supposed response. Bashing her with something seems to me about the most unnatural and unlikely response to a scream I can think of.

    Then of course there are the objections to BDI in general - why would parents respond to that situation by refusing to call an ambulance. Why would one parent who was innocent of any prior molestation go along with the other parent in such a scenario. We've covered that ground in the past.

    Sorry to be redundant but why would he do this unless he were the chronic abuser, and why would PR go along with it? Respectfully, this argument is less convincing, to me, than space aliens did it.



    It's pretty incomprehensible, convoluted and perplexing as far as I can see. If you want to stage a crime scene I'd expect one clear convincing consistent message.

    I think the evidence does point to one single coherent plan once we realize that what the police saw at 6am was not what was intended for them to see, and therefore there was no co-conspiracy. I think DocG's theory nicely explains the apparent inconsistencies which seem so perplexing and gives us a sing coherent plan which happened to get interrupted before completion.


    I agree there will be no prosecution and therefore there will never be an "official" resolution. I think this will actually result in thousands and thousands of people reading about and talking about the case 100 years from now, just as thousands continue to be interested in Jack The Ripper, et. al.
     
  19. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The brush could be wiped for prints, but if BR's prints or DNA were either one found on the weapon attached to a dead body, it cannot be revealed to the public. As for getting rid of it, yes, it seems easier to do than the way it was used in the staging. The end piece did after all disappear. Was it carried out, thrown in the furnace, or dropped in a hole in the wall of a closet? We just don't know, and we don't know the reasons for the choices that were made that night.
     
  20. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It looks that way to me as well. If it was "accidental" it was still delivered with tremendous force, and so must have been done in a fit of rage.

    It's very hard, for me, to see it as a response to a scream. If she screamed and the killer were already "playing with her", and hand over the mouth would be considerably quicker.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice