JonBenet's Skull Fractures: The Weapon

[Darlene733510]

I think about the white blanket in the dryer. Wouldn't Patsy be the one who knew it was there, using it to wrap around JB? Wasn't there discussion about a similar blanket on the parent's bed? Another discussion is that the blanket on JB's bed was much too large for a twin bed?

I wish I had something new to add here. Sometimes I go back and wonder if her head could have been slammed against the corner of a counter in the breakfast nook, kitchen area.

otg - I took time out for a while. Cancer and I had a huge battle, but I won. After surgery, chemo, and radiation, I am cancer free. Now my H. has dementia.
Every day is an adventure. Like finding my coffee cups in the oven. Eating 3 breakfasts because he forgot he had the other 2.

 

[otg]

Darlene, I'm so sorry to hear about your struggle. More people than you can imagine have been down the same path or are currently going through it. It's a rough road, but I'm glad to hear you have made it through. You were missed.

 

[otg]

Oh, and what's wrong with 3 breakfasts? All the more bacon can't be a bad thing. Right?

 

[Ambitioned]

Welcome back Darlene!

Hey, the oven is a good place for coffee cups! I've put mine there when company comes unexpectedly

:loveyou:

 

[otg]

Throughout this thread, the size and shape of any possible bludgeon that might have been used has been discussed. When I started it almost five years ago, I wasn’t sure where it would lead -- only that some of the information in the AR had been wrong and the depressed fracture was not “rectangular” as described by the ME. So if the shape was wrong, so would be the ideas about what caused it. I showed early on that the actual shape of the depressed fracture was elliptical. If the shape of the bludgeon caused enough concentrated pressure in one spot of the skull to displace that portion of the skull, we should be able to figure out what that shape should be.

Because of the shape, it was not the end of a Maglite, nor was it a golf club. Because of the size, it was not a baseball bat. The item that caused the elliptical depressed fracture in JonBenet’s skull (and the linear fracture that emanated from it) was a cylindrical object whose diameter was between 1/2” and 1”. The reasons for uncertainty about the exact diameter are as follows:

• I don’t know how accurately Dr. Meyer measured the fracture. Rounding off to the nearest quarter-inch leaves a lot of room for inaccuracy, and MEs usually measure things in centimeters.
• I’m not certain if he measured it including the gap that resulted from the linear fracture. (See Part-4 here.)
• The exact arc of JonBenet’s skull at the location isn’t known (this would be needed to know the diameter of the sphere to use in calculations).

I calculated that the object used should be about 3/4”diameter, but because of these unknown variables, I allowed for anything within a quarter-inch either way. It’s possible the object could be outside that range, but IMO unlikely.

Assuming Meyer’s measurements to be correct, the ratio of the width to height of the displaced fracture is 3.5 (0.5 to 1.75). I’ve played with the images of this with the open gap and with it closed. Each of them comes out either too much or too little ratio to know for certain how he measured it.

Just to demonstrate how the diameter of a cylinder affects the ratio of the ellipse, I made a little video clip. I started with a round ball of clay (as round I could get it with my hands) and pressed four different diameter cylinders into the clay. Here is the video on my Youtube account. (There is no blood in this video; but if you don’t like my musical selection, just turn down the volume.)


[video=youtube;F0nalGDHjrw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0nalGDHjrw[/video]

 

[HRP]

Throughout this thread, the size and shape of any possible bludgeon that might have been used has been discussed. When I started it almost five years ago, I wasn’t sure where it would lead -- only that some of the information in the AR had been wrong and the depressed fracture was not “rectangular” as described by the ME. So if the shape was wrong, so would be the ideas about what caused it. I showed early on that the actual shape of the depressed fracture was elliptical. If the shape of the bludgeon caused enough concentrated pressure in one spot of the skull to displace that portion of the skull, we should be able to figure out what that shape should be.

Because of the shape, it was not the end of a Maglite, nor was it a golf club. Because of the size, it was not a baseball bat. The item that caused the elliptical depressed fracture in JonBenet’s skull (and the linear fracture that emanated from it) was a cylindrical object whose diameter was between 1/2” and 1”. The reasons for uncertainty about the exact diameter are as follows:

• I don’t know how accurately Dr. Meyer measured the fracture. Rounding off to the nearest quarter-inch leaves a lot of room for inaccuracy, and MEs usually measure things in centimeters.
• I’m not certain if he measured it including the gap that resulted from the linear fracture. (See Part-4 here.)
• The exact arc of JonBenet’s skull at the location isn’t known (this would be needed to know the diameter of the sphere to use in calculations).

I calculated that the object used should be about 3/4”diameter, but because of these unknown variables, I allowed for anything within a quarter-inch either way. It’s possible the object could be outside that range, but IMO unlikely.

Assuming Meyer’s measurements to be correct, the ratio of the width to height of the displaced fracture is 3.5 (0.5 to 1.75). I’ve played with the images of this with the open gap and with it closed. Each of them comes out either too much or too little ratio to know for certain how he measured it.

Just to demonstrate how the diameter of a cylinder affects the ratio of the ellipse, I made a little video clip. I started with a round ball of clay (as round I could get it with my hands) and pressed four different diameter cylinders into the clay. Here is the video on my Youtube account. (There is no blood in this video; but if you don’t like my musical selection, just turn down the volume.)


[video=youtube;F0nalGDHjrw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0nalGDHjrw[/video]

What is in red is not factually true. How can anyone make this statement. Not trying to cause any issue here, but in all honesty, that statement cannot be made.

 

[otg]

What is in red is not factually true. How can anyone make this statement. Not trying to cause any issue here, but in all honesty, that statement cannot be made.

I don’t know what your issue is, HRP, but obviously you haven’t bothered reading much of this thread. I’ll suggest you start at the beginning and look for the numbered “Parts” and watch the linked videos. I could save you time by linking them, but I won’t waste my time since you didn’t bother spending any of your time reading before making your patently ridiculous assertion (IMO).

If you have a particular weapon in mind as you keep hinting, it may have already been considered. But we couldn’t know that since you won’t say what you have in mind and you haven’t (obviously) bothered reading much of this thread before posting.

I would suggest it’s time to put up or shut up. If you want to discuss it like an adult, please do. If you simply want to occasionally jump in with unsubstantiated criticism, you’ll simply be demonstrating why this forum has developed such stringent rules against "intruder" theories because of the past-proven actions of other IDIots.

 

[HRP]

the size and shape of any possible bludgeon that might have been used has been discussed.

What is in red is not factually true. How can anyone make this statement. Not trying to cause any issue here, but in all honesty, that statement cannot be made.

I don’t know what your issue is, HRP, but obviously you haven’t bothered reading much of this thread. I’ll suggest you start at the beginning and look for the numbered “Parts” and watch the linked videos. I could save you time by linking them, but I won’t waste my time since you didn’t bother spending any of your time reading before making your patently ridiculous assertion (IMO).

If you have a particular weapon in mind as you keep hinting, it may have already been considered. But we couldn’t know that since you won’t say what you have in mind and you haven’t (obviously) bothered reading much of this thread before posting.

I would suggest it’s time to put up or shut up. If you want to discuss it like an adult, please do. If you simply want to occasionally jump in with unsubstantiated criticism, you’ll simply be demonstrating why this forum has developed such stringent rules against "intruder" theories because of the past-proven actions of other IDIots.

Firstly, I would suggest you be more respectful in your posts. There is no reason to tell anyone on any forum to shut up if they do not perform an order such as "put up".

I have been more than civil in all my posts and comments. And I am not a fool by any stretch of anyone's imagination. I find your comment offensive and, while I am trying to be sincere, I will also say they may be a bit ego-based. You have your theory. I have never torn it apart, in fact I have thanked you for your good efforts and even said I found them informative. (Look back at what I've posted personally to you). You have no right to jump on me for making a factually true statement.

What you said, in bold red, is a statement that cannot be said with any shred of truth. That's a fact. Not all possibilities have been discussed--in fact, to use the word "all" makes your statement impossible anyway. You must know this.

As for me shutting up? Over what, specifically? My theory is not approved for this site, however there are many aspects of this case which can be discussed which do not require mentioning a specific murderer or murderers. Evidence, for example.

As for me putting up? I attempted to broaden a well thought out researched theory. As I have mentioned before, just because someone has not been posting here or anywhere does not mean they have not been interested in this case or any other case. There are other resources other than here, as well too. So I cannot "put up" here. The weapon in my theory has not been discussed on this entire forum--not one mention--anywhere, even down in the dark corners. But even if it were, it still is true that there is no way, no how, no factual reason, no hand-to-God truth in writing what you wrote:

the size and shape of any possible bludgeon that might have been used has been discussed.

 

[UKGuy]

What is in red is not factually true. How can anyone make this statement. Not trying to cause any issue here, but in all honesty, that statement cannot be made.

HRP,
It's true for me. I've discussed the shape and size of the blunt force weapon used to bludgeon JonBenet and arrived a different conclusion that that put forward on the CBS Special.

Also that JonBenet was likely whacked side on rather from behind or in front? That's all just my opinion of course, then again otg helped me arrive at it.

.

 

[otg]

the size and shape of any possible bludgeon that might have been used has been discussed.



Firstly, I would suggest you be more respectful in your posts. There is no reason to tell anyone on any forum to shut up if they do not perform an order such as "put up".

I have been more than civil in all my posts and comments. And I am not a fool by any stretch of anyone's imagination. I find your comment offensive and, while I am trying to be sincere, I will also say they may be a bit ego-based. You have your theory. I have never torn it apart, in fact I have thanked you for your good efforts and even said I found them informative. (Look back at what I've posted personally to you). You have no right to jump on me for making a factually true statement.

What you said, in bold red, is a statement that cannot be said with any shred of truth. That's a fact. Not all possibilities have been discussed--in fact, to use the word "all" makes your statement impossible anyway. You must know this.

As for me shutting up? Over what, specifically? My theory is not approved for this site, however there are many aspects of this case which can be discussed which do not require mentioning a specific murderer or murderers. Evidence, for example.

As for me putting up? I attempted to broaden a well thought out researched theory. As I have mentioned before, just because someone has not been posting here or anywhere does not mean they have not been interested in this case or any other case. There are other resources other than here, as well too. So I cannot "put up" here. The weapon in my theory has not been discussed on this entire forum--not one mention--anywhere, even down in the dark corners. But even if it were, it still is true that there is no way, no how, no factual reason, no hand-to-God truth in writing what you wrote:

the size and shape of any possible bludgeon that might have been used has been discussed.

My apologies, HRP. You are correct that the statement you objected to was, at face value, not all-inclusive of anything possible. What I should have said to be more accurate is “any possible bludgeon that has been suggested or considered has been discussed.” Even at that though, I considered the shape and size of the unknown object not knowing what might have been used. I did this with no consideration of who might have been the person who caused it. My conclusion (so far) doesn’t implicate any one person over another. Nor does my conclusion (so far) exclude someone from outside of the family. It was never my objective to use this to prove or disprove any person -- simply to find what the weapon was that caused the skull fractures since it’s obvious the investigators do not know.

I don’t mind being wrong or admitting it if it leads to an understanding of what happened. Indeed, in my attempt to figure it out what it was, it has led me to change my mind about what I originally thought the weapon was. Over the course of this thread because of suspicions or suggestions, I’ve looked specifically at golf clubs, a baseball bat, a crowbar (because of an IDI's burglar theory), a brick, a flat object, cabinet corners, every known or suggested type of hammer, flashlights, a rolling pin, a pool cue, a billiard ball, train parts, trophies, Nintendo parts, bathroom fixtures, and even a fireplace poker. You have to admit that’s a pretty long list of possible objects and object shapes, but still (as you said) it’s not every single possibility in the world. If you or anyone could suggest something else worthwhile, I would gladly look at it as well. I’m not trying to prove a theory -- only defining the most likely weapon.

You are correct that you have been civil in your posts, and for that reason I have tried to get you to participate in the discussion even with foreknowledge of your predisposition about the perpetrator. Perhaps my loss of patience was due to my frustration over your continuing to drop in on different threads and hint that there is some other object that should be considered and your refusal to disclose or even hint at what it might be. I do sincerely want to consider anything and everything, and I’m at a loss to be able to imagine what you might be referring to. As I told you in an earlier post, I don’t see how the weapon necessarily proves who the assailant was or whether it was someone from inside or outside of the family.

 

[questfortrue]

What is in red is not factually true. How can anyone make this statement. Not trying to cause any issue here, but in all honesty, that statement cannot be made.

Hey HRP,

Those who come wishing they could share all of their research and engage in discussion, and yet feel confined by the fact that Tricia has limited IDI discussion, must carry a difficult conflict. Yet you’ve remained and have hinted about evidence. There’s only one way to find out if a theory of bludgeon tool is correct. And that is to bring it to discussion.

Leave the ‘who wielded the tool’ out of your post and just present for testing to see if the weight and dimensions of the tool might allow for it to be a consideration. If a poster chooses to stay and post, and yet keeps their evidence in a box like Schrödinger's cat, such a person will miss the challenge and journey of real dialog. Imo.

FWIW, I also have learned more medical forensic information from otg than from anyone else. From livor mortis, rigor mortis, blanching, vitreous eye tests, organization of a wound, asphyxiation timelines, intracranial pressure and many other aspects of learning from the deceased’s body, it has helped me to try to separate out what is possible and what is very improbable.

It’s simply about finding some bits of truth about the loss of JonBenét’s life.

 

[HRP]

Hey HRP,

Those who come wishing they could share all of their research and engage in discussion, and yet feel confined by the fact that Tricia has limited IDI discussion, must carry a difficult conflict. Yet you’ve remained and have hinted about evidence. There’s only one way to find out if a theory of bludgeon tool is correct. And that is to bring it to discussion.

Leave the ‘who wielded the tool’ out of your post and just present for testing to see if the weight and dimensions of the tool might allow for it to be a consideration. If a poster chooses to stay and post, and yet keeps their evidence in a box like Schrödinger's cat, such a person will miss the challenge and journey of real dialog. Imo.

FWIW, I also have learned more medical forensic information from otg than from anyone else. From livor mortis, rigor mortis, blanching, vitreous eye tests, organization of a wound, asphyxiation timelines, intracranial pressure and many other aspects of learning from the deceased’s body, it has helped me to try to separate out what is possible and what is very improbable.

It’s simply about finding some bits of truth about the loss of JonBenét’s life.

I'll leave a link in a bit (not a short bit). I'd like some real debate on some things that may be important but unfortunately cannot be discussed here. Thanks for the nudge. I did a small video on taser/vs stun gun. Where could I post a link to that? Is there a stungun/taser rule here? What I found is about a taser potentially being used. Is that allowed? Where? Thanks.

 

[AlGx]

This sounds a bit silly- but has anyone thought whether a knife handle would have caused the skull fracture?

 

[icedtea4me]

This sounds a bit silly- but has anyone thought whether a knife handle would have caused the skull fracture?

No, I have not.

 

[Tortoise]

24 now, a little better photo of that stuffed animal from
25 Christmas.
0425
1 PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible).
2 TRIP DEMUTH: You want to use the magnifying
3 glass?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: This looks like the eight ball
5 questions again.

It appears JonBenet may have received a Magic 8-Ball for Christmas.

Possible weapon? Probably unlikely but just throwing it out there.

 

[singularity]

This sounds a bit silly- but has anyone thought whether a knife handle would have caused the skull fracture?

Not silly at all. I've seen much sillier that's for sure.

I've considered it although it does appear unlikely. Having said that, it's more likely than the flashlight. There was a second knife out of place(found on the counter in the laundry area next to her room) but that one is always ignored now unfortunately.

24 now, a little better photo of that stuffed animal from
25 Christmas.
0425
1 PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible).
2 TRIP DEMUTH: You want to use the magnifying
3 glass?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: This looks like the eight ball
5 questions again.

It appears JonBenet may have received a Magic 8-Ball for Christmas.

Possible weapon? Probably unlikely but just throwing it out there.

As a weapon? Probably not. I assume it would break long before doing that much damage.

It's the type of item that could be thrown during an argument though.

 

[Tadpole12]

https://lovelace-media.imgix.net/up...40&h=494&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&q=70


ToysRUs, Magic 8 Ball,
Product Weight: 0.68 pounds
Product Dimensions (in inches): 4.20 x 5.10 x 3.80

 

[Swirlz]

The 2 hardest surfaces in your house are the toilet and the sink.

 

[Tortoise]

As a weapon? Probably not. I assume it would break long before doing that much damage.

It's the type of item that could be thrown during an argument though.

https://lovelace-media.imgix.net/up...40&h=494&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format&q=70


ToysRUs, Magic 8 Ball,
Product Weight: 0.68 pounds
Product Dimensions (in inches): 4.20 x 5.10 x 3.80

This is when I wish I'd not fallen asleep in my physics lessons.

I've done a little bit of digging, not much admittedly. The first thing I came up with is a baseball weighs approx 5 ounces. The Magic 8 Ball (thanks Tadpole) weighs approx 10 nearly 11 ounces.

I found an account of a 4 year old child whose skull was fractured by a baseball hitting the side of his head. http://www.espn.co.uk/mlb/hof09/columns/story?columnist=garber_greg&id=4353486

I suppose it depends on whether the dimensions of the curved ball could create the size and shape of JonBenet's skull depression.

 

[Tortoise]

The 2 hardest surfaces in your house are the toilet and the sink.

Agree - very hard - but there is no evidence to say her fractures were caused by the hardest surfaces in the house, particularly given her age and skull development.