Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
a ligature points to an impersonal, uncaring outsider (staging) and would perhaps have been more believable if not for all the lies and inconsistenciesI have to say I can not think of any scenario where they think garroting her will be a better cover. If she bashed her head they could have left her at the bottom of the stairs, Next to a pipe, something... But the garroting just changes the whole thing.
1. What was she suspended from?
2. The marks on her neck do not support that she was hung. Iirc
1. I don't know.
2. Actually they do.
3. The torso and arms were posed upright, full body suspension is at least problematic.
I have to say I can not think of any scenario where they think garroting her will be a better cover. If she bashed her head they could have left her at the bottom of the stairs, Next to a pipe, something... But the garroting just changes the whole thing.
there really is no way to get inside of a murderer's head and try to rationalize what they did. i can't think of a scenario where someone would actually murder their own child because in my mind, and the mind of most rational people, which i think we all are rational people on here, its the most disgusting, horrendous thing one could do, but it happens unfortunately. i don't think the garroting is a reason to exclude the ramsey's at all. All other evidence points to one of the Ramseys (IMO patsy ramsey).
I was under the impression, please correct me if I'm wrong, when Fleet & John together first saw her ... She was laying on her back. Yes?
Yes she was. The lividity marks on the body show that she was laying down since death.
Flat on her back with arms up in front? Right?
Flat on her back with arms up in front? Right?
The only way the ligatures and garrotte makes sense (to me) is if it was part of the abuse. Then, it makes perfect sense.
They didn't add them afterwards, they neglected to remove them - until JR started picking at them that is. Maybe they imagined it was something a "kidnapper" would do anyway.
It really is the only thing that explains them. They weren't part of the staging at all, but part of the crime.
Not real sure on the arms. I always thought they were above her head
o< Bad attempt at what I mean here, but the o is her head and the < would be here arms. If that makes sense. :blushing:
Not real sure on the arms. I always thought they were above her head
o< Bad attempt at what I mean here, but the o is her head and the < would be here arms. If that makes sense. :blushing:
This is a common source of confusion. Her arms can be seen in crime scene photos as she lay on the living room carpet. Her hands are bagged in browm paper bags and you can see the position of her arms. There is a misleading drawing of her showing her arms straight up over her head, but flat on the floor. This was drawn by someone who never actually saw the body or was even at the house. And it is incorrect.
Her arms were pulled up in front of her face, arms bent at the elbow like a boxer. When Det Arndt observed JR carrying her up from the basement, he was holding her body around the waist (Transfer of that touch DNA?) and she was stiff as a board, held straight up like a mannequin. Arndt described her arms as being held "straight up with no support", which is how she determined her to be in full rigor mortis.
So she was in fact on her side?
How were her legs?
Was she on her side in a fetal position?
Ok... I've lost my mind.
I took a teddy bear and bound the hands . Covered like a papoose, let foot exposed as Fleet saw a foot... And posed it like I envisioned her.
No teddy bears were injured