Loose ligature ISN'T STAGING

[Holdontoyourhat]

You're right, that was an extremely poor choice of words. It would be more accurate to say that I have an idea.

Are you going to SHARE your idea?

 

[BBB167893]

Are you going to SHARE your idea?

I don't really see the point. It'll just give you more to razz me about. But, glutton for punishment that I am, why not? So, against my better judgment, here goes:

Breaking the end with the bristles off was for practical reasons. It would just get in the way. If, as several pathologists have said, the brush was used to penetrate JB, then the bristle end would not allow a precise grip. The grip would have been too short and the wide end would get in the way of the wrist and limit mobility. Breaking it off would allow the user to better control the angle of insertion and lessen the chances of actually having to touch JB's private area. As for the other end, same deal: it was broken off to get rid of any blood on it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't really see the point. It'll just give you more to razz me about. But, glutton for punishment that I am, why not? So, against my better judgment, here goes:

Breaking the end with the bristles off was for practical reasons. It would just get in the way. If, as several pathologists have said, the brush was used to penetrate JB, then the bristle end would not allow a precise grip. The grip would have been too short and the wide end would get in the way of the wrist and limit mobility. Breaking it off would allow the user to better control the angle of insertion and lessen the chances of actually having to touch JB's private area. As for the other end, same deal: it was broken off to get rid of any blood on it.

OK.

There is another 'practical reason' for the broken ends that is a polar opposite from yours. This other explanation is so obvious that I can't believe it needs to be typed but here goes:

The garrote was used as a WEAPON for the purpose of ending JBR's life. It can be inferred from this that the garrote was constructed originally as a weapon, as opposed to a mini-bike engine starter. The broken ends would not be nice on an engine starter because you could be injured by the ends. It is therefore a property of the garrote handle that they could cause someone an injury. Since that is what weapons are intended to do (to cause injury), this most likely was a property that JBR's assailant wanted. It WOULD further control or threaten JBR and prevent her from grabbing the handle. We don't know if the broken ends were checked for JBR's skin cells but we do know there are other unexplained injuries on JBR that could've been caused by these broken ends. In a struggle, the person holding the handle would have more advantage with than without the broken ends.

Prima facie tells us that the handle was used as a weapon, the ends of the handle were sharp, and weapons frequently are sharp. Prima facie doesn't tell us anything about the end pieces except that they were broken off.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Hiya Hotyh.

Yes, it is a sinister plot IMO, whomever the perp.

That does not escape me, Hotyh, even when our discusssions are on the lighter side. The photos of JBR are violence against a child, something of the like? I had never seen before reading about this case.
The images are not easily forgotten.

Cruel, a monster, evil are simple prima facie characterizations that RDI seems to avoid. Thats because there's no means to identify the R's as cruel, monsters, or evil.

The cruel personality that manifested itself in both the words of the RN and the injuries on JBR came and went that night, and took the cord and tape with him.

 

[BOESP]

Cruel, a monster, evil are simple prima facie characterizations that RDI seems to avoid. Thats because there's no other means to identify the R's as cruel, monsters, or evil.

The cruel personality that manifested itself in both the words of the RN and the injuries on JBR came and went that night, and took the cord and tape with him.

A parent doesn't have to be "cruel, monsters, or evil" to get angry when tired then jerk their child around, directing them toward the bathroom to get cleaned up, then slip, fall, push, pull, or otherwise cause them to have an accident with a fixture of some sort. The wound, based on JonBenet's height, is also level with a door knob or handle. Maybe she was man-handled into the door or bed post. Maybe she hit a floor doorstop or a faucet fixture. These simple explanations fit the physics of the head trauma and other information known to the public about this case.

Evidence should correlate to other known pieces of data without convoluted hypotheses, which is what a lot of the posts here seem to try to do (come across as someone trying to divert attention away from logical conclusions).

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

A parent doesn't have to be "cruel, monsters, or evil" to get angry when tired then jerk their child around, directing them toward the bathroom to get cleaned up, then slip, fall, push, pull, or otherwise cause them to have an accident with a fixture of some sort. The wound, based on JonBenet's height, is also level with a door knob or handle. Maybe she was man-handled into the door or bed post. Maybe she hit a floor doorstop or a faucet fixture. These simple explanations fit the physics of the head trauma and other information known to the public about this case.

Evidence should correlate to other known pieces of data without convoluted hypotheses, which is what a lot of the posts here seem to try to do (come across as someone trying to divert attention away from logical conclusions).

...to get angry when tired then jerk their child around, directing them toward the bathroom to get cleaned up, then slip, fall, push, pull, or otherwise cause them to have an accident...

Sure, as long as you know this is simple fiction, circumvents prima facie, and in no way resembles any sort of logical conclusion.

 

[BOESP]

...to get angry when tired then jerk their child around, directing them toward the bathroom to get cleaned up, then slip, fall, push, pull, or otherwise cause them to have an accident...

Sure, as long as you know this is simple fiction, circumvents prima facie, and in no way resembles any sort of logical conclusion.

Based on Steve Thomas's book, yes, I know that what I said is most likely true. Why should I believe you over him?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Based on Steve Thomas's book, yes, I know that what I said is most likely true. Why should I believe you over him?

What you posted was a generalization. It was a projection of a more common parental abuse scenario to JBR's murder, but without any cause to do so. I disagreed, thats all.

The FBI said that of the 1700 cases they've investigated, the number of times a garroted, headbashed, sexually assaulted small child was found in the same house as a ransom note was once. JBR's murder. An FBI profiler said that never in his 35 years had he seen anything like this. He said it was totally bizarre.

Since the case is so unique it seems unlikely that it was caused by something common. I think the solution will be as remarkable and bizarre as the problem.

 

[BOESP]

What you posted was a generalization. It was a projection of a more common parental abuse scenario to JBR's murder, but without any cause to do so. I disagreed, thats all.

The FBI said that of the 1700 cases they've investigated, the number of times a garroted, headbashed, sexually assaulted small child was found in the same house as a ransom note was once. JBR's murder. An FBI profiler said that never in his 35 years had he seen anything like this. He said it was totally bizarre.

Since the case is so unique it seems unlikely that it was caused by something common. I think the solution will be as remarkable and bizarre as the problem.

What I asked was why should I believe you instead of Steve Thomas?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What I asked was why should I believe you instead of Steve Thomas?

I don't remember asking you to believe me over ST.

I'm sure he is more knowledgeable about the case. I just think some of his opinions are wrong.

 

[BOESP]

I don't remember asking you to believe me over ST.

I'm sure he is more knowledgeable about the case. I just think some of his opinions are wrong.

You didn't ask me. I asked you.

I believe most of your opinions are wrong. You seem to believe mine are wrong. Unless you can give me good reason, I will side with Steve Thomas's premises over yours. He had access to the scene and evidence.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You didn't ask me. I asked you.

I believe most of your opinions are wrong. You seem to believe mine are wrong. Unless you can give me good reason, I will side with Steve Thomas's premises over yours. He had access to the scene and evidence.

OK...:dance:

 

[BBB167893]

OK.

There is another 'practical reason' for the broken ends that is a polar opposite from yours. This other explanation is so obvious that I can't believe it needs to be typed but here goes:

The garrote was used as a WEAPON for the purpose of ending JBR's life. It can be inferred from this that the garrote was constructed originally as a weapon, as opposed to a mini-bike engine starter. The broken ends would not be nice on an engine starter because you could be injured by the ends. It is therefore a property of the garrote handle that they could cause someone an injury. Since that is what weapons are intended to do (to cause injury), this most likely was a property that JBR's assailant wanted. It WOULD further control or threaten JBR and prevent her from grabbing the handle. We don't know if the broken ends were checked for JBR's skin cells but we do know there are other unexplained injuries on JBR that could've been caused by these broken ends. In a struggle, the person holding the handle would have more advantage with than without the broken ends.

Prima facie tells us that the handle was used as a weapon, the ends of the handle were sharp, and weapons frequently are sharp. Prima facie doesn't tell us anything about the end pieces except that they were broken off.

Well said. BUT, as always, you misunderstand me.

See, you said it yourself: it didn't need to be typed. It WAS obvious to me where you were going with this.

And for what it's worth, it would have made sense to me, back when I was an IDI such as yourself.

BUT, for reasons which I am increasingly convinced you'll never understand, I can't go along with it:

1) To say that it was constructed specifically to end JB's life flies in the face of several things we know:

--A) It's construction was impractical, and we have spoken about that before.

--B) Perhaps even more crucially, the killer did not have to worry about those considerations because JB was already very likely close to death when it was applied, and as such was INCAPABLE of putting up a struggle.. And that's not just my opinion, far from it. It's the opinion of several FBI agents and expert pathologists. It's not even close, HOTYH. The number of docs who agree with me vastly outnumbers the other side. It's not 51/49; it's more like 85/15. So don't kill the messenger.

2) There's no evidence that the second end was broken before the cord was wrapped around it.

In short, I HAVE thought about it. It doesn't work for me.

 

[BBB167893]

Cruel, a monster, evil are simple prima facie characterizations that RDI seems to avoid.

Oh, that's where you're wrong, friend. I strongly believe that JR is evil. I've just never said so here up to now because I didn't think it would contribute to any positive discussion.

Thats because there's no means to identify the R's as cruel, monsters, or evil.

It's BECAUSE it's too damn easy! It absolves the person from having to THINK. More specifically, from thinking about the monsters that live in each and every one of us, because we don't WANT to think about that.

The cruel personality that manifested itself in both the words of the RN and the injuries on JBR came and went that night, and took the cord and tape with him.

1) I think the cruel personality led to this, but did not directly CAUSE it.

2) I think the one who did cause it was largely motivated by a twisted sense of love. I've always been shocked and dismayed at what people are capable of when they think they are acting out of "love."

3) Even leaving all of that aside, you may be more right than you know about the cruel personality coming and leaving, because that one night is all he was needed for. I've often said that the person who wrote the RL was not thinking as themselves, but as someone else. And I'm not alone, not by a DAMN sight!

 

[BBB167893]

The FBI said that of the 1700 cases they've investigated, the number of times a garroted, headbashed, sexually assaulted small child was found in the same house as a ransom note was once. JBR's murder. An FBI profiler said that never in his 35 years had he seen anything like this. He said it was totally bizarre.

Too bad you stopped reading there! They had a whole LOT more to say.

Since the case is so unique it seems unlikely that it was caused by something common. I think the solution will be as remarkable and bizarre as the problem.

Now, if that isn't a HUGE "wildcard," I don't know what is!

The way I see it (MY OPINION!!!!) the case is unique because of the personalities involved. But no matter how bizarre a person may be, they're still human, and amenable to the same motivations and limitations as any one of us. So it's not really that hard to suggest a common start to what eventually became completely outside the norm. Not at all.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Oh, that's where you're wrong, friend. I strongly believe that JR is evil. I've just never said so here up to now because I didn't think it would contribute to any positive discussion.

Well, you're wrong.

Plus, your remark exposes circular reasoning. I already know that you don't have anything from before the murder to show JR or anyone else as evil. The ONLY WAY you can infer any evil on the part of anyone there is to use the murder itself, conclude one of them did it, and from there claim that one is evil. Classic circular logic.

It's BECAUSE it's too damn easy! It absolves the person from having to THINK. More specifically, from thinking about the monsters that live in each and every one of us, because we don't WANT to think about that.

Also wrong.

Monsters don't live in each and every one of us.

Monster, in this case, was used to characterize the person who can write about beheading a child on the same day they strangle a child to death. This person does not live in each and every one of us, as you posted. RDI probably needs to make this trait appear common so as to account for a lack of monster-like attributes on the part of anybody at the house.

Relax, its not common.

 

[DeeDee249]

It is amazing what adrenaline can make us write. And do.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, you're wrong.

I HOPE so.

Plus, your remark exposes circular reasoning. I already know that you don't have anything from before the murder to show JR or anyone else as evil.

You don't know a thing about me.

The ONLY WAY you can infer any evil on the part of anyone there is to use the murder itself, conclude one of them did it, and from there claim that one is evil. Classic circular logic.

That's NOT why I did it.

Also wrong.

The he** it is.

Monsters don't live in each and every one of us.

Oh, my friend, they most certainly do. I'm intimately familiar with them. I've seen them more often than I care to remember, and I'm only too aware of my own. It scares me to death.

Monster, in this case, was used to characterize the person who can write about beheading a child on the same day they strangle a child to death.

YOUR characterization. Don't blame me for playing the game on your terms. It's not like you leave me much choice.

RDI probably needs to make this trait appear common so as to account for a lack of monster-like attributes on the part of anybody at the house.

I don't NEED to make it appear common. It IS common. I pray to the GODS I could believe otherwise! I WISH I could live in the world you live in, HOTYH, but I can't. I've seen it far too many times. I know better.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Oh, my friend, they most certainly do. I'm intimately familiar with them. I've seen them more often than I care to remember, and I'm only too aware of my own. It scares me to death.

Relax. I said this monster isn't common, remember?

 

[Tadpole12]

The result is a garrote handle that is sharp at both ends. Its hard to ignore the tactical advantage that provides.

The sharp-ended garrote handle and the multi-looped multi-knotted wrist ligature belies staging, because they provide enhanced assault and restraint properties beyond what RDI has ever even considered.

I'm surprised FBI didn't really discuss the wrist ligature or the paintbrush in any detail anywhere. Maybe it wasn't their case so they just glanced over it?

Hiya Hotyh.

Sharp handle, could possibly injure the user as well, a gloved hand would be protected.