The headblow first and why

[narlacat]

If I suscribe to the PDIA (Patsy did it accidently) theory, then this is how I see it too.
God knows, I have come THAT close to losing it with my child.

 

[Bev]

I believe every parent has come that close. Every single day it was a battle royale to get my younger son to go to school. One day I almost picked him up by his shirt to put him in the van and just by a moment of grace from God or whatever great fortune one subscribes too, I managed to control myself. It is hard work raising kids, and when Patsy would say she had cancer and knew what her priorities were, well, I had cancer too, and while you like to think it makes you get your priorities straight, life's problems don't stop, and the stuff that bothered you before you had cancer, bother you after you had cancer.

 

[luvbeaches]

trying to explain what happened would have been too shameful and embarrassing to Patsy Ramsey. There is no way she could have rushed that kid to the hospital without the doctors and nurses being aware that this was the result of tempers clashing between an adult and a child. I believe she thought she had killed her and then staged the coverup. How could she have possibly explained those injuries, because even if it was accidental (and I believe it was) it still was a criminal offense, probably involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide or something along that order. The sad thing is, according to Boulderites, she would probably have gotten a deal, and would not have spent a day in prison, sparing her son and husband a lifetime of suspicion and accusation. I also think that she justified in her mind as an accident, since she didn't intend to do it.

I believe there were two things going on...but both caused the action that was taken.

She couldn't explain those injuries, nor the sexual abuse (which I believe was happening-don't know who was doing the sexual abusing), so she staged the multiple cover-ups. So that's why the paint brush was used...to try and hide those prior injuries. And the garrotte was used to "cover" for the head injury, which I think was an accident which revolved around the bedwetting.

 

[luvbeaches]

this woman's whole life was wrapped up in her presentation of herself to the world. Her house, her husband, her money, her looks, her kids - it was all how it looked. I believe that this accident of rage was so out of character for her, that at first she didn't know what to do. She thought the little girl was dead - if she called 911, any medic, doctor or nurse would have taken one look at that kid and those bruises on her neck and along with the head fracture know that this was the result of rage. Everything she had worked for would be gone, and by that I don't mean the money and the stuff, I mean her reputation as the glamourous saint of a wife and mother.

Here's something that every parent, if he/she is honest will tell you - sometimes you feel like knocking the kid into next week. The vast majority of parents are able to control themselves, but sometimes, something just snaps. I think PR had a really tiring day, now add to that a trip right before a big cruise, that she admitted she did not want to do, she said she still had packing for all four of them (for the cruise) to do, she had to get clothes ready for the next day so that they could leave @ 6:30 am, and she also said that every night she had to go into the little girl's bedroom, wake her up, and make her go to the bathroom. I think PR had been futzing around trying to get it together for the next day, she remembered around midnight to go wake the child, and the child probably was whiney and crabby and possibly refused to get up or just acted defiantly. I would imagine by that time of night, PR had had it up to her chin and just plain lost her temper. She didn't morph into a "monster", she didn't become "evil" in fact, she was all too human. One of the tragedies of this accident, was that I think she weighed what she thought she might lose, against a future with people knowing she did this, and decided that the best thing for her was to make it look like a kidnapping. I think she had every intention of taking the little girl's body somewhere, but couldn't make herself do it in the end. That's why you have the little girl with the supposed sexual abuse, a knock on the head, clothes on backward and an instrument of strangulation that was made so that she didn't have to touch the child or look into her face. That's why we have acts of maternal remorse - the wrapping her in a blanket, the placing her on a blanket, placing a favorite little thing with the child - those aren't acts of a psychopath - those are acts of remorse and true sorrow for what she had done - those are things that mothers do. The comforter, the children's book in the suitcase - I think she thought she could go through with it - put that little girl in a suitcase and put her somewhere. The fact that she was so hidden away, is I think, indicative of her feelings - she wanted to hide away her act, but she couldn't bear to part with her.

The only way this whole tragedy makes sense, is if you look at Patsy Ramsey with empathy and compassion and ask yourself, "if you were Patsy Ramsey, what would you do?" I believe her when she said she loved that child with her whole heart and soul, she truly meant it, but I also think that for one moment in her life she lost control and accidently killed that little girl. The one act of Patsy Ramsey that made me sure she did it, was at that press conference when she was asked if the person who did this should get the death penalty, she completely broke down, put her head down and could barely say the word yes. I think she thought that she was serving her sentence - she would never see her little girl again. And who knows, maybe that was punishment enough. I always think, "there but for the grace of God, go I."

Excellent post. Yes, a lot of food for thought.

You are so right about kids. I think Patsy just lost it. And then the cover up began.

 

[Paradox]

In aphixiation and strangulation cases where the victim is conscious, there is damage to the tongue - the victim bites it, cuts it along the edge of the teeth as it presses down on them and very often the frenulum is cut or torn, cheeks are bitten. The hyoid bone is broken because it is a very delicate bone and as people struggle, arch their necks and pressure is put upon it, it fractures or breaks. There is always damage to other parts of the neck, such as bruising, tearing of muscles, etc.

Please indicate your sources and where they distinguish between the affects of strangulation of adults or adolescents and 6yr old girls.

 

[BBB167893]

"I had cancer too, and while you like to think it makes you get your priorities straight, life's problems don't stop, and the stuff that bothered you before you had cancer, bother you after you had cancer."

In some cases, worse. That's how it was with my dad. He was a different man.

 

[jubie]

I don't know where to get it to post it here but I saw a picture of Patsy after chemo with very little hair and she had a cross in her teeth hanging from a necklace around her neck. (It was a black and white photo) It gave me the creeps. Just as with the photo she posed for beside JonBenets grave. I've known a few people who've been through chemo and although they didn't hide in closets they certainly weren't lining up photo sessions with dark sunglasses and crosses clenched in their teeth.

Did anyone else see that picture and find it odd?

 

[narlacat]

Jubie
I have never seen the picture you are describing.
I remember the pics of her and JonBenet and Burke when she had no hair from the chemo, but I don't remember one with a cross in her teeth.

 

[jubie]

Jubie
I have never seen the picture you are describing.
I remember the pics of her and JonBenet and Burke when she had no hair from the chemo, but I don't remember one with a cross in her teeth.

It was recent, just after she died and there were reports about her death popping up in various news prints....

I wish I had figured out how to keep it and post it here.


She was wearing round wire rimmed sunglasses, headshot up close and she was holding the cross in between her teeth. Her eyes were shadowed by the sunglasses but she was looking into the camera. It was definitely a professional pic, it was NOT a home snapshot type of thing.

I will be trying to find it again and if I do I'll do my best to provide a link. I just assumed it would be everywhere.



Jubie

 

[trixie]

I'm pretty sure that's one that Judith Miller took. I've seen it recently too. I'll look around for it also.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't recall seeing it either.

 

[Bev]

I don't have any sources to quote - my information is the result of years of reading and self-education about this case. If I'm labouring under some wrong assumption or information, I would be happy to read your corrections. I'm quite certain as to my information, or I wouldn't have posted it, but anyone can make mistakes or not remember correctly. I did reread the autopsy the other night, which is how I remembered the mouth as not being damaged. Another strange piece of evidence in the autopsy report was the fact that the tip of her tongue was dry. That would indicate to me that her mouth had been open and her tongue exposed to the air some time before the tape was put on it. The tape would have held the mouth closed and the naturally occurring moisture would have kept the tongue from drying out. Also, there was no marks on the tape that indicate a struggle - from what I've read, there are bite marks, lip impressions,etc, on tape when the victim is conscious and struggling.

 

[Paradox]

If you have done years of reading then you should be able to recall where you read about strangulation of children vs strangulation of adults.

And the coroner concluded strangulation so I guess he didn't do the many years of reading to get his degree and professional status that you did to get your opinion.

Also, it has been a long time conclusion that the placing of the tape was among the last things the perp did.

Also, interruption of blood flow to the brain due to constriction of the carotid arteries can cause unconsciousness.

Also, fright alone can cause unconsciousness.

The initial attack could well have been an unsuccessful attempt at strangulation that resulted, none the less, in unconsciousness without showing the typical damage.

The head blow could then have followed or the placing of the cord around the neck could have been second with the head blow third.

At any rate, the conclusion that the head blow came first from the autopsy report can not be made with certainty.

 

[BBB167893]

"Also, there was no marks on the tape that indicate a struggle - from what I've read, there are bite marks, lip impressions,etc, on tape when the victim is conscious and struggling."

Not only that, it was just a square of tape, not wrapped around the head.

"At any rate, the conclusion that the head blow came first from the autopsy report can not be made with certainty."

Maybe not, but at least two pathologists, Werner Spitz and Tom Henry, agreed that it did.

 

[Bev]

there is no need to get snippy. If you have proof that my information is incorrect, by all means post it.

 

[Britt]

"At any rate, the conclusion that the head blow came first from the autopsy report can not be made with certainty."

Maybe not, but at least two pathologists, Werner Spitz and Tom Henry, agreed that it did.

I find these discussions confusing because, as Spitz said, there were two strangulations, one before and one after the head blow, and the first strangulation (aka choking a/o pressure on the neck a/o vagal nerve response) could've occurred in various ways not necessarily involving the garrote cord.

The strangulation and the head blow both came first.

 

[BBB167893]

I find these discussions confusing because, as Spitz said, there were two strangulations, one before and one after the head blow, and the first strangulation (aka choking a/o pressure on the neck a/o vagal nerve response) could've occurred in various ways not necessarily involving the garrote cord.

The strangulation and the head blow both came first.

I should have been more specific. Spitz said the blow came before the garrote.

"Someone took a great deal of time and trouble to stage strangulation."-Werner Spitz

 

[rashomon]

"Also, there was no marks on the tape that indicate a struggle - from what I've read, there are bite marks, lip impressions,etc, on tape when the victim is conscious and struggling."

Not only that, it was just a square of tape, not wrapped around the head.

"At any rate, the conclusion that the head blow came first from the autopsy report can not be made with certainty."

Maybe not, but at least two pathologists, Werner Spitz and Tom Henry, agreed that it did.

The fact that the duct tape was put on JB's mouth when she was either already dead or almost dead is extremely damaging evidence pointing to a staging. Ramsey advocates have never been able to disprove this, which is why they avoid the issue.

 

[BBB167893]

That's what happens with amateurs!

 

[Solace]

I had forgotten this, and just reread the autopsy report - there was no damage to the tongue, no damage to the frenulum (that bit of tissue that connects the tongue to the bottom of the mouth) the hyoid bone was not damaged, no strap muscles damaged and no internal damage to the larynx, etc. In aphixiation and strangulation cases where the victim is conscious, there is damage to the tongue - the victim bites it, cuts it along the edge of the teeth as it presses down on them and very often the frenulum is cut or torn, cheeks are bitten. The hyoid bone is broken because it is a very delicate bone and as people struggle, arch their necks and pressure is put upon it, it fractures or breaks. There is always damage to other parts of the neck, such as bruising, tearing of muscles, etc. In this case, there was no damage to any of these body parts - no bruising, nothing. There was bruising, there were abrasions, but they were on the outside, not the inside of throat or mouth. Since there were no signs of a struggle then she was probably unconscious.

IMO, this is more consistent with what Dave* suggested earlier and I had remembered from quite some time ago, that someone grabbed the neck of the shirt, twisted it, and at the same time began to shake the little girl. If the little girl had resisted, and arched her head and reared back, she might have hit her head on the edge of the sink counter and become immediately unconscious. In looking at the autopsy pictures, I noticed that there were also at least what appeared to be another furrow mark, wider and not as deep, with a v shaped bruise on the anterior of the neck which looks like knuckles pressed into the skin - there's another furrow closer to the top of the neck also. The ligature made by the white string, (which looks like a tie for sweatpants or a shoe string with the nibs missing) is horizontal, no pulling up or down or to any side that again would indicate a conscious struggle to breathe.

Another odd anomoly is that the long underwear she had on was stained with urine anteriorly. That would mean that if she had had an accident while she had the longjohns on, she would have to have been on her stomach. However, I vaguely remember reading that the longjohns were on backwards, does anyone else remember that? That would of course mean that someone had redressed her, beside the fact that they had wrapped her in a blanket and layed the body on top of a throw in the basement room. I won't get into all the psychological implications of that, but it is very odd.

If someone had come up from behind the kid and hit her little head with a flashlight, why would they need to use a stun gun, (not that they'd need to in any case) and if they strangled her first, why would a head blow be needed?

In my opinion, the reason one person in that relationship kept quiet, is because he/she might have heard an altercation taking place and thought to him/herself "let the other person handle it, I'm too tired to get up" and then felt overcome with guilt that he/she didn't go see what was happening.

*I should let Dave speak for himself, but by posting that, he did remind me, and I didn't want him to think I was ignoring his ideas or thoughts.

I'm also thinking of starting a thread called "the guys I'd like to tro a beatin' to for screwin this up by openin ther traps and bein arrogant *ssh*les"

Wecht, Eller, Arndt, The Denver FBI office, Smit, Darnay Hoffman (a real good beatin to him) Hunter... (just kidding...sort of)

That was an excellent post. Some of the best I have read on the theory of what happened first. I agree with you and thank you for that post. It was excellent.