Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[Let_Forever_Be]

Rather than 'intelligenista' intellectual may have been more appropriate. The references are made since Ockham is an independent source. How about if I simply told you that your theory was far too complex and redundant in parts?


Well Occam would remove the sex-game component since vagal reflex can occur under simpler circumstances. e.g. strangulation by shirt-collar or ligature.


Mr Ockham does not entertain any theory as to how JonBenet died. Only that a simpler theory which explains all the evidence should take priority over a more complex one.

I have had similar discussions before, notably with BlueCrab, and unless you have evidence that there was actually a functioning EA Device employed in JonBenet's homicide, reference to Ockham is shorthand for suggesting the EA theory is a non-runner.



.

Why did the perpetrator hit the girl over the head, as you claim happened first? Why? What motive was there? How did that relate to the objective truth she was being molested at the time of her death? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking genuinely. I mean, the 'sex-game gone wrong' theory absolutely makes sense when viewed in relation to the genital injuries and lack of brain swelling and lack of blood found aswell as the overall sexual nature of the case e.g the chronic genital injuries. That theory does explain, very succinctly, what occured. Whether it's absolutely the truth, I could not say.

She was hit over the head because she screamed? So, we then have to ASSUME that the perpetrator would whack a kid over the head who screamed -- that's if it was actually JonBenet who screamed.That's a big assumption -- much bigger than relating the garrotte (which actually DID EXIST) to the genital molestation (which was proven to exist aswell).

Whilst calling my theory redundant, your theory, as this post and prior ones show, clearly illustrates how YOUR theory requires speculations on things absolutley unprovable.You have to speculate on a motive, speculate that the head-blow came first, speculate as to why an 8 1/2 inch skull fracture only led to mild swelling/little blood, whilst also speculating that the perpetrator was able to quickly think up the asphyxiation plan after he bludgeoned the girl -- so quickly he finished her off before her brain swelled up. Oh, and then went and sourced the rope, paintbrush etc to then additionally fake an EA device.

It's an objective fact that asphyxiation was listed as a cause of death. The coroner could not decide if it occurred before or after the head trauma. However, it occurred when she was technically still alive -- that's why petechial hemorrhages formed. Thus something MUST HAVE caused those similar to a strangling device. Now, you cannot say what. You cannot prove what did that.But you insist that the garrotte actually on her body when found absolutely could not.

But, based on the evidence, it's absolutely necessary to account for JonBenet's neck-trauma and the petechial hemorrhages. Why strangle a kid with something else, remove it and then apply a garrotte made from Ramsey home equipment anyway?

Your insistence that the EA theory "is a non runner" does not make it a non-runner. Merely saying something is wrong does not make it wrong. You have yet to prove YOUR THEORY. You can't say the motive. You have to distort common and expected medical reasoning to explain the mild brain swelling/little blood etc. Your theory requires FAR MORE speculation than Mr Wechts. That's manifestly obvious.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Well Occam would remove the sex-game component since vagal reflex can occur under simpler circumstances. e.g. strangulation by shirt-collar or ligature.

.

Well, that's speculation on your part.Since there's no proof for anything else being used, that's pure speculation. We need to deal in facts.Until you prove those things, you're assuming things.And what can be and what is are two separate issues anyway.

Your theory: at point of perceived death after headblow, perp strangled her with unspecified item whilst still alive and then went and made up fake garrotte as part of staging.> Your theory requires speculation on the motive of the perp, speculation on the strangling item and speculation that the garrotte actually found, was incapable of working(you haven't proven it could not work).Further, it has to be speculated why the perp would strangle the child with one item and then make up a fake garrotte as you say when it's an objective fact she was asphyxiated anyway.(why not leave rope off body to try and not draw attention to body or was it they used the actual garrotte found and removing it could have implicated them via dna and or trying to hide it) Your theory also doesn't prove why the perp would hit a child anyway or prove how the head-wound was linked to another event that night -- the genital abuse which is an objective fact occurred that night.Your theory also has to account for the lack of swelling/blood in brain after a wound which inflicted an 8 1/2 inch skull fracture.(The only way that can be accounted for is if the perp quickly performed the asphyxiation whilst JonBenet was still alive. That requires a reason and understanding of the psychosis of the perp.) With your theory, I feel there is too much assumption. I don't think it stands up to the scrutiny of occoms razor I'm afraid.

My theory: at point of perceived death after EA device pressed on vagal reflex, perp then made singular hit to head to simulate intruder attack.> My theory deals with what is actually known. It agrees that the garrotte was an EA device. It states it caused vagal refex which in turn led to heart stopping which in turn led to lack of blood/swelling in brain i.e by time head-wound was inflicted, the body was almost dead.No items are required to be invented to explain events. Further, this theory is much more in keeping with scientific fact -- it explains WHY there was only mild brain swelling and little blood.It also provides a PROVABLE motive which yours categorically does not. It explains how the sexual abuse factors in and how the chronic abuse relates.Hence, the genital abuse, the dead body, lack of swelling/blood in brain can all be explained by the sex-game gone wrong theory. Saying the garrotte is "too obvious" is not a scientifically valid rebuttal.

Thus, my theory is much less speculative than yours.You claim that my theory is outright redundant and too complex is somewhat contradicted by the fact that yours is not even provable and so not anymore correct.

 

[UKGuy]

Well, that's speculation on your part.Since there's no proof for anything else being used, that's pure speculation. We need to deal in facts.Until you prove those things, you're assuming things.And what can be and what is are two separate issues anyway.

Your theory: at point of perceived death after headblow, perp strangled her with unspecified item whilst still alive and then went and made up fake garrotte.> Your theory requires speculation on the motive of the head-wound, speculation on the strangling item and speculation that the garrotte actually found, was incapable of working. Your theory also doesn't prove why the perp would hit a child anyway or prove the head-wound was linked to another event that night -- the genital abuse which is an objective fact occurred that night.Your theory also has to account for the lack of swelling/blood in brain after a wound which inflicted an 8 1/2 inch skull fracture.

My theory: at point of perceived death after EA device pressed on vagal reflex, perp then made singular hit to head to simulate intruder attack.> My theory deals with what is actually known. It agrees that the garrotte was an EA device. It states it caused vagal refex which in turn led to heart stopping which in turn led to lack of blood/swelling in brain i.e by time head-wound was inflicted, the body was almost dead.No items are required to be invented to explain events. Further, this theory is much more in keeping with scientific fact -- it explains WHY there was only mild brain swelling and little blood.It also provides a PROVABLE motive which yours categorically does not. It explains how the sexual abuse factors in and how the chronic abuse relates.

Thus, my theory is much less speculative than yours.You claim that my theory is outright redundant and too complex is somewhat contradicted by the fact that yours is not even provable and so not anymore correct.

Let_Forever_Be,
Great stuff, you should consider writing a book, just like SuperDave, you certainly have good handle on the rhetoric.

Well, that's speculation on your part.Since there's no proof for anything else being used, that's pure speculation. We need to deal in facts.Until you prove those things, you're assuming things.And what can be and what is are two separate issues anyway.

Sure it is, but its not as complex as yours. I do not need to prove anything at all. EA is your theory not mine, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that a fully functional EA Device was found at the crime-scene.

My theory: at point of perceived death after EA device pressed on vagal reflex, perp then made singular hit to head to simulate intruder attack.>

Why bother whacking JonBenet when it was not apparent until the autopsy, why not twist the garrote handle a little more?

My theory deals with what is actually known. It agrees that the garrotte was an EA device. It states it caused vagal refex

Of course your theory will agree with any of its parts, vagal reflex may have been caused by JonBenet's shirt-collar e.g. the red turtleneck being tightened on her neck, or another ligature. What you describe as an EA Device is staging to mask either a vagal nerve asphyxiation or a manual one.

Thus, my theory is much less speculative than yours.You claim that my theory is outright redundant and too complex is somewhat contradicted by the fact that yours is not even provable and so not anymore correct.

No redundant in parts e.g. the EA Device its not required, never mind patently being staging.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

,

Great stuff, you should consider writing a book, just like SuperDave, you certainly have good handle on the rhetoric.

Rhetoric or just common sense. No need for the snidy remarks either -- I've been very fair in replying to your posts in the spirit on good honest debate. That's what this forum is for afterall -- a place to discuss this case. And Superdave seems like a fine fellow so thank you for comparing me to him.As for the book -- recommend any good publishers?

Sure it is, but its not as complex as yours. I do not need to prove anything at all. EA is your theory not mine, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that a fully functional EA Device was found at the crime-scene.

Em, you stated manifestly the garrotte could not work -- you made that claim.You have yet to prove it. I have asked before today for you to prove it but you haven't.I was genuinely intrigued because obviously that would affect my theory which as you will recall I did not say was a proven fact.

Lol that you don't need to prove anything. Em, what about the motive for the perp to hit the girl. What about how the hed-blow coming first resulted in such little blood/swelling. What about how the genital injured factor in. Those are just some things you could try and prove

Why bother whacking JonBenet when it was not apparent until the autopsy, why not twist the garrote handle a little more?


Of course your theory will agree with any of its parts, vagal reflex may have been caused by JonBenet's shirt-collar e.g. the red turtleneck being tightened on her neck, or another ligature. What you describe as an EA Device is staging to mask either a vagal nerve asphyxiation or a manual one.

Proof for this rather than an affirmative statement for your own subjective view please.A garrotte was found as were petechial hemorrhages -- but your claim that something else was used has never been proven. What's that about occom and keeping it simple again.........

No redundant in parts e.g. the EA Device its not required, never mind patently being staging.

Patently being staged -- how? Becuase it contradicts your UNPROVABLE theory? The lack of blood in brain aswell as brain swelling means the body was nearly dead when the head was struck. Considering the only marks on the body indicating something which could have killed JonBenet relate to the petechial hemorrhages and thus the garrotte (present in crime scene with fibres on it I believe) it's very logical to postulate that a vagal reflex killed JonBenet. That's not idiotic. Mr Wechts is NOT an idiot.The EA device is very much a good theory whether you like it or not.

The only other way to account for such little brain swelling/blood is if the head-blow came first and the asphyxiation came quickly after. But you don't have a motive for the head-blow, can't link it without any speculation whatsoever to the genital trauma, or a a logical way to explain how a perp, on cracking the skull of a child can immediately then stangle her and then as per your theory, make up a fake garrotte as part of staging when they just, um, already strangled her beforehand so didn't really achive anything by putting a fake garrotte on.........

 

[DeeDee249]

Actually, the garrote was described as "not a working garrote" by the investigators in the case. It wasn't something UKGuy just came up with. He is correct, though. No "true" garrote has a knot. A noose has a knot, but this didn't even function as a noose. It was simply tied tightly around her neck and the long end wound around the broken paintbrush handle. Then, that long end was wrapped around her throat a few more times. As I noted, at least one of those ligature marks were white- indicating pressure after death during the period of "blanching" before livor mortis became fixed.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Actually, the garrote was described as "not a working garrote" by the investigators in the case. It wasn't something UKGuy just came up with. He is correct, though. No "true" garrote has a knot. A noose has a knot, but this didn't even function as a noose. It was simply tied tightly around her neck and the long end wound around the broken paintbrush handle. Then, that long end was wrapped around her throat a few more times. As I noted, at least one of those ligature marks were white- indicating pressure after death during the period of "blanching" before livor mortis became fixed.

Thank you very much for the info.

But what I'm getting at is not semantics but if there is verifiable, concrete proof, beyond all doubt, that the ligature found on JonBenet could not asphyxiate. We know for an objective fact that asphyxiation was a cause of death and indeed, JonBenet had a garrotte on here neck. I'm just trying to absolutely know for certain, with proof, if it has been conclusively proven that this garrotte could not work. Not that it had a knot on it etc unlike other garrottes.

Has any such data ever been released?

It seems strange that JonBenet was asphyxiated (fact) but yet, the very thing found on her neck, is somehow not the thing which asphyxiated her thus the perpetrator asphyxiated her with something else, got rid of it and replaced it with Patsy's rope/paintbrush to mimic the strangulation previously done. What would that achieve? She was asphyxiated anyway? It wouldn't hide or remove any evidence since the perp (most likely a family member) was re-applying a new garrotte made from family equipment anyway.

Strange.

I still think it was an erotic asphyxiation device. The fact JonBenet was asphyxiated in some capacity and the sexual genital trauma compel me to see a sexual narrative in this tragic case.Evidence from the autopsy does not support the notion she was strangled twice imo.I simply do not believe it.

Oh, and to clear up any confusion, I do not mean auto erotic asphyxiation as in JonBenet did this to herself. No way.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

This will only gain traction if you believe the garrotte was an EA device and that it preceded the head-wound:

Cyril wecht on erotic asphyxiation in a Daily Times 2000 article :

"Wecht said his experience indicates adults use the asphyxiation to create a "mild convulsion or seizure" in their victims.

"They get a vicarious pleasure" in witnessing what they see as a simulated sexual climax by the child, he said.

"Wecht said it is not unusual for more than one or two people to be involved in such sessions.

"They often do it in groups," he said."

Just some thoughts to add to the discussion and to enquire as to did two parents practice these acts on JonBenet?

 

[SunnieRN]

SunnieRN,
Here is another one:

.

Thank you for posting this!! If you look to the spot where the pink material and white material meet, on the right, it looks like doll hair, or at the wrong angle, a dog face. I can see iton my Mac, but not my dell.

 

[SunnieRN]

I cropped the picture, but can't get it to post for somereason, but I'll keep trying.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,


You really must read it all over again, and try to be objective, dont' look for stuff that confirms your belief.

There is a Barbie Gown. Patsy says so. JR says so.

When Patsy is talking about the face on the nightgown she is evoking her amnesia to avoid explicitly identifying whether the nightgown belongs to the doll or JonBenet.

We have:
1.

Patsy explicitly identifies a barbie doll being present e.g. not a face, not a gown, but a doll

Also:
2.

Tom Haney also explicitly confirms the barbie doll being present, but qualifies this by stating it is only visible from the waist down.


There is a thread for discussing the barbie doll.



.

a barbie doll at the scene or not doesn't contradict any of my theories,this is not the point.I am not interpreting stuff just in order so it fits my theories.as I read it they are talking about the drawing not about a real doll and I haven't seen a source for a real doll being down there yet,so I am not taking it as a fact.
Mr.mouthpiece who leaked info's to the media and who put all that unsourced stuff in his book (and then admitted in his depo that most of it was hearsay) would have definitely said something about a real doll being at the crime scene.
you believe what you want,I will do the same,not gonna argue re this.

 

[madeleine]

Tricia has a source that said there was also a doll in a box in there. There is a thread about it here somewhere as well as photos. The photo is not clear, unfortunately, but it appears to be a 1996 Holiday Barbie in a box. The hair and dress of the doll are in keeping with the Holiday doll that year. In can be seen online if Googled, and I have seen the doll myself in thrift shops, etc. Before Tricia's information, I also did not think there was an actual doll, only the nightie with Barbie printed on it. Tricia said her source is impeccable. I have not seen the doll in the box noted in any evidence lists, though, which it should have been, unless someone here knows where it appears on a list.

thanks for the infos Dee,but "impeccable source" is not good enough for me.not when it comes to this case.I've already read that thread and even said the same things back then when the topic was hot.
Maybe there was a doll,maybe not,I don't know yet,and this issue doesn't change my views,so to me it's not a smoking gun anyway.

 

[BBB167893]

Easy, guys. No need to go two falls out of three.

 

[UKGuy]

I cropped the picture, but can't get it to post for somereason, but I'll keep trying.

SunnieRN,

What I visualise is the head of scots-terrier, the one with the drooping whiskers peering out.

.

 

[UKGuy]

a barbie doll at the scene or not doesn't contradict any of my theories,this is not the point.I am not interpreting stuff just in order so it fits my theories.as I read it they are talking about the drawing not about a real doll and I haven't seen a source for a real doll being down there yet,so I am not taking it as a fact.
Mr.mouthpiece who leaked info's to the media and who put all that unsourced stuff in his book (and then admitted in his depo that most of it was hearsay) would have definitely said something about a real doll being at the crime scene.
you believe what you want,I will do the same,not gonna argue re this.

madeleine,
Tom Haney and Patsy explicity state they can see a barbie doll. Its there so do not cross it off your evidence list yet.



.

 

[UKGuy]

This will only gain traction if you believe the garrotte was an EA device and that it preceded the head-wound:

Cyril wecht on erotic asphyxiation in a Daily Times 2000 article :

"Wecht said his experience indicates adults use the asphyxiation to create a "mild convulsion or seizure" in their victims.

"They get a vicarious pleasure" in witnessing what they see as a simulated sexual climax by the child, he said.

"Wecht said it is not unusual for more than one or two people to be involved in such sessions.

"They often do it in groups," he said."

Just some thoughts to add to the discussion and to enquire as to did two parents practice these acts on JonBenet?

Let_Forever_Be,
In theory it all sounds fine. For a while I was seduced by a BDI that employed an EA Device. Thats is, until I took a closer look at the supposed EA Device, checked the definition of a garrote etc. And realized the ligature and piece of paintbrush could never mechanically function as an EA Device. It would have yanked JonBenet's hair out at her roots, and via pressure on her necklace probably lacerated her neck.

Another mystery is the birefringement material cited in the autopsy and described as a splinter e.g. cellulose by Steve Thomas. So was the missing piece of paintbrush used to assault JonBenet, was it left inside her, and this has been redacted? This additional item does not quite lend itself to an EA Device.

Cyril Wecht has a book to sell, and just like in other areas say religion e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls, there all sorts of bizarre claims about sectarian origins and aims etc. Similary with JonBenet an EA scenario is controversial, so will sell well.

JonBenet was being molested on a regular basis and the people who helped cover all this up know this too!

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,
In theory it all sounds fine. For a while I was seduced by a BDI that employed an EA Device. Thats is, until I took a closer look at the supposed EA Device, checked the definition of a garrote etc. And realized the ligature and piece of paintbrush could never mechanically function as an EA Device. It would have yanked JonBenet's hair out at her roots, and via pressure on her necklace probably lacerated her neck.

Another mystery is the birefringement material cited in the autopsy and described as a splinter e.g. cellulose by Steve Thomas. So was the missing piece of paintbrush used to assault JonBenet, was it left inside her, and this has been redacted? This additional item does not quite lend itself to an EA Device.

Cyril Wecht has a book to sell, and just like in other areas say religion e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls, there all sorts of bizarre claims about sectarian origins and aims etc. Similary with JonBenet an EA scenario is controversial, so will sell well.

JonBenet was being molested on a regular basis and the people who helped cover all this up know this too!

Thanks for the reply.

My issue with the 'head-blow' coming first theory is that we simply have no motive for it. The fact that JonBenet had an 8.5 inch skull fracture on top of her skull testifies to the blow needing to be very severe and directed i.e deliberate.It would be hard for a fall to cause that specific damage on that part of the skull. Not impossible but very unlikely. It was a closed head wound caused by most probably a blunt instrument like the flashlight.Most would agree someone did it to her.

It's often postulated that JonBenet fell and hurt her head but this then doesn't explain why the parent(s) never called an ambulance for help.I think we can state with some certainty that the parents (assuming RDI of course) couldn't call the police due to the seriousness of what happened -- whatever that was. That is, if they did, they would be sent to prison.Thus, they had involvement in her death which implicated them.

We know for a fact that asphyxiation was a cause of death thus it's an objective fact it contributed to the demise of JonBenet.Since we can prove the asphyxiation occured as evidenced by the petechial hemorrhages, is it really 'incorrect' to then state that the actual ligature found around her neck, borrowed into her skin with the tell tale signs of the petechial hemorrhages was a fake? I mean, if that was a fake, it must mean something else strangled her -- that then raises the question of why the perpetrator would strangle her with something else, but then rather than just leaving the neck area alone, replace it with a garrotte made from Ramsey rope/paintbrush etc and have it exactly in place to match correctly the petechial hemorrhages. It seems illogical to me to merely 'redo' the asphyxiation event again because by redoing it, it in no-way disguises the asphyxiation but highlights it. And what's the odds that the perp just so happens to acutely injure the vaginal region where the chronic abuse took place prior when they stage the event? Hmmmm?


The truth is, we don't know the mind of the perpetrator. Thus, we cannot say with total certainty that the neck-rope, actually found at the crime scene, would not work. It was there, burrowed in her skin with the tell-tale petechial hemorrhages. Given we know for a fact that sexual abuse took place that night and beforehand, it makes sense that the garrotte was meant to be an EA device. To what extent it worked is questionable. Maybe due to it being rubbish it never worked but its intention was to be an EA device. Because if it wasn't, then it was a plain strangling device -- but there is no logic to the perp just killing JonBenet and there is no proof to say the garrotte was staging after the head-blow as the head-blow itself has motive.

Further, to belive the head-blow came first theory we have to assume (no proof for it) that something made the perpetrator hit JonBenet over the head.Because if JonBenet had an accident, she would have been taken to hospital. Thus, the head-wound was done by someone else with something to hide.

Take the bed-wetting theory --- JonBenet wakes up after peeing everywhere and Patsy goes off in a rage. Hits her head with the flashlight (why did she have it anyway) and then covers up. So, she then strangles her beloved daughter as she is dying to make it seem like an evil intruder did it. Oh, and then she abuses her genitals to simulate sexual abuse.

But all that still doesn't cover for the fact that chronic abuse was evident which seems to imply JonBenet had been molested before the death at least 48-72 hours prior.

I disagree with that theory.

I think the genital abuse, which predated the death and occurred at time of death (chronic/acute injuries) testifies to a sexual death. I think the garrotte found was an EA device which was never meant to kill JonBenet. She was meant to live. I think the vaginal injuries suffered right before she died were related to the garrotte.I think that the rope pressed on her vagus nerve which then caused her heart to stop -- this explains why when the skull was struck, it lead to little blood/swelling as body was already nearly dead.The head-blow therefore came after the neck-injury and was an attempt to make it look like an intruder whacked her head. This added another element into the narrative other than the blatant sexually abused kid, lying dead. It was imo done for when the police/experts would inevitably analyse the body for clues.Without the head-blow, there was a strangled kid who had been molessted. The head-wound attempted to confuse this narrative imo.

Considering that the skull fracture was 8.5 inches long, almost running entire length of head with a hole in it, I think it's possible her head was hit more than once. But this was done after the neck injury when she was almost dead.

Regarding Wecht, I disagree that he said sensational stuff for the sake of selling books.His theory does make sense. It does tie together every piece of information and does satisfy science.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks for the reply.

My issue with the 'head-blow' coming first theory is that we simply have no motive for it. The fact that JonBenet had an 8.5 inch skull fracture on top of her skull testifies to the blow needing to be very severe and directed i.e deliberate.It would be hard for a fall to cause that specific damage on that part of the skull. Not impossible but very unlikely. It was a closed head wound caused by most probably a blunt instrument like the flashlight.Most would agree someone did it to her.

It's often postulated that JonBenet fell and hurt her head but this then doesn't explain why the parent(s) never called an ambulance for help.I think we can state with some certainty that the parents (assuming RDI of course) couldn't call the police due to the seriousness of what happened -- whatever that was. That is, if they did, they would be sent to prison.Thus, they had involvement in her death which implicated them.

We know for a fact that asphyxiation was a cause of death thus it's an objective fact it contributed to the demise of JonBenet.Since we can prove the asphyxiation occured as evidenced by the petechial hemorrhages, is it really 'incorrect' to then state that the actual ligature found around her neck, borrowed into her skin with the tell tale signs of the petechial hemorrhages was a fake? I mean, if that was a fake, it must mean something else strangled her -- that then raises the question of why the perpetrator would strangle her with something else, but then rather than just leaving the neck area alone, replace it with a garrotte made from Ramsey rope/paintbrush etc and have it exactly in place to match correctly the petechial hemorrhages. It seems illogical to me to merely 'redo' the asphyxiation event again because by redoing it, it in no-way disguises the asphyxiation but highlights it. And what's the odds that the perp just so happens to acutely injure the vaginal region where the chronic abuse took place prior when they stage the event? Hmmmm?


The truth is, we don't know the mind of the perpetrator. Thus, we cannot say with total certainty that the neck-rope, actually found at the crime scene, would not work. It was there, burrowed in her skin with the tell-tale petechial hemorrhages. Given we know for a fact that sexual abuse took place that night and beforehand, it makes sense that the garrotte was meant to be an EA device. To what extent it worked is questionable. Maybe due to it being rubbish it never worked but its intention was to be an EA device. Because if it wasn't, then it was a plain strangling device -- but there is no logic to the perp just killing JonBenet and there is no proof to say the garrotte was staging after the head-blow as the head-blow itself has motive.

Further, to belive the head-blow came first theory we have to assume (no proof for it) that something made the perpetrator hit JonBenet over the head.Because if JonBenet had an accident, she would have been taken to hospital. Thus, the head-wound was done by someone else with something to hide.

Take the bed-wetting theory --- JonBenet wakes up after peeing everywhere and Patsy goes off in a rage. Hits her head with the flashlight (why did she have it anyway) and then covers up. So, she then strangles her beloved daughter as she is dying to make it seem like an evil intruder did it. Oh, and then she abuses her genitals to simulate sexual abuse.

But all that still doesn't cover for the fact that chronic abuse was evident which seems to imply JonBenet had been molested before the death at least 48-72 hours prior.

I disagree with that theory.

I think the genital abuse, which predated the death and occurred at time of death (chronic/acute injuries) testifies to a sexual death. I think the garrotte found was an EA device which was never meant to kill JonBenet. She was meant to live. I think the vaginal injuries suffered right before she died were related to the garrotte.I think that the rope pressed on her vagus nerve which then caused her heart to stop -- this explains why when the skull was struck, it lead to little blood/swelling as body was already nearly dead.The head-blow therefore came after the neck-injury and was an attempt to make it look like an intruder whacked her head. This added another element into the narrative other than the blatant sexually abused kid, lying dead. It was imo done for when the police/experts would inevitably analyse the body for clues.Without the head-blow, there was a strangled kid who had been molessted. The head-wound attempted to confuse this narrative imo.

Considering that the skull fracture was 8.5 inches long, almost running entire length of head with a hole in it, I think it's possible her head was hit more than once. But this was done after the neck injury when she was almost dead.

Regarding Wecht, I disagree that he said sensational stuff for the sake of selling books.His theory does make sense. It does tie together every piece of information and does satisfy science.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

Let_Forever_Be,
JonBenet's head injury might have occurred in the context of some recurring sexual abuse e.g. an unforeseen accident.

The Bedwetting theory has too many holes in it for my liking. Coroner Meyer cites acute molestation prior to JonBenet's death. This seems at variance with a Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory.

Autopsy Report Excerpt

Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.

I reckon on the witness stand, Coroner Meyer might have more to say about that head blow.


An EA theory would be rendered more consistent if it was suggested that the original EA Device was removed to hide this aspect of JonBenet's death e.g. the missing piece of paintbrush, and replaced with what was found, thus helping to stage the crime-scene.

If you inspect the crime-scene pictures you might notice that the ligature as knottted was too close to the neck to be turned, if at all.

.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,
JonBenet's head injury might have occurred in the context of some recurring sexual abuse e.g. an unforeseen accident.

The Bedwetting theory has too many holes in it for my liking. Coroner Meyer cites acute molestation prior to JonBenet's death. This seems at variance with a Steve Thomas' bedwetting theory.

Autopsy Report Excerpt

I reckon on the witness stand, Coroner Meyer might have more to say about that head blow.


An EA theory would be rendered more consistent if it was suggested that the original EA Device was removed to hide this aspect of JonBenet's death e.g. the missing piece of paintbrush, and replaced with what was found, thus helping to stage the crime-scene.

If you inspect the crime-scene pictures you might notice that the ligature as knottted was too close to the neck to be turned, if at all.

.

In general, there are keys elements to this crime:

1. JonBenet died.
2.JonBenet died because of asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.
3. JonBenet suffered chronic and acute molestation to the genital region.
4.JonBenet displayed petechial hemorrhages.
5. JonBenet found with rope round neck.

So, what caused the death of a 6 year old girl whose cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma?

There's one constant throughout the events -- namely, the sexual abuse which preceded the death aswell as happened prior to the death.

UKGuy:JonBenet's head injury might have occurred in the context of some recurring sexual abuse e.g. an unforeseen accident.

That is possible. Some people have postulated that JonBenet was being molested and screamed and then was hit on the head to silence her.That could happen. But there's no proof it did.It is highly speculative. More speculative than saying the EA-garrotte ACTUALLY FOUND on her neck was not real even though it related correctly to the tell-tale signs of asphyxiation i.e petechial hemorrhages.

We have to assume the perpetrator would whack the kid (and was abusing her at the time). That in turn means we have to assume the Perp had at hand an item which could actually cause the skull damage. Since it's highly likely that the flashlight caused the skull damage, is it very likely that a person, on reacting to a child screaming, would then grab the flashlight as an instinctive response in order to 'shut her up'? Not only that, they hit with such precision to crack the skull open creating an 8.5 inch fracture (or did they their original hit only knock her-out and later they hit her again?).It absolutely could happen but I just don't believe it did.

And then the garrotte, as per that theory, would be staging. So, a person unintentionally knocks their child unconscious to the point they think she's dead and then has the gaull to strangle her (when she was still technically alive because of the petechial hemorrhages).

 

[DeeDee249]

Thank you very much for the info.

But what I'm getting at is not semantics but if there is verifiable, concrete proof, beyond all doubt, that the ligature found on JonBenet could not asphyxiate. We know for an objective fact that asphyxiation was a cause of death and indeed, JonBenet had a garrotte on here neck. I'm just trying to absolutely know for certain, with proof, if it has been conclusively proven that this garrotte could not work. Not that it had a knot on it etc unlike other garrottes.

Has any such data ever been released?

It seems strange that JonBenet was asphyxiated (fact) but yet, the very thing found on her neck, is somehow not the thing which asphyxiated her thus the perpetrator asphyxiated her with something else, got rid of it and replaced it with Patsy's rope/paintbrush to mimic the strangulation previously done. What would that achieve? She was asphyxiated anyway? It wouldn't hide or remove any evidence since the perp (most likely a family member) was re-applying a new garrotte made from family equipment anyway.

Strange.

I still think it was an erotic asphyxiation device. The fact JonBenet was asphyxiated in some capacity and the sexual genital trauma compel me to see a sexual narrative in this tragic case.Evidence from the autopsy does not support the notion she was strangled twice imo.I simply do not believe it.

Oh, and to clear up any confusion, I do not mean auto erotic asphyxiation as in JonBenet did this to herself. No way.

No one (including me) is trying to suggest that the ligature around JB's neck wouldn't cause asphyxiation. Of COURSE it could. ANYTHING wrapped around a neck can cause asphyxiation. What I (and a few others) are saying is that the ligature on JB couldn't function as a noose or garrote. As to whether it was an erotic device, no one can EVER know that. You'd have to have been a witness to its use. She was found fully clothed, with any external evidence of sexual abuse wiped away. The "sexual" nature of the crime was covered up. BTW, no intruder would take the time or really care about covering up the sexual assault. A stranger wouldn't even have bothered to pull her pants back up. Leaving her in a sexually provocative or vulnerable position would only add to the "thrill" such a monster enjoys.
Only someone who had previously sexually abused her and needed to hide THAT would have hidden the sexual abuse that happened that night.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

No one (including me) is trying to suggest that the ligature around JB's neck wouldn't cause asphyxiation. Of COURSE it could. ANYTHING wrapped around a neck can cause asphyxiation. What I (and a few others) are saying is that the ligature on JB couldn't function as a noose or garrote. As to whether it was an erotic device, no one can EVER know that. You'd have to have been a witness to its use. She was found fully clothed, with any external evidence of sexual abuse wiped away. The "sexual" nature of the crime was covered up. BTW, no intruder would take the time or really care about covering up the sexual assault. A stranger wouldn't even have bothered to pull her pants back up. Leaving her in a sexually provocative or vulnerable position would only add to the "thrill" such a monster enjoys.
Only someone who had previously sexually abused her and needed to hide THAT would have hidden the sexual abuse that happened that night.

I agree.

Clearly, when that 'something' went wrong, the perpetrator was forced to go to extreme lengths to explain away their actions.