Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[madeleine]

I think the reason for the head wound is simple- she screamed and she was bashed to shut her up- FAST.

this or she needed to be finished off-the game went to far this time,the abuser panicked

the way I understand the evidence,she was alive when assaulted/she bled,she was alive when strangled/the marks are red and her head was bashed while she was unconscious/dying.

someone wanted/needed to put an end to it,maybe even stop HIMSELF?without the object of your admiration,without the temptation I am not a monster anymore,it will go away if she does?

 

[madeleine]

head bash first (accident,rage,sibling who went mad) doesn't explain IMO strangulation and sexual assault.I will never believe that these two were just part of a staging.especially since she was alive when it happened.something more ugly happened there,IMO the only thing that was staged in this crime was the kidnapping,the writing of the RN.this was panic.cleaning,redressing JB as well>getting rid of the evidence of what really happened.

 

[madeleine]

if the sexual assault was pure staging like some believe,why was it UNDONE? (cleaning,whiping off,redressing)
,if it's just staging,the bloodier,the better,no?
doesn't make sense at ALL to me.
it was REAL.

 

[UKGuy]

It has never been established as an absolute fact that the head-wound came first and therefore the EA device (which you say didn't exist) was mere staging. That's your interpretation. I obviously have my own. C'est la vie.The autopsy could not say which preceded the other regarding the strangulation/ head-blow and as such, many pathologists have weighed in, offering their take -- and I'm sure you know that many different opinions have formed thus this certainty you have regarding my view being absolutely wrong is not corroborated by those who share my view.

I would suggest that what you think is staging, namely the garrotte, was not, and was in fact the source of JonBenet's death. The head-blow, which I believe came after the strangulation, has patently worked its magic in your case as to convince you that it was the absolute cause of death and that the EA device was mere staging.

The only way I could see a head-blow preceding the neck trauma and making the facts fits to the best end, was if the head-wound happened and very quickly, the strangulation occured. This would, to an extent, explain the mild swelling of the brain.It would explain the petechial hemorrhages if indeed she was strangled. It also rests on the idea she was still alive when this occurred.But didn't you say that no garrotte was used so how did the petechial hemorrhages form them? Was she strangled with something else in your view?

But I simply do not agree with that theory. I think it's more plausible that when the perpetrator sensed the child was dying/dead (according to their perception) after the sex-game went wrong, they panicked and then hit her over the head to simulate what they thought an evil intruder would do.

Scenario 1: Perpetrator strikes child for whatever reason.Or chold hurts head herself. Head-wound forces JonBenet into a 'dead-like' state. The 'stager' then manages, with the trauma surely going on in their minds, to think up the EA device/rope plan and stage it to make it look like a sexual assault.They manage to do this very quickly -- so much so that they have staged the garrotte before the brain swelled up as would be expected.

Scenario 2 :Or, as per my view, the garrotte was an EA device as per Wechts theory. It was being used for a sexual purpose. JonBenet's molested genitals, which were molested at the time she died approximately) were related to the fact the perpetrator was performing a sex-game on her. Hence the garrotte.Hence the genital trauma.Hence the genital blood and the need to wipe her thighs down. The EA device pressed on her vagal nerve, killing her. Her heart slowed to an almost non-existent beat.The perp tried to resuscitate her.It failed. Then, in a panic but to disguise somewhat the sexual nature of the crime, they whacked her over the head to simulate a nasty intruder attack. Considering that the brain was very mildly swelled (unexpected it she was hit on head first with the force displayed to crack skull) and little blood was uncovered (1 1/2 teaspoons) I postulate that the brain bore the effects of the EA device which killed her primarily and hence stopped the blood flow. The EA device also caused the petechial hemorrhages.The staging came after.

I believe scenario 2 better ties the evidence together far more successfully. It seems more logical that when the perp sense the kid was dead, they mustered up the idea to bang her on head. This seems more congruential with human nature than whacking a kid on the head and then, quickly and before the brain swelled, managing to think up the EA /sexual staging, source all the bits and actively tie the kid up etc.As per Occoms razor (thanks for link btw), surely the simplest explanation is scenario 2 which requires less mental contortions unlike scenario 1 which requires us to account for the small brain swelling, little blood, petechial hemorrhages whilst trying to account for how the perp managed to think up and act out the fake staging so quickly -- so quickly they performed it before the brain swelled up.I think, after the body was seen to be dead/dying, it's far easier for someone to make one blow to the head with say a flashlight, than it is to spend some time, glaring over a dead body, lying sexually molested, and tie up her hands, and put rope round neck etc. I don''t buy that at all.

But that's just my theory. It's not a fact. Bit it's certainly not "put to bed" as you claimed either.

Let_Forever_Be,

But I simply do not agree with that theory. I think it's more plausible that when the perpetrator sensed the child was dying/dead (according to their perception) after the sex-game went wrong, they panicked and then hit her over the head to simulate what they thought an evil intruder would do.

Why would the perpetrator do that? Why not continue asphyxiating JonBenet this was something that could not be hidden from inspection. The head blow, when ever it occurred, was not apparent or visible until the autopsy was undertaken. Why would this perpetrator want to simulate what they thought an evil intruder would do? Does this mean you consider the perpetrator to be a Ramsey family member?


Scenario 1 vs Scenario 2: The amount of rhetoric you have to employ to explain away your theory should be a hint as to what might be the more likely scenario.

Regardless of which interpretation you may wish to place upon the forensic evidence. Most of what accompanies JonBenet to the wine-cellar is simply staging, from her clothes including the pink barbie nightgown, the ligature, the restraints, to the barbie doll. The crime-scene was staged.

One might assume, given your theory, that JonBenet's killer might want to remove any evidence of an EA Device e.g. by taking away the piece of paintbrush handle, leaving the cord behind, thereby suggesting deliberate strangulation?

But that's just my theory. It's not a fact. Bit it's certainly not "put to bed" as you claimed either.

Well until you popped up, it was Sound Asleep. None of the theories articulated here are fact, but some are obviously more probable than others and the EA theory falls into the less probable category.


.

 

[madeleine]

Most of what accompanies JonBenet to the wine-cellar is simply staging, from her clothes including the pink barbie nightgown, the ligature, the restraints, to the barbie doll. The crime-scene was staged.




.

re the barbie doll

I read the transcript over and over and over again.there was no barbie doll.there was just a barbie doll face (design) ON the nightgown (Jonbenet's).

 

[madeleine]

11 PATSY RAMSEY: I'm thinking of a Barbie

12 nightgown that had a big face of Barbie.

13 TRIP DEMUTH: It has a plastic over it, so

14 there is some glare there. You see the plastic.

15 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah; right. What I'm saying,

16 I'm -- I remember a Barbie nightgown with a picture,

17 big picture of the head of Barbie on it. So I am not

18 quite sure this is her -- you know, one that she had.
19 TOM HANEY: Okay. You know, it appears --

20 PATSY RAMSEY: That is a Barbie doll under

21 there.

22 TOM HANEY: It appears from the waist down

23 you can see that much, but from the waist up, because

24 of the plastic, there is a flash and the reflection

25 that is washed out.



it's not a real doll "under there" (evidence plastic bag),it's the Barbie's face on the nightgown (design)

 

[madeleine]

there was NO barbie doll found at the crime scene,there's NO source of that ANYWHERE.who started this rumor anyway,this is how things got messed up in this case so many times.we need FACTS.

 

[SunnieRN]

Agatha or JoeskidBeck, do you still have the devil dog picture? It was good for one thing, as it showed the dolls hair.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,

Why would the perpetrator do that? Why not continue asphyxiating JonBenet this was something that could not be hidden from inspection. The head blow, when ever it occurred, was not apparent or visible until the autopsy was undertaken. Why would this perpetrator want to simulate what they thought an evil intruder would do? Does this mean you consider the perpetrator to be a Ramsey family member?


Scenario 1 vs Scenario 2: The amount of rhetoric you have to employ to explain away your theory should be a hint as to what might be the more likely scenario.

Regardless of which interpretation you may wish to place upon the forensic evidence. Most of what accompanies JonBenet to the wine-cellar is simply staging, from her clothes including the pink barbie nightgown, the ligature, the restraints, to the barbie doll. The crime-scene was staged.

One might assume, given your theory, that JonBenet's killer might want to remove any evidence of an EA Device e.g. by taking away the piece of paintbrush handle, leaving the cord behind, thereby suggesting deliberate strangulation?


Well until you popped up, it was Sound Asleep. None of the theories articulated here are fact, but some are obviously more probable than others and the EA theory falls into the less probable category.


.

The EA theory does not fall into the theory of less probable. That's your opinion. It's an objective fact JonBenet died. It's an objective fact she suffered both acute and chronic sexual abuse. It's an objective fact she had mild brain swelling and little blood after an 8 1/2 inch skull fracture. It's an objective fact the autopsy could not state what came first -- the strangulation or the head-wound. It's an objective fact that JonBenet was found with a garrotte around her neck. It's an objective fact she had petechial hemorrhages -- which only form when a human is alive.

So, with that in mind, how does one come to the conclusion that the EA theory is less probable?The EA theory explains the petechial hemorrhages, the lack of brain swelling, lack of brain blood, gives a first cause of death in the 'what came first" debate and absolutely relates to the genital molestation JonBenet was suffering that night (which the head-wound theory coming first doesn't do nearly as well).

I mean, did the police suffer a mass hallucination when they recorded that JonBenet had a rope around her neck, over her collar? To say there was no EA device is your interpretation of the event. But I disagree. I don't think it was staging. I think that garrotte caused those petechial hemorrhages. Simple as that.

I think the EA theory occurred first. I think it's very simple -- the perpetrator was performing a sex-game with her hence the garrotte. It went wrong -- the rope pressed on the vagus nerve which stopped her heart. The perpetrator had what seemed like a dead child. They tried to resuscitate them. It failed. They then smashed them over the skull to try to simulate what they thought represented the actions of an evil intruder.Hence the staging. Hence the ransom note.

How exactly does the head-bash coming first theory tie in the sexual molestation of the genitals? Did mummy hit her head in a rage after she pee'd the bed? How is that related to the bleeding in JonBenet's vaginal area then?Did those two events occur separately -- are they related? The EA device, sexual by nature, absolutely correlates to JonBenet's genital trauma -- two events both explained and related to each other. But the head-wound coming first theory requires us to speculate as to how it may relate to the genital molestation. How is the EA theory less probable than that?

I personally think your theory is less probable.I think the mild brain swelling and barely 7ccs of blood are evidence that the head-wound came after the EA device and was performed when she was near dead.

And no assumptions are needed -- just deal in the facts. It is said that "the judge knows only what his eyes can see".All this "well, why would the perp leave the garrotte, that's too obvious and must mean the head-blow came first...." is speculation.Too obvious for what exactly? Where do people hide a garrotte during the night when they can't leave the house either due to snow fall and/or the fear of alerting the neighbours? They are forced to try and develop a narrative based on the circumstances they are facing at that moment in time. Leaving it was the best solution -- leave it and place blame on some sex predator. JonBenet was dead. We do know, as a matter of fact, that a garrotte was around JonBenet's neck when she was found.I believe it killed her. I also believe the perp was molesting her -- and it is a fact she was being molested. Thus, no matter what, the obvious sexual abuse could not be undone. It could only be directed and attributed to someone else -- hence the wiping down of the thighs to try and disguise it and the leaving of the garrote. But to make it look like more of an intruder attack, a head-blow was inflicted imo.

 

[UKGuy]

11 PATSY RAMSEY: I'm thinking of a Barbie

12 nightgown that had a big face of Barbie.

13 TRIP DEMUTH: It has a plastic over it, so

14 there is some glare there. You see the plastic.

15 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah; right. What I'm saying,

16 I'm -- I remember a Barbie nightgown with a picture,

17 big picture of the head of Barbie on it. So I am not

18 quite sure this is her -- you know, one that she had.
19 TOM HANEY: Okay. You know, it appears --

20 PATSY RAMSEY: That is a Barbie doll under

21 there.

22 TOM HANEY: It appears from the waist down

23 you can see that much, but from the waist up, because

24 of the plastic, there is a flash and the reflection

25 that is washed out.



it's not a real doll "under there" (evidence plastic bag),it's the Barbie's face on the nightgown (design)

madeleine,

it's not a real doll "under there" (evidence plastic bag),it's the Barbie's face on the nightgown (design)

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.

20 PATSY RAMSEY: That is a Barbie doll under

21 there.

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

Also:
2.

22 TOM HANEY: It appears from the waist down

23 you can see that much, but from the waist up, because

24 of the plastic, there is a flash and the reflection

25 that is washed out.

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.



.

 

[UKGuy]

The EA theory does not fall into the theory of less probable. That's your opinion. It's an objective fact JonBenet died. It's an objective fact she suffered both acute and chronic sexual abuse. It's an objective fact she had mild brain swelling and little blood after an 8 1/2 inch skull fracture. It's an objective fact the autopsy could not state what came first -- the strangulation or the head-wound. It's an objective fact that JonBenet was found with a garrotte around her neck. It's an objective fact she had petechial hemorrhages -- which only form when a human is alive.

So, with that in mind, how does one come to the conclusion that the EA theory is less probable?The EA theory explains the petechial hemorrhages, the lack of brain swelling, lack of brain blood, gives a first cause of death in the 'what came first" debate and absolutely relates to the genital molestation JonBenet was suffering that night (which the head-wound theory coming first doesn't do nearly as well).

I mean, did the police suffer a mass hallucination when they recorded that JonBenet had a rope around her neck, over her collar? To say there was no EA device is your interpretation of the event. But I disagree. I don't think it was staging. I think that garrotte caused those petechial hemorrhages. Simple as that.

I think the EA theory occurred first. I think it's very simple -- the perpetrator was performing a sex-game with her hence the garrotte. It went wrong -- the rope pressed on the vagus nerve which stopped her heart. The perpetrator had what seemed like a dead child. They tried to resuscitate them. It failed. They then smashed them over the skull to try to simulate what they thought represented the actions of an evil intruder.Hence the staging. Hence the ransom note.

How exactly does the head-bash coming first theory tie in the sexual molestation of the genitals? Did mummy hit her head in a rage after she pee'd the bed? How is that related to the bleeding in JonBenet's vaginal area then?Did those two events occur separately -- are they related? The EA device, sexual by nature, absolutely correlates to JonBenet's genital trauma -- two events both explained and related to each other. But the head-wound coming first theory requires us to speculate as to how it may relate to the genital molestation. How is the EA theory less probable than that?

I personally think your theory is less probable.I think the mild brain swelling and barely 7ccs of blood are evidence that the head-wound came after the EA device and was performed when she was near dead.

And no assumptions are needed -- just deal in the facts. It is said that "the judge knows only what his eyes can see".All this "well, why would the perp leave the garrotte, that's too obvious and must mean the head-blow came first...." is speculation.Too obvious for what exactly? Where do people hide a garrotte during the night when they can't leave the house either due to snow fall and/or the fear of alerting the neighbours? They are forced to try and develop a narrative based on the circumstances they are facing at that moment in time. Leaving it was the best solution -- leave it and place blame on some sex predator. JonBenet was dead. We do know, as a matter of fact, that a garrotte was around JonBenet's neck when she was found.I believe it killed her. I also believe the perp was molesting her -- and it is a fact she was being molested. Thus, no matter what, the obvious sexual abuse could not be undone. It could only be directed and attributed to someone else -- hence the wiping down of the thighs to try and disguise it and the leaving of the garrote. But to make it look like more of an intruder attack, a head-blow was inflicted imo.

Let_Forever_Be,

The EA device, sexual by nature, absolutely correlates to JonBenet's genital trauma -- two events both explained and related to each other. But the head-wound coming first theory requires us to speculate as to how it may relate to the genital molestation. How is the EA theory less probable than that?

As Borat might remark: Niice Yees.

Occams Razor should suggest that you are on the wrong path, you are multiplying objects beyond necessity so to justify your theory.

I can explain the asphyxiation without invoking an EA Device. Mr Ockham's principle of parsimony suggests you should start with a minimal theory and move forward from there.

The EA device, sexual by nature, absolutely correlates to JonBenet's genital trauma -- two events both explained and related to each other.

Not really.

Event 1: Asphyxiation
Event 2: Genital Trauma

There is no causal relationship between these two events, both occur independently from each other. So the only correlation is the one that fits with your theory.

How is the EA theory less probable than that?

The EA theory is less probable because in the first place you do not have an EA Device, and secondly because all the other events can be explained using simpler ideas.

That is applying Occam's Razor and some common sense the EA theory is highly improbable, not impossible, otherwise it would not be a runner.


.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,

As Borat might remark: Niice Yees.

Occams Razor should suggest that you are on the wrong path, you are multiplying objects beyond necessity so to justify your theory.

I can explain the asphyxiation without invoking an EA Device. Mr Ockham's principle of parsimony suggests you should start with a minimal theory and move forward from there.


Not really.

Event 1: Asphyxiation
Event 2: Genital Trauma

There is no causal relationship between these two events, both occur independently from each other. So the only correlation is the one that fits with your theory.


The EA theory is less probable because in the first place you do not have an EA Device, and secondly because all the other events can be explained using simpler ideas.

That is applying Occam's Razor and some common sense the EA theory is highly improbable, not impossible, otherwise it would not be a runner.


.

Thanks for the occoms razor references. I'm not sure if you were trying to make a point or to bolster some sense of 'intelligenista' by referencing good ol' occoms razor. But I digress.

I did ask you how a head blow relates to genital molestation better than than an EA device does since you said the EA device is less probable. It's simply absurd imo to say that a head-wound is more probable as the first cause of death and precedes the neck-trauma when it's an objective fact that JonBenet died and was molested before she died. She was also found with a garrotte on her neck and the coroner did state that the neck-trauma was a cause of death. He was unable to say if it came before the head-blow however.

So, how eactly is the EA device less probable?

The bare facts
1.JonBenet died
2. She suffered chronic and acute sexual molestation
3.She had 8 1/2 skull fracture
4. Brain had MILD swelling
5.Only 7ccs of blood recovered from brain (1 1/2 teaspoons).
6.She was found with garrotte on her neck.
7.She had petechial hemorrhages

So,apply your beloved occoms theory then:

A head-blow was inflicted onto JonBenet by unknown person for unknown reason with unknown motive. This blow, powerful enough to cause an 8 1/2 inch fracture, mysteriously caused little brain swelling and little blood. The garrotte found around her neck, although visible to those of us with eyesight (sorry Stevie Wonder) was not actually a garrotte. It was staging. But to cause the petechial hemorrhages JonBenet must have been strangled. And strangled quickly after she was hit on head so as to kill her BEFORE her brain swelled. Oh, and all that somehow relates to the objective fact that she was molested just before she died.

Yep, I don't think you are applying occoms theory are scientifically as you profess UKGuy.

Here's occoms theory applied to my theory (thank you Mr Wecht):

A sex-game was being performed. It went wrong. Rope on her neck caused vagal reflex which caused heart to stop. Once heart stopped, blood flow in body significantly reduced. Perpetrator, who was also molesting her as is recorded as an objective fact, tried to resuscitate her. It failed. They hit her head after the neack-trauma to simulate intruder attack and to try to deflect from their own perversion performed on the girl. The garrotte caused the petechial hemorrhages. And the fact the vagal reflex happened before the head injury explains the little brain swelling and the lack of blood. The motive is already established -- a sex-game gone wrong. The genital molestation testifies to this. So to does the EA device.

Your theory requires mental leaps. We don't have a motive for hitting her head. We have to explain why, in this case, that the brain displayed such uncommon brain swelling and blood volume.Then, to explain the petechial hemorrhages, we have to infer some other thing was used to strangle her, and that the garrote, actually present on her body, was just staging.

I think Wecht's theory satisfies mr Occom's theory better than yours does.And I'll certainly be discounting your claim the garrotte was not an EA device.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

UKGuy said:

Event 1: Asphyxiation
Event 2: Genital Trauma

There is no causal relationship between these two events, both occur independently from each other. So the only correlation is the one that fits with your theory.

To say that there is no causal relationship between asphyxiation and the genital trauma may be true in a very isolated-context.Just like guns a men do not necessarily correlate on their own. But when these things are viewed in light of the evidence, the full picture can be seen.

But considered within the totality of evidence, it's an objective fact JonBenet was molested. Both at the time of her death and prior. That's not even debatable.

When a body is found with a garrotte around the neck, with molested genitals which had immediately bled before/during her death, aswell as petechial hemorrhages near the garrotte on her skin, aswell as a brain with mild swelling, little blood but a MASSIVE 8 1.2 inch fracture, the simplest way to explain this, as per the beloved Occom's theory, is a theory which encompasses all of these findings in the simplest way.A theory which requires the least amount of speculation but nonetheless an objective assessment of the facts.

It's simpler to suggest an EA device (actually found on the body but which you say wasn't really an EA device) caused vagal reflex. This caused heart to slow. This explains little brain swelling and little blood in brain.The EA device also related to the genital molestation in this case and is correlative -- a sex-game goes wrong. We know sexual acts were being done as JonBenet was molested that night.It's not out of the realms of the universe to then link the kinky EA device, found on the body, to the genital molestation. I mean, the EA device wasn't put on the body so that the perp could recite Shakespeare to JonBenet without any disobedience, was it?

But by your logic, you have to explain the asphyxiation via other means i.e it wasn't the garrotte, it was something else unspecified. To explain the lack of brain swelling and blood after an 8 1/2 inch skull fracture, we need to either say that this one instance defied expected medical logic (very rare) or that the asphyxiation occurred relatively quickly after the head-blow so as to prevent the brain from swelling up large. We then need to understand the psychosis of the event -- a perp causes the head-blow for whatever reason and has the gaull and know how to quickly think up the garrotte scenario and act it out. Oh, but the garrotte scenario was just staging. He actually used something else before that to strangle JonBenet as evidenced by the petechial hemorrhages.And she was strangled/asphyxiated. We don't know what was used though. Oh, and although there was genital abuse right before she died, we don't know how that relates to the events without speculation to a far greater extent than is required when applying the 'sex-game gone wrong' theory.

The EA device theory, imo, better explains, and much more simply, the lack of brain swelling, the lack of brain blood, aswell as the petechial hemorrhages. It also relates to the genital molestation. The fact there was chronic abuse means JonBenet was subjected to sexual abuse both chronically and acutely. How is it a leap of the imagination to then say that the EA device (sexual) was related to the genital abuse?

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks for the occoms razor references. I'm not sure if you were trying to make a point or to bolster some sense of 'intelligenista' by referencing good ol' occoms razor. But I digress.

I did ask you how a head blow relates to genital molestation better than than an EA device does since you said the EA device is less probable. It's simply absurd imo to say that a head-wound is more probable as the first cause of death and precedes the neck-trauma when it's an objective fact that JonBenet died and was molested before she died. She was also found with a garrotte on her neck and the coroner did state that the neck-trauma was a cause of death. He was unable to say if it came before the head-blow however.

So, how eactly is the EA device less probable?

The bare facts
1.JonBenet died
2. She suffered chronic and acute sexual molestation
3.She had 8 1/2 skull fracture
4. Brain had MILD swelling
5.Only 7ccs of blood recovered from brain (1 1/2 teaspoons).
6.She was found with garrotte on her neck.
7.She had petechial hemorrhages

So,apply your beloved occoms theory then:

A head-blow was inflicted onto JonBenet by unknown person for unknown reason with unknown motive. This blow, powerful enough to cause an 8 1/2 inch fracture, mysteriously caused little brain swelling and little blood. The garrotte found around her neck, although visible to those of us with eyesight (sorry Stevie Wonder) was not actually a garrotte. It was staging. But to cause the petechial hemorrhages JonBenet must have been strangled. And strangled quickly after she was hit on head so as to kill her BEFORE her brain swelled. Oh, and all that somehow relates to the objective fact that she was molested just before she died.

Yep, I don't think you are applying occoms theory are scientifically as you profess UKGuy.

Here's occoms theory applied to my theory (thank you Mr Wecht):

A sex-game was being performed. It went wrong. Rope on her neck caused vagal reflex which caused heart to stop. Once heart stopped, blood flow in body significantly reduced. Perpetrator, who was also molesting her as is recorded as an objective fact, tried to resuscitate her. It failed. They hit her head after the neack-trauma to simulate intruder attack and to try to deflect from their own perversion performed on the girl. The garrotte caused the petechial hemorrhages. And the fact the vagal reflex happened before the head injury explains the little brain swelling and the lack of blood. The motive is already established -- a sex-game gone wrong. The genital molestation testifies to this. So to does the EA device.

Your theory requires mental leaps. We don't have a motive for hitting her head. We have to explain why, in this case, that the brain displayed such uncommon brain swelling and blood volume.Then, to explain the petechial hemorrhages, we have to infer some other thing was used to strangle her, and that the garrote, actually present on her body, was just staging.

I think Wecht's theory satisfies mr Occom's theory better than yours does.And I'll certainly be discounting your claim the garrotte was not an EA device.

Thanks for the occoms razor references. I'm not sure if you were trying to make a point or to bolster some sense of 'intelligenista' by referencing good ol' occoms razor. But I digress.

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?

Here's occoms theory applied to my theory (thank you Mr Wecht):

A sex-game was being performed. It went wrong. Rope on her neck caused vagal reflex which caused heart to stop. Once heart stopped, blood flow in body significantly reduced. Perpetrator, who was also molesting her as is recorded as an objective fact, tried to resuscitate her. It failed. They hit her head after the neack-trauma to simulate intruder attack and to try to deflect from their own perversion performed on the girl. The garrotte caused the petechial hemorrhages. And the fact the vagal reflex happened before the head injury explains the little brain swelling and the lack of blood. The motive is already established -- a sex-game gone wrong. The genital molestation testifies to this. So to does the EA device.

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

I think Wecht's theory satisfies mr Occom's theory better than yours does.And I'll certainly be discounting your claim the garrotte was not an EA device.

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.



.

 

[DeeDee249]

there was NO barbie doll found at the crime scene,there's NO source of that ANYWHERE.who started this rumor anyway,this is how things got messed up in this case so many times.we need FACTS.

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.

 

[DeeDee249]

Agatha or JoeskidBeck, do you still have the devil dog picture? It was good for one thing, as it showed the dolls hair.

Speaking of Agatha_C- I haven't seen her around for quite a while. Hope she is planning to come back, I valued her comments very much.

 

[UKGuy]

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.

DeeDee249,
What's in this cellar room photo?
[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116359"]What's in this cellar room photo? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

.

 

[SunnieRN]

DeeDee249,
What's in this cellar room photo?
What's in this cellar room photo? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

.

Spot on UK Guy!! There is one other one, that was circulating before. It shows the blanket, on the cement floor and you can see what looks like Barbie hair, or at some resolutions like a dog face(Hence the devil dog comment). Very interesting picture.

 

[DeeDee249]

Spot on UK Guy!! There is one other one, that was circulating before. It shows the blanket, on the cement floor and you can see what looks like Barbie hair, or at some resolutions like a dog face(Hence the devil dog comment). Very interesting picture.

YES, that is the photo I had in mind. Anyone who has seen the doll or a photo of it will recognize it.

 

[UKGuy]

Spot on UK Guy!! There is one other one, that was circulating before. It shows the blanket, on the cement floor and you can see what looks like Barbie hair, or at some resolutions like a dog face(Hence the devil dog comment). Very interesting picture.

SunnieRN,
Here is another one:

.