Foresenic Evidence Discussion

[barbsthoughts]

Please post your thoughts...The whole garrotte thing. I've viewed the photos. If I were an investigator I would ask, "Who would have the knowledge and skill to wrap and tie these knots in this braided fashion?" It couldn't have been someone studying a book on macrame for goodness sakes! This action (of tying the knots---look at the crime scence photos) must have been performed by a person with some of of background that included experience and hands on technique with "knots". Other than tying my shoelaces, I am clueless. Who has this knowledge to (quickley)? construct the knots/braiding of this garrotte?

[Slicky]

Surely Patsy Ramsey had to have some knowledge of garrote knotting what with all of her pageant experience.

:rolleyes:

Good question Barb. Maybe the intruder was a boy scout? An S&M practitioner? A cowboy? A magician?

I wish we knew.

[darjeeling]

Me too but I don't remember any of the experts really focusing on it or discussing it much. It seems the person who tied the complex knot would be someone who pays a lot of attention to detail and knew he had sufficient time.

[tommieb]

We own a boat and one of the first things that you learn is how to tie various knots for different functions.

I have not taken the time to study the knots and compare them to the knots used in boating.

As for the time it takes to tie a complex knot, when my husband and I took the coast guard class I was much better at remembering how to tie the knots, what knot was best for each application, and could tie them very quickly.

Geeze edited for multiple typos.

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by Slicky
Surely Patsy Ramsey had to have some knowledge of garrote knotting what with all of her pageant experience.

:rolleyes:

Good question Barb. Maybe the intruder was a boy scout? An S&M practitioner? A cowboy? A magician?

I wish we knew.

So do I. I think your suggestions are right on. S/M, Boy Scouts, Cowboys, Magicians,---how about someone who does boating/sailing?

[Slicky]

Originally posted by barbsthoughts


So do I. I think your suggestions are right on. S/M, Boy Scouts, Cowboys, Magicians,---how about someone who does boating/sailing?

Tommieb's post above confirms the boating/sailing thing.

Wasn't John Ramsey ex Navy?

Here we go, lol...............

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by darjeeling
Me too but I don't remember any of the experts really focusing on it or discussing it much. It seems the person who tied the complex knot would be someone who pays a lot of attention to detail and knew he had sufficient time.

Why didn't they focus on this? You bring up an important point. Even if the perp paid alot of attention to detail and knew he had sufficient time did he have experience in tying knots? Yes, he did. And who among those under the umbrella of suspision has this knowledge/experience? It can't be gained in one day...

[JorgeElCurioso]

Originally posted by barbsthoughts


Why didn't they focus on this? You bring up an important point. Even if the perp paid alot of attention to detail and knew he had sufficient time did he have experience in tying knots? Yes, he did. And who among those under the umbrella of suspision has this knowledge/experience? It can't be gained in one day... And I think it's more than just the knots. If I understand correctly, a person could learn all the knots in the scouting handbook and still not know how to make a garrote. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've read a few articles on them, and still haven't figured out how they are made or used. I stopped looking when I realized that I don't really want to know.

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by JorgeElCurioso
And I think it's more than just the knots. If I understand correctly, a person could learn all the knots in the scouting handbook and still not know how to make a garrote. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've read a few articles on them, and still haven't figured out how they are made or used. I stopped looking when I realized that I don't really want to know.
Well, knots and garrottes. There is a gruesome history concerning garrottes and how they were used to kill people. That is one of the unique features of this crime. And simply by this unique feature, shouldn't someone emerge in investigation as a "unique perpetrator"? Physical evidence. Keeps me wondering. Personally, I do want to know the truth, however horrible it may be, because the killer(s) must be found. I cannot understand how one can say "I really don't want to know".

[reprise]

Originally posted by JorgeElCurioso
And I think it's more than just the knots. If I understand correctly, a person could learn all the knots in the scouting handbook and still not know how to make a garrote. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've read a few articles on them, and still haven't figured out how they are made or used. I stopped looking when I realized that I don't really want to know.

It's also equally possibly to make a garotte without having any specialist knowledge of knots.

Why the killer chose a garotte instead of manual strangulation or simply strangulation with the materials at hand is a curious question given that the victim was a petite 6 year old and it wouldn't require much strength or pressure to kill her. Did the killer only have one hand available with which to effect strangulation?

[JorgeElCurioso]

Originally posted by barbsthoughts

Well, knots and garrottes. There is a gruesome history concerning garrottes and how they were used to kill people. That is one of the unique features of this crime. And simply by this unique feature, shouldn't someone emerge in investigation as a "unique perpetrator"? Physical evidence. Keeps me wondering. Personally, I do want to know the truth, however horrible it may be, because the killer(s) must be found. I cannot understand how one can say "I really don't want to know". If I thought that my own personal knowledge of garrotte-making could in any way help to reveal the killer, I would re-start my investigations this instant.

I did see a story that talked about use of the garrote through history, in Spain and elsewhere. I don't know if it's the same one you saw. It didn't have any information that would help me to construct a garrotte should I ever need one in a pinch.

[reprise]

I just had another close look at the photos.

It doesn't stand out to me as a "knot" as much as it reminds me of the kind of fastening used in wicker and bamboo craft and furniture making.

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by reprise


It's also equally possibly to make a garotte without having any specialist knowledge of knots.

Why the killer chose a garotte instead of manual strangulation or simply strangulation with the materials at hand is a curious question given that the victim was a petite 6 year old and it wouldn't require much strength or pressure to kill her. Did the killer only have one hand available with which to effect strangulation?

Well look at the garrotte. I don't understand how one can say it's possible to make a garrotte without having knowledge of knots. Does one just wrap and tie at will? If you examine the evidence of the tying and braiding of the garrotte how can you say one can be made "without having any specialist knowledge of knots"? And I'm with you on the possible "one hand available".
But that does not address the knots.

I am not being critical. I am only seeking answers.

[MsMolly]

There is no way PR used that on her child. I just can't believe it.

MOO

[reprise]

Originally posted by barbsthoughts


Well look at the garrotte. I don't understand how one can say it's possible to make a garrotte without having knowledge of knots. Does one just wrap and tie at will? If you examine the evidence of the tying and braiding of the garrotte how can you say one can be made "without having any specialist knowledge of knots"? And I'm with you on the possible "one hand available".
But that does not address the knots.

I am not being critical. I am only seeking answers.

A garotte can be as simple as a scarf twisted with a stick. This particular one was more patiently fashioned, but the intricacy isn't necessary to the function of the device.

I'd agree that it's a learned way of fastening. It reminds me both of some forms of craftwork fastening and some forms of bandaging - where you're relying on the pressure of the wrapping itself to stop the fastening unravelling.

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by JorgeElCurioso
If I thought that my own personal knowledge of garrotte-making could in any way help to reveal the killer, I would re-start my investigations this instant.

I did see a story that talked about use of the garrote through history, in Spain and elsewhere. I don't know if it's the same one you saw. It didn't have any information that would help me to construct a garrotte should I ever need one in a pinch.

I think we saw the same information. This form of execution was unique to the Spanish Inquisition tho it seems the use was more "formalized" with a chair, etc. Still horrible, however you cut it. Anyway, here and now it does seem to be unique, even considering sexual deviants who may utilize this to achieve satisfaction. Who (out of a subset of individuals) would employ this technique---with a broken paintbrush handle and the "knots" to construct the killing implement?

[JorgeElCurioso]

Originally posted by reprise


A garotte can be as simple as a scarf twisted with a stick. This particular one was more patiently fashioned, but the intricacy isn't necessary to the function of the device.
Is a garrotte just a tourniquet fastened around the neck? Would a person with tourniquet-training know how to construct a garrotte like the one used on JonBenet?

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by MsMolly
There is no way PR used that on her child. I just can't believe it.

MOO
I did not mention Patsy Ramsy. Why did you?

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by reprise
I just had another close look at the photos.

It doesn't stand out to me as a "knot" as much as it reminds me of the kind of fastening used in wicker and bamboo craft and furniture making.
Very interesting. I had not considered that. Are there any crafters out there who can speak to this?

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by JorgeElCurioso
Is a garrotte just a tourniquet fastened around the neck? Would a person with tourniquet-training know how to construct a garrotte like the one used on JonBenet?

I'm an RN. I can fashion a tourniquet out of any number of materials. That is not the case here.

[Cotontail]

Originally posted by MsMolly
There is no way PR used that on her child. I just can't believe it.

MOO

I am with you on that! IMO NO WAY!!!

[Cavalier]

Firemen are also knowledgeable with knots.


I think a sexual sadist, pedo, viewer of porn is the knot expert here.

[reprise]

Originally posted by JorgeElCurioso
Is a garrotte just a tourniquet fastened around the neck? Would a person with tourniquet-training know how to construct a garrotte like the one used on JonBenet?

The purpose of garottes is to control the rate of asphyxiation. Tourniquets, you're trying to restrict blood flow very fast and periodically allow increased flow when necessary.

Those photos have been online for so long and been studied so often by amateurs and professionals alike, that I suspect every possible profession or hobby which uses that kind of fastening skill has already been considered. And "skill" was involved. It's way too even for it to have been someone's first attempt at that kind of fastening. Even the number of wraps was probably more habit than anything else.

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by Cotontail


I am with you on that! IMO NO WAY!!!
Who said or posted anything about Patsy Ramsey? Are you people paranoid???

[reprise]

One thing which is intriguing is that the garotte wasn't fashioned elsewhere and brought to the scene.

That seems a little odd for a killer for whom garotting doesn't seem to have been an afterthought. Why risk having to find appropriate materials at the scene?

Sadly, I'd have to agree with the suggestion that the act of garotting JonBenet was more than a means of bringing about her death.

[Cotontail]

Originally posted by barbsthoughts

Who said or posted anything about Patsy Ramsey? Are you people paranoid???

No, just making a comment. Does someone have to refer someone else making a comment in order express their thoughts? I was simply making a comment with the other poster. Your the one that must be paranoid if it bothers you.

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by reprise


The purpose of garottes is to control the rate of asphyxiation. Tourniquets, you're trying to restrict blood flow very fast and periodically allow increased flow when necessary.

Those photos have been online for so long and been studied so often by amateurs and professionals alike, that I suspect every possible profession or hobby which uses that kind of fastening skill has already been considered. And "skill" was involved. It's way too even for it to have been someone's first attempt at that kind of fastening. Even the number of wraps was probably more habit than anything else.

Ahha. You realize the skill involved here. It is not amature.

[Cavalier]

Originally posted by barbsthoughts

Who said or posted anything about Patsy Ramsey? Are you people paranoid??? Cotontail was just agreeing with MsMolly who had simply made a statement that she did not believe that Patsy could use the garrotte on her daughter. Many people think Patsy was involved. MsMolly just exclaimed that Patsy couldn't have used that device. Just Molly's opinion. That's how I took the whole conversation. :shrug:

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by Cotontail


No, just making a comment. Does someone have to refer someone else making a comment in order express their thoughts? I was simply making a comment with the other poster. Your the one that must be paranoid if it bothers you.

This thread is about knots, obviously specific to the crime scene and the garrotte. Do you have something to contribute about about this?

[Cotontail]

Originally posted by barbsthoughts


This thread is about knots, obviously specific to the crime scene and the garrotte. Do you have something to contribute about about this?

oh sorry. Yes I do. I dont think Pasty or anyone in the Ramsey family made the garrotte. Is that more clear for you? Holy cow.

[Cotontail]

Originally posted by Cavalier
Cotontail was just agreeing with MsMolly who had simply made a statement that she did not believe that Patsy could use the garrotte on her daughter. Many people think Patsy was involved. MsMolly just exclaimed that Patsy couldn't have used that device. Just Molly's opinion. That's how I took the whole conversation. :shrug:

and you are correct.

[Cavalier]

Originally posted by barbsthoughts


This thread is about knots, obviously specific to the crime scene and the garrotte. Do you have something to contribute about about this? It's perfectly acceptable when talking about knots to voice the opinion that the mother could not have used those knots on her own daughter. :rolleyes:

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by Cavalier
It's perfectly acceptable when talking about knots to voice the opinion that the mother could not have used those knots on her own daughter. :rolleyes:

Fine. Speaking of which, did Patsy Ramsey have any background or arts and crafts training which would have included the skill of knot tying? Another poster mentioned the fact that the knots were reminiscence of those used in wicker or rattan.

[Cavalier]

Originally posted by barbsthoughts


Fine. Speaking of which, did Patsy Ramsey have any background or arts and crafts training which would have included the skill of knot tying? Another poster mentioned the fact that the knots were reminiscence of those used in wicker or rattan. I don't know. Try Google.

Good night Barb. I'll leave you to your thoughts.........and your knots. :rolleyes:

[barbsthoughts]

Originally posted by Cavalier
I don't know. Try Google.

Good night Barb. I'll leave you to your thoughts.........and your knots. :rolleyes:

Sleep on it buddy. See ya.

[Smooka]

What's about the fingerprint on the garotte??? Didn't the police or Investigator tested that out?

duh........:rolleyes:

[JorgeElCurioso]

Originally posted by reprise
The purpose of garottes is to control the rate of asphyxiation. Tourniquets, you're trying to restrict blood flow very fast and periodically allow increased flow when necessary.

Those photos have been online for so long and been studied so often by amateurs and professionals alike, that I suspect every possible profession or hobby which uses that kind of fastening skill has already been considered. And "skill" was involved. It's way too even for it to have been someone's first attempt at that kind of fastening. Even the number of wraps was probably more habit than anything else. But a basic tourniquet could be used to choke somebody; and if it was used that way, it would effectively become a garrotte, right? Was the garrotte used on Jonbenet:
1) Like a simple tourniquet, but with fancier knots; or
2) More than just a simple tourniquet?

If 1) is the case, then there are thousands of people who could have made it. If 2) is the case, then there are probably very few people who could have made it, no matter how great their skill with knots. In other words, showing that somebody could make a knot like the one on the garrotte would not be nearly enough cast suspicion on them. I think you are saying that the second option is correct, right?

[LI_Mom]

Originally posted by knockkneedchick


Personally, I would want to know everything. Even though it would be hard to read about how my own little girl was killed, I still would want to know details in case there might be something that might lead me to remember something or someone.


Beats me!:shrug:

So would most people. If the parents don't have the info, how would they ever know for sure what they might have failed to tell the police to check?

But then most people would also read the entire ransom note before they stopped to call their friends.


To me, it seems more reasonable that the Ramseys were lying in that interview rather than they never even wanted to know what was going on in the case.

[joanw_123]

Originally posted by reprise


The purpose of garottes is to control the rate of asphyxiation. Tourniquets, you're trying to restrict blood flow very fast and periodically allow increased flow when necessary.

Those photos have been online for so long and been studied so often by amateurs and professionals alike, that I suspect every possible profession or hobby which uses that kind of fastening skill has already been considered. And "skill" was involved. It's way too even for it to have been someone's first attempt at that kind of fastening. Even the number of wraps was probably more habit than anything else.


I agree with you about it controlling the rate of asphyxiation....and there is a fetish about controlling the rate of oxygen intake...... intensifying a climax.

Perhaps when JMK stated "it was an accident"..... just perhaps in his mind.....he was performing this particular fetish....and she died accidently. This might have angered him....sent him into a rage....and he clubbed her............???

Just a thought.

I find the best lies are those mixed with a little truth.

[reprise]

Originally posted by joanw_123 I agree with you about it controlling the rate of asphyxiation....and there is a fetish about controlling the rate of oxygen intake...... intensifying a climax.

In that particular situation, the purpose is to intensify the climax of the person who is being deprived of oxygen.

Horrible as it sounds, a part of me would rather think this crime was committed by a sadist who gets pleasure (sexual or otherwise) from watching someone asphyxiate than believe that someone was trying to give JonBenet an enhanced sexual experience.

Every time I think about the blow to the head, I come up with a different possible explanation for why the killer struck someone who was already near death on the head. Anger? A "quick" dispatch when he realised that her death was inevitable? A second person wanting to end the whole thing and get out of the house?

Unfortunately, I think the blow to the head will make some kind of twisted sense once we hear the story of the person who killed her (if we ever hear that story).

[tommieb]

There is some speculation that she was strangled twice. Once with something thick like a scarf or towel due to a large discolored spot below the line of the garrote marks. The mark has been mentioned as a possible mark where a large knot was or that a thicker object like a scarf or towel would have caused the skin to bunch up under it and cause this mark. The second time with the garrote.

Then I was researching around the net and found some information about the items that were put in the coffin with JB. Each family member brought something to place with her, a tiara from a pagent, a bracelet, a cross, a stuffed animal. The one that I thought was unusual was a silk scarf placed with her by John Ramsey. Each item seems to be something that had meaning either to the person giving it or to JB, but the scarf seemed out of place. Why would a silk scarf have any meaning to either JBR or JR?

It is probably nothing that has not already been looked at before but I thought it strange that I read about the odd discolored area on her neck, then read about a silk scarf being placed with her for burial.

[emmeblu]

What strikes me odd is the killer did not seem to be in any hurry. First they had to get in the house, then get to JBR's room, then get her out of the room, somehow get her to the basement and then start looking for stuff to kill her with. Just odd.

The knot looks over and under to me as well. Still if it was not planned in advance the killer had to find the twine, paint brush handle, etc. Just seems like who ever killed JonBenet was not in a hurry. Writing the note, re-writing the note.
Just odd.
JMO

[emmeblu]

Originally posted by swc



I really have never thought that there was an intruder.


The garrote I also think could have been previously assembled.

I really believe the murder of JBR was an accident.

If an intruder, they obviously intended to take her since they wrote the ransom note. The killer got carried away but not an intentional killing.

If someone from inside the family, anger over something and then felt the need to cover up the crime.

[luvchiclets]

Originally posted by skye


Wouldnt you agree tho, that the patience needed to fashion this particular device with intricate knots would be a serious indication of the mindfulness and deliberateness that the intruder used in the strangulation of a small young girl? It wasnt the end *death* of Jonbenet that he cared most about, it was the ACT - planning and execution, a murder that the killer would be able to relive/fantasize about...
his victory ... My humble opinion

Precisely. Excellent point.

This is one of the reasons that I am troubled that Patsy and John are under such suspicion and scrutiny even after all these years.

The autopsy photos convince me that the parents could not be involved. The photos among many other things convice me beyond a reasonable doubt.

I still think it was an intruder. An intruder who knew the family's habits. A bold intruder for sure....lots of time to write the note etc... but he KNEW their schedule. Plenty of time to hide, plan etc... mindful and deliberate. He especially knew their holiday "goings on". His timing was crucial.

I believe that a very controlling and depraved individual committed this crime. Just plain vicious.

To this day I have not seen one iota of evidence that either parent had/have any of these characteristics.

It is my understand that a garrotte can be used as a sort of torture. In that, the victim is allowed to breath at the perps. choosing, which indicates CONTROL!!! I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this crime was ALL about power and control.

Just like rape. A violent crime, not a sex crime.


Thanks for bringing up the points you made in your post.

IMO.

[tommieb]

Originally posted by swc
I grew up with family camping and my parents always had a boat so I learned early on how to tie various knots,

It is like riding a bicycle, you do not forget.

The garrote does not look that intricate IMO. It looks like a simple over and under and easily done.

Granted my skills may not be that good at describing tying knots as I never have but I do remember the "double half hitch" and the "bowen"

It looks like the cleat hitch from this page
http://www.netknots.com/html/boating_knots.html#


JR was seen boating a lot and did this often so I do not find it difficult that he would know how to tie a garrote

I was thinking possibly a cleat hitch finished off with a mooring hitch. Maybe?

I just read an interesting article by a guy that is a knot expert in Canada law enforcement who analyze the knot from the pictures provided (it would be more useful if a knot expert could actually see all sides of the knot and maybe even untie it) but he says the knot is not intricate or professional at all, but is definitely the work of an amateur and that the garrote was most probably tied in the act (not brought with them and tied prior to the act) by placing the cord around the neck first then tying the knots.

The next thing that I find interesting is that JR was not only in the navy but also sailed (I found some mention of him in association with a sail boat called the "Miss America"), but when asked if he has any knowledge of tying knots he says that he does not. How the heck can you be in the navy and sail and not know how to tie at least the very basic knots which would be a cleat hitch for tying up the boat to the dock and a slip knot for quickly releasing a line when needed. Even if he was in a position in the navy where he would not have occassion to use knots, I would think that this would be a part of his basic training.

JMO, as always, of course.

[merical]

Originally posted by tommieb


I was thinking possibly a cleat hitch finished off with a mooring hitch. Maybe?

I just read an interesting article by a guy that is a knot expert in Canada law enforcement who analyze the knot from the pictures provided (it would be more useful if a knot expert could actually see all sides of the knot and maybe even untie it) but he says the knot is not intricate or professional at all, but is definitely the work of an amateur and that the garrote was most probably tied in the act (not brought with them and tied prior to the act) by placing the cord around the neck first then tying the knots.

The next thing that I find interesting is that JR was not only in the navy but also sailed (I found some mention of him in association with a sail boat called the "Miss America"), but when asked if he has any knowledge of tying knots he says that he does not. How the heck can you be in the navy and sail and not know how to tie at least the very basic knots which would be a cleat hitch for tying up the boat to the dock and a slip knot for quickly releasing a line when needed. Even if he was in a position in the navy where he would not have occassion to use knots, I would think that this would be a part of his basic training.

JMO, as always, of course.

My hubby was in the navy for years, he flew planes, was at one time into boating and all sorts of sports, he was a horseman, and a boyscout, but frankly, I don't think he could tell you a slipknot from a tangle in shoestring and he's an extremely intelligent guy. I think you learn how to tie knots you need for certain things but to use them elsewhere or identify them specifically might be more difficult. I mean, it probably adds to John Ramsey's credibility that he didn't even put two and two together when asked about the knots.

[ILOVEColumbo]

Originally posted by luvchiclets


Precisely. Excellent point.

This is one of the reasons that I am troubled that Patsy and John are under such suspicion and scrutiny even after all these years.

The autopsy photos convince me that the parents could not be involved. The photos among many other things convice me beyond a reasonable doubt.

I still think it was an intruder. An intruder who knew the family's habits. A bold intruder for sure....lots of time to write the note etc... but he KNEW their schedule. Plenty of time to hide, plan etc... mindful and deliberate. He especially knew their holiday "goings on". His timing was crucial.

I believe that a very controlling and depraved individual committed this crime. Just plain vicious.

To this day I have not seen one iota of evidence that either parent had/have any of these characteristics.

It is my understand that a garrotte can be used as a sort of torture. In that, the victim is allowed to breath at the perps. choosing, which indicates CONTROL!!! I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this crime was ALL about power and control.

Just like rape. A violent crime, not a sex crime.


Thanks for bringing up the points you made in your post.

IMO.

I think you made a lot of good points. I hope that, if nothing else, we've seen from the arrest of JMK what kind of person committed this crime. Some of us have lived a life far removed from the one that JMK lived--a life I think the perp lived as well.

Whoever killed JMK was a pedophile & into S&M. I don't think it's a random sailor or craft person but someone into S&M who learned how to tie the knot because they were into it. Not a sailor who just happened to come up with an idea of a garrotte at the last minute.

This case is definately out of the norm. All those statistics mean nothing because we happen to live amongst human abberrations. Most perps would have bragged to someone by now, or tried to ease their conscience by confessing or committed the same crime again. If the perp is still alive, he has garrotted and physically assaulted another victim. Someone like that doesn't just commit this sort of crime and then goes back to doing taxes and bowling for a hobby. JMO

[happyhippo]

I don't want to sound stupid, but please tell me what a garrotte is. The most I know is it was used to strangle her:shrug:

[Dingy B Good]

Originally posted by happyhippo
I don't want to sound stupid, but please tell me what a garrotte is. The most I know is it was used to strangle her:shrug:

a striing, rope or wire etc with a handle tied at each end used for stangulation. In this case it was rope and Patsy's paintbrush used as a garotte. Hope that helps.

:seeya:

[ssbailey02]

Originally posted by skye


Wouldnt you agree tho, that the patience needed to fashion this particular device with intricate knots would be a serious indication of the mindfulness and deliberateness that the intruder used in the strangulation of a small young girl? It wasnt the end *death* of Jonbenet that he cared most about, it was the ACT - planning and execution, a murder that the killer would be able to relive/fantasize about...
his victory ... My humble opinion

I absolutely agree with you...on face value.
However, I can't help but think as detailed as part of this crime was - is as unorganised and thoughtless as it was.

If we are to assume (and of course EVERYTHING is an assumption here) the perp intended on kidnapping and perhaps strangling in a sexually deviant manner he/they certainly didn't pre-plan the ransom note in advance or the method of strangulation.

Theoretically, he/they weren't really to know how long the Ramsey's would be out for (Unless he/they KNEW them closely) and yet he/they turned up empty handed, if not perhaps for the duct tape and rope.

The ransom note in the very least (one would assume) would've been brought along pre-written on perps own paper with perps own pen so as to leave less evidence, rather than locating a pad and pen on the premises and writing an awfully long note.
Then made a garotte using objects found on the premises, that just happened to be handy to where he entered the property and killed his victim. This clearly has no forethought. It is almost like it was a spur of the moment thing. The whole thing!

As always JMO :confused:

[alexandrahe]

This case is definately out of the norm. All those statistics mean nothing because we happen to live amongst human abberrations. Most perps would have bragged to someone by now, or tried to ease their conscience by confessing or committed the same crime again. If the perp is still alive, he has garrotted and physically assaulted another victim. Someone like that doesn't just commit this sort of crime and then goes back to doing taxes and bowling for a hobby. JMO [/B][/QUOTE]


I agree also. I still believe it was an intruder who had an intimate knowledge of the Ramseys and their movements. I dont'think there was ever any intention to kidnap. However, I think the amount on the 'ransom' note was a deliberate attempt to implicate the Ramseys. How did the intruder know they were going to return that night and stay overnight? Why place the note on the bottom of the stairs and state a time for contact from the 'kidnappers' betwen 8am and 10am? To do that, the intruder must have been sure that the note would be found by the Ramseys by then. So, it sounds like someone who knew the family would be up early to travel. I also think that this person has committed other crimes of a similar nature. The question is now, where to from here? Do the police have any other suspects?

[Devotion]

Originally posted by Slicky
Surely Patsy Ramsey had to have some knowledge of garrote knotting what with all of her pageant experience.

:rolleyes:

Good question Barb. Maybe the intruder was a boy scout? An S&M practitioner? A cowboy? A magician?

I wish we knew.
:read: imo: I suspect experience around boats...My reason for guessing this is:
The cord looked exactly like the cord that came on my daughters swim float/raft..I purchased it at the Dollar store, and the cord to pull the float was the same as pictured on the garrotte'....
Was the source or manufacturer of this cord ever traced??
The tying and cord of the garrotte' is a very good clue to the murderer...jmo

[tommieb]

Originally posted by merical


My hubby was in the navy for years, he flew planes, was at one time into boating and all sorts of sports, he was a horseman, and a boyscout, but frankly, I don't think he could tell you a slipknot from a tangle in shoestring and he's an extremely intelligent guy. I think you learn how to tie knots you need for certain things but to use them elsewhere or identify them specifically might be more difficult. I mean, it probably adds to John Ramsey's credibility that he didn't even put two and two together when asked about the knots.

I agree that you remember the knots that you use all the time. When on the boat, a cleat hitch is one of those knots that you would have to know and remember. Not that you can't tie up a boat to the dock with another knot, but if you use the correct one it is a lot easier to untie it when you get ready to shove off.

The funny thing is that I could not have told you the name of the knot used to tie the boat off. It just never comes up in conversation but I know how to tie it when I need to.

I don't know if it adds to his credibility though that he did sail and had no knowledge of knots. Everyone uses knots everyday and if you boat it is a necessity, so to say you have no knowledge is suspect to me.

When someone goes out with us, before we leave the dock, I instruct them where the first aid kit is, where the life jackets are, and other safety instructions. I also show them how to drop anchor and tie it off and how to tie off the boat if needed. They may not know the name but they better know how to tie it because in an emergency everyone must be able to assist.

[ILOVEColumbo]

Originally posted by swc
Continuing from last night.

<snip> As for re-living the crime

I do not accept this as I do not find the crime was that spectacular of a crime to re-live. Re-living crimes also consist of taking a trophy, which was not done in this case. This looks like a hap hazard killing, not any planning, this does not at all look like a crime committed by a pedophile, and I have seen several crimes committed by pedophiles. Yes pedophiles will come into a home and TAKE a child elsewhere, not once do I recall a pedophile who stayed in the home and took a chance being caught while carrying out those acts.

I don't know how you know whether or not he took a trophy? Not a lock of hair? A barrette?

How could someone who is not a pedophile penatrate a 7 yr old? Also, the killer's DNA was mixed with JB's blood on her panties. JMK said he performed oral sex on JBR when she was bleeding. The killers DNA was mixed with JBR's blood so that made sense to LE. So, without JMK, who's DNA do they have? How did it get mixed with JBR's blood? The DNA is strong enough evidence that they threw JMK away when his didn't match.

Who could have possibly committed this crime except a pedophile? And how do you know this was not a "spectacular" crime for someone to relive? JMK got off on reliving this crime he didn't commit. He got off on reliving the Polly Klaas murder. How do you know some pedophile isn't getting off just reading this?
(yuck)

It seems that you're convinced the Ramsey's did it. So is my mother. But she didn't know that they found a foreign hair on the blanket or unknown DNA under JBR's nails and on her panties. Nor did she know that the garrotting came before the blow to the head. There was a lot we didn't know when Steve Thomas wrote his book, but now we do. What do we do with all this physical evidence? This evidence is exculpatory to the Ramseys and must be dealt with. The Grand Jury threw the case out against the Ramsey's. Who else is left, if not an intruder? JMO

[Cotontail]

Originally posted by swc
Continuing from last night.

The knot

<snipped>.

As for re-living the crime

I do not accept this as I do not find the crime was that spectacular of a crime to re-live. Re-living crimes also consist of taking a trophy, which was not done in this case. This looks like a hap hazard killing, not any planning, this does not at all look like a crime committed by a pedophile, and I have seen several crimes committed by pedophiles. Yes pedophiles will come into a home and TAKE a child elsewhere, not once do I recall a pedophile who stayed in the home and took a chance being caught while carrying out those acts.

SImply not always true. I was sexually molested by a family friend for 6 years....with my parents in the other room.

My 4 year old daughter was molested by my stepfather with me in the SAME room. I caught him and he was arrested. So they do molest all the time in the same house.

[ILOVEColumbo]

Originally posted by Cotontail


SImply not always true. I was sexually molested by a family friend for 6 years....with my parents in the other room.

My 4 year old daughter was molested by my stepfather with me in the SAME room. I caught him and he was arrested. So they do molest all the time in the same house.

I'm so sorry to hear that, Cotontail :( Glad that you were there for your daughter.

[watson]

Hi everyone,
I first posted on this knot thing back on c. 7-29, as new board member but lost the post. Reviewing the crime scene photos of the knots is really what got me started posting again on this case. They are all uniform, all made the same, unusual, not before mentioned by anyone. I think you guys in this thread are closer to discussing some new and important evidence that may lead to something new in this investigation than anything else I've read in any other thread I've seen.
About the knots, there's something most are missing.....they are 'slip knots' at least from the photos. Moveable knots that tie themselves off, and can be easily undone. All though they are definitely not nautical knots which are way more complex, they are the kind of knots a recreational boater, especially a sailboater might make. Other people who might make such knots, cowboys for the contracting loop at the end of their lasso's, hunters in making animal snares to catch the leg of a small animal, and perhaps knitters or weavers although I know nothing of knitting and weaving knots.
It's important to realize that the slip knot idea explains why the 'garotte' in this case has only one handle with only 1 end of he cord connected to it (which means it could never function as a proper garotte). It only needs 1 'handle' because that is the only end of the string that needs to be pulled to pull the string through the slip knot at the back of JB's neck, thereby tightening the loop on the other side of the knot uniformally all around her neck, making the completely circular ligature mark both back and front on the victims neck.
If true, and it sure appears to be then JB wasn't really 'garotted' but slip knotted to death by a slipped down loop or noose, by somone who planned just that and makes these wrapped and looped knots.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by reprise


It's also equally possibly to make a garotte without having any specialist knowledge of knots.

Why the killer chose a garotte instead of manual strangulation or simply strangulation with the materials at hand is a curious question given that the victim was a petite 6 year old and it wouldn't require much strength or pressure to kill her. Did the killer only have one hand available with which to effect strangulation?
:shrug: IMO: Very Good Question..I would assume you are right on all points..jmo

[Devotion]

Originally posted by ILOVEColumbo


I'm so sorry to hear that, Cotontail :( Glad that you were there for your daughter.
:shrug: IMO: I'm sorry for what happened to you and you are correct. It does happen while others are around.
I know of a sunday school teacher/ choir director that molested his grandchildren (ages 3&4) while claiming to be praying with them at bedtime...jmo

[Devotion]

Originally posted by swc
I grew up with family camping and my parents always had a boat so I learned early on how to tie various knots,

It is like riding a bicycle, you do not forget.

The garrote does not look that intricate IMO. It looks like a simple over and under and easily done.

Granted my skills may not be that good at describing tying knots as I never have but I do remember the "double half hitch" and the "bowen"

It looks like the cleat hitch from this page
http://www.netknots.com/html/boating_knots.html#


JR was seen boating a lot and did this often so I do not find it difficult that he would know how to tie a garrote
:read:jmo: Thanks for the information.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by emmeblu
What strikes me odd is the killer did not seem to be in any hurry. First they had to get in the house, then get to JBR's room, then get her out of the room, somehow get her to the basement and then start looking for stuff to kill her with. Just odd.

The knot looks over and under to me as well. Still if it was not planned in advance the killer had to find the twine, paint brush handle, etc. Just seems like who ever killed JonBenet was not in a hurry. Writing the note, re-writing the note.
Just odd.
JMO
:shrug: IMO: Maybe not so odd if you consider 2 people were involved, one killer, one writer..
Could this have happened to JonB before , possibly a scarf used and continued to progress?? Could it have started long before when she started having to see the doctor 30 times for the same vaginal problem???jmo

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by watson
Hi everyone,
I first posted on this knot thing back on c. 7-29, as new board member but lost the post. Reviewing the crime scene photos of the knots is really what got me started posting again on this case. They are all uniform, all made the same, unusual, not before mentioned by anyone. I think you guys in this thread are closer to discussing some new and important evidence that may lead to something new in this investigation than anything else I've read in any other thread I've seen.
About the knots, there's something most are missing.....they are 'slip knots' at least from the photos. Moveable knots that tie themselves off, and can be easily undone. All though they are definitely not nautical knots which are way more complex, they are the kind of knots a recreational boater, especially a sailboater might make. Other people who might make such knots, cowboys for the contracting loop at the end of their lasso's, hunters in making animal snares to catch the leg of a small animal, and perhaps knitters or weavers although I know nothing of knitting and weaving knots.
It's important to realize that the slip knot idea explains why the 'garotte' in this case has only one handle with only 1 end of he cord connected to it (which means it could never function as a proper garotte). It only needs 1 'handle' because that is the only end of the string that needs to be pulled to pull the string through the slip knot at the back of JB's neck, thereby tightening the loop on the other side of the knot uniformally all around her neck, making the completely circular ligature mark both back and front on the victims neck.
If true, and it sure appears to be then JB wasn't really 'garotted' but slip knotted to death by a slipped down loop or noose, by somone who planned just that and makes these wrapped and looped knots.

This is such a good post and I believe you are right. The knots tell a story. IMO

Sly

[QuiteContrary]

Child molesters progress into their obsession. Their obsession is fed by pornography and their own thoughts. Now, if child sexual abuse is so taboo naturally you have to hide your proclivities. So you probably have to spend alot of time alone. You seek greater thrills. You check out porn etc and like-minded folks. Yoou start walking the walk and talking the talk. What JMK said in his e-mails is very telling. Obviously his thoughts have progressed beyond thinking 'oh that little girl is so cute' He is totally immersed in OWNING them. Fantasies abound in the mind of a pred. ANd pornography is full of ideas and depictions of how to 'own' your prey. You have to control them. Bondage and Discipline porn would be an excellent way to learn how to control the situation. IMO, I think LE must develop task forces to go undercover and infiltrate suspected child pornographers etc. There has to be a better way to approach this. I don't know-I am no expert but you really have to think like a criminal to catch one.

[tommieb]

Originally posted by watson
Hi everyone,
I first posted on this knot thing back on c. 7-29, as new board member but lost the post. Reviewing the crime scene photos of the knots is really what got me started posting again on this case. They are all uniform, all made the same, unusual, not before mentioned by anyone. I think you guys in this thread are closer to discussing some new and important evidence that may lead to something new in this investigation than anything else I've read in any other thread I've seen.
About the knots, there's something most are missing.....they are 'slip knots' at least from the photos. Moveable knots that tie themselves off, and can be easily undone. All though they are definitely not nautical knots which are way more complex, they are the kind of knots a recreational boater, especially a sailboater might make. Other people who might make such knots, cowboys for the contracting loop at the end of their lasso's, hunters in making animal snares to catch the leg of a small animal, and perhaps knitters or weavers although I know nothing of knitting and weaving knots.
It's important to realize that the slip knot idea explains why the 'garotte' in this case has only one handle with only 1 end of he cord connected to it (which means it could never function as a proper garotte). It only needs 1 'handle' because that is the only end of the string that needs to be pulled to pull the string through the slip knot at the back of JB's neck, thereby tightening the loop on the other side of the knot uniformally all around her neck, making the completely circular ligature mark both back and front on the victims neck.
If true, and it sure appears to be then JB wasn't really 'garotted' but slip knotted to death by a slipped down loop or noose, by somone who planned just that and makes these wrapped and looped knots.


Very interesting post which made me think and actually visualize the way the garrote would have been used.

Maybe I am seeing this all wrong so please correct me if I am wrong. It sounds like you are saying that the piece of paint brush was used as a handle to actually pull the rope tight. So what I am coming up with is a slipknot is created with the garrote attached to the end that slips. The loop created by the slipknot is then placed over her head and standing behind her you would tighten the loop down until it fit snuggly to keep it from pulling up so that the furrow created is almost straight across rather than slanted. The handle is pulled tighter and tighter until death occurs. If the rope was long enough it might even be necessary to place your knee or foot in her back or on her head.

The only problem that I have with this is that there was hair caught in the knots on the garrote which would have to mean it was close to her head and the knots of the garrote would have had to be added to to actually tie her hair into it the way it looks like it has been.

Her hair in the knots on the handle would make it more likely that the knots were tied/added while the rope was already around her neck.

Also did they not find the rope actually looped around her neck twice? Now that might have put the knots closer to her head but that still doesn't explain how the hair got tied into the knots.

[MaryD]

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: IMO: Maybe not so odd if you consider 2 people were involved, one killer, one writer..
Could this have happened to JonB before , possibly a scarf used and continued to progress?? Could it have started long before when she started having to see the doctor 30 times for the same vaginal problem???jmo

I was looking at the crime scene photo of JB's room. I don't know how to link it here but there is something hanging from the top of her bed on the right that looks like a silky scarff. It looks like her shirt was taken off and left in the bed. Her pillow is not where pillows should be it is at the other end of the bed, I found that kind of odd. I wonder if JB had any pajamas on when she was found, I think not. I don't know how there heat worked in a big house like that, but it was a winter night and she had been sick. Wouldn't someone either put some pajamas on her or have the blanket over her? There seems to be a pair of pajamas at the foot of the bed on the right side. I have read that Jon Benet had on underwear that were too big for her, that seems strange too, yet I don't know what to make of it.

[tommieb]

Originally posted by watson
Hi everyone,
I first posted on this knot thing back on c. 7-29, as new board member but lost the post. Reviewing the crime scene photos of the knots is really what got me started posting again on this case. They are all uniform, all made the same, unusual, not before mentioned by anyone. I think you guys in this thread are closer to discussing some new and important evidence that may lead to something new in this investigation than anything else I've read in any other thread I've seen.
About the knots, there's something most are missing.....they are 'slip knots' at least from the photos. Moveable knots that tie themselves off, and can be easily undone. All though they are definitely not nautical knots which are way more complex, they are the kind of knots a recreational boater, especially a sailboater might make. Other people who might make such knots, cowboys for the contracting loop at the end of their lasso's, hunters in making animal snares to catch the leg of a small animal, and perhaps knitters or weavers although I know nothing of knitting and weaving knots.
It's important to realize that the slip knot idea explains why the 'garotte' in this case has only one handle with only 1 end of he cord connected to it (which means it could never function as a proper garotte). It only needs 1 'handle' because that is the only end of the string that needs to be pulled to pull the string through the slip knot at the back of JB's neck, thereby tightening the loop on the other side of the knot uniformally all around her neck, making the completely circular ligature mark both back and front on the victims neck.
If true, and it sure appears to be then JB wasn't really 'garotted' but slip knotted to death by a slipped down loop or noose, by somone who planned just that and makes these wrapped and looped knots.


Very interesting post which made me think and actually visualize the way the garrote would have been used.

Maybe I am seeing this all wrong so please correct me if I am wrong. It sounds like you are saying that the piece of paint brush was used as a handle to actually pull the rope tight. So what I am coming up with is a slipknot is created with the garrote attached to the end that slips. The loop created by the slipknot is then placed over her head and standing behind her you would tighten the loop down until it fit snuggly to keep it from pulling up so that the furrow created is almost straight across rather than slanted. The handle is pulled tighter and tighter until death occurs. If the rope was long enough it might even be necessary to place your knee or foot in her back or on her head.

The only problem that I have with this is that there was hair caught in the knots on the garrote which would have to mean it was close to her head and the knots of the garrote would have had to be added to to actually tie her hair into it the way it looks like it has been.

Her hair in the knots on the handle would make it more likely that the knots were tied/added while the rope was already around her neck.

Also did they not find the rope actually looped around her neck twice? Now that might have put the knots closer to her head but that still doesn't explain how the hair got tied into the knots.

[tommieb]

Originally posted by MaryD


I was looking at the crime scene photo of JB's room. I don't know how to link it here but there is something hanging from the top of her bed on the right that looks like a silky scarff. It looks like her shirt was taken off and left in the bed. Her pillow is not where pillows should be it is at the other end of the bed, I found that kind of odd. I wonder if JB had any pajamas on when she was found, I think not. I don't know how there heat worked in a big house like that, but it was a winter night and she had been sick. Wouldn't someone either put some pajamas on her or have the blanket over her? There seems to be a pair of pajamas at the foot of the bed on the right side. I have read that Jon Benet had on underwear that were too big for her, that seems strange too, yet I don't know what to make of it.

She was found wearing white pj bottoms and a white top with a sequin or glitter star, If memory serves. However, Patsy says that she was put to bed in the pj bottoms and the red top that she was wearing at the party. The panties according to Patsy were panties that were purchased as a christmas gift for a cousin or something and that JBR wanted them so Patsy let her have them even though they were 6 sizes too big. I assume that Patsy also put her in the panties before she went to bed, but now that I am thinking about it I can't remember if that was the case or not.

What now seems odd to me since I am thinking about it (other than the fact that she was not in the same clothes that she was put to bed in) is that if she was a bed wetter and if Patsy wanted to have a trouble free night so they could get up early for their flight, why wouldn't she have put her in the pullups or whatever was in the bathroom cabinet so that she could have slept through the night with no possibility of wetting her bed?

Another good questions is why was there a pink shirt laying at the head of her bed where she should have been sleeping and her pillow not there. Maybe she didn't like to sleep on pillows?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by tommieb
There is some speculation that she was strangled twice. Once with something thick like a scarf or towel due to a large discolored spot below the line of the garrote marks. The mark has been mentioned as a possible mark where a large knot was or that a thicker object like a scarf or towel would have caused the skin to bunch up under it and cause this mark. The second time with the garrote.

Then I was researching around the net and found some information about the items that were put in the coffin with JB. Each family member brought something to place with her, a tiara from a pagent, a bracelet, a cross, a stuffed animal. The one that I thought was unusual was a silk scarf placed with her by John Ramsey. Each item seems to be something that had meaning either to the person giving it or to JB, but the scarf seemed out of place. Why would a silk scarf have any meaning to either JBR or JR?

It is probably nothing that has not already been looked at before but I thought it strange that I read about the odd discolored area on her neck, then read about a silk scarf being placed with her for burial.

Good observation and food for thought!

[MaryD]

Originally posted by tommieb


She was found wearing white pj bottoms and a white top with a sequin or glitter star, If memory serves. However, Patsy says that she was put to bed in the pj bottoms and the red top that she was wearing at the party. The panties according to Patsy were panties that were purchased as a christmas gift for a cousin or something and that JBR wanted them so Patsy let her have them even though they were 6 sizes too big. I assume that Patsy also put her in the panties before she went to bed, but now that I am thinking about it I can't remember if that was the case or not.

What now seems odd to me since I am thinking about it (other than the fact that she was not in the same clothes that she was put to bed in) is that if she was a bed wetter and if Patsy wanted to have a trouble free night so they could get up early for their flight, why wouldn't she have put her in the pullups or whatever was in the bathroom cabinet so that she could have slept through the night with no possibility of wetting her bed?

Another good questions is why was there a pink shirt laying at the head of her bed where she should have been sleeping and her pillow not there. Maybe she didn't like to sleep on pillows?

Ok, if Patsey brought her home from the party and put her right to bed, did she wake her to put on her PJ's? Why would she want to wear gigantic underwear? Did she wear them to the neighbors house or put them on before sleeping? I can't imagine a kid wanting to wear underwear that would be falling off of her. The pink blouse looked as if it was taken off of her and just discarded there. The silky looking scarf hanging off the top of the bed could be the pants she wore. Why would they be thrown on the bed post like that? And of course when did JB eat the pineapples?

Now I'm wondering if JB ever wandered around the house by herself since no one could hear her anyway. I knew a seven year old boy who used to go to the kitchen to eat after his father went to sleep, he had no mother. Than he could eat what he wasn't allowed to.

Now I'm wondering if she could have wandered downstairs and by chance a neigbor came to the door. JB would just let them in I'm sure. Maybe they would feel comfortable being there with her figuring that if the parents woke up they could just say they stopped by and she let them in. At some point maybe things got out of hand and he realized he had to kill her or she would tell on him knowing who he was. Another theory folks. But in response to my own theory who would have come over with a stun gun. Unless of course it wasn't a stun gun after all. Maybe it was marks that were made poking her with the sharp edge of the paint brush while he was tieing the garrot. Sorry, the thoughts just go on and on.

[darjeeling]

Originally posted by swc



Kids will do the darnest things, my son loves to grab a pair of my boxers which are way to huge for him.

I have found very tiny boxers that fit him well' but he will choose mine. I have some really cute pictures of him trying to wear mine, I do not post his oictures on the Internet though.

:) for your kid and no, don't post his picture on the Internet.

[angelskye]

Originally posted by swc







:no: You'd better be careful when calling John Ramsey a Pedophile.

VERY careful.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by swc


que parte no entiendes?



Can you not read? and stop with them stupid smilies.

ham sandwich ,ham sandwich ,ham sandwich ,ham sandwich ,ham sandwich ,ham sandwich.

Start transferring your money to a secret bank account in the Caymans, swc, lest you're sued. LOL

(You know I'm joking with you.)

[tommieb]

Originally posted by MaryD


Ok, if Patsey brought her home from the party and put her right to bed, did she wake her to put on her PJ's? Why would she want to wear gigantic underwear? Did she wear them to the neighbors house or put them on before sleeping? I can't imagine a kid wanting to wear underwear that would be falling off of her. The pink blouse looked as if it was taken off of her and just discarded there. The silky looking scarf hanging off the top of the bed could be the pants she wore. Why would they be thrown on the bed post like that? And of course when did JB eat the pineapples?

Now I'm wondering if JB ever wandered around the house by herself since no one could hear her anyway. I knew a seven year old boy who used to go to the kitchen to eat after his father went to sleep, he had no mother. Than he could eat what he wasn't allowed to.

Now I'm wondering if she could have wandered downstairs and by chance a neigbor came to the door. JB would just let them in I'm sure. Maybe they would feel comfortable being there with her figuring that if the parents woke up they could just say they stopped by and she let them in. At some point maybe things got out of hand and he realized he had to kill her or she would tell on him knowing who he was. Another theory folks. But in response to my own theory who would have come over with a stun gun. Unless of course it wasn't a stun gun after all. Maybe it was marks that were made poking her with the sharp edge of the paint brush while he was tieing the garrot. Sorry, the thoughts just go on and on.

She could have wandered around the house by herself. I would assume that she could also have changed her own clothes since she supposedly was put to bed in white long john type bottoms and the red shirt she had worn to the party. She could also have changed her own underwear if she woke up and decided that she wanted to wear them. I am sure that someone in LE must have thought of this but I don't remember reading it anywhere.

I have a problem with the stun gun theory. I would have thought that when the marks were observed by the ME during the autopsy, he would have made more note of them and specifically mentioned them to LE for further investigation.

When the marks were compared to various types of stun guns only one type came close to matching the marks and the manufacturer denies that that particular type would have been able to leave marks like that. No other type was found to match the width between the prongs and the size of the marks. I think the stun gun is non-existant.

I will try to find the stun gun info that I found so that you can read it. Until then all of this is IMO as always.

[angelskye]

Originally posted by swc






Can you not read?

Oh I can read just fine, as well as take screen shots. ;)

[reprise]

I have a problem with the stun gun theory. I would have thought that when the marks were observed by the ME during the autopsy, he would have made more note of them and specifically mentioned them to LE for further investigation.

IMO it's unlikely the ME would have simply made a note of the marks if he had believed they were related to her death. More likely, he would have investigated below the surface of the skin and possibly even excised the wounds.

I don't recall either procedure being mentioned in the autopsy report. Then again, a report is only a summary of what occured, so it's possible that the ME did investigate the wounds and found them unrelated to the crime.

[watson]

Originally posted by tommieb



Very interesting post which made me think and actually visualize the way the garrote would have been used.

Maybe I am seeing this all wrong so please correct me if I am wrong. It sounds like you are saying that the piece of paint brush was used as a handle to actually pull the rope tight. So what I am coming up with is a slipknot is created with the garrote attached to the end that slips. The loop created by the slipknot is then placed over her head and standing behind her you would tighten the loop down until it fit snuggly to keep it from pulling up so that the furrow created is almost straight across rather than slanted. The handle is pulled tighter and tighter until death occurs. If the rope was long enough it might even be necessary to place your knee or foot in her back or on her head.

The only problem that I have with this is that there was hair caught in the knots on the garrote which would have to mean it was close to her head and the knots of the garrote would have had to be added to to actually tie her hair into it the way it looks like it has been.

Her hair in the knots on the handle would make it more likely that the knots were tied/added while the rope was already around her neck.

Also did they not find the rope actually looped around her neck twice? Now that might have put the knots closer to her head but that still doesn't explain how the hair got tied into the knots.
Tommieb
Here's what I'm saying, 'Garrote' is actually misleading. Even though the dictionary defintion is that a 'garrote' is any device using a cord of some kind to strangle, we all tend to (or at least I think we do) think of a 'garrote' as twisting a cord a lot around the neck to make it tighter and to strangle. Why? Because from the ME report and the photos the 'handle' was 17" (that 1 1/2 feet) from the knot on the back of the victims neck. Now if anyone can come up with a way, how you can twist such a handle and tighten a loop 17" away enough to strangle and leave the ligature mark round the neck I"d like to hear it. I believe it's totally impossible, the twisting device would have to be SHORT and against the back of the neck.
So what I'm saying is think more of a 'lasso' like a cowboy throws from his horse, holding one end, he throws the loop he's made with a slip knot, round the calfs neck, as it runs it pulls the loop tight strangling itself and falling down, where the cowboy jumps off his horse, ties it up, and hopefully undoes the strangling loop through the easy slip knot. Now in the case here, the victim is of course not going to run tightening the loop herself, so the 'handle' which is used by the killer to pull the string through the (looped and wrapped) slip knot, tightening the loop around the victims neck (on all sides equally). The 'handle' gives him better and unlimited leverage to do this, as else the flat narrow (1/4" wide) string may have slipped through his fingers.
The hair in the looped and wrapped knots of the handle is a problem I admit, but I believe it is a red herring. All it really shows was the string and or stick, and or the hand wrapping the string and stick was in contact with the victims quite long hair at some time. Also the 'handle' would have ben much closer to the victims neck, when the loop was placed over her head, and before the handle was then pulled back as much as possible, maybe some of the victims hair got caught in it at this point. The big facts are...a 1 handled garrote tied to only 1 end of the cord, can't work, and 2..you can't 'twist' a cord to strangle a victim and end up 17" away from the victim, unless you start with a cord about 6 feet long. If what has been inarticulately labeled a 'garotte' was in fact a 'lasso' type garotte, everything fits.
P.S. to my knowledge the rope (string) was definitely not looped twice around her neck. There was only the one circulet.

[watson]

I post this here today because I see the board will be shut for the holiday weekend. I post it it no way to make light of this terrible unsolved crime, but because in the thread 'knots' this section, members have been discussing what could be new and undiscussed evidence in the case, the unusual knots and series of knots made by the killer. I post so people can consider it over the weekend.
How to make the killer knot?............
Take a cord about 40" long (a flat white cord as was actually used helps to see what your doing, HINT think ' wide shoelace'). Hold each end of the cord in each of your hands normally spread out before you. Bring your hands together crossing and wrapping the cord ONCE, just as you do the very first step in tying your shoes. This should make your cord into a big loop. Lay it on a flat surface. Take 1 free end of the cord and go completely around the crossed area you've made, once all the way, then go around again. This will give you a small loop (made by this double pass), around the cross the forms your big loop. Put the same free end through this tiny double pass loop, then CAREFULLY making sure that free end doesn't go back through the tiny double pass loop, tug the strings this way and that to reduce what you've made (your 1 cross/wrap, double pass small loop/with pull through) into a loose 'knot' about 1/2" -1/3" wide.
If you've done this correctly, you'll now have your cord (lace) fashioned into a medium size loop, held by the loose knot, with the other free end of the cord (that you haven't done anything with yet) trailing out many inches behind the knot. If correct you'll notice that you can easily move this loose (wrapped/looped knot) by holding the loose knot and pulling the long free end, thereby making the 'lasso' you've made tighter or looser.
If all is well (and it may take a few times as it is hard to write instructions for a knot, but the knot IS easy). You can test it by throwing your loop (carefully) around a bedpost, or other roundish upright, or if you have none of those like me, then around your lower leg. Presuming your right handed, with your left hold the loose knot close to what you've placed the loop around, and with your right pull on the long free end, tightening the loop around it's object to the nth degree as hard as you can pull.
IMO this is the knot(s) the crime photos show, and the ONLY way a 'garrote' with only 1 handle that was held 17 inches away from the victim could possibly work (because it wasn't at all a twisting garrote but a slip knot, or 'lasso' with 1 'handle', because with a slip knot (as above) or a 'lasso' only 1 handle would be necessary.

[msgatorslayer]

Okay Watson, I did it. Pretty simple!

[tommieb]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by watson
QUOTE]

Yeah that is what I was picturing but might not have put it together quite as well as you did. And what you describe makes a lot of sense.

The hair does not present a problem if the rope is tied around the paint brush handle after the loop is placed over her head.

You would still need to brace against her with your hand, knee, foot or something to apply the pressure needed. Hand on the back of her neck or the back of her head or something like that.

I could have been mistake about the rope being around her neck twice but I will look again and see if I can find the information. To me the autopsy photos look like there is a second line that runs from the back of the rope down to the lower section of her throat. I see white marks and bruises.

You are right I could only find one reference to the rope being around her neck twice and that was someone's theory.

Maybe the white area on her neck is from her head being slumped over her chest but since she was found laying flat on her back, I am not sure why that would be the case.

[reprise]

"Garotte" is both a noun referring to a specific device and a verb referring to a specific method of strangulation. Did anyone other than the media ever refer to the device as a "garotte" or the method of her killing as "garotting"?

The photos make it extremely clear that the cord was pulled tight around JonBenet's neck and then knotted. The handle looks to have been fairly irrelevant to the process, other than ensuring that killer was able to pull the cord very tight before knotting it in place around JonBenet's neck.

We don't, however, know whether the cord was knotted in place at the beginning or the end of her murder. It's possible that the whole device was used in another manner (perhaps as a "lasso", as you suggest) before finally being knotted around JonBenet's neck.

[Paisley]

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
Okay Watson, I did it. Pretty simple! Any run of the mill sado masochist can do it!

[reprise]

The crime scene photos clearly show the cord wrapped once around her neck and knotted twice at the viewer's left. The chain is also visible in the photos.

As no photos exist of JonBenet's body in the basement, any conclusions we draw about the position in which the killer left her are largely speculative.

There doesn't appear to be any post-mortem lividity on her neck under her chin, so it's unlikely that she was left in a face-down position. I don't recall reading the degree of rigor mortis which existed when her body was first seen by LE, only that the onset of rigor mortis had begun.

[msgatorslayer]

I just had the chance to pick my Husband's brain on this manner, lol. No small task, it's a miracle actually. Not that he's an expert by an means, but, he is very familiar with knots in his line of work. Past and present.

He see's a huge problem in the knot that is used on the paint brush. The knot itself is more complex than what was needed to make this particular tool to do what the maker intended on doing with it.

They way he described it to me. If you had say, a large pole stuck in the ground that you needed to rope and pull it out of the ground from up in the air, you would use this type of knot because it would prevent the pole from falling out of the rope.

He said the paint brush is wrapped way to many times for just using it as a tool to yank on in order to get the slip knot tightened around JBR's neck. A simple knot that everyone knows how to make would have been sufficient to do what was needed.

I asked him, why do you say this? What kind of work made you think of this? He replied sail boats. I then asked, specifically, what he was talking about. I wanted an example. He said give him a minute. Then changed his mind.

A better scenario for me to understand, he said, was using this particular knot on a tent. Imagine the paint brush stick with the rope as a tent stake. You would put it in the ground and the long line of rope would be going up in the air connected to the top of the tent. This knot would prevent the rope from sliding off the wood.

[reprise]

He said the paint brush is wrapped way to many times for just using it as a tool to yank on in order to get the slip knot tightened around JBR's neck. A simple knot that everyone knows how to make would have been sufficient to do what was needed.

To me that suggests that either/or 1) the knot was made in an habitual manner (ie, the killer didn't think about the most appropriate kind of knot tied it that way out of habit, or 2) the original reason for anchoring the paintbrush to the cord in that particular manner isn't the purpose for which it was ultimately used.

I've often wondered if the killer originally intended to truss JBR and suspend her. Loosely tying one wrist doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Perhaps his original intention was more complex that what ultimately occured and the wrist cord and the "handle" on the neck cord will only make sense if we ever find out that intention.

Pure speculation on my part.

[msgatorslayer]

This is a very well written opinoin about the ropes and staging. Worth the read, IMO.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6751

[kindeekat]

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
This is a very well written opinoin about the ropes and staging. Worth the read, IMO.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6751



WOW, just WOW.

:eek: thanks msgator.

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by kindeekat




WOW, just WOW.

:eek: thanks msgator.

I stumbled upon it some how doing a net search on the JB knots. Very well written and explains it all so well. Went and dug it out of the weekend board hoping more people might read it.

:seeya:

[kindeekat]

I had never considered what that poster said about the knots.

Makes nothing but sense to me.

I don't think an intruder plays into this story. Not for a nanosecond. JMO of course but it's nice to know I'm not alone in that opinion. Thanks again!

[Hopeintown]

Originally posted by msgatorslayer
This is a very well written opinoin about the ropes and staging. Worth the read, IMO.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6751

That is a great opinion. If I recall the author of that piece used to post about another case (I can't remember which one), but if it's the same poster they were very knowledgeable.

By the way, I tried to reply back to you last night on the Holiday board after I wrote my theory. I had my response all ready, typed up, and when I pressed submit Comcast decided to go offline.

Anyway, it probably means nothing now, but I had typed "OR, I believe Patsy was responsible". It bothers me that JB had pajamas hid under her pillow, and I find it odd that there was a pair of underwear taken out of a package that was too big for JB.

Could it have been possible that JB was frightened of something? was hiding her pajamas for a reason?

And, after reading some of the posts after the one I left last night, I have always agreed with Tara. The time-line from when Patsy said she awoke, to the time when they were supposed to be at the airport with two children, luggage and gifts just didn't work for me, when I have personally had to do the same thing. No, we didn't own our own plane, but still that doesn't mean you can just arrive at an airport and take-off anytime you choose.

There is so many reasons that I don't buy this was an intruder, and Sunsplashed made an excellent post last night. But, after reading the above link it only re-enforces my belief that the entire crime scene was staged.

IMO

[paperbackreader]

Originally posted by knockkneedchick
[B
Personally, I would want to know everything. Even though it would be hard to read about how my own little girl was killed, I still would want to know details in case there might be something that might lead me to remember something or someone.



Beats me!:shrug: [/B]

Not everyone reacts the same. One family whose daughter was murdered and thrown out on the icy river like trash knew they could not handle reading the reports. The police specifically did not give them to the family. Then the press got ahold, printed the reports verbatim, and the family was subjected to reading it in the newspaper.

Many people don't want the images in their minds. Death is final. Knowing the nitty gritty details doesn't really help one find closure, although many people think as you suggest...that the details will help.

I'm personally the type to believe that I need not go digging for more bad information. If I'm suppose to know, then I'll know.

[kindeekat]

I'm not so sure, :read: reader. I can't think of a single trial I've followed on here where the parents didn't want to know every miserable detail, from the Van Dams to Sharon Rocha to Marc Klaas to Kathleen Peterson's sisters---

once in a while it gets TOO gruesome for them but the rest of the time I think the family members generally feel a need to know the details. There may certainly be differences in responses but it seems to me most of the time people WANT to know exactly what happened to their loved ones...

[cantaloupe]

I don't think I would want to know the details, but then again I haven't been there. I think it would drive me crazy to know that my child suffered. Sometimes it's better to have a small opening to think the best rather than the worst.

[paperbackreader]

Originally posted by kindeekat
I'm not so sure, :read: reader. I can't think of a single trial I've followed on here where the parents didn't want to know every miserable detail, from the Van Dams to Sharon Rocha to Marc Klaas to Kathleen Peterson's sisters---

once in a while it gets TOO gruesome for them but the rest of the time I think the family members generally feel a need to know the details. There may certainly be differences in responses but it seems to me most of the time people WANT to know exactly what happened to their loved ones...

My story I shared was truthful. I know...not all families want the gruesome details.

I understand that might surprise some of us, but I know this to be truth.

[paperbackreader]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
I don't think I would want to know the details, but then again I haven't been there. I think it would drive me crazy to know that my child suffered. Sometimes it's better to have a small opening to think the best rather than the worst.

I used to think I could cope with most things if I "knew" the truth. Eventually, I outgrew my own need to know. Some things, I don't need to know. The more details....the more I feed my own obsession.

I've learned the hard way that I don't need to know everything. In fact, I'm more peaceful when I stop my urge to "research" and "know" and get down to the business of acceptance.

Hard....but less hard than researching like mad and THEN having to accept.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Warning: EXTREMELY graphic autopsy photos appear to show that the cord tied around JonBenet's neck was at one time in a different position on her neck (and at an angle, as though she were being hung).


http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by kindeekat
I'm not so sure, :read: reader. I can't think of a single trial I've followed on here where the parents didn't want to know every miserable detail, from the Van Dams to Sharon Rocha to Marc Klaas to Kathleen Peterson's sisters---

once in a while it gets TOO gruesome for them but the rest of the time I think the family members generally feel a need to know the details. There may certainly be differences in responses but it seems to me most of the time people WANT to know exactly what happened to their loved ones...

Yeah, I still vividly remember Susan Schorpen being interviewed on the anniversary of Carlie's death and she said that she anxiously awaited the trial and that she needed to know what happened to her Daughter. No matter how gruesome, she felt it was better than what goes on in her mind, not knowing the specifics.

[Cavalier]

Originally posted by Hopeintown


That is a great opinion. If I recall the author of that piece used to post about another case (I can't remember which one), but if it's the same poster they were very knowledgeable.

By the way, I tried to reply back to you last night on the Holiday board after I wrote my theory. I had my response all ready, typed up, and when I pressed submit Comcast decided to go offline.

Anyway, it probably means nothing now, but I had typed "OR, I believe Patsy was responsible". It bothers me that JB had pajamas hid under her pillow, and I find it odd that there was a pair of underwear taken out of a package that was too big for JB.

Could it have been possible that JB was frightened of something? was hiding her pajamas for a reason?

And, after reading some of the posts after the one I left last night, I have always agreed with Tara. The time-line from when Patsy said she awoke, to the time when they were supposed to be at the airport with two children, luggage and gifts just didn't work for me, when I have personally had to do the same thing. No, we didn't own our own plane, but still that doesn't mean you can just arrive at an airport and take-off anytime you choose.

There is so many reasons that I don't buy this was an intruder, and Sunsplashed made an excellent post last night. But, after reading the above link it only re-enforces my belief that the entire crime scene was staged.

IMO I believe that The TinMan said that he was EasyWriter on these boards. I don't know about the board at the link.

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Warning: EXTREMELY graphic autopsy photos appear to show that the cord tied around JonBenet's neck was at one time in a different position on her neck (and at an angle, as though she were being hung).


http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

MissOTis, I read the link that you posted from the person about the knots and the cord around the neck, etc. My question is and I am sort of playing devil's advocate, why couldn't the intruder haved staged the scene? The author of course thinks the Ramseys staged it, but so could an intruder. Why would an intruder go to all that trouble? I don't know...I think the killer is mentally ill for one thing so we can't trust anything he/she wrote or did that night. JMO

[watson]

Thanks for the link Msgatorslayer, it's good to see someone else was thinking of this and wrote an article on it. However after reading it I'd have to say the author STILL Gets it all wrong! He correctly interprets the knots as 'loop and wrap' types, he correctly says these could be 'slip knots', and that the neck loop could be a slip noose, or snare, explaining the 'handle', BUT then drops the whole idea, concludes it's not, and rather that it was just a person in a 'panic'. Why? because the ME described the knot at the back of neck as a 'double knot'. So what! The ME also described the knot at the end of a the wrist cord as'a double loop knot', instead of correctly as a double loop. The point is the ME is NOT a forensic knot expert, it is NOT his job to describe knots in detail, any more than it's his job to do forensics on a bullet recovered from a body....just to note it and save it for the forensic lab. What the ME called the knots means absolutely zero, and tells us nothing.
Also the author says a slip knot would 'fly apart' if one end is pulled, what nonsense! It will not, as long as the knot is held by one hand while the free end is pulled by the other, it tightens the loop.
Also the part about a slip knot loosening once the tugging on it is relaxed is also incorrect, putting one more loop through when making the knot, means it will only slip ONE way, and will not loosen the loop once it's been tightened.
I still say the knots (as this author at first correctly concludes) look like slip knots, not one shred of evidence says their not, and a slip knot has the advantage of explaining the 'handle', the round mark all around the neck, and HOW the victim was strangled.
I also see and have never seen ANY evidence of panic at this crime scene, not from the long time consuming note, to the carefully made murder weapon, or to the lack of disorder in the house.
It's too bad the author wrote this article 3 years ago, because at the end he dares anyone to strangle him with a slip knot and match the scene, I would have taken him up on that offer.
IMO if this crime is ever going to be solved people have to drop the mis-interpretations of the evidence early on (like it was panic, the note was written after the murder, the knots are just static knots). The evidence has never been in dispute, just the stories people tell themselves about that evidence.

[MsSterious]

Originally posted by nutmeg22


MissOTis, I read the link that you posted from the person about the knots and the cord around the neck, etc. My question is and I am sort of playing devil's advocate, why couldn't the intruder haved staged the scene? The author of course thinks the Ramseys staged it, but so could an intruder. Why would an intruder go to all that trouble? I don't know...I think the killer is mentally ill for one thing so we can't trust anything he/she wrote or did that night. JMO

Why would an intruder have staged the scene? hang around practice writing, etc. Seems to me he/she would want to get out as quickly as possible. jmo Makes more sense to me that a family member would want to throw the police on to a different trail.

[nutmeg22]

Very good point, Watson. All we on these boards have is the interpretation of someone else's interpretation of the evidence. Oh we do have some pictures...it would be better if we could see the evidence in person. How is the crime ever going to be solved using erroneous conclusions by so many people!!! This is just crazy. We and they, they being the DA's office, are just relying on the expertise that sometimes fails them. No wonder this case remains unsolved. There are several theories and most of the theories can be dynamited by someone else!
JMO

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by MsSterious


Why would an intruder have staged the scene? hang around practice writing, etc. Seems to me he/she would want to get out as quickly as possible. jmo Makes more sense to me that a family member would want to throw the police on to a different trail.

Well, maybe the scene wasn't staged. Maybe the person felt comfortable in the home. Yes, it makes sense that a family member would want evidence pointing away from them....I just plain don't know..I am just guessing like most of us. I think the person really felt like he had accomplished EXACTLY what he had come to do...kill JonBenet...and he could pretty leisurely write that non-sensical note..the note was meant to throw LE off and it was successful. JMO

[I Love Books]

Thank you so much for that link, Msgatorslayer. Brilliant.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nutmeg22


MissOTis, I read the link that you posted from the person about the knots and the cord around the neck, etc. My question is and I am sort of playing devil's advocate, why couldn't the intruder haved staged the scene? The author of course thinks the Ramseys staged it, but so could an intruder. Why would an intruder go to all that trouble? I don't know...I think the killer is mentally ill for one thing so we can't trust anything he/she wrote or did that night. JMO

Nutmeg, what I was thinking was that the cord may have been in a different position on the neck at some point. I was looking at the fourth photo down in the righthand column of the autopsy photos.:

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet3.html

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by watson
Why? because the ME described the knot at the back of neck as a 'double knot'. So what! The ME also described the knot at the end of a the wrist cord as'a double loop knot', instead of correctly as a double loop. The point is the ME is NOT a forensic knot expert, it is NOT his job to describe knots in detail, any more than it's his job to do forensics on a bullet recovered from a body....just to note it and save it for the forensic lab. What the ME called the knots means absolutely zero, and tells us nothing.
.

SNIPPED for bandwith

You are so right, Watson. The ME knows absolutely nothing about knots. What he stated in his autopsy report was just a simple visual from a layperson in terms of knots. It was not his job to precisely identify them.

There is no official testing that I'm aware of it. It's just a cesspool of different people giving their views from pictures. Some reported experts, and others being net posters who have a general idea of knots and how they work.

These knots should have been studied by someone in the FBI. Someone who was a really good expert that could duplicate them and then take them apart, really analyize and manipulate them.

10 years later and the media and TH still call it a garrotte and still say JB was restrained. We hear the knots were easy and childish down to being intricate and almost mysterious, lol.

[msgatorslayer]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Nutmeg, what I was thinking was that the cord may have been in a different position on the neck at some point. I was looking at the fourth photo down in the righthand column of the autopsy photos.:

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet3.html

Hey MissO, your PM's were full when I tried to reply.:seeya:

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by msgatorslayer


Hey MissO, your PM's were full when I tried to reply.:seeya:


It's clean again now.

Thanks! :seeya:

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nutmeg22


MissOTis, I read the link that you posted from the person about the knots and the cord around the neck, etc. My question is and I am sort of playing devil's advocate, why couldn't the intruder haved staged the scene? The author of course thinks the Ramseys staged it, but so could an intruder. Why would an intruder go to all that trouble? I don't know...I think the killer is mentally ill for one thing so we can't trust anything he/she wrote or did that night. JMO

Nutmeg, I was just trying to account for the presence of the stick by suggesting it may have been used earlier. No way of knowing. And the photo may be deceiving.

:seeya:

MissO

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Nutmeg, what I was thinking was that the cord may have been in a different position on the neck at some point. I was looking at the fourth photo down in the righthand column of the autopsy photos.:

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet3.html

Yes, MissO,I see what you mean. Has the "unidentified unusual" red mark on JB's neck ever been explained? It is so odd looking.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by nutmeg22


Yes, MissO,I see what you mean. Has the "unidentified unusual" red mark on JB's neck ever been explained? It is so odd looking.

Nutmeg, I read somewhere that the rope (it's not really a garotte), was originally lower on JB's neck and "rode" up.

I think that's plain to see by the photos.

JMO

[hohum]

Originally posted by MsSterious

Makes more sense to me that a family member would want to throw the police on to a different trail.

And an intruder wouldn't? :shrug:

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by hohum


And an intruder wouldn't? :shrug:

All in intruder would have to do is LEAVE and not be seen.

He certainly wouldn't leave his "calling card," i.e., his handwriting sample.

A family member with a dead child in their wine cellar would be a different story. They would NEED to present an intruder theory.

JMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


All in intruder would have to do is LEAVE and not be seen.

He certainly wouldn't leave his "calling card," i.e., his handwriting sample.

A family member with a dead child in their wine cellar would be a different story. They would NEED to present an intruder theory.

JMO

I think the person who wrote that ransom note couldn't help himself. He is making the most of his moment in the sun. He ENJOYED writing that note.

MOO

[LadyFisher]

Those crime scene photos just make me sick.....how could anyone do this to that beautiful child?

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by msgatorslayer


Yeah, I still vividly remember Susan Schorpen being interviewed on the anniversary of Carlie's death and she said that she anxiously awaited the trial and that she needed to know what happened to her Daughter. No matter how gruesome, she felt it was better than what goes on in her mind, not knowing the specifics.

I so totally agree. I would not only want to know everything, I would demand it.

I would so much wanna know the TRUTH than to have many options wondering through my mind. The TRUTH would help me heal faster.

IMO
Sly

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Nutmeg, I read somewhere that the rope (it's not really a garotte), was originally lower on JB's neck and "rode" up.

I think that's plain to see by the photos.

JMO

Hi sunsplashed, yes I see what you mean. I was wondering about the large, almost rectangular red mark on the front of her throat. Not critical, I was just curious.

[WallyCleaver]

The article about knots on Forums for Justice was interesting, but there is one problem - it may not have made any difference at all what type of knot was used; slip knot or one that "locked up".

The reason is, it appears the cord was tightened by inserting the stick under the loop around the neck and turning it like a turniquet. The evidence of this is JBR's hair entwined in the knotting at the handle. If the killer pulled the handle it wouldn't have entangled her hair.

I do think the author is correct that it's a knot that locked up because as the author points out, the cord had to be cut off rather than slipped off. I also think he's correct in saying it wasn't a very well constructed garrotte.

But in the end, it's the turning of the handle that caused the tightening and it didn't really matter what type of knot was used.

IMO too much is made of Navy training in knots - at least by people who have not served. I did 4 years in the Navy and 4 in the Coast Guard. I can tie a few knots regularly needed, but I'd have trouble constructing a garrotte. Or, more precisely, I'd be able to figure out how to make one, but not during a moment of panic while trying to stage a murder scene.

Someone who can't make knots can't fake a good one, but someone who is good at knots can fake being bad at it.

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
The article about knots on Forums for Justice was interesting, but there is one problem - it may not have made any difference at all what type of knot was used; slip knot or one that "locked up".

The reason is, it appears the cord was tightened by inserting the stick under the loop around the neck and turning it like a turniquet. The evidence of this is JBR's hair entwined in the knotting at the handle. If the killer pulled the handle it wouldn't have entangled her hair.

I do think the author is correct that it's a knot that locked up because as the author points out, the cord had to be cut off rather than slipped off. I also think he's correct in saying it wasn't a very well constructed garrotte.

But in the end, it's the turning of the handle that caused the tightening and it didn't really matter what type of knot was used.

IMO too much is made of Navy training in knots - at least by people who have not served. I did 4 years in the Navy and 4 in the Coast Guard. I can tie a few knots regularly needed, but I'd have trouble constructing a garrotte. Or, more precisely, I'd be able to figure out how to make one, but not during a moment of panic while trying to stage a murder scene.

Someone who can't make knots can't fake a good one, but someone who is good at knots can fake being bad at it.

Interesting information! You know, I wonder why a garotte was even used. Was this to indicate a slow and tortuous death? She could have been strangled by bare hands. Was it to indicate some kind of "perverted" killer?

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by nutmeg22


Interesting information! You know, I wonder why a garotte was even used. Was this to indicate a slow and tortuous death? She could have been strangled by bare hands. Was it to indicate some kind of "perverted" killer?

On another forum it was mentioned that the autopsy report doesn't say hair was pulled from her head. So, I might be wrong. Still there is hair twisted up in the knotting of the handle. Did the coroner cut it?

I've always found this part of the case particularly puzzling. It would seem the garrotte was intended to indicate a perverted killer but I've always wondered how the Rs would know about garrotting if they weren't pervs themselves. If they were pervs, it might not have been for staging, it might have been what killed her.

From my research I find that these devices are used in errotic asphyxiation - apparently in a child JBR's age, it would cause convulsions mimicing orgasam. But it's not constructed the right way for this purpose. Since the knot doesn't slip, it doesn't allow easing off - every tug makes it tighter, and it's very difficult to loosen. If it was an intruder perv with experience in this area, it would have been constructed with a slip knot.

Staging by someone not really familiar with such devices seems the best explanation.

[nutmeg22]

To me it makes no sense at all..but then not alot in this case does. Was it put there to make her death even more horrendous for the family? So much that it boggles my mind.

[Magnolia01]

Originally posted by kindeekat
I'm not so sure, :read: reader. I can't think of a single trial I've followed on here where the parents didn't want to know every miserable detail, from the Van Dams to Sharon Rocha to Marc Klaas to Kathleen Peterson's sisters---

once in a while it gets TOO gruesome for them but the rest of the time I think the family members generally feel a need to know the details. There may certainly be differences in responses but it seems to me most of the time people WANT to know exactly what happened to their loved ones...

Hi kindeekat :)

I was wondering when you would show up here! I don't know if you remember, but I too followed the Peterson (Michael) case very closely. Good to see you again!!

As for needing to know....I remember the family really wanted to know not just about Kathleen but the friend from Germany (Elizabeth Ratliff) that was murdered. Remember when they exhumed her body? The family wanted to know the details.

Not sure I would if it were my child....hope I never have to know.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by nutmeg22
To me it makes no sense at all..but then not alot in this case does. Was it put there to make her death even more horrendous for the family? So much that it boggles my mind.

Everything about the case is just weird.

I can't see an intruder using the garrote as a staging device. Why would an intruder bother staging anything at all? My best guess is it was put there to make police think a pervy paedophile intruder killed JBR. But the poor construction gives away that it wasn't made by someone who was using it for errotic asphyxiation.

[watson]

Hi Everyone,
Like I said before, now that the Karr fiasco has blown up, it seems a good time to go back and look at the real original evidence disregarding any theories made by the police, the media, or team Ramsey, none of which have proved true. I guess there's lots of reasons to think the kidnapping was staged (the goofy note, that it was a murder not a kidnapping etc.) but IMO the clincher comes from the original evidence and photo's of the way the wrists were tied. It's totally fake, would never restrain anyone, and had to be done when the victim was already dead, the proof....................
1.) The killer with his usual wrapped/looped knots made loops around the victims wrists but never tightened them! The victims left wrist was in FACT removed from that loop without undoing it (photo), the loop on the right....was only 'tied LOOSELY over the sleve of the shirt' (ME report). She could have pulled her hands from these loops at any time.
2.) Instead of lashing the victims wrists one on top of the other to restrain her, the killer tied a seperate loop around each wrist, connecting them several inches apart, leaving the victim with the perfect use of both individual hands as long as they remained within inches of each other! (photos and ME report).
3.) Her wrists were tied in FRONT of her (her arms were over her head) allowing her on anyone to bring even lashed together wrists to her face and mouth to remove any tape.
4.) She did in FACT bring her hands to her neck mouth area while being strangled (the cresent shaped marks of her own fingernails on her neck ME report), and would have removed any tape on her mouth, if there had been any.
I just post these points right from the original evidence avaiable now to all the public so people can think about them and visualize them free of the later discredited theroies of the media, police etc. If anyone can please tell us how wrists tied this way could restrain anyone that was alive, and how someone alive is going to stay still long enough for a killer to methodically loop one wrist at a time, wouldn't have pulled her hands out, and wouldn't have removed the supposed tape? IMO this only makes sense on a still, dead victim as staging.

[docg]

Originally posted by watson
Hi Everyone,
Like I said before, now that the Karr fiasco has blown up, it seems a good time to go back and look at the real original evidence disregarding any theories made by the police, the media, or team Ramsey, none of which have proved true. I guess there's lots of reasons to think the kidnapping was staged (the goofy note, that it was a murder not a kidnapping etc.) but IMO the clincher comes from the original evidence and photo's of the way the wrists were tied. It's totally fake, would never restrain anyone, and had to be done when the victim was already dead, the proof....................
1.) The killer with his usual wrapped/looped knots made loops around the victims wrists but never tightened them! The victims left wrist was in FACT removed from that loop without undoing it (photo), the loop on the right....was only 'tied LOOSELY over the sleve of the shirt' (ME report). She could have pulled her hands from these loops at any time.
2.) Instead of lashing the victims wrists one on top of the other to restrain her, the killer tied a seperate loop around each wrist, connecting them several inches apart, leaving the victim with the perfect use of both individual hands as long as they remained within inches of each other! (photos and ME report).
3.) Her wrists were tied in FRONT of her (her arms were over her head) allowing her on anyone to bring even lashed together wrists to her face and mouth to remove any tape.
4.) She did in FACT bring her hands to her neck mouth area while being strangled (the cresent shaped marks of her own fingernails on her neck ME report), and would have removed any tape on her mouth, if there had been any.
I just post these points right from the original evidence avaiable now to all the public so people can think about them and visualize them free of the later discredited theroies of the media, police etc. If anyone can please tell us how wrists tied this way could restrain anyone that was alive, and how someone alive is going to stay still long enough for a killer to methodically loop one wrist at a time, wouldn't have pulled her hands out, and wouldn't have removed the supposed tape? IMO this only makes sense on a still, dead victim as staging.

Excellent points. I agree.

Also, the segment of tape over her mouth would not have remained there long if she'd been alive. Not only would her hands have been free, as you state, but even the action of her jaws would have quickly loosened it. To be effective the tape would have to have been wound completely around her head.

No matter where you look in this case, the staging just reaches out and grabs you. The note was clearly intended to stage a kidnapping. The scene at the basement window was there to stage a breakin by an intruder. The tape, cord and "garotte" were clearly staged. All the so-called intruder evidence has been accounted for. DNA has been found in panties from the same factory.

What are they waiting for? A personal invitation from John Ramsey and Lin Wood? Haul the guy in for questioning, ask him to take a very thorough and rigorous investigative polygraph, and if he balks, then arrest him and charge him with murder. There is a very strong circumstantial case to be made against John Ramsey for sure!

[MissOtisRegrets]

docg, what do you mean when you say the "garrotte" was staged?

[docg]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
docg, what do you mean when you say the "garrotte" was staged?

There was a long and very thorough series of posts on the "garotte" on Forums For Justice some time ago. I forget who wrote it, possibly Delmar England, but it was very convincing. The author analyzed the knots and determined that there was no real slipknot and that it could not have operated in the manner one would expect such a device to operate. It gives the impression that it should tighten as the handle is twisted but apparently that would not have happened.

It's also very strange that JonBenet's hair was entwined in both knots, telling us it was constructed by someone right on top of her and probably in a panic. If she were conscious when this was constructed she'd have been screaming and struggling and it would have been impossible to tie the knots. If she were unconscious then what's the point of making it in the first place? How do you torture someone who is unconscious or already dead? How do you engage in "erotic strangulation" under such circumstances?

Looks to me like she was probably strangled initially by hand, after having been stunned by a sudden blow from behind (so she wouldn't feel any pain or see her attacker). When the attacker realized his prints might show up on her neck, he might have gotten the idea of the "garotte" as a way of destroying those prints and pointing away from manual strangulation. Also pointing toward some crazed intruder who liked to torture children.

If the "garotte" had actually been constructed by such a person, it would not have been constructed right on top of the victim, it would have operated as such devices are designed to operate, by tightening as they are twisted, and there would have been no need for a head blow.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


Everything about the case is just weird.

I can't see an intruder using the garrote as a staging device. Why would an intruder bother staging anything at all? My best guess is it was put there to make police think a pervy paedophile intruder killed JBR. But the poor construction gives away that it wasn't made by someone who was using it for errotic asphyxiation.
:read: IMO: I agree,
too many things added to the crime scene to "throw the LE off"...which was it, take your pick...Most assaults or kidnappings are done quickly....jmo

[LadyFisher]

I think it was a playing out of some sick sexual fantasy....but, I do think the killer knew JB...he didn't really want her to suffer...but he had these sick images in his mind......find some guy who peeked frequently at porn on the internet that is also an acquaintance with the Ramseys and you've got your man!!! imho

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I think it was a playing out of some sick sexual fantasy....but, I do think the killer knew JB...he didn't really want her to suffer...but he had these sick images in his mind......find some guy who peeked frequently at porn on the internet that is also an acquaintance with the Ramseys and you've got your man!!! imho

I don't know, LadyFisher. I don't think it's quite that easy.

I have to agree with you that the killer, whoever it was, knew both JonBenet and the Ramsey house well.

However, a lot of men who suffer from pedophilia never even touch a child in any way. They just look at photos and live in a fantasy world. I don't think porn on a computer would indicate guilt anymore than the lack of porn would indicate innocence.

I think a true pedophiliac, who did play out his fantasies, would have engaged in erotic strangulation, not just used the "garotte" as a device to stage a scene.

JMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by docg


There was a long and very thorough series of posts on the "garotte" on Forums For Justice some time ago. I forget who wrote it, possibly Delmar England, but it was very convincing. The author analyzed the knots and determined that there was no real slipknot and that it could not have operated in the manner one would expect such a device to operate. It gives the impression that it should tighten as the handle is twisted but apparently that would not have happened.

It's also very strange that JonBenet's hair was entwined in both knots, telling us it was constructed by someone right on top of her and probably in a panic. If she were conscious when this was constructed she'd have been screaming and struggling and it would have been impossible to tie the knots. If she were unconscious then what's the point of making it in the first place? How do you torture someone who is unconscious or already dead? How do you engage in "erotic strangulation" under such circumstances?

Looks to me like she was probably strangled initially by hand, after having been stunned by a sudden blow from behind (so she wouldn't feel any pain or see her attacker). When the attacker realized his prints might show up on her neck, he might have gotten the idea of the "garotte" as a way of destroying those prints and pointing away from manual strangulation. Also pointing toward some crazed intruder who liked to torture children.

If the "garotte" had actually been constructed by such a person, it would not have been constructed right on top of the victim, it would have operated as such devices are designed to operate, by tightening as they are twisted, and there would have been no need for a head blow.

Hi docg. I understand what you are saying. Thanks. When I Google "garrotte", I see that it is an instrument of varying type used for assassination with the primary feature being that the victim is approached from behind and a string or wire put around the throat and, then, tightened, causing the death of the victim, even to the point of beheading. It doesn't, necessarily, have to be tightened by twisting but often is. I believe JonBenet was hit on the head before it was put on and, then, lay unconscious face down. A loop had been formed 4" from one end of the cord and a stick attached 17" from the other. The cord was, from behind, passed twice around JB's neck in order to "seat" it and the stick, then, passed through the loop at the back of the neck (catching her hair in it in the process). It was, then, pulled tight (by pulling the stick) and knotted . The bottom layer of cord was embedded in her neck. Although it had not been tightened by twisting, I believe it was an actual garrotte in that it was a cord that was wrapped around the throat from behind and, then, tightened to the point of death. I don't think it was staging or a cover-up of any kind. I think it was murder.

[MissOtisRegrets]

I take back that she was hit on the head before the garrotte was put on. If that were the case, neither the scratches at the throat nor the duct tape make any sense. She may have been surprised from behind by the garrotte, making her incapable of screaming. The head blow may have been inflicted in the end because the killer was leaving and wanted to make sure that she died.

[cantaloupe]

Watson, good points. The only thing I would caution us all is that no one except JR saw the body in its original state, so we are not quite sure how the body was "laid out" although I do recall that JBR was in "full rigor" which would mean that the relative positions of her limbs would not have been disturbed when her father picked her up----i.e her hands could not have flopped from behind her to in front.

Am I right about the rigor?

[nutmeg22]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
I think it was a playing out of some sick sexual fantasy....but, I do think the killer knew JB...he didn't really want her to suffer...but he had these sick images in his mind......find some guy who peeked frequently at porn on the internet that is also an acquaintance with the Ramseys and you've got your man!!! imho

Yes, and also a person who only knew John as being from Atlanta...not from Michigan, so a fairly recent(?) acquaintance. I also think the person was pretty young..in his 20
s. JMO

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I don't know, LadyFisher. I don't think it's quite that easy.

I have to agree with you that the killer, whoever it was, knew both JonBenet and the Ramsey house well.

However, a lot of men who suffer from pedophilia never even touch a child in any way. They just look at photos and live in a fantasy world. I don't think porn on a computer would indicate guilt anymore than the lack of porn would indicate innocence.

I think a true pedophiliac, who did play out his fantasies, would have engaged in erotic strangulation, not just used the "garotte" as a device to stage a scene.

JMO How would John have even known about a garotte used in sexual sick acts if he had not done some research at some time in his life....the average person just doesn't know this stuff, Sun....most of us had no idea what a garotte was before this case......! :seeya:

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nutmeg22


Yes, and also a person who only knew John as being from Atlanta...not from Michigan, so a fairly recent(?) acquaintance. I also think the person was pretty young..in his 20
s. JMO I don't know how recent an acquaintance...but it was probably someone young, nutmeg....imho

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
How would John have even known about a garotte used in sexual sick acts if he had not done some research at some time in his life....the average person just doesn't know this stuff, Sun....most of us had no idea what a garotte was before this case......! :seeya:

You've got me there, LadyFisher. I didn't know what one was until this case. I don't think I had even heard the word.

I had heard of "erotic strangulation," in the newspaper, but with a noose. I had read of some younger men who accidentally killed themselves while attempting to employ that. I knew that existed, but I had never heard of a garotte.

JMO

[trt]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
How would John have even known about a garotte used in sexual sick acts if he had not done some research at some time in his life....the average person just doesn't know this stuff, Sun....most of us had no idea what a garotte was before this case......! :seeya:


Perhaps his training in boating or the navy had previously trained him and since this wasn't your run of the mill garrotte(some indicate that it shouldn't even be called that) its a lot easier than some may think to make, especially with the background such as John had? JMO

[trt]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


You've got me there, LadyFisher. I didn't know what one was until this case. I don't think I had even heard the word.

I had heard of "erotic strangulation," in the newspaper, but with a noose. I had read of some younger men who accidentally killed themselves while attempting to employ that. I knew that existed, but I had never heard of a garotte.

JMO

Weren't the knots in this particular *garrotte* designed to work like a noose or at least like a slip knot where the more you pull, the tighter it pulls around a neck? Perhaps this is the effect that the perp was going for?

[MissOtisRegrets]

Wasn't a wire tied in a knot, also, taken from the house? We know from the ransom note that the killer(s) had an active fantasy life.

Ninja role playing games:

http://www.angelfire.com/de2/clanextras/assamite.html

Garrotte
The garrotte does no damage on the first turn, but causes damage automatically thereafter if the victim does not break free. This is a strangling cord, about 2 feet long and made of any flexible substance from thin cord to electricle cable. Silk scarves have often been used a garottes, and so, on occasion, has wire. Wire is particularly unpleasant as it is thin enough to break the skin of the victims neck, severing blood vessels and the windpipe if pulled hard.
Because they do not need to breathe, Kindred do not suffer choking damage from a garrotte. It is posible to decapitate a victim with a wire garrotte, may be attempted during any round where the garotte is still in place.
* Novice: Street punk
** Practiced: Unarmed combat instructor
*** Competent: Special forces
**** Expert: assassin
***** Master:Ninja or Thuggee

[trt]

I was just thinking about this and didn't know where exactly to put it...

I don't know if its ever been mentioned before, but didn't John say that he took a sleeping pill that night before going to bed? Does anyone else find it strange that with a sleeping pill, he was able to go to bed after everyone else and wake up before everyone else, and beat the alarm? I mean, a regular sleep aid(I'm thinking Tylenol PM) would have me zonked after sleeping for only at most 6 hours(from roughly 11-5), but a prescription sleeping aid?

[trt]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
Silk scarves have often been used a garottes, and so, on occasion, has wire.

<<snipped>>

[/B]

Wow, this gets stranger and stranger...didn't John put a silk scarf in JB's casket with her? Perhaps this was the original *weapon* or device used, but the paintbrush knot thing was made after the fact? Just throwing things out there at this point, but that is weird that this states that about a silk scarf and that's what John put in JB's casket.

[jerzeegirl]

Originally posted by trt
I was just thinking about this and didn't know where exactly to put it...

I don't know if its ever been mentioned before, but didn't John say that he took a sleeping pill that night before going to bed? Does anyone else find it strange that with a sleeping pill, he was able to go to bed after everyone else and wake up before everyone else, and beat the alarm? I mean, a regular sleep aid(I'm thinking Tylenol PM) would have me zonked after sleeping for only at most 6 hours(from roughly 11-5), but a prescription sleeping aid?

from what i understand, melatonin (is what he took that night) is an over the counter sleep aid. There was no tylenol pm etc. back then. From what i hear, melatonin is very mild, considered natural sleep aid. I dont have a link, so all my opinion.

[trt]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl


from what i understand, melatonin (is what he took that night) is an over the counter sleep aid. There was no tylenol pm etc. back then. From what i hear, melatonin is very mild, considered natural sleep aid. I dont have a link, so all my opinion.

OK, that would explain it. Thanks Jerzeegirl. I'll see if I can find a link on this.

[tportnc]

Originally posted by jerzeegirl


from what i understand, melatonin (is what he took that night) is an over the counter sleep aid. There was no tylenol pm etc. back then. From what i hear, melatonin is very mild, considered natural sleep aid. I dont have a link, so all my opinion.

Yes. It's herbal and very mild. IMO

Link to description (http://www.melatonin.com/)

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by trt


Wow, this gets stranger and stranger...didn't John put a silk scarf in JB's casket with her? Perhaps this was the original *weapon* or device used, but the paintbrush knot thing was made after the fact? Just throwing things out there at this point, but that is weird that this states that about a silk scarf and that's what John put in JB's casket.

I wonder if something else was tried first. I remember seeing someplace speculation that a knot (in something like a scarf) may have caused the triangular mark on her throat. Although only a wire is mentioned in the site I linked, many of the ninja garrotte sites mention specifically a wire with a knot tied in it. They did remove one from the house, but I can't find anywhere where in the house it had been located.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by trt


Weren't the knots in this particular *garrotte* designed to work like a noose or at least like a slip knot where the more you pull, the tighter it pulls around a neck? Perhaps this is the effect that the perp was going for?

I think in a real garotte, that's exactly how they would have worked, but in the case of this one, I don't think they worked that way at all. I think JB was just strangled and the cord was made to resemble a garotte. The knots are really very amateurish.

I saw an explanation somewhere, but I'm sorry, I can't find it now. I'll post the link if I do.

JMO

[trt]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


I wonder if something else was tried first. I remember seeing someplace speculation that a knot (in something like a scarf) may have caused the triangular mark on her throat. Although only a wire is mentioned in the site I linked, many of the ninja garrotte sites mention specifically a wire with a knot tied in it. They did remove one from the house, but I can't find anywhere where in the house it had been located.

that's interesting too, MOR. If you find some more info on this, please post a link.

[Athena]

Could this garotte just have been a stick to twist the cord to leave one of the perpetrator's hands free while he choked by turning the stick? Just a thought........

LadyFisher -- I agree with your post. jmo

[watson]

To Docg
Thanks for your reply to my original post top of thread, but here is something else to consider re: something you mentioned......the suitcase under the open window. It could be part of staging as you suggest, or even a step for an unlikely intruder to stand on, but what of a 3rd possibility.......as a means to remove the body from the house?
Afterall assuming it was a staged kidnapping if the body had been gotten out of the house before police arrived, the plan MAY HAVE WORKED. So, the body in the suitcase, suitcase in the window well , body and suitcase taken from premises, even under the nose of the police? Possible???
Then, there's that strange and specific instruction in the kidnapping note about leaving the house in the morning with a large suitcase (attache). One wonders!
P.S. no one ever seems to mention this possibility (investigators etc.) but it's always struck me as the most logical possible explanation for the proximity of the body to the suitcase and to the open window.

[watson]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Athena
[B]Could this garotte just have been a stick to twist the cord to leave one of the perpetrator's hands free while he choked by turning the stick? Just a thought........
[QUOTE]

Good point Athena that's the first thing that pops into our heads when the media uses the word 'garotte'. But in this case the answer is definitely NO. Here's why............
1.)If this was a twisting garotte where the stick is twisted and twisted to take up the slack in the cord around the victims neck, to be tight the twisting stick has to end up right up against the victim (all slack taken up) BUT in this case from the ME we know the stick ended up 17 inches a whole 1 1/2 feet behind the victims neck.
2.) A careful view of the crime scene photos of the stick and cord leading from it after the murder show it's FLAT (just as ME reported) and not twisted or flat and twisted. The crime done, the photos show the cord is flat and un twisted.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by watson
To Docg
Thanks for your reply to my original post top of thread, but here is something else to consider re: something you mentioned......the suitcase under the open window. It could be part of staging as you suggest, or even a step for an unlikely intruder to stand on, but what of a 3rd possibility.......as a means to remove the body from the house?
Afterall assuming it was a staged kidnapping if the body had been gotten out of the house before police arrived, the plan MAY HAVE WORKED. So, the body in the suitcase, suitcase in the window well , body and suitcase taken from premises, even under the nose of the police? Possible???
Then, there's that strange and specific instruction in the kidnapping note about leaving the house in the morning with a large suitcase (attache). One wonders!
P.S. no one ever seems to mention this possibility (investigators etc.) but it's always struck me as the most logical possible explanation for the proximity of the body to the suitcase and to the open window.

This is very clever, watson. Wasn't there fiber evidence that the body may have been in the suitcase?

[watson]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
Watson, good points. The only thing I would caution us all is that no one except JR saw the body in its original state, so we are not quite sure how the body was "laid out" although I do recall that JBR was in "full rigor" which would mean that the relative positions of her limbs would not have been disturbed when her father picked her up----i.e her hands could not have flopped from behind her to in front.

Am I right about the rigor? [QUOTE]

Yep. Your definitely right about the rigor. When JR brought the body upstairs at about 1pm the arms were at full stretch above the head and the there was full rigor. From the medical facts as far as I understand them rigor sets in 8-12 hours after death, so JB was killed most likely between 11pm -5am the previous night
However, we don't need the rigor to tell the wrists were tied in front of her, rigor or not it's impossible to have your hands behind your back and then put them above your head. Try it, You'd have to take your arms off and put them back on backwards. If her wrists were tied together and her arms were above her head they had to be tied in front of her, unless someone untied them, changed the position and the scene before rigor set in.

[cantaloupe]

Originally posted by watson
[QUOTE]

Yep. Your definitely right about the rigor. When JR brought the body upstairs at about 1pm the arms were at full stretch above the head and the there was full rigor. From the medical facts as far as I understand them rigor sets in 8-12 hours after death, so JB was killed most likely between 11pm -5am the previous night
However, we don't need the rigor to tell the wrists were tied in front of her, rigor or not it's impossible to have your hands behind your back and then put them above your head. Try it, You'd have to take your arms off and put them back on backwards. If her wrists were tied together and her arms were above her head they had to be tied in front of her, unless someone untied them, changed the position and the scene before rigor set in.

:D that's very true about the arms.

[cantaloupe]

I did some research about rigor, and apparently full rigor sets in somewhere between 12-24 hours after death depending on temperature. Lower temps slows down rigor, higher temps speed it up.

given that it was december in colorado, and that poor JBR's body was in the cellar, where it was probably cold, I am inclined toward an earlier estimated time of death than a later one. that also gives the killer much more time to do all those port mortem activities like note writing.

what is the last established time that anyone besides the Ramsey family saw JBR alive?

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
I did some research about rigor, and apparently full rigor sets in somewhere between 12-24 hours after death depending on temperature. Lower temps slows down rigor, higher temps speed it up.

given that it was december in colorado, and that poor JBR's body was in the cellar, where it was probably cold, I am inclined toward an earlier estimated time of death than a later one. that also gives the killer much more time to do all those port mortem activities like note writing.

what is the last established time that anyone besides the Ramsey family saw JBR alive?

I'm inclined to lean towards an earlier estimated time of death, too. The police reported they detected a smell of decomposition on JonBenet's body. For that odor of decomposition to have been detected, she would have had to have died near the beginning of the estimated time frame.

She was last seen about 10PM, when they put her to bed.

[cantaloupe]

Well an earlier time of death leads me away from someone with elaborate sexual fantasies or a sexual predator. I would think that person would want to spend more time with a live victim. The family is in bed, the person potentially has many hours to spend with the victim, so why would he kill her so quickly?

Yes, I am now even more inclined to think that someone killed her quickly, maybe to keep her from screaming, and then did a lot of "after the fact" mind twisting stuff that either made sense to a crazy mind, or was well calculated to throw investigators off the case.

I'm wondering if someone might have just been "watching the house" or watching the neighborhood, thinking about robbing homes empty on Christmas, went in the house, heard the Ramseys' arrive, hid, waiting for the Ramseys to go to bed, tries to get out, JBR is roaming around after her parents go to sleep, getting a midnight snack, she sees the guy, he grabs her, goes into a panic, kills her.

THEN--I have to factor in that ransom note and all that elaborate rope stuff, and my theory falls apart. :(

Where WAS that notebook? Was it easy to locate, or would someone have to know where it was in order to use it? Knowing that would help a lot. Where did John Ramsey retrieve that notebook from when he gave it to investigators as a sample of Patsy's handwriting? And WHEN did the police collect it? That same day? Later? More importantly where was that notebook the night of December 25? On a table, on a shelf, in the Ramsey's bedroom---Where?

I think I am driving myself crazy. I am getting totally obsessed.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
Well an earlier time of death leads me away from someone with elaborate sexual fantasies or a sexual predator. I would think that person would want to spend more time with a live victim. The family is in bed, the person potentially has many hours to spend with the victim, so why would he kill her so quickly?

Yes, I am now even more inclined to think that someone killed her quickly, maybe to keep her from screaming, and then did a lot of "after the fact" mind twisting stuff that either made sense to a crazy mind, or was well calculated to throw investigators off the case.

I'm wondering if someone might have just been "watching the house" or watching the neighborhood, thinking about robbing homes empty on Christmas, went in the house, heard the Ramseys' arrive, hid, waiting for the Ramseys to go to bed, tries to get out, JBR is roaming around after her parents go to sleep, getting a midnight snack, she sees the guy, he grabs her, goes into a panic, kills her.

THEN--I have to factor in that ransom note and all that elaborate rope stuff, and my theory falls apart. :(

Where WAS that notebook? Was it easy to locate, or would someone have to know where it was in order to use it? Knowing that would help a lot. Where did John Ramsey retrieve that notebook from when he gave it to investigators as a sample of Patsy's handwriting? And WHEN did the police collect it? That same day? Later? More importantly where was that notebook the night of December 25? On a table, on a shelf, in the Ramsey's bedroom---Where?

I think I am driving myself crazy. I am getting totally obsessed.

I've read the notebook was kept on a little table in the hallway on the first floor where the back circular stairs were.

JMO

[cantaloupe]

That makes sense about where the notebook was. Maybe to take messages or something like that.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
That makes sense about where the notebook was. Maybe to take messages or something like that.

Yep, it was a short distance from the alcove with the table where the pen was kept. And, there's a telephone on the wall just above the table where the pen was.

Here's a link to a page with some pictures that show both those tables, not quite halfway down the page. Warning, though, there are some extremely graphic photos of JonBenet's body on that page, too.

http://www.jameson245.com/doc2usa.htm

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by trt
I was just thinking about this and didn't know where exactly to put it...

I don't know if its ever been mentioned before, but didn't John say that he took a sleeping pill that night before going to bed? Does anyone else find it strange that with a sleeping pill, he was able to go to bed after everyone else and wake up before everyone else, and beat the alarm? I mean, a regular sleep aid(I'm thinking Tylenol PM) would have me zonked after sleeping for only at most 6 hours(from roughly 11-5), but a prescription sleeping aid?

It depends. My husband has sleeping problems and takes prescription sleep aids. He goes to sleep at 11:00 and wakes up at 3:30 or 4:00.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I take back that she was hit on the head before the garrotte was put on. If that were the case, neither the scratches at the throat nor the duct tape make any sense. She may have been surprised from behind by the garrotte, making her incapable of screaming. The head blow may have been inflicted in the end because the killer was leaving and wanted to make sure that she died.
:read:jmo: I remember reading, their neighbor heard a scream around 12 midnight...imo

[Devotion]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
I did some research about rigor, and apparently full rigor sets in somewhere between 12-24 hours after death depending on temperature. Lower temps slows down rigor, higher temps speed it up.

given that it was december in colorado, and that poor JBR's body was in the cellar, where it was probably cold, I am inclined toward an earlier estimated time of death than a later one. that also gives the killer much more time to do all those port mortem activities like note writing.

what is the last established time that anyone besides the Ramsey family saw JBR alive?
:read: jmo: I understand the window was either cracked or open..So the basement would have been cold..
It makes sense that possibly, the child was going to be put in the suitcase and slide out the basement window, behind the bushes...
The suitcase would be put in a vehicle and transported away..Thus giving the appearance of a kidnapping...imo

[foxbila]

Does anyone know just how wide that ligature was?? From the photos it looks to be know wider that a shoestring...Has it been determined....they type and normal uses for this type of "string " or "cord" ?????

K

[foxbila]

oh heck its late..sorry for the mispelliings
K

[LadyFisher]

Lin Wood was just interviewed on CBS this AM....he believes the DNA is viable dna and the crime will eventually be solved! The DNA is in the FBI data base....he says the talking heads are wrong and it is his belief this dna is from the killer...that said..he also thinks even if there is a dna match in the future...there will still be folks that suspect the Ramseys of murdering their daughter due to the 10 years of media insinuations against them!

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by LadyFisher

<snip>

there will still be folks that suspect the Ramseys of murdering their daughter due to the 10 years of media insinuations against them!

I hate to say it but I agree with Mr. Wood's assessment. JMO

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


I hate to say it but I agree with Mr. Wood's assessment. JMO

Same here. Some people want to believe the so badly it wasn't an intruder they don't even care which Ramsey they blame. They just say "one" of the Ramsey's did it.

[trt]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Same here. Some people want to believe the so badly it wasn't an intruder they don't even care which Ramsey they blame. They just say "one" of the Ramsey's did it.

IMO, its not that people want to believe they did it so badly(I mean, honestly, what do any of us have to gain from *ANYONE* in this case being guilty?), but that there are so many things that don't add up and don't mesh with the idea of an intruder, that many of us are *forced* to believe that it was an inside job. As many have said that they have not seen any persuasive evidence to show them that it was one of the Ramseys, neither have I seen anything of value, other than the horrific nature of the crime, to state that it was someone outside of the house.

As for Lin Wood, he says that its the *talking heads* who are saying the DNA isn't important, when Mary Lacy herself admitted that the DNA may be an artifact. There are other experts that agree with her(and have tested other underwear to prove their point), but she is the DA and if she believes that it may be an artifact, then perhaps there is something to that idea. I hope, along with Mr. Wood, that DNA evidence captures this killer, because in the end its about justice for that poor baby girl.

[cantaloupe]

The suitcase theory makes sense to me as well.

That ransom note is haunting me. It's the key IMO.

I wasn't even that interested in this case in 1996, now I am immersed. Gotta get off this board and do some work!

[docg]

Originally posted by watson
To Docg
Thanks for your reply to my original post top of thread, but here is something else to consider re: something you mentioned......the suitcase under the open window. It could be part of staging as you suggest, or even a step for an unlikely intruder to stand on, but what of a 3rd possibility.......as a means to remove the body from the house?
Afterall assuming it was a staged kidnapping if the body had been gotten out of the house before police arrived, the plan MAY HAVE WORKED. So, the body in the suitcase, suitcase in the window well , body and suitcase taken from premises, even under the nose of the police? Possible???
Then, there's that strange and specific instruction in the kidnapping note about leaving the house in the morning with a large suitcase (attache). One wonders!
P.S. no one ever seems to mention this possibility (investigators etc.) but it's always struck me as the most logical possible explanation for the proximity of the body to the suitcase and to the open window.

As I recall, Lou Smit had a similar idea, that the "intruder" might have planned on placing his victim in that suitcase. I must say I find that very difficult to accept. The suitcase was not soft, it had a hard shell, Samsonite I believe. I can't see fitting a 6 year old child into that type of suitcase, I just don't think it would work. I believe Smit jumped to that conclusion because something in that suitcase was connected with JonBenet, possibly some fibers. I think it more likely that the blanket found in the suitcase might have come into contact with her at some point that night.

I think the suitcase was placed where it was simply because it was a handy staging device. It might also have been placed there to boost John up so he could break the window. That would explain the shard of glass found on it.

[cantaloupe]

Hm.......hard sided suitcase?

Good to stand on, but I think it would be easier to simply sling an unconscious child up on the window sill and pull her through the window than to drag or push a suitcase through it. Especially a hard sided suitcase that weighs 10 to 13 extra pounds above adn beyond the weight of the body.

It would also be easier to throw a child over your shoulder and get her out of the house--the weight distribution would make her easier to carry that way than to have all the weight dangling from one arm in a suitcase.

If they threw a blanket over her, no one would have seen her.


NO I can't see the suitcase now as a way of removing JBR from the house through that window. Doesn't make sense. Too heavy, too awkward, no flexibility for maneuvering.

[docg]

I find it truly amusing -- or maybe a better word is alarming -- that the Ramsey's attorney can appear on a talk show discussing the case as though he were an impartial expert. Of course he thinks the DNA is "viable." It rules out his clients, so naturally it's "viable." He could care less if the killer is ever caught. He's there to protect John Ramsey.

WHY is someone like that encouraged to appear on the media as though his opinions were worth anything?

[rosebud]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Lin Wood was just interviewed on CBS this AM....he believes the DNA is viable dna and the crime will eventually be solved! The DNA is in the FBI data base....he says the talking heads are wrong and it is his belief this dna is from the killer...that said..he also thinks even if there is a dna match in the future...there will still be folks that suspect the Ramseys of murdering their daughter due to the 10 years of media insinuations against them!

REPLY: Lin Wood will say anything someone pays him to say. The DNA found on the panties and the body is probably not from the killer. And since the DNA on the panties is apparently from some guy sewing underwear in, I believe, Israel, it will be impossible to ever track it down. A perfect scenario for John Ramsey. Since there is no way another person can ever be convicted of it, reasonable doubt is the best he can hope for. And that is what he has achieved.

If a pedaphile did this, one would expect there to be substantial DNA left at the scene. The fact that there is not is an indication that a pedaphile did not do it. The lack of DNA at the scene tells me it was not a pedaphile.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by cantaloupe
Hm.......hard sided suitcase?

Good to stand on, but I think it would be easier to simply sling an unconscious child up on the window sill and pull her through the window than to drag or push a suitcase through it. Especially a hard sided suitcase that weighs 10 to 13 extra pounds above adn beyond the weight of the body.

It would also be easier to throw a child over your shoulder and get her out of the house--the weight distribution would make her easier to carry that way than to have all the weight dangling from one arm in a suitcase.

If they threw a blanket over her, no one would have seen her.


NO I can't see the suitcase now as a way of removing JBR from the house through that window. Doesn't make sense. Too heavy, too awkward, no flexibility for maneuvering.
:read: IMO: It makes alot of sense to me.
Putting a child in a suitcase and then dropping it in the dumpster or elsewhere, would make the chances of her being found alot less likely.
It would then seem like a kidnapping.

Leaving a policeman at the house and the house being searched twice, was probably something the murderer did not count on..
As the hours passed the child became stiff and unable to fit in the suitcase or through the window../..just guessing

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg


As I recall, Lou Smit had a similar idea, that the "intruder" might have planned on placing his victim in that suitcase. I must say I find that very difficult to accept. The suitcase was not soft, it had a hard shell, Samsonite I believe. I can't see fitting a 6 year old child into that type of suitcase, I just don't think it would work. I believe Smit jumped to that conclusion because something in that suitcase was connected with JonBenet, possibly some fibers. I think it more likely that the blanket found in the suitcase might have come into contact with her at some point that night.

I think the suitcase was placed where it was simply because it was a handy staging device. It might also have been placed there to boost John up so he could break the window. That would explain the shard of glass found on it.

The "shard" of glass was placed on the suitcase by Fleet White. The blanket in the suitcase belonged to John Andrew and had his semen on it which was why he was a suspect until his alibi was veified.

[harz]

Originally posted by Athena


The "shard" of glass was placed on the suitcase by Fleet White. The blanket in the suitcase belonged to John Andrew and had his semen on it which was why he was a suspect until his alibi was veified.

Thats interests me, who was his alibi? I would think the Ramseys would do anything to cover for Andrew if he was reponsible of JonBenet's death, even get an alibi for him. So where was he at the time of murder that he or his alibi claimed?

[LindaA]

I believe I read that John Andrew was away at college. But colleges break for the holidays much earlier than Christmas Day, so I'm having secnod thought about that. However, I really don't have any reason to believe he did it.

[Athena]

Originally posted by harz


Thats interests me, who was his alibi? I would think the Ramseys would do anything to cover for Andrew if he was reponsible of JonBenet's death, even get an alibi for him. So where was he at the time of murder that he or his alibi claimed?

Forget it harz. :) He was in Georgia with his mother, sister and other friends and his alibi was investigated and confirmed. He split his break with his mother and father (John) and he and his sister were planning on meeting John, Patsy, JBR and BR in Minneapolis to spend the remaining time on break with them.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by harz


Thats interests me, who was his alibi? I would think the Ramseys would do anything to cover for Andrew if he was reponsible of JonBenet's death, even get an alibi for him. So where was he at the time of murder that he or his alibi claimed?

I don't think Patsy would cover for John Andrew, harz. JB was the center of her existence.

JMO

[harz]

Originally posted by Athena


Forget it harz. :) He was in Georgia with his mother, sister and other friends and his alibi was investigated and confirmed. He split his break with his mother and father (John) and he and his sister were planning on meeting John, Patsy, JBR and BR in Minneapolis to spend the remaining time on break with them.

Lol trying to think like Columbo :) Umm, how did Andrew's semen got on the blanket? What kind of blanket is it? Why was it in suitcase? Is the suitcase Andrew's? Its possible that Andrew brought one of his girlfriend to basement, lay the blanket on dirty floor, had sex with a girl there to lessen being caught by Ramseys while Ramseys were upstairs or coming home? If the the murder scene was staged, then the person who staged the scene must have known about blanket with Andrew's semen on it in order to get him accused? So it could mean someone caught Andrew having sex with a girl on this blanket. The question is who? Maybe Andrew or his girl told someone about their experiences turned into fact rumors at school. Then it could support an intruder theory if someone's revenge were meant against Andrew, not John & Patsy? Maybe the intruder didn't knew that Andrew was going to be in Georgia that he wasn't in Boulder on 25th. It could be his best friend, or his girlfriend's ex-boyfriend, or whoever was jealous of Andrew. What do you think?

[docg]

Originally posted by Athena


The "shard" of glass was placed on the suitcase by Fleet White. The blanket in the suitcase belonged to John Andrew and had his semen on it which was why he was a suspect until his alibi was veified.

According to White, he found a piece of glass on the floor (larger than just a shard) and placed it on the window sill. Smit's theory was that the shard of glass on the suitcase got there via the intruder's foot. I say it got there when the window was broken -- the night of the murder.

[harz]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I don't think Patsy would cover for John Andrew, harz. JB was the center of her existence.

JMO

Yes, I am more agree with you on that one. I am trying to figure out all theories, possiblities, and make sense out of this case since I started learning about this case recently. It just hit me that the ransom note might meant personal revenge against Andrew. I am wondering how much depth this theory was investigated?

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by harz


Yes, I am more agree with you on that one. I am trying to figure out all theories, possiblities, and make sense out of this case since I started learning about this case recently. It just hit me that the ransom note might meant personal revenge against Andrew. I am wondering how much depth this theory was investigated?

I don't know for sure, harz, but I don't think it was investigated too much.

JMO

[nuisanceposter]

Dr Henry Lee went and obtained the same kind of underwear JonBenet had been wearing - Bloomie's, unwashed and brand new, straight from the package, and tested them. He found that these same underwear, identical to the ones JonBenet was found in, also had DNA on them.

That settles that as far as I'm concerned...the DNA was already there on the underwear when she was dressed in them.

There's no other explanantion for why the DNA on the underwear was fragmented and degraded and JonBenet's DNA - also on the underwear - was fresh and complete. Obviously the two samples of DNA were not deposited on the underwear at the same time, or the foreign DNA would be as fresh and complete as JonBenet's.

The DNA is not going to kind the killer.

Let's discuss how there is no forensic evidence indicating that anyone other than a Ramsey was that house that night.

Let's discuss how the fibers from Patsy's jacket ended up in the paint tray, on the back of the tape, and tied into the knot strangling JonBenet.

[harz]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

There's no other explanantion for why the DNA on the underwear was fragmented and degraded and JonBenet's DNA - also on the underwear - was fresh and complete. Obviously the two samples of DNA were not deposited on the underwear at the same time, or the foreign DNA would be as fresh and complete as JonBenet's.

The DNA is not going to kind the killer.


What about DNA found in JonBenet's fingernail?

[trt]

Originally posted by harz


What about DNA found in JonBenet's fingernail?

Later reports indicated that this DNA had been compromised by the scapel used to collect it, so it was not viable for comparison. I posted a link to the news article that stated this somewhere around here, lol. I'll have to find it.

[nuisanceposter]

Exactly, trt, the fingernail DNA was compromised and contaminated due to the coroner's office failing to use a sterile implement for each fingernail. They were known to use the same implement on more than one body, as well.


Here's a link with a quote from Patsy's sister, Pam Paugh.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11111998Story-HistoryDaveLucasShow(Ramsey).htm

Here's what Pam Paugh said on WROW 12/30/98 Question: Does the DNA under those fingernails actually match the DNA that was found in the panties? Pam: "Well, from what I know, the DNA under the fingernails, when it was collected, and ummm, I saw JonBenet's body (obviously) -- her fingernails had been removed fairly deeply into the nail bed ummm I would say about, oh on a child about an eighth of an inch from what we would call the half moon... ummm.. and later to find out though that when the fingernails were being removed the instruments that were used were not clean and nor were they taken out of a sealed sanitized package. They actually used previously used clippers and files and so forth so it was not known if THEY contaminated them or what--- so that had to be put aside as not useable.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Exactly, trt, the fingernail DNA was compromised and contaminated due to the coroner's office failing to use a sterile implement for each fingernail. They were known to use the same implement on more than one body, as well.


Here's a link with a quote from Patsy's sister, Pam Paugh.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11111998Story-HistoryDaveLucasShow(Ramsey).htm

Here's what Pam Paugh said on WROW 12/30/98 Question: Does the DNA under those fingernails actually match the DNA that was found in the panties? Pam: "Well, from what I know, the DNA under the fingernails, when it was collected, and ummm, I saw JonBenet's body (obviously) -- her fingernails had been removed fairly deeply into the nail bed ummm I would say about, oh on a child about an eighth of an inch from what we would call the half moon... ummm.. and later to find out though that when the fingernails were being removed the instruments that were used were not clean and nor were they taken out of a sealed sanitized package. They actually used previously used clippers and files and so forth so it was not known if THEY contaminated them or what--- so that had to be put aside as not useable.

Michael Baden said recently he saw nothing wrong with the way the autopsy was conducted. I'll take Baden's expertise over Pam Paugh's.

ST was the one who said instruments should be sterile. That's ridiculous. Sterility is to protect the patient from an introduction of germs. Dead patients aren't concerned about germs. The instruments need to be clean i.e. free of contaminants. Do you think coroners buy all new instruments for each new body they autopsy? Of course not. They clean and reuse them.

Another Thomas Twist.

[bullmoose]

Steve Thomas is the Chubby Checker of murder investigators" Come on, baby, lets do the twist":lol: bullmoose

[nuisanceposter]

Sterile implements are necessary in autopsies not to avoid germs, but to preserve the evidence without contaminating it. It is standard procedure in an autopsy, especially of a murder, to use a sterile implement on each fingernail. Thomas didn't make that up. Of course they clean and reuse them, but they use a sterile instrument for each nail, not the same one for all five or ten - that would contaminate any evidence that may be found, which is exactly what happened in JonBenet's case. Frequnetly they say exactly what evidence was found under exactly which nail - and that's done by using a sterile instrument on each one...otherwise how would you know?

Since you haven't provided a link to Dr. Baden's comments, I feel it is rational to assume that he was referring to the manner in which the overall autopsy conducted, not specifically the retrieval of the fingernails. Indeed, it was - it was a very thorough autopsy, some nine pages long...but that doesn't change the fact that the DNA under JonBenet's nails was compromised by an unsterile instrument and may not have belonged to the killer.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Sterile implements are necessary in autopsies not to avoid germs, but to preserve the evidence without contaminating it. It is standard procedure in an autopsy, especially of a murder, to use a sterile implement on each fingernail. Thomas didn't make that up. Of course they clean and reuse them, but they use a sterile instrument for each nail, not the same one for all five or ten - that would contaminate any evidence that may be found, which is exactly what happened in JonBenet's case. Frequnetly they say exactly what evidence was found under exactly which nail - and that's done by using a sterile instrument on each one...otherwise how would you know?

Since you haven't provided a link to Dr. Baden's comments, I feel it is rational to assume that he was referring to the manner in which the overall autopsy conducted, not specifically the retrieval of the fingernails. Indeed, it was - it was a very thorough autopsy, some nine pages long...but that doesn't change the fact that the DNA under JonBenet's nails was compromised by an unsterile instrument and may not have belonged to the killer.

I will have to dig out the section in Baden's book where he discusses sterility. But that's not happening today. His comments on Meyer were in a recent TV interview during the Karr flurry. I don't even know what show it was.

However, taking one step back... What is your source that Meyer's instruments weren't sterile?

[nuisanceposter]

In addition to Pam Paugh, who would have access to details of her niece's autopsy, here's this -


"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers hould have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm



I find the website www.acandyrose.com to be one of the most thorough sites devoted to information on the JonBenet murder and investigation.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
In addition to Pam Paugh, who would have access to details of her niece's autopsy, here's this -


"When Meyer clipped the nails of each finger, no blood or tissue was found that would indicate a struggle. He used the same clippers for all the fingers, although doing so created an issue of cross-contamination. For optimal DNA purposes, separate and sterile clippers hould have been used for each finger. Furthermore, we later learned that the coroner's office sometimes used the same clippers on different autopsy subjects."

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm



I find the website www.acandyrose.com to be one of the most thorough sites devoted to information on the JonBenet murder and investigation.

I'm not saying he didn't use the same clippers on her fingers. And I agree it would have been optimal if he had. Assuming Thomas is right. I've never heard Meyer comment on it. Meyer didn't use the clippers on her underwear. However I don't think it made a difference in this case and Thomas' bit about using the same clippers on different subjects sounds like a bit of gossip it was more useful for Thomas to throw in rather than doing the obvious bit of research for his book which would be pick up the phone and talk with Meyer about his procedures. Kind of like his slamming John Douglas without even bothering to call and ask him about what Thomas perceived as discrepancies.

I'm well aware of ACR. It has its uses but many of the links no longer work and it has a decidedly anti-Ramsey slant.

[watson]

Help me out someone, won't you. On the DNA.....As I have always understood it......the DNA found in the blood stains and under the nails is JB's own DNA. However mixed with her DNA in these locations is a 'minor component' of foreign DNA. There was not enough of this foreign DNA to originally type or profile because it is 'non cellular' DNA (there is too little for a complete human cell). Extra work in the lab, later developed a partial profile of this minor component foreign DNA containing 10 of the minimum 13 genetic markers for a full profile. The part profile was then put into CODICE. This is the DNA we're talking about right???
No one can be sure if it came from 1 individual or several (because there was no complete cells), but it is male, and if it did come from one individual male the Ramsey males would be excluded as possible matches......Again right?
My info comes from the 2004 'Ramsey's didn't do it' documentry, the police report and the DNA forensic report as it was released and brodcast.
Is this all correct?

[diplomat]

Originally posted by foxbila
Does anyone know just how wide that ligature was?? From the photos it looks to be know wider that a shoestring...Has it been determined....they type and normal uses for this type of "string " or "cord" ?????

K

Poster watson did a study and found the shoelaces to be a close match.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by bullmoose
Steve Thomas is the Chubby Checker of murder investigators" Come on, baby, lets do the twist":lol: bullmoose LOL :lol: You are too funny, bull!!! hahahahaha I needed a good laugh tonight!!! :lol:

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Michael Baden said recently he saw nothing wrong with the way the autopsy was conducted. I'll take Baden's expertise over Pam Paugh's.

ST was the one who said instruments should be sterile. That's ridiculous. Sterility is to protect the patient from an introduction of germs. Dead patients aren't concerned about germs. The instruments need to be clean i.e. free of contaminants. Do you think coroners buy all new instruments for each new body they autopsy? Of course not. They clean and reuse them.

Another Thomas Twist. Good evening, Louisa :)....I respect your knowledge of this case...so I want to ask you....while I was reading some links...I found that a pubic hair was found in the blanket JB was wrapped in....and it wasn't linked to the Ramseys....is that true or what do you know about it?

[diplomat]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Same here. Some people want to believe the so badly it wasn't an intruder they don't even care which Ramsey they blame. They just say "one" of the Ramsey's did it.

Absolutely. Either Ramsey will do. We have seen it right here on this board, not evidence as much as innuendo.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Same here. Some people want to believe the so badly it wasn't an intruder they don't even care which Ramsey they blame. They just say "one" of the Ramsey's did it.

There really isn't any need to be more specific. Intruder theories stretch credulity to to the breaking point. It it wasn't an intruder, there's nobody left but the R's.

Once it's been figured out that the intruder theory is improbable, then one can start to work on theories of which R or combination of Rs did it. But one certainly doesn't have to know which R did it to know an intruder was unlikely.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


There really isn't any need to be more specific. Intruder theories stretch credulity to to the breaking point. It it wasn't an intruder, there's nobody left but the R's.

Once it's been figured out that the intruder theory is improbable, then one can start to work on theories of which R or combination of Rs did it. But one certainly doesn't have to know which R did it to know an intruder was unlikely. I think once you realize that the Ramseys trusted so many people with keys to their home....the intruder theory is probable....but it was an intruder that knew them quite well! imo

[nuisanceposter]

There is no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey being that house that night. Nothing - no hairs, no fibers, no prints. The DNA, according to Lacy herself, is antiquated, and may very likely not from the killer at all.

However - we have a lot of forensic evidence of John and Patsy Ramsey in the crime scene and on the body. Fibers from the clothing both of them wore that night were found - John's shirt fibers on JonBenet's pubic area and genitals, and Patsy's jacket fibers on the tape, in the paint tray, and tied into the knot.

TIED INTO THE KNOT.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
There is no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey being that house that night. Nothing - no hairs, no fibers, no prints. The DNA, according to Lacy herself, is antiquated, and may very likely not from the killer at all.

However - we have a lot of forensic evidence of John and Patsy Ramsey in the crime scene and on the body. Fibers from the clothing both of them wore that night were found - John's shirt fibers on JonBenet's pubic area and genitals, and Patsy's jacket fibers on the tape, in the paint tray, and tied into the knot.

TIED INTO THE KNOT.

There are many unmatched fibers as well as the beaver hair. As is being discussed on another thread, the claim John's fibers were on her may well have been a bluff by LE. The hi-Tec print is still up in the air and during the Karr coverage it was suggested that there is STILL an unmatched print separate from the one said to be Melinda's. I think there are too many unknowns to make any kind of definitive statement.

We don't have a way to date the DNA. So I don't think it can be declared antiquated. Recently there was a murder trial here. The accused hitman was said to have left a partial DNA sample in the victim's car. That sample was found within a day or two of the killing yet it wasn't complete. Until the case is solved I don't think one can say yea or nay as to the relevance of the DNA

[foxbila]

I hope this isnt too far off topic...but I was just curious...about that stupid "stun gun" theory...Stun Guns ...Knock large men down...a few will die...What would be the effects of such a device , not once, but twice on a 45 lb..young girl???

K

[nuisanceposter]

I know you don't like Thomas, but in his book he said there are three palm prints on the door, and one belongs to Melinda, and the other two are Patsy's. He also said the pubic hair on the blanket is an ancillary hair of Patsy's. Burke owned Hi-Tecs himself - and there's no way to date that footprint.

Unmatched? Those fibers are chemically and microscopically consistent with Patsy's jacket, as are the fibers from John's shirt in JonBenet's underwear. That's as close to matched as you get in fiber analysis.

No one's proven a stun gun was used. Meyer called those marks abrasions, not burns. Stun guns leave burn marks, not abrasions.

Mary Lacy herself declared the DNA "antiquated" on national television. That was her exact word.

[cami]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Lin Wood was just interviewed on CBS this AM....he believes the DNA is viable dna and the crime will eventually be solved! The DNA is in the FBI data base....he says the talking heads are wrong and it is his belief this dna is from the killer...that said..he also thinks even if there is a dna match in the future...there will still be folks that suspect the Ramseys of murdering their daughter due to the 10 years of media insinuations against them!

I for one disagree with Mr. Wood.

The DNA has only 10 loci and 13 are required for human identification. It's the standard. It cannot be used in court unless there is strong supporting evidence of guilt, i.e. the ransom note would have to be matched explicity to this person, hair, fibres, etc.

They cannot isolate what source the dna came from. It's not semen, sperm or seminole fluid. The dna is miniscule and degraded. JonBenet's dna was not degraded so how did an intruder leave this degraded dna at the same time JonBenet left her dna in the panties?

The fingernail dna does not match the panty dna to my knowledge and was possibly contaminated by the use of unsterilized clippers during autopsy.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I know you don't like Thomas, but in his book he said there are three palm prints on the door, and one belongs to Melinda, and the other two are Patsy's. He also said the pubic hair on the blanket is an ancillary hair of Patsy's. Burke owned Hi-Tecs himself - and there's no way to date that footprint.

Unmatched? Those fibers are chemically and microscopically consistent with Patsy's jacket, as are the fibers from John's shirt in JonBenet's underwear. That's as close to matched as you get in fiber analysis.

No one's proven a stun gun was used. Meyer called those marks abrasions, not burns. Stun guns leave burn marks, not abrasions.

Mary Lacy herself declared the DNA "antiquated" on national television. That was her exact word.

I had assumed the info put out a few years ago about the palm print being Melinda's was the end of the story until the Karr business came up. Then there was talk again about a still unidentified print. Until that is clarified I consider it up in the air.

Much was made of Burke having Hi-Tecs with compasses. The only information anyone has been able to find on Hi-Tecs with compasses was in 1992 they had an advertising campaign built around the anniversary of Columbus and they sold kid's Hi-Tecs with compasses tied to the laces. Burke would have been what 5? Even a partial child's shoeprint wouldn't have the same scale as an adult's. LE was looking at other LE (meaning adults) as the source of the footprint.

I understand antiquated was Lacy's word. I'm just saying, as far as I know, DNA can't be dated and a partial sample can be fresh and still not be complete.

If you do a google search or even just look around at WS you'll find quotes where stun gun marks are described as abrasions as well as burns.

Like Lin Wood - I would like to see the lab report on the fiber work. Particularly John's. I would like it confirmed LE wasn't trying to pull a fast one.

The beaver hair (a fairly unique hair) is still unmatched as well as other fibers on the duct tape and I believe the dog? wolf? wolf/dog? hair. Consequently I don't think you can say "There is no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey being that house that night. "

[cami]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Good evening, Louisa :)....I respect your knowledge of this case...so I want to ask you....while I was reading some links...I found that a pubic hair was found in the blanket JB was wrapped in....and it wasn't linked to the Ramseys....is that true or what do you know about it?

There was a hair found on the blanket covering JB..it was listed as a pubic hair. However, many of Melinda and John Andrew's friends apparently slept in JonBenet's bed when she was away so that hair could have come from anywhere really.

I suspect it has little evidentiary value since there is no report that it matches the u/k dna.

[cami]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


I had assumed the info put out a few years ago about the palm print being Melinda's was the end of the story until the Karr business came up. Then there was talk again about a still unidentified print. Until that is clarified I consider it up in the air.

Much was made of Burke having Hi-Tecs with compasses. The only information anyone has been able to find on Hi-Tecs with compasses was in 1992 they had an advertising campaign built around the anniversary of Columbus and they sold kid's Hi-Tecs with compasses tied to the laces. Burke would have been what 5? Even a partial child's shoeprint wouldn't have the same scale as an adult's. LE was looking at other LE (meaning adults) as the source of the footprint.

I understand antiquated was Lacy's word. I'm just saying, as far as I know, DNA can't be dated and a partial sample can be fresh and still not be complete.

If you do a google search or even just look around at WS you'll find quotes where stun gun marks are described as abrasions as well as burns.

Like Lin Wood - I would like to see the lab report on the fiber work. Particularly John's. I would like it confirmed LE wasn't trying to pull a fast one.

The beaver hair (a fairly unique hair) is still unmatched as well as other fibers on the duct tape and I believe the dog? wolf? wolf/dog? hair. Consequently I don't think you can say "There is no forensic evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey being that house that night. "

Would an intruder have left only a palm print? That means his hands were uncovered...wouldn't he have left fingerprints on the door, knob and latch, window ledge, window, suitcase, etc.?

Were the floors of the basement vacuumed and scrubbed that day? Is it possible the Hi-Tec print was already in the basement long before JonBenet's body was placed there? Repairmen, Cable guy, whatever?

The dna is not complete so it cannot stand alone to convict anyone...strong supporting evidence of guilt as well as the dna is required for a conviction. It also doesn't give the Ramseys a pass. The dna might not even belong to the killer.

I'd like to see the lab reports as well. I bet they contain a whole lot more of forensics than we could imagine.

Do you believe that the beaver hair and unsourced fibres and hair...which all of us have in our homes at all times....is proof of an intruder? Could the beaver hair have come from a fur jacket or a pair of boots, gloves that someone in the home owned? I understand Patsy's sister was allowed to remove clothes, boots, shoes and toys from the home just days after the crime. ( I don't call it murder as I don't believe it was one).

:seeya:

[nuisanceposter]

Some people theorize that the animal hair came from a brush...perhaps a paintbrush, or a make up brush. I find both of those to be logical conclusions.

The palm print - but no other fingerprints anywhere else? No hair, and no fibers? Come on. Like I said, Thomas said there were three prints - Melinda's and two of Patsy's.

And yes, that footprint could have been left there at any time - there is no way to date it. It could have belonged to any laborer or worker who came to the Ramsey house during renovations. It could have been from a police officer. It also could have been from Burke's pair of Hi-Tecs. It isn't a full print, just a partial.

Patsy's sister Pam was allowed to into the Ramsey home, supposedly to get clothes for the funeral, and she removed enough items to completely fill a police cruiser, including the trunk - box after box after box. Completely unbelievable, and it never should have been allowed.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I know you don't like Thomas, but in his book he said there are three palm prints on the door, and one belongs to Melinda, and the other two are Patsy's. He also said the pubic hair on the blanket is an ancillary hair of Patsy's. Burke owned Hi-Tecs himself - and there's no way to date that footprint.

Unmatched? Those fibers are chemically and microscopically consistent with Patsy's jacket, as are the fibers from John's shirt in JonBenet's underwear. That's as close to matched as you get in fiber analysis.

No one's proven a stun gun was used. Meyer called those marks abrasions, not burns. Stun guns leave burn marks, not abrasions.

Mary Lacy herself declared the DNA "antiquated" on national television. That was her exact word. Nuisance....those marks sure look like burns to me...if not a stun gun, what are they?

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by treehouse


Seminole fluid is ruled out? So, It's not native american. Sorry, couldn't resist.

My opinion. I expect to be banned soon.

ROFL

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by treehouse


I wonder too. What are they?

They were abrasions. Coroner Meyer knows the difference between a burn and an abrasion, and as thorough as he was in JonBenet's autopsy (nine pages is quite remarkable in autopsy reports), he would not have mistaken a burn for an abrasion.

Stun guns leave burns, and they do not leave perfect burns as the victim will writhe and twist. I know this from a poster at WS who has used a stun gun on himself. He also said there is no way to avoid screaming as you're hit with a stun gun, so if she had been stunned repeatedly she would have screamed repeatedly.

They don't render the victim unconscious, they render them incapable of movement as every muscle spasms.

The abrasions are to close together to have come from a stun gun as well.

I don't know what created them. There are many mysteries in JonBenet's murder, and those abrasions are one of them. I do not believe the killer used a stun gun on her, though. In fact, where's Lou Smit these days, with his stun gun intruder theory? Seems the RST stopped pimping the stun gun theory when KarrWreck hit the headlines. Hmmmm.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

<snip>

Stun guns leave burns, and they do not leave perfect burns as the victim will writhe and twist to escape the pain.
<snip>




I believe the purpose of a stun gun is to "stun" an individual. How could the writhe and twist and scream if the are stunned - immobilized? Just curious

[nuisanceposter]

The guy who tried it said the screaming, writhing and twisting was involuntary. He said there was no way to avoid screaming. The stun gun makes every muscle spasm - that would account for movement.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The guy who tried it said the screaming, writhing and twisting was involuntary. He said there was no way to avoid screaming. The stun gun makes every muscle spasm - that would account for movement.

JonBenet was a small girl. I would imagine it would take shorter for a stun gun to stun her than a grown person. And, if her mouth had been alread taped, she wouldn't have been able to scream

Here's some info on how stun guns work, depending on how long the probes are held agains the body of the person it's being used on...

http://www.beststungun.com/faq.html
"When a stun gun touches both probes against the assailant’s body for ½ second, it will startle the assailant, giving him some pain, muscular contraction and shock. For 1-2 seconds, it will cause muscle spasms and a dazed mental state. For 3-5 seconds, it will cause loss of balance and muscle control, total mental confusion and disorientation, leaving him dazed. Under no conditions can you suffer a charge back to your own body, even if the assailant touches you while you are using a stun gun on him."

It sure doesn't sound like there's be much time for writhing and screaming.

[nuisanceposter]

But her mouth wasn't already taped.

There is a perfect impression of her lips on the tape, indicating she did not struggle against it all.

Not only that, the inside of her mouth, her cheeks and tongue, were completely unblemished. If she had been stun gunned, or strangled while conscious, she would have injured the inside of her mouth by biting her cheeks and tongue in the process.

As for the writhing and screaming, as I said, I am merely telling you what another poster said his experience was. I have no reason to doubt him as he has proven himself to be a reliable source of information.

[Mimi428]

Much debate on whether or not there was staging involved in this crime. But what does that mean? I am getting the impression that it means different things to different posters.

I found a very good link (imo) which has an article written by John Douglas - here...

http://www.crimeandclues.com/92feb003.html

Violent Crime Scene Analysis: Modus Operandi, Signature, and Staging

As investigators analyze crime scenes, facts may arise that baffle them. These details may contain peculiarities that serve no apparent purpose in the perpetration of the crime and obscure the underlying motive of the crime. This confusion may be the result of a crime scene behavior called staging. Staging occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police.

Principally, staging takes place for two reasons--to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family. It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation. This offender does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always has some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught. Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such distinctive behavior.

"Red Flags"

Offenders who stage crime scenes usually make mistakes because they arrange the scene to resemble what they believe it should look like. In so doing, offenders experience a great deal of stress and do not have the time to fit all the pieces together logically. As a result, inconsistencies in forensic findings and in the overall "big picture" of the crime scene will begin to appear. These inconsistencies can serve as the "red flags" of staging, which serve to prevent investigations from becoming misguided.

To ensure this doesn't happen, investigators should scrutinize all crime scene indicators individually, then view them in context with the total picture. Crime scene indicators include all evidence of offender activity, e.g., method of entry, offender-victim interaction, and body disposition.

When exploring these issues, investigators should consider several factors. For example, if burglary appears to be the motive, did the offender take inappropriate items from the crime scene? In one case submitted to the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), a man returning home from work interrupted a burglary in progress. The startled burglars killed him as he attempted to flee. But, an inventory of the crime scene determined that the offenders did not steal anything, although it did appear that they started to disassemble a large stereo and TV unit.

Further examination of the crime scene revealed that they left smaller, and easily transported, items of far greater value (jewelry, coin collection, etc.). The police subsequently determined that the victim's wife paid the burglars to stage the crime and kill her husband. She, in fact, was having an affair with one of the suspects.

Another factor to consider is the point of entry. Did the point of entry make sense? For example, did the offender enter the house through a second-story window, even though there was an easier, less conspicuous entrance that could have been used? Why did the offender increase his chance of being seen by potential witnesses who might alert authorities?

Investigators should also consider whether the offender put himself at high risk by committing the crime during the daylight hours, in a populated area. If the crime scene is a place of residence, they should also evaluate any obvious signs of occupancy, such as lights on in the house, vehicles in the driveway, etc.

Much, much more at the link - very good info, imo. When we discuss the ligature strangulation of JonBenet - those of us who believe it was part of a 'staging' are not suggesting it didn't happen - but that it happened with the deliberate intent to steer the police into believing an intruder did it, rather than someone in the house.

[MyrDawn]

Don't discount those of us that think an intruder staged it. I think an intruder killed JonBenet and staged the scene, including writing the ransom note, to confuse the heck out of the Ramsey's and the police. And, it worked!

I believe if it had been either of the Ramsey's, they'd have tried to stage it to look like an accident, not a murder.

I've never heard of another case where a parent killed their child, either accidentally or on purpose, and wanted it to look like murder.

I have heard of several cases where they tried to stage a murder to look like an accident, though.

[WallyCleaver]

I'm undecided about the garrotte as staging. There's plenty of staging in the case, and imo it all points towards RDI. But the garrotte bothers me.

Some think she was manually strangled before the garrotte was applied. I can't think of a reason for the Rs to kill her by manual strangulation, nor a reason for an intruder to do so, then stage the garrotting. I can think of one reason that one R might have used the garrotte - and that would be for errotic asphyxiation. It was badly constructed for that purpose. I sort of lean towards the idea the garrotte was the actual means of strangulation, not something added later for staging.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by MyrDawn
Don't discount those of us that think an intruder staged it. I think an intruder killed JonBenet and staged the scene, including writing the ransom note, to confuse the heck out of the Ramsey's and the police. And, it worked!

I believe if it had been either of the Ramsey's, they'd have tried to stage it to look like an accident, not a murder.

I've never heard of another case where a parent killed their child, either accidentally or on purpose, and wanted it to look like murder.

I have heard of several cases where they tried to stage a murder to look like an accident, though.

Good point! Why didn't they drop her off the balcony or down the spiral stairs. Simple, quick solution to their problem.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Good point! Why didn't they drop her off the balcony or down the spiral stairs. Simple, quick solution to their problem.

Because dropping from the balcony or down the stairs wouldn't explain the injuries.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


Because dropping from the balcony or down the stairs wouldn't explain the injuries.

Many believe the injury to her head came first. If that was the case, there would have been no reason to inflict other injuries. They could have simply dropped her over the balcony and said she fell. But, to think the Ramsey's would inflict the other injuries afterwards, and write the ransom note, all to make it look like murder is ridiculous.

People want murders they commit to look like accidents. Not the other way around.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Many believe the injury to her head came first. If that was the case, there would have been no reason to inflict other injuries. They could have simply dropped her over the balcony and said she fell. But, to think the Ramsey's would inflict the other injuries afterwards, and write the ransom note, all to make it look like murder is ridiculous.

People want murders they commit to look like accidents. Not the other way around.


Respectfully, I think you're missing something. (Or maybe it's me, so I look forward to being corrected)

She did in fact have injuries to her vaginal area. It's debatable whether or not this is from prior sexual abuse. If they did result from prior abuse, and that prior abuse was done by JR, he might have thought the evidence against him would come out in the autopsy report. It would then be necessary to stage the scene to look as if someone else did it.

I'm not saying it's a given that JR sexually molested JBR on prior occassions (or even that night). I'm just saying that staging a murder to cover an accident is consistant with wanting to cover up evidence or prior sexual abuse. It's one possible theory of the case, and it makes sense.

Some people might want the murder they committed to look like a murder somone else committed.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver



Respectfully, I think you're missing something. (Or maybe it's me, so I look forward to being corrected)

She did in fact have injuries to her vaginal area. It's debatable whether or not this is from prior sexual abuse. If they did result from prior abuse, and that prior abuse was done by JR, he might have thought the evidence against him would come out in the autopsy report. It would then be necessary to stage the scene to look as if someone else did it.

I'm not saying it's a given that JR sexually molested JBR on prior occassions (or even that night). I'm just saying that staging a murder to cover an accident is consistant with wanting to cover up evidence or prior sexual abuse. It's one possible theory of the case, and it makes sense.

Some people might want the murder they committed to look like a murder somone else committed.

I based my reply on my opinions and what some other posters have been asserting.

I believe that the Ramseys had nothing to do with JonBenet's death or injuries, the ones the day of her death, nor do I believe there was any prior sexual abuse proven.

If her head injury came first, and it was an accident, as many posters assert, I do not believe the Ramseys would have staged that elaborate coverup to make it look like murder.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver



Respectfully, I think you're missing something. (Or maybe it's me, so I look forward to being corrected)

She did in fact have injuries to her vaginal area. It's debatable whether or not this is from prior sexual abuse. If they did result from prior abuse, and that prior abuse was done by JR, he might have thought the evidence against him would come out in the autopsy report. It would then be necessary to stage the scene to look as if someone else did it.

I'm not saying it's a given that JR sexually molested JBR on prior occassions (or even that night). I'm just saying that staging a murder to cover an accident is consistant with wanting to cover up evidence or prior sexual abuse. It's one possible theory of the case, and it makes sense.

Some people might want the murder they committed to look like a murder somone else committed.

I sort of agree with you, Wally. I think the crime scene was definitely staged. I'm not sure which injury came first, but right now I'm leaning toward the head injury coming first, though I don't doubt that she died from asphyxiation.

To me, staging has always meant making something look like something it was not. (Thanks for the link, Mimi.) The BPD said the JB murder was "staging within staging."

I don't think they just dropped her down a balcony or stairs because they thought the ME would be able to tell she had different injuries, with one coming before the other.

I also agree with you that another reason would be a history of prior sexual abuse. Some forensic pathologists said she definitely had a history of prior sexual abuse and some said she didn't. There is no definitive answer.

If the head injury came first, and was accidental, I don't think they called 911 at that time because they knew hospital emergency room personnel would find evidence of vaginal trauma. However, I am aware that the vaginal trauma that occurred on that night, happened at or close to her death.

JMO

[WallyCleaver]

If her head injury came first, and it was an accident, as many posters assert, I do not believe the Ramseys would have staged that elaborate coverup to make it look like murder.



Niether do I - unless something else needed to be covered up. If (please note - If) JR had been abusing her, he may have thought it necessary to make it look like a paedo-murderer did it. Even if it was an accident.

[sunsplashed]

I guess it's clear from my post, but I definitely think the Ramseys are guilty.

There's just zero evidence of an intruder, including NO footprints in the snow. And there WAS snow. Even John Fernie said there was. He said his were the only footprints in the snow when he arrived, AFTER Officers Veitch and French.

JMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Thanks for starting this thread, Mimi. I believe JonBenet was murdered and that the idea that a murder was staged in order to cover up an accident somehow diminishes the crime and makes it easier to blame the parent. If one of the Ramseys was responsible for this, then they murdered their child. It was a horrific crime. No excuses.

[MissOtisRegrets]

I think the head injury may have been the last wound inflicted. The killer was leaving and the ligature death is a slow one. She wasn't dead yet. He had to make sure.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed
I guess it's clear from my post, but I definitely think the Ramseys are guilty.

There's just zero evidence of an intruder, including NO footprints in the snow. And there WAS snow. Even John Fernie said there was. He said his were the only footprints in the snow when he arrived, AFTER Officers Veitch and French.

JMO

ST depo:
11 Q. How about Officer Reichenbach, how
12 do you pronounce his name?
13 A. Reichenbach.
14 Q. Do you ever recall hearing about
15 what he said when he met with Dr. Henry Lee
16 in terms of whether there was snow on the
17 sidewalk of the house when he arrived that
18 morning?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What did he say?
21 A. He said, and he also said this to
22 me, that although there was due to what I
23 think was an 11 degree temperature outside,
24 there was a fresh frost and maybe a light
25 dusting of snow on some of the lawn areas,
241
1 but on the sidewalks and walkways around the
2 house, as he put in his report, as I may
3 have put in one of my reports, as we
4 presented to the VIP conference, that you
5 could not tell whether or not somebody may
6 have walked on those walkways in question.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


ST depo:
11 Q. How about Officer Reichenbach, how
12 do you pronounce his name?
13 A. Reichenbach.
14 Q. Do you ever recall hearing about
15 what he said when he met with Dr. Henry Lee
16 in terms of whether there was snow on the
17 sidewalk of the house when he arrived that
18 morning?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What did he say?
21 A. He said, and he also said this to
22 me, that although there was due to what I
23 think was an 11 degree temperature outside,
24 there was a fresh frost and maybe a light
25 dusting of snow on some of the lawn areas,
241
1 but on the sidewalks and walkways around the
2 house, as he put in his report, as I may
3 have put in one of my reports, as we
4 presented to the VIP conference, that you
5 could not tell whether or not somebody may
6 have walked on those walkways in question.

I never said there was snow on the walkways. I said there was snow on the ground. It would have been impossible for someone, anyone, to remove the grate and enter the house without stepping from walkway onto the ground.

And I don't for one second believe that any killer waltzed right up to the door and let himself in.

JMO

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I think the head injury may have been the last wound inflicted. The killer was leaving and the ligature death is a slow one. She wasn't dead yet. He had to make sure.

I don't know which injury came first, MissOtis. Even the ME wasn't totally sure.

However, if the head injury came after JB's death, that would mean all the bleeding into the brain and the extensive bruising of the brain should not have taken place.

JMO

[Louisadelmar]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I never said there was snow on the walkways. I said there was snow on the ground. It would have been impossible for someone, anyone, to remove the grate and enter the house without stepping from walkway onto the ground.

And I don't for one second believe that any killer waltzed right up to the door and let himself in.

JMO

Why not? One of the best ways to blend in is to act like you belong. The neighbor (Barnhill) said there was a young man going towards the house that afternoon. Not knowing JAR was in GA he thought it was him.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver
I'm undecided about the garrotte as staging. There's plenty of staging in the case, and imo it all points towards RDI. But the garrotte bothers me.

Some think she was manually strangled before the garrotte was applied. I can't think of a reason for the Rs to kill her by manual strangulation, nor a reason for an intruder to do so, then stage the garrotting. I can think of one reason that one R might have used the garrotte - and that would be for errotic asphyxiation. It was badly constructed for that purpose. I sort of lean towards the idea the garrotte was the actual means of strangulation, not something added later for staging.

I have no idea why anyone would thing manual strangulation was part of this. If that had been the case, the autopsy results would have been very different. Manual strangulation would put specific bruises around her throat & it would be expected that the hyoid bone would have been fractured. She had petechial hemorrhages at the furrow created by the ligature - she would have had additional, DIFFERENT hemorrhaging, bruising, contusions if she had been manually strangled.

Look at this specific photo & you can clearly see the hemorraging pattern...

http://www.jameson245.com/faceright.jpg

WARNING - GRAPHIC PHOTO!

Dr. Myers specifically notes that no hemorrhage was found in several related areas when he dissected the neck - that is very important in determining method of strangulation. Link here...

http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/autopsy.html?page=8

The anterior strap musculature of the neck is serially dissected. Multiple sections of the stereocleidomastoid muscles disclose no hemorrhages. Sections of the remainder of the strap musculature of the neck disclose no evidence of hemorrhage. Examination of the thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage & hyoid bone disclose no evidence of fracture or hemorrhage. Multiple cross sections of the tongue disclose no hemorrhage or traumatic injury.

This is VERY important! Look at this illustration of the cricoid cartilage (the Adam's apple) - & think how difficult it would be to put your hands around the throat of a small child & not crush that. The rope could avoid it because of the narrowness - but the hand of a grown person would press against it & crush it.

http://health.allrefer.com/pictures-images/cricoid-cartilage.html

(I think we need an entire thread just on strangulation)

[docg]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver



Respectfully, I think you're missing something. (Or maybe it's me, so I look forward to being corrected)

She did in fact have injuries to her vaginal area. It's debatable whether or not this is from prior sexual abuse. If they did result from prior abuse, and that prior abuse was done by JR, he might have thought the evidence against him would come out in the autopsy report. It would then be necessary to stage the scene to look as if someone else did it.

I'm not saying it's a given that JR sexually molested JBR on prior occassions (or even that night). I'm just saying that staging a murder to cover an accident is consistant with wanting to cover up evidence or prior sexual abuse. It's one possible theory of the case, and it makes sense.

Some people might want the murder they committed to look like a murder somone else committed.

Yes. Excellent. Agreed!

But if the motive was the need to cover up sexual abuse, then why bring Patsy into the picture at all? The most popular version of this story (and I'm not saying it's yours) is Patsy "losing it," accidently bashing JonBenet over the head, and then staging an "over the top" coverup. In order to explain why she wouldn't have simply reported this as an accident, which it would have been in any case, it's necessary to bring in the evidence of prior abuse and the fact that John could be implicated by the autopsy results.

But if prior abuse is involved, that's a huge ten ton gorilla in itself. Since there's NO evidence that Patsy struck JonBenet, either by accident or otherwise, but there IS evidence of prior abuse (coupled with fiber evidence also implicating John), then why oh why is everyone always going on about Patsy????? And handing John, in the words of Steve Thomas, "a pass"?

Why is it so hard to believe that John could have been abusing his daughter without Patsy's knowledge? And that he could have killed her to prevent her from telling Patsy?

Which takes us from accident to what this really looks like: murder.

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by Louisadelmar


Why not? One of the best ways to blend in is to act like you belong. The neighbor (Barnhill) said there was a young man going towards the house that afternoon. Not knowing JAR was in GA he thought it was him.

Well, if he was noticed by Joe Barnhill, he didn't "blend in."

[sunsplashed]

Originally posted by docg


Why is it so hard to believe that John could have been abusing his daughter without Patsy's knowledge? And that he could have killed her to prevent her from telling Patsy?

Which takes us from accident to what this really looks like: murder.

Snipped for bandwidth.

The hardest thing to believe about John molesting JB is the fact that Melinda denies any type of abuse at all, and the fact that JB reportedly did not tell Patsy about any abuse by John. I don't think she'd tell Melinda before Patsy. She was, by all accounts, very close to Patsy, and I think she'd tell Patsy before anyone else.

It's also hard to believe a man who was molesting his daughter would choose Christmas night, especially when an early morning flight was planned for the 26th, to molest.

That's what's hard about the theory to me. The ransom note makes perfect sense if John wrote it, but it's hard to believe JB would not tell Patsy.

JMO

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by MyrDawn


Many believe the injury to her head came first. If that was the case, there would have been no reason to inflict other injuries. They could have simply dropped her over the balcony and said she fell. But, to think the Ramsey's would inflict the other injuries afterwards, and write the ransom note, all to make it look like murder is ridiculous.

People want murders they commit to look like accidents. Not the other way around.

And in your scenario - how do you suppose they would explain the contradictory injuries? A drop over the balcony could very likely inflict injuries to the FRONT of her body - which would directly contradict the fracture on TOP of her head.

And - who is to say a drop over the balcony would have killed her in the first place? Again - you take the evidence which was learned AFTER the autopsy & infer that it was known beforehand.
NO ONE know how bad that head injury was until the autopsy. The only certain, sure knowledge they would have had at the time was that she was unconscious. And if they feared what she would tell when she woke up - that fear could have been the reason to make sure she DIDN'T wake up - via strangulation.

MOO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


I don't know which injury came first, MissOtis. Even the ME wasn't totally sure.

However, if the head injury came after JB's death, that would mean all the bleeding into the brain and the extensive bruising of the brain should not have taken place.

JMO

Neither injury occurred postmortem, sun. Therefore neither could have been a cover-up for the accidental killing by the other. She was alive when both occurred.

I was just trying to work the duct tape in. There is no need for duct tape after the head injury was inflicted. I was wondering if the duct tape was put on in case she woke up during the crafting of the "garrotte".

[docg]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Snipped for bandwidth.

The hardest thing to believe about John molesting JB is the fact that Melinda denies any type of abuse at all, and the fact that JB reportedly did not tell Patsy about any abuse by John. I don't think she'd tell Melinda before Patsy. She was, by all accounts, very close to Patsy, and I think she'd tell Patsy before anyone else.

It's also hard to believe a man who was molesting his daughter would choose Christmas night, especially when an early morning flight was planned for the 26th, to molest.

That's what's hard about the theory to me. The ransom note makes perfect sense if John wrote it, but it's hard to believe JB would not tell Patsy.

JMO

Melinda wasn't dangled before the world as a tempting sexual hors d'œuvre. So John's attitude toward JonBenet may well have been very different from the way he saw Melinda.

I don't think John chose that night to molest JonBenet. I think she might have said something that could have led him to believe she was about to blow the whistle on him. The molestation that occured might have been part of one last "loving" -- and parting -- embrace -- before striking the blow that would silence her forever.

As far as JonBenet telling Patsy: there is always a first time. Maybe John didn't want that first time to ever take place.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by docg


Melinda wasn't dangled before the world as a tempting sexual hors d'œuvre. So John's attitude toward JonBenet may well have been very different from the way he saw Melinda.

I don't think John chose that night to molest JonBenet. I think she might have said something that could have led him to believe she was about to blow the whistle on him. The molestation that occured might have been part of one last "loving" -- and parting -- embrace -- before striking the blow that would silence her forever.

As far as JonBenet telling Patsy: there is always a first time. Maybe John didn't want that first time to ever take place.

Docg, if prior sexual molestation had taken place, there are a number of people other than John, who might have been responsible for it.

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by sunsplashed


Snipped for bandwidth.

The hardest thing to believe about John molesting JB is the fact that Melinda denies any type of abuse at all, and the fact that JB reportedly did not tell Patsy about any abuse by John. I don't think she'd tell Melinda before Patsy. She was, by all accounts, very close to Patsy, and I think she'd tell Patsy before anyone else.

It's also hard to believe a man who was molesting his daughter would choose Christmas night, especially when an early morning flight was planned for the 26th, to molest.

That's what's hard about the theory to me. The ransom note makes perfect sense if John wrote it, but it's hard to believe JB would not tell Patsy.

JMO The sad thing is...I understand Doc's viewpoint....it could have been happening without Patsy's knowledge....a neighbor lady lived with a man approximately six years....we all liked this guy...but quite honestly I thought he did have an unusual closeness with her daughter from a previous marriage...but I brushed the thought off as just being paranoid with all I had seen on tv.....the mother broke up with the guy...and once the little girl realized he was out of their lives for good she divulged her secret to her mom...the mother had even discussed these things with her children...another reason the woman broke up with him is she caught him on the internet several times looking at porn......the point I'm making is...JB could have been molested for years without her divulging it to Patsy....I don't really think that was the case here, though......someone would have had suspicions...and I still believe if John had carried out such a thing as murdering his daughter and staging this scene of horror ....imo he would have had to be heavily into porno...! Hi ya'll hope everyone is having a great day! :)

[Ames]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver



Respectfully, I think you're missing something. (Or maybe it's me, so I look forward to being corrected)

She did in fact have injuries to her vaginal area. It's debatable whether or not this is from prior sexual abuse. If they did result from prior abuse, and that prior abuse was done by JR, he might have thought the evidence against him would come out in the autopsy report. It would then be necessary to stage the scene to look as if someone else did it.

I'm not saying it's a given that JR sexually molested JBR on prior occassions (or even that night). I'm just saying that staging a murder to cover an accident is consistant with wanting to cover up evidence or prior sexual abuse. It's one possible theory of the case, and it makes sense.

Some people might want the murder they committed to look like a murder somone else committed.


Exactly! Good point!!

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Mimi428


I have no idea why anyone would thing manual strangulation was part of this. If that had been the case, the autopsy results would have been very different. Manual strangulation would put specific bruises around her throat & it would be expected that the hyoid bone would have been fractured. She had petechial hemorrhages at the furrow created by the ligature - she would have had additional, DIFFERENT hemorrhaging, bruising, contusions if she had been manually strangled.

Look at this specific photo & you can clearly see the hemorraging pattern...

http://www.jameson245.com/faceright.jpg

WARNING - GRAPHIC PHOTO!

Dr. Myers specifically notes that no hemorrhage was found in several related areas when he dissected the neck - that is very important in determining method of strangulation. Link here...

http://www.courttv.com/news/ramsey/docs/autopsy.html?page=8

The anterior strap musculature of the neck is serially dissected. Multiple sections of the stereocleidomastoid muscles disclose no hemorrhages. Sections of the remainder of the strap musculature of the neck disclose no evidence of hemorrhage. Examination of the thyroid cartilage, cricoid cartilage & hyoid bone disclose no evidence of fracture or hemorrhage. Multiple cross sections of the tongue disclose no hemorrhage or traumatic injury.

This is VERY important! Look at this illustration of the cricoid cartilage (the Adam's apple) - & think how difficult it would be to put your hands around the throat of a small child & not crush that. The rope could avoid it because of the narrowness - but the hand of a grown person would press against it & crush it.

http://health.allrefer.com/pictures-images/cricoid-cartilage.html

(I think we need an entire thread just on strangulation)

It's just something I've read on other sites. People thing some of the marks are a sign of manual strangulation. I wouldn't have enough knowledge to say.

A thread on strangulation is an excellent idea.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by docg


Yes. Excellent. Agreed!

But if the motive was the need to cover up sexual abuse, then why bring Patsy into the picture at all? The most popular version of this story (and I'm not saying it's yours) is Patsy "losing it," accidently bashing JonBenet over the head, and then staging an "over the top" coverup. In order to explain why she wouldn't have simply reported this as an accident, which it would have been in any case, it's necessary to bring in the evidence of prior abuse and the fact that John could be implicated by the autopsy results.

But if prior abuse is involved, that's a huge ten ton gorilla in itself. Since there's NO evidence that Patsy struck JonBenet, either by accident or otherwise, but there IS evidence of prior abuse (coupled with fiber evidence also implicating John), then why oh why is everyone always going on about Patsy????? And handing John, in the words of Steve Thomas, "a pass"?

Why is it so hard to believe that John could have been abusing his daughter without Patsy's knowledge? And that he could have killed her to prevent her from telling Patsy?

Which takes us from accident to what this really looks like: murder.

I agree. It would be dangerous to bring Patsy in. Sometimes a woman will stand by her man even when she knows he's molesting her child. But often they won't. And as your theory points out, the note makes little sense under a two Rs scenario.

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Lawyer Larry



John NEVER molested JonBenet. What kind of sick mind do you have?:rolleyes:

How do you know?

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by Lawyer Larry


Where's the Beav?

Gee Larry, how should I know?

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by Mimi428


And in your scenario - how do you suppose they would explain the contradictory injuries? A drop over the balcony could very likely inflict injuries to the FRONT of her body - which would directly contradict the fracture on TOP of her head.

And - who is to say a drop over the balcony would have killed her in the first place? Again - you take the evidence which was learned AFTER the autopsy & infer that it was known beforehand.
NO ONE know how bad that head injury was until the autopsy. The only certain, sure knowledge they would have had at the time was that she was unconscious. And if they feared what she would tell when she woke up - that fear could have been the reason to make sure she DIDN'T wake up - via strangulation.

MOO

In that scenario, there wouldn't be any contradictory injuries. And, it's not my scenrio and I'm not taking any evidence.

I'm getting a bit tired of explaining I don't believe either of the Ramseys had anything to do with it.

I merely formed my reply because some posters think Patsy struck JonBenet hard enough for her to strike her head, (angered when JonBenet wet the bed), then she panicked and everything else resulted as a big staging coverup.

I think it's ridiculous to think Patsy would go to those extremes just because she hit JonBenet hard enough for her to strike her head and lose conciousness or kill her. As Louisadelmar said, dropping her off the balcony or down the spiral stairs would make it look like an accident. Simple quick solution to the problem.

[docg]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Docg, if prior sexual molestation had taken place, there are a number of people other than John, who might have been responsible for it.

Really? Who would have had such an opportunity? Who would she have trusted more than her father? Who would she have feared more than her father?

When a female child is sexually molested you look at the sexually mature males living in the same house. There was only one: her father.

And as far as we know, her father was the only mature male in the house the night of her death. Remember, there is very strong evidence pointing away from ANY intruder.

[MyrDawn]

Originally posted by docg


Really? Who would have had such an opportunity? Who would she have trusted more than her father? Who would she have feared more than her father?

When a female child is sexually molested you look at the sexually mature males living in the same house. There was only one: her father.

And as far as we know, her father was the only mature male in the house the night of her death. Remember, there is very strong evidence pointing away from ANY intruder.

The molestor is not always someone that lives in the same house. Many times it's a family friend, uncle, neighbor, even a teacher or pastor.

Remember, Fleet White had a key, as did several other people the Ramseys knew.