First Hand Knowledge On How It Feels To Be Strangled!! [Archive]

Ames

11-21-2006, 12:04 PM

Okay, first of all ...I would like to say that I probably shouldn't have started a new thread for this, but...I didn't know where else to put it, and I am sure that it will get merged to where it belongs, anyway.

I would just like to say that when I was really young, and in Elementary School, I rode the bus with a high school boy, that I swear was satan's son. He was really mean to all of the younger kids on the bus. While I was sitting in one of the seats, minding my OWN business, he was sitting directly behind me. He took a cord, about the width of a shoe string, and placed it in front of my neck, and began to pull as hard as he could, from behind. As he was doing this, I heard his grunts....from pulling so tight...and in between his grunts, his laughter. He apparently thought this was funny!! Anyway, I can still remember gasping for air, as my throat closed in...and also scratching my neck, trying desperately to remove the cord so that I could breathe. As I was about to lose conciousness....satan's son finally let go. I will never forget that feeling as long as I live. Having your airway cut off, is a terrible feeling. I almost clawed my neck to shreds...just trying to get my fingers under it enough so that I could at least TRY to pull it away. My strength, being an elementary student, was no match for the male (satan's son) high school student. He was suspended from the BUS! Geez....what a "high" price to pay, for "merely" tryng to strangle someone. His butt should have gone to juvenille detention. I was not the only person that he did this to, this guy was a "real sweetheart". :flamemad: Now for the reason that I have went into my memory bank, and pulled this out....I believe that JB's head injury came first..and then the strangulation....or ELSE...she would have had severe scratches on her neck, from trying to remove the cord, AND would have had lots of her own FRESH skin (not old dna that is always present) under her fingernails. IMO the head wound came first...followed by the strangulation. Trust me....I should know. (IMO)

bullmoose

11-21-2006, 04:02 PM

I wonder, whatever happened to this twisted boy? Usually at least in my own experience people that exhibit the kind of behavior that you are talking about go on to bigger and better things. If he was fantasizing about strangling someone, and it seems like he must have been, then he was displaying a disturbing personality disorder really young. I would wonder if he got any help or did he end up in prison? Your point about the blow coming first makes a lot of sense in the context of your experience.

shill

11-21-2006, 04:04 PM

That is a terrifing experience that no one should ever have to go through. I have no doubt you and any one will struggle to no length to free ones self from strangulation.

But in JB's case, IMO her hands were restrained above her head. And I believe they were restrained well enough that she was helpless to do anything about the garrote around her neck, and that was the purpose of restraining her hands.

Ames

11-21-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
I wonder, whatever happened to this twisted boy? Usually at least in my own experience people that exhibit the kind of behavior that you are talking about go on to bigger and better things. If he was fantasizing about strangling someone, and it seems like he must have been, then he was displaying a disturbing personality disorder really young. I would wonder if he got any help or did he end up in prison? Your point about the blow coming first makes a lot of sense in the context of your experience.

You know, I have often wondered that my own self. He is probably in prison somewhere....hopefully rotting away. As soon as I posted my experience, I called my dad..and we talked about it, again...at length. The sad thing is, he had alot of brothers and sisters, and they were ALL mean (he took his meaness to another level, though). We had to take them to court, and get a restraining order. Like I said before, I will never, as long as I live, forget that feeling of my the front of my throat touching the back, and closing my airway....or the feeling of trying to move the cord, and not being able too...and in the process, practically shredding the skin on my throat, because of the scratching. I was around nine years old, and still remember it as if it happened yesterday. I have no idea what ever happened to him, or if he got the help that he needed. But, in my horrible experience....of being strangled to the point of coming close to unconciousness....and the fight for survival, the reason for the lack of scratches on JB's neck, and the lack of her own fresh skin under her nails....leads me to believe (or in my experience, I should say that I KNOW)...that she was hit on the head first...and then strangled. Having gone through what I did....I can say first hand...that being strangled...and having your air cut off...would be a HORRIBLE way to die. IMO

Ames

11-21-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by shill
That is a terrifing experience that no one should ever have to go through. I have no doubt you and any one will struggle to no length to free ones self from strangulation.

But in JB's case, IMO her hands were restrained above her head. And I believe they were restrained well enough that she was helpless to do anything about the garrote around her neck, and that was the purpose of restraining her hands.

I see your point....BUT...her hands were not restrained BEHIND her. They were over the top of her head, when she was found...with PLENTY of cord, between each wrist...she could have easily reached up and scratched herself, trying to break free of the cord. IMO....the ropes were put there AFTER the strangulation...I have not seen one link provided, that said that her wrists were tied in order to restrain her....all of the links that I have seen say that the tied wrists were part of the staging...either by her parents...if you are RDI..or by the intruder, if you are IDI. The ropes around her wrist served no purpose. IMO

Ames

11-21-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by shill

<snipped>
That is a terrifing experience that no one should ever have to go through. I have no doubt you and any one will struggle to no length to free ones self from strangulation.

Yes, it was terrifying...it would be bad enough as an adult to go through such a thing, but imagine a child having to go through it. And, how many people do you know personally, that has been through that, who has lived to tell about it? Probably not many...if any. I am one of the few...and far betweens.

shill

11-21-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I see your point....BUT...her hands were not restrained BEHIND her. They were over the top of her head, when she was found...with PLENTY of cord, between each wrist...she could have easily reached up and scratched herself, trying to break free of the cord. IMO....the ropes were put there AFTER the strangulation...I have not seen one link provided, that said that her wrists were tied in order to restrain her....all of the links that I have seen say that the tied wrists were part of the staging...either by her parents...if you are RDI..or by the intruder, if you are IDI. The ropes around her wrist served no purpose. IMO I strongly disagree with this reasoning.
IMO the length of cord was to hitch the cord to something above her head. If you are going to restrain someones hands, you need to tie them to something. The ligature wasn't a pair of handcuffs. I think it is obvious that in order for rigor motis to have left her hands suspend above her head, they would have been secured to something above her head that would prevent her hands from lowering and of course reaching her neck.

I have also read that the police can verify the killer by his knowledge of this ligature. IMO this means how it was used in this crime.

Ames

11-21-2006, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by shill
I strongly disagree with this reasoning.
IMO the length of cord was to hitch the cord to something above her head. If you are going to restrain someones hands, you need to tie them to something. The ligature wasn't a pair of handcuffs. I think it is obvious that in order for rigor motis to have left her hands suspend above her head, they would have been secured to something above her head that would prevent her hands from lowering and of course reaching her neck.

I have also read that the police can verify the killer by his knowledge of this ligature. IMO this means how it was used in this crime.

So you are saying that you believe that she was hung up by the space of rope between her hands...that she was suspended. Why not just tie them behind her back...yes, like handcuffs. Why not just just tie them TOGETHER behind her back. I thought that, according to the rigormortis...and the bruising on the underside of the body, because of the blood pooling...I believe thats called livermortis, that it was determined that she was never suspended. What was she suspended to? A hook in the basement...or something? (If they had of suspected suspension, they would have looked around to find out what she could have been suspended from, and take that into evidence.) I have read a partial list of the evidence taken, and it wasn't on there. Of course, it could be that its because its only a PARTIAL list...but, that still doesn't explain the rigormortis, and the livermortis. Why would the perp hang her up, and then take her down....why not just leave her there hanging for shock value?? She was never suspended IMO

bullmoose

11-21-2006, 05:20 PM

This is an intriguing and disturbing thought to me; Jonbenet's hands were above her head in rigor mortis, so if her hands were tied by the cord above her head she would have been in that position for some time before she was layed down or posed in the room she was found in. This would lengthen the time the killer/s were in the house after the horrific violence to Jonbenet by a considerable margin, wouldn't it take at least a couple of hours for her arms to stiffen above her head if suspended by the cord?

Ames

11-21-2006, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
This is an intriguing and disturbing thought to me; Jonbenet's hands were above her head in rigor mortis, so if her hands were tied by the cord above her head she would have been in that position for some time before she was layed down or posed in the room she was found in. This would lengthen the time the killer/s were in the house after the horrific violence to Jonbenet by a considerable margin, wouldn't it take at least a couple of hours for her arms to stiffen above her head if suspended by the cord?

But how would the blood have pooled beneath her arms, if this was the case? Her blood was pooled on the back side of her...indicating that she had been there for awhile in the lying on her back postition. What exactly was she suspended to? Why was the rope so loose on her wrist that the coroner just slipped it off without any trouble? Why not just LEAVE her suspended...better yet...why not just leave her NAKED from the waist down and suspended. That would have REALLY got to John...if it had of been an intruder, which it wasn't. So, okay...now the intruder was kind enough, not only to re-dress her....but, after he suspended her, he took her down and laid her flat on her back? Okay...that makes no sense, if he was angry at John, and going for "pay back". IMO

Ames

11-21-2006, 05:54 PM

But how would the blood have pooled beneath her arms, if this was the case? Her blood was pooled on the back side of her...indicating that she had been there for awhile in the lying on her back postition. What exactly was she suspended to? Why was the rope so loose on her wrist that the coroner just slipped it off without any trouble? Why not just LEAVE her suspended...better yet...why not just leave her NAKED from the waist down and suspended. That would have REALLY got to John...if it had of been an intruder, which it wasn't. So, okay...now the intruder was kind enough, not only to re-dress her....but, after he suspended her, he took her down and laid her flat on her back? Okay...that makes no sense, if he was angry at John, and going for "pay back". IMO I am an RDI...but, I don't think that even John suspended her.

shill

11-21-2006, 05:55 PM

Ames

11-21-2006, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Ames
But how would the blood have pooled beneath her arms, if this was the case? Her blood was pooled on the back side of her...indicating that she had been there for awhile in the lying on her back postition. What exactly was she suspended to? Why was the rope so loose on her wrist that the coroner just slipped it off without any trouble? Why not just LEAVE her suspended...better yet...why not just leave her NAKED from the waist down and suspended. That would have REALLY got to John...if it had of been an intruder, which it wasn't. So, okay...now the intruder was kind enough, not only to re-dress her....but, after he suspended her, he took her down and laid her flat on her back? Okay...that makes no sense, if he was angry at John, and going for "pay back". IMO I am an RDI...but, I don't think that even John suspended her.

Sorry for the double post...I was trying to edit, but clicked the wrong thing. DUH....

Ames

11-21-2006, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by shill
If she is lying on a bed and her hands are tied to the head board or she is sitting in a chair and her hands are tied to a pipe above her head, this would account for her hands being over her head.
She wasn't hung like an ornament on a Christmas Tree.
And I don't think the perp wanted her discovered right away or he wouldn't have written the ransom note. The Ramseys would have found her dead around 5:30am, maybe sooner if they had woken and checked on her. A man hunt would have persued in the area, the airports would be watched and anyone trying to leave town. I don't think there are to many routes out of Boulder.

Okay, I thought that you meant that she was suspended....yes, like an ornament on a Christmas Tree. Sorry...I misunderstood...

shill

11-21-2006, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Ames
But how would the blood have pooled beneath her arms, if this was the case? Her blood was pooled on the back side of her...indicating that she had been there for awhile in the lying on her back postition. What exactly was she suspended to? Why was the rope so loose on her wrist that the coroner just slipped it off without any trouble? Why not just LEAVE her suspended...better yet...why not just leave her NAKED from the waist down and suspended. That would have REALLY got to John...if it had of been an intruder, which it wasn't. So, okay...now the intruder was kind enough, not only to re-dress her....but, after he suspended her, he took her down and laid her flat on her back? Okay...that makes no sense, if he was angry at John, and going for "pay back". IMO I am an RDI...but, I don't think that even John suspended her. She was laying on her back with her arms suspended over her head.

Do we really know for sure that she wasn't naked from the waist down?

Ames

11-21-2006, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by shill
If she is lying on a bed and her hands are tied to the head board or she is sitting in a chair and her hands are tied to a pipe above her head, this would account for her hands being over her head.
She wasn't hung like an ornament on a Christmas Tree.
And I don't think the perp wanted her discovered right away or he wouldn't have written the ransom note. The Ramseys would have found her dead around 5:30am, maybe sooner if they had woken and checked on her. A man hunt would have persued in the area, the airports would be watched and anyone trying to leave town. I don't think there are to many routes out of Boulder.

So, if you think that she didn't claw her neck, because she was suspended...you must think that she was strangled first...while either tied to the bed, or sitting in a chair with her arms tied to a pipe...right?

shill

11-21-2006, 06:09 PM

I think the garrote was being pulled from the front and downward(I'm not going to explain) and to keep her head restrained and from moving in this direction, her hands would have to be held above and behind her head.

Ames

11-21-2006, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by shill
If she is lying on a bed and her hands are tied to the head board or she is sitting in a chair and her hands are tied to a pipe above her head, this would account for her hands being over her head.
She wasn't hung like an ornament on a Christmas Tree.
And I don't think the perp wanted her discovered right away or he wouldn't have written the ransom note. The Ramseys would have found her dead around 5:30am, maybe sooner if they had woken and checked on her. A man hunt would have persued in the area, the airports would be watched and anyone trying to leave town. I don't think there are to many routes out of Boulder.

Sorry, I am having troubles with my computer....geesh...I didn't mean to reply to the post again.

Coloradokares

11-21-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by shill
If she is lying on a bed and her hands are tied to the head board or she is sitting in a chair and her hands are tied to a pipe above her head, this would account for her hands being over her head.
She wasn't hung like an ornament on a Christmas Tree.
And I don't think the perp wanted her discovered right away or he wouldn't have written the ransom note. The Ramseys would have found her dead around 5:30am, maybe sooner if they had woken and checked on her. A man hunt would have persued in the area, the airports would be watched and anyone trying to leave town. I don't think there are to many routes out of Boulder.

There were a few but the perp was long gone by the time the body was found or not One reason why the Ramseys flight was delayed that John had called on regarding going to Atlanta. They were not flying anywhere with the body of their daughter having been found.

shill

11-21-2006, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Ames

So, if you think that she didn't claw her neck, because she was suspended...you must think that she was strangled first...while either tied to the bed, or sitting in a chair with her arms tied to a pipe...right? Yes, but her death by strangulation might have been unintended.

Ames

11-21-2006, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by shill
She was laying on her back with her arms suspended over her head.

Do we really know for sure that she wasn't naked from the waist down?

She wasn't when John found her, and thats what I meant...the perp would have left her there like that for John to find...IF he hated John so much. IMO

shill

11-21-2006, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

There were a few but the perp was long gone by the time the body was found or not One reason why the Ramseys flight was delayed that John had called on regarding going to Atlanta. They were not flying anywhere with the body of their daughter having been found. I'd be checking for flights out of town on the 26th and 27th for anyone who was visiting Boulder.

shill

11-21-2006, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Ames

She wasn't when John found her, and thats what I meant...the perp would have left her there like that for John to find...IF he hated John so much. IMO How do you know this for sure.
IMO John would have pulled her pants up before he took her upstairs if he had found her naked. There are no public photos of JB from the waist down. And this could be details they are keeping from the public to verify the real killer.

Ames

11-21-2006, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by shill
How do you know this for sure.
IMO John would have pulled her pants up before he took her upstairs if he had found her naked. There are no public photos of JB from the waist down. And this could be details they are keeping from the public to verify the real killer.

I am just going by all of the news accounts and interviews by the Ramsey's that I have read. You could be right....but, all we know for certain is what they have told us...that she was dressed when she was found. So, thats all I have to go on....

thewhitewitch1

11-21-2006, 06:45 PM

I am going with the head blow came first too. I think her arms were over her head just because that is the way they fell when she was laid down or they were positioned that way during the staging. You'd think that if she had been "suspended" (not like an ornament!) in any way, there'd have been some kind of abrasive marks on her wrists to indicate that. The cord around her wrist that wasn't removed by John was very loose. If she had been suspended, why would the killer loosen the cord after he was through?
Also, in regards to the depth of the ligature marks on her neck, the body goes into a stage where it bloats after death and this could simply be the result of that, though I am not certain what the time frame is for this period of decomposition. Sorry to be so graphic.

Ames, I am so sorry about your horrible experience!

Ames

11-21-2006, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I am going with the head blow came first too. I think her arms were over her head just because that is the way they fell when she was laid down or they were positioned that way during the staging. You'd think that if she had been "suspended" (not like an ornament!) in any way, there'd have been some kind of abrasive marks on her wrists to indicate that. The cord around her wrist that wasn't removed by John was very loose. If she had been suspended, why would the killer loosen the cord after he was through?
Also, in regards to the depth of the ligature marks on her neck, the body goes into a stage where it bloats after death and this could simply be the result of that, though I am not certain what the time frame is for this period of decomposition. Sorry to be so graphic.

Ames, I am so sorry about your horrible experience!

Thank you TWW...I still remember it like it was yesterday!!!

I agree with you...I think that her arms were over her head, because thats the way that they fell, when she was laid down. If she had of been suspended...in any shape or form, she would have had abrasions....especially if she was concious, but...even if she wasn't, her weight pulling on her arms would have caused some sort of abrasion. Her neck looked swollen to me too....either from being bloated, or just from the trauma itself. IMO

shill

11-21-2006, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
The cord around her wrist that wasn't removed by John was very loose. If she had been suspended, why would the killer loosen the cord after he was through?
Also, in regards to the depth of the ligature marks on her neck, the body goes into a stage where it bloats after death and this could simply be the result of that, t The killer didn't loosen the cord, they were still tight. John tried to undo both wrists. If they were as loose as you claim, why didn't John just slip them off her wrists? I have described this knot before. If he had tugged on the knot when he was trying to untie it, it would have loosened up the noose with out him undoing the knot.
The loops were on the outside of her sleeve and the rope looks soft to start with, so I would expect to see little damage. Are there photos of her bare wrists?
I don't think her neck looks bloated in proportion to her head, and her neck would be very thin in proportion to her head if the tightened garrote represents her actual neck size.

Ames

11-21-2006, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by shill

<snipped>
Are there photos of her bare wrists?

Nope, but theres this little thing called an Autopsy Report...and there is no mention of any abrasions whatsoever, on her wrists.

Athena

11-21-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by shill
I think the garrote was being pulled from the front and downward(I'm not going to explain) and to keep her head restrained and from moving in this direction, her hands would have to be held above and behind her head.

Shill in an interview with John Walsh who was consulted early on in the case, he makes a statement that JBR was cut down as if she had been suspended. When I pointed it out everyone seemed to think he misspoke but I am not sure about that at all. I think it may have been a slip of the tongue and something that was not released to the public. She didn't have to be tied tightly around the wrists either to accomplish this; just tight enough that her hands did not slip through the loops and she also did not have to be suspended high enough to cause marks on her wrists - just enough to make it difficult for her to fight back to render her hands useless. JMO

Zoey

11-21-2006, 11:48 PM

thewhitewitch1

11-22-2006, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Athena

Shill in an interview with John Walsh who was consulted early on in the case, he makes a statement that JBR was cut down as if she had been suspended. When I pointed it out everyone seemed to think he misspoke but I am not sure about that at all. I think it may have been a slip of the tongue and something that was not released to the public. She didn't have to be tied tightly around the wrists either to accomplish this; just tight enough that her hands did not slip through the loops and she also did not have to be suspended high enough to cause marks on her wrists - just enough to make it difficult for her to fight back to render her hands useless. JMO

John Walsh did not view the crime scene, nor did he view the body or attend the autopsy.
If the wrist ligature was around her sleeve, don't you think it would have slipped down to her wrist when she was suspended?
If John managed to get one of her hands free and the other ligature was so loose, why didn't he remove that one too? We only have his version of how tight the bindings were, also, since no one else saw them in their original state.
Now, if there is evidence that she was "cut down" by the cord having been cut in a certain place, or the knife that was used to cut it had fiber evidence attatched, well, that's a different story.
I am sure forensics can tell if a cord is slack or taut when cut too.
Anyway, there is no REAL evidence that she had been suspended. John Walsh saying that she was is like you or me saying that she was. Pure speculation. IMO

Athena

11-22-2006, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

John Walsh did not view the crime scene, nor did he view the body or attend the autopsy.
If the wrist ligature was around her sleeve, don't you think it would have slipped down to her wrist when she was suspended?
If John managed to get one of her hands free and the other ligature was so loose, why didn't he remove that one too? We only have his version of how tight the bindings were, also, since no one else saw them in their original state.
Now, if there is evidence that she was "cut down" by the cord having been cut in a certain place, or the knife that was used to cut it had fiber evidence attatched, well, that's a different story.
I am sure forensics can tell if a cord is slack or taut when cut too.
Anyway, there is no REAL evidence that she had been suspended. John Walsh saying that she was is like you or me saying that she was. Pure speculation. IMO

ALL of the so-called evidence pointing to the Ramseys is pure speculation and conjecture The cord was said to be cut and frayed.

Everything on this board is speculation, conjecture and theories (some totally outrageous).

John Walsh whether he attended the autopsy or not has just as much info if not more than any of us do. JMO

shill

11-22-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

J
If the wrist ligature was around her sleeve, don't you think it would have slipped down to her wrist when she was suspended?
If John managed to get one of her hands free and the other ligature was so loose, why didn't he remove that one too? We only have his version of how tight the bindings were, also, since no one else saw them in their original state.
IMO No, I don't think they would slip down because they were tight and the sleeve would move with them.
The other one wasn't that loose that John would relize it could be slipped off.
We have his testimony that they were tight, yes we do, so that proves they were tight.
Why would they stage them loose? There is no reason they would be loose.
John said they were tight and that is sworn testimony.
I hope you don't think people should side with your opinion over John's sworn testimony.

thewhitewitch1

11-22-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Athena

ALL of the so-called evidence pointing to the Ramseys is pure speculation and conjecture The cord was said to be cut and frayed.

Everything on this board is speculation, conjecture and theories (some totally outrageous).

John Walsh whether he attended the autopsy or not has just as much info if not more than any of us do. JMO

Touche', Athena. All of the so-called evidence pointing to an intruder is pure speculation and conjecture too.
I've read that the cord was cut and frayed on one end, but is it consistant in a way that suggests she had been suspended? THAT is the question.
And, of course we all speculate and theorize. No arguement there!

shill

11-22-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Touche', Athena. All of the so-called evidence pointing to an intruder is pure speculation and conjecture too.
I've read that the cord was cut and frayed on one end, but is it consistant in a way that suggests she had been suspended? THAT is the question.
And, of course we all speculate and theorize. No arguement there! The photos of the ligature shows it intact, no cut between the two wrist restraints. I don't think she was cut down, but John Walsh might have heard something that led him to say this.

I have offered an explanation for the ligature, the length between the wrists, and her arms over her head at death with one explanation that is possible.
Not several explanations for each thing.

"Her arms were restrained over her head"

Coloradokares

11-22-2006, 06:11 PM

shill

11-22-2006, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Well excuse me.....but sworn testimony is the least of what RDI theorists would be question. Especially in light of inconsistencies and other issues....kind of hard to fathom that just because the testimony was sworn that, that in and of itself would persuade Maybe it was that the wrists were not highly abraised. No excuse!
Sworn testimony that the wrist cuffs were tight, which they would logically be because they're wrist cuffs. It would be illogical to stage wrist cuffs loosely. There is no good reason the wrist cuffs would be loose, IDI or RDI.
No one knows what damage the wrist cuffs would leave or has seen the damage.
Based soley on what they think the damage to the wrists should be and yet they do not know what it is, they disregard sworn testimony and logic.
And I am suspose to respect this opinion that is speculating on speculation?

thewhitewitch1

11-22-2006, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by shill
No excuse!
Sworn testimony that the wrist cuffs were tight, which they would logically be because they're wrist cuffs. It would be illogical to stage wrist cuffs loosely. There is no good reason the wrist cuffs would be loose, IDI or RDI.
No one knows what damage the wrist cuffs would leave or has seen the damage.
Based soley on what they think the damage to the wrists should be and yet they do not know what it is, they disregard sworn testimony and logic.
And I am suspose to respect this opinion that is speculating on speculation?

What "sworn" testimony?? JR wasn't under oath when he made his statements. He wasn't in court.
You only have his word that the wrist bindings were tight. Some have asked why he would "unstage" his staging of the scene. Well, isn't it just possible that the wrists were tied loosely to begin with and, realizing that it looked staged, he took one off and said that he loosened the other? Logically, IF they were used to restrain her, yes, they would be tight because they were serving a purpose. If they were staged, they would NOT necessarily have to be tight. Again, we only have JRs word for it and why on earth would he volunteer the information that the bindings were loose? If you were trying to cover something, you'd tell someone what makes sense to make it point away from yourself. It isn't like he wanted the LE to think the crime was staged.

Coloradokares

11-22-2006, 10:59 PM

shill

11-23-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Your right of course!! Silly me I trusted coroners and police to know these things. I should have consulted the experts. Sexual Deviants who would be the only one to recognize or know these things. Darn never thought to do that. Also ... I don't think I know any. I didn't know the coroners and the police found the body, I thought John did.

Debating with you people is like debating with people who say there are UFOs because the government denies they exist.

It's pointless!

shill

11-23-2006, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Sexual Deviants who would be the only one to recognize or know these things. Darn never thought to do that. Also ... I don't think I know any. Apparently a simpleton from Colorado couldn't recognize these things!

Ames

11-23-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by shill
No, I don't think they would slip down because they were tight and the sleeve would move with them.
The other one wasn't that loose that John would relize it could be slipped off.
We have his testimony that they were tight, yes we do, so that proves they were tight.
Why would they stage them loose? There is no reason they would be loose.
John said they were tight and that is sworn testimony.
I hope you don't think people should side with your opinion over John's sworn testimony.

I am curious if you think that she was conscious or not, when her arms were suspended above her head? Even though the sleeve would have moved with the cord, I am SURE that she would have still had some sort of friction burn or something, if not from the cord rubbing against her skin when she was fighting back (if she was conscious at the time, you know that she would have been trying to break free), the friction from the material of her sleeve (especially if those cords were as tight as you think they were). And IF she was unconscious....why the need to restrain her arms above her head? IMO...if she were conscious, she would have had friction burns either from the cord, or from the material from her sleeve. BTW....HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!!!

nuisanceposter

11-23-2006, 03:07 PM

Shill, there's no way she was strangled while conscious with her wrists restrained. If she had been, her wrists would be bruised and abraded from struggling FOR HER LIFE against the person who was preventing her from breathing.

Strangulation victims don't just lie there and allow someone to choke them to death - they fight as hard as they can, with every muscle in their bodies. The brain's need to breathe and survive supercedes all else and a person trying to draw breath will cause incredible damage to themselves and others in their efforts to breathe.

Her wrists would be rubbed raw and bruised up if it happened the way you said it did, even with the cord tied over her sleeve. She have been yanking her arms as hard as she could and trying to slip her hands out so she could claw at the cord around her throat if she had been tied up.

Even little babies who are smothered to death struggle as much as they can against being suffocated. Part of the way the coroner can tell if a baby was smothered is by examining the lips and gums, which will be bruised from the force of holding something over their faces, and their little bodies also show bruising in the heels and hands from the effort of trying to fight off the attacker.

Add to that the development of the head wound. Her brain was swollen and there were three areas of pooled blood, one of them measuring some 7 X 4 inches, covering almost the entire hemisphere of her brain. She had to have been hit on the head before being strangled or that head wound wouldn't be as developed as it is, and if she'd been hit on the head first, she would have been unconscious and nearing a coma when she was strangled.

The wrist restraints were staging only. The physical evidence (or lack of) on JB's wrists tells us she never fought being strangled whatsoever. The only way a child being strangled wouldn't fight being being strangled is if she was already unconscious.

thewhitewitch1

11-23-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by shill
I didn't know the coroners and the police found the body, I thought John did.

Debating with you people is like debating with people who say there are UFOs because the government denies they exist.

It's pointless!

Why is it you take everything that John said as fact? Do you really think that if he was involved in any of this that he is going to tell the truth? I know you are an IDI but come on...just because he claims something was one way or another doesn't make it a fact, unless someone else was there that could back it up.
He has had several inconsistancies in his stories...they both have. I don't know why you keep chosing to ignore that FACT.

shill

11-24-2006, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by shill

I have offered an explanation for the ligature, the length between the wrists, and her arms over her head at death with one explanation that is possible.
Not several explanations for each thing.

"Her arms were restrained over her head" John saying the wrist cuffs were tight correlates with this explanation.

If they were loose, John could have re-tightened them in seconds, he didn't need to untie them.

bullmoose

11-24-2006, 04:04 AM

np: I have to say your last post makes sense to me, that the head wound had to come first; else why was there no evidence of a struggle? Unless she had been tasered unconcious first. That is not a disagreement, just a thought I had just now. I think the marks seen in the autopsy look like taser marks, but I think that the head injury preceded the strangulation, in either case.

shill

11-24-2006, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by bullmoose
np: I have to say your last post makes sense to me, that the head wound had to come first; else why was there no evidence of a struggle? Unless she had been tasered unconcious first. That is not a disagreement, just a thought I had just now. I think the marks seen in the autopsy look like taser marks, but I think that the head injury preceded the strangulation, in either case. I just don't think that if JB struggled, there would be abrasions on her wrists as some may assume, being the wrist cuffs were outside of her sleeves and that she is a 45lb six year old, not Hulk Hogen..

I have never tied someone up like that and strangled them, so I honestly can't say what kind of damage would be left as evidence. And there are no pictures available of her wrists, only a coroners report, that could have been sensored to withhold information from the public.
If someone posting here has tied some one up and strangled them to death, please let us know what kind of visual indications represent that sort of attack, and then report yourself to the Boulder police. Thank you.

rashomon

11-24-2006, 10:01 AM

Coloradokares

11-24-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by shill
Apparently a simpleton from Colorado couldn't recognize these things!

Sticks and stones. You know something Shill you are not very well liked or respected on any list under any of the names you've posted under. I'd rather be a simpleton from Colorado than an jerk from wherever you are from. You never seem to have the facts about the case only about the knots or how they must have been tied to do whatever they were designed to do. ICK!!

nuisanceposter

11-24-2006, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Sticks and stones. You know something Shill you are not very well liked or respected on any list under any of the names you've posted under. I'd rather be a simpleton from Colorado than an jerk from wherever you are from. You never seem to have the facts about the case only about the knots or how they must have been tied to do whatever they were designed to do. ICK!!

Don't worry, CK, shill's only making himself look bad with his off-color attempts at humor. You have a totally different pov on this case than anyone else on this board due to being from Boulder/Colorado, and your information and opinion is listened to and appreciated.

Shill, why do you want to insult the other posters? If you don't agree with someone, present an argument to the contrary, but you don't have to make personal comments. You seem like a smart enough guy. You can do better than that.

Coloradokares

11-24-2006, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Don't worry, CK, shill's only making himself look bad with his off-color attempts at humor. You have a totally different pov on this case than anyone else on this board due to being from Boulder/Colorado, and your information and opinion is listened to and appreciated.

Shill, why do you want to insult the other posters? If you don't agree with someone, present an argument to the contrary, but you don't have to make personal comments. You seem like a smart enough guy. You can do better than that.

Thanks nuisanceposter. Normally I am a really nice soft spoken person. The insults don't hurt but after awhile they really don't amuse either.

thewhitewitch1

11-24-2006, 03:45 PM

Gee, Shill. There ARE pictures out there of JBs wrists. How is it that you've never seen them?

shill

11-25-2006, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by rashomon

The seventeen-inch space of cord between her wrists would have allowed JB to move her hands pretty freely.
That there was so much space between the wrist ties is just another proof to me that this was a staged scene done by a bungling amateur. The more posts you make, the more I see you just don't get it and you never will.

shill

11-25-2006, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Sticks and stones. You know something Shill you are not very well liked or respected on any list under any of the names you've posted under. I'd rather be a simpleton from Colorado than an jerk from wherever you are from. You never seem to have the facts about the case only about the knots or how they must have been tied to do whatever they were designed to do. ICK!! I didn't know this is a popularity contest.
And I suppose you think you're well liked and respected?
At least I'm not clueless.
And what's the knot thing about? You're so hung up on it like it's the only thing I ever talked about.
The more you post the more everyone sees how kooky you really are.
And all always be a jerk to small minded simpletons who think their opinions deserve respect.

shill

11-25-2006, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Gee, Shill. There ARE pictures out there of JBs wrists. How is it that you've never seen them? I don't know?
I asked if anyone has seen photos of JB's bare wrists and the responses were that no one had, including me.
I guess you're one up on me.
So can some one direct me to the crime photos of JB's bare wrists please?

Coloradokares

11-25-2006, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by shill
I didn't know this is a popularity contest.
And I suppose you think you're well liked and respected?
At least I'm not clueless.
And what's the knot thing about? You're so hung up on it like it's the only thing I ever talked about.
The more you post the more everyone sees how kooky you really are.
And all always be a jerk to small minded simpletons who think their opinions deserve respect.

Don't worry, CK, shill's only making himself look bad with his off-color attempts at humor. You have a totally different pov on this case than anyone else on this board due to being from Boulder/Colorado, and your information and opinion is listened to and appreciated.

Shill, why do you want to insult the other posters? If you don't agree with someone, present an argument to the contrary, but you don't have to make personal comments. You seem like a smart enough guy. You can do better than that.

If your not clueless...take the clues.!!

shill

11-25-2006, 03:08 PM

Has anyone other then thewhitewitch seen the photos of JB's bare wrists?

Coloradokares

11-25-2006, 04:47 PM

Zoey

11-25-2006, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by shill
Has anyone other then thewhitewitch seen the photos of JB's bare wrists?

No.

Ames

11-25-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by shill
I just don't think that if JB struggled, there would be abrasions on her wrists as some may assume, being the wrist cuffs were outside of her sleeves and that she is a 45lb six year old, not Hulk Hogen..

I have never tied someone up like that and strangled them, so I honestly can't say what kind of damage would be left as evidence. And there are no pictures available of her wrists, only a coroners report, that could have been sensored to withhold information from the public.
If someone posting here has tied some one up and strangled them to death, please let us know what kind of visual indications represent that sort of attack, and then report yourself to the Boulder police. Thank you.

I have never tied anyone up and strangled them before...but, I have been on the opposite side of the cord...as stated in my beginning post on this thread. I can ASSURE you....her wrists WOULD have had some sort of abrasions...( do you really think that a sweater sleeve would "cushion" it that much, as not to leave abrasions? Come on...get real.) She would have had SOME SORT of friction marks. I know what it is like to fight for your life, while being stranged....BEEN THERE...DONE THAT. BTW...the way that you are treating other posters...makes me sorry that I ever pm'd you with the link to the new boards. WHAT was I thinking?? Be nice, okay?

Ames

11-25-2006, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Ames

I have never tied anyone up and strangled them before...but, I have been on the opposite side of the cord...as stated in my beginning post on this thread. I can ASSURE you....her wrists WOULD have had some sort of abrasions...( do you really think that a sweater sleeve would "cushion" it that much, as not to leave abrasions? Come on...get real.) She would have had SOME SORT of friction marks. I know what it is like to fight for your life, while being stranged....BEEN THERE...DONE THAT. BTW...the way that you are treating other posters...makes me sorry that I ever pm'd you with the link to the new boards. WHAT was I thinking?? Be nice, okay?

stranged? LOL...I meant strangled.

thewhitewitch1

11-25-2006, 11:45 PM

According to Trip DeMuth on 48 Hrs. tonight, JonBenet struggled while being strangled; therefore an intruder did it. HUH?
I'd like to know what evidence he has that she struggled and how he came to the conclusion that if mommy or daddy was strangling her she would just have let them. :confused:

sweetcharlotte

11-25-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
According to Trip DeMuth on 48 Hrs. tonight, JonBenet struggled while being strangled; therefore an intruder did it. HUH?
I'd like to know what evidence he has that she struggled and how he came to the conclusion that if mommy or daddy was strangling her she would just have let them. :confused:

I believe he said the evidence was the DNA under her fingernails that did not belong to any Ramsey (or 60 other people they've tested.)

JMO

thewhitewitch1

11-25-2006, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I believe he said the evidence was the DNA under her fingernails that did not belong to any Ramsey (or 60 other people they've tested.)

JMO

I did not hear him say that. He did not say how he knew she struggled.

sweetcharlotte

11-26-2006, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I did not hear him say that. He did not say how he knew she struggled.

You're right. He didn't say how he knew she struggled.

thewhitewitch1

11-26-2006, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by shill
Has anyone other then thewhitewitch seen the photos of JB's bare wrists?

Ok...so they aren't exactly bare but if she had been suspended, the cord would have slipped down to the portion of her wrists that you CAN see in these photos...or so you'd think.

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

Ames

11-26-2006, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

You're right. He didn't say how he knew she struggled.

No he didn't. I kept waiting for him to explain how he came to that conclusion. I think that he was just based it on his own opinion. I am not a medical examiner....BUT... would have expected her to have more abrasions on her wrists, if she was strangled while her hands were tied, or...if she was free, then to have scratches on her necks, trying to remove the cord. I STILL think that the head wound came first. IMO

Ames

11-26-2006, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Ok...so they aren't exactly bare but if she had been suspended, the cord would have slipped down to the portion of her wrists that you CAN see in these photos...or so you'd think.

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html

Yes, you would think. And if for some reason the rope was so tight that it didn't slip, there would have been abrasions from friction burns from her sweater sleeve. IMO

Ames

11-26-2006, 12:16 AM

Even though I am still RDI...I cried like a baby when Patsy played the last piece of piano music that JB had learned. I would also like to add, being a former piano teacher, that if JB had learned that piece at six years old, she was quite advanced. I wonder when she started her lessons? Not that this has anything to do with the murder....I was just wondering. (IMO)

sweetcharlotte

11-26-2006, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Ames
Even though I am still RDI...I cried like a baby when Patsy played the last piece of piano music that JB had learned
<snip>

(IMO)

You're just a softie, aren't you? That's sweet - it was very touching.

(I don't get sad, I get mad that Patsy had to endure losing her daughter and then living her last years the way she did.)

shill

11-26-2006, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Ok...so they aren't exactly bare but if she had been suspended, the cord would have slipped down to the portion of her wrists that you CAN see in these photos...or so you'd think.

http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html You know I don't think that.
And according to the photo of her bound wrist, it didn't do that. You clearly see it is still around her sweater sleeve.
If seeing it isn't enough to make you believe it, I don't know how else I can convince you about this or anything for that matter.

Ames

11-26-2006, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

You're just a softie, aren't you? That's sweet - it was very touching.

(I don't get sad, I get mad that Patsy had to endure losing her daughter and then living her last years the way she did.)

I know...watching her tonight, playing that piece...almost made me switch sides. My 15 year old daughter was watching with me...and she just KEPT saying...."MOM...there is NO way they could have killed their daughter, they both just look so SWEET". All I could say was..."Yeah, they do".

shill

11-26-2006, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Yes, you would think. And if for some reason the rope was so tight that it didn't slip, there would have been abrasions from friction burns from her sweater sleeve. IMO Snug is all that is required and the sleeve would act as a sheath, reducing the friction and abrasion.
And we are talking about a 45lb six year old that couldn't do much damage to anyone let alone her self.

Ames

11-26-2006, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by shill
You know I don't think that.
And according to the photo of her bound wrist, it didn't do that. You clearly see it is still around her sweater sleeve.
If seeing it isn't enough to make you believe it, I don't know how else I can convince you about this or anything for that matter.

Good grief....and how many times do I have to say this....IF she was suspended while still conscious....and that rope was so tight, there would have been FRICTION BURNS from her sweater fabric on her wrists. Geez....I just keep saying this OVER AND OVER AND OVER.....think about it. If she was struggling to break free, there would have been SOME TYPE of mark on her wrist that the ME would have noted. There is absolutely NO evidence that she was ever suspended in any fashion. I would also imagine that her hands and fingers would have turned blue. (IMO)

shill

11-26-2006, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Ames

Good grief....and how many times do I have to say this....IF she was suspended while still conscious....and that rope was so tight, there would have been FRICTION BURNS from her sweater fabric on her wrists. Geez....I just keep saying this OVER AND OVER AND OVER.....think about it. If she was struggling to break free, there would have been SOME TYPE of mark on her wrist that the ME would have noted. There is absolutely NO evidence that she was ever suspended in any fashion. I would also imagine that her hands and fingers would have turned blue. (IMO) Good grief.... I guess it must be true because you keep telling me it is.

Ames

11-26-2006, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by shill
Snug is all that is required and the sleeve would act as a sheath, reducing the friction and abrasion.
And we are talking about a 45lb six year old that couldn't do much damage to anyone let alone her self.

She would have had some sort of FRICTION BURN from the sweater fabric!! I don't care if she only weighed 10 pounds...she would have been struggling, trying to break free, to get to that cord that was around her neck....she would have had SOME SORT of friction burn, if not just a little one.....on her wrists. BUT...they would have been there. She didn't struggle when she was strangled, because the head wound came FIRST...and she was not suspended. Where is your proof? I will listen to your argument when I see proof. There is NO mention, whatsoever, that she had been suspended. And no mention in the autopsy report of friction burns on her wrists...and it would have been there, if that was the case. (IMO)

Ames

11-26-2006, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by shill
Good grief.... I guess it must be true because you keep telling me it is.

GOOD GRIEF...I guess that her being suspended must be true, because YOU keep telling me that it is. Doesn't matter that I, personally have been through the process of being strangled, to the point of almost dying. I think that I have just a little bit more knowledge about this than YOU do. And I do know that you are thinking that maybe she was suspended...and cut down...and that this may be something that they are keeping from the public. Maybe you could be right....but, I don't think so. If you have concrete evidence, then I will buy your theory. (IMO)

Coloradokares

11-26-2006, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

You're just a softie, aren't you? That's sweet - it was very touching.

(I don't get sad, I get mad that Patsy had to endure losing her daughter and then living her last years the way she did.)

Have we not all cried over JonBenet many times. I truly believe that Patsy grieved very much so in fact for JonBenet.

shill

11-26-2006, 03:17 AM

LindaA

11-26-2006, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I did not hear him say that. He did not say how he knew she struggled.

The DNA under her nails came from her scratching at her assailant was the connection I made.

nuisanceposter

11-26-2006, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by LindaA

The DNA under her nails came from her scratching at her assailant was the connection I made.

But that hasn't been proven.

Shill, it doesn't matter if you're 6 weeks old or 6 years old or 60 years old - people being strangled to death fight for their lives, and they fight with all of the power in their bodies.

There would ABSOLUTELY be friction burn or bruising or abrasions on JonBenet's wrists if she had struggled against her killer. It's not like, "oh, she's only six, so she isn't that strong..." Bull crap. She had good muscle tone from being a healthy well-nourished child and she would have been struggling as hard as she could with every ounce of ability in her body. She would have definitely injured herself on the wrists if they had been restrained and she was struggling against them while being strangled.

That shirt sleeve wouldn't have prevented any bruises or abrasions from occurring, either. Ever heard of carpet burn? Ever gotten chafed from your clothing? Fabric when held tight and rubbed against something, such as would have occurred with JB fighting to pull her hands free of being tied, causes abrasions, and pulling and yanking against a cord holding your arm raised would leave bruises, even through a shirt sleeve.

Even tiny little babies injure themselves while being suffocated. They certainly don't have a lot of strength, but they use every single little bit of strength they have to try to catch another breath before they pass out and die...and babies aren't even old enough to understand what's happening to them. The brain kicks into survival instinct and all that matters is twisting and pulling and kicking and struggling to gasp in another breath.

She didn't struggle. She was too unconscious to struggle. The physical evidence proves it.

LindaA

11-26-2006, 04:18 PM

NP, I didn't say it had been proven. I said that was what I understood the inference to be.

thewhitewitch1

11-27-2006, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by shill
You know I don't think that.
And according to the photo of her bound wrist, it didn't do that. You clearly see it is still around her sweater sleeve.
If seeing it isn't enough to make you believe it, I don't know how else I can convince you about this or anything for that matter.

Because, Shill, it is your theory that she had been suspended. If it was staged, as I think it was, of course the cord would still be around her sweater sleeve.
There isn't any evidence that she was suspended, so how can you expect me to be convinced that she was? At the very least, the cord would have been closer to her hands if she had been suspended. For that matter, maybe it was...but we will never know because no one except for John saw exactly where they were when he found her and he messed up the "crime scene" by "trying to remove them".
Don't you ever wonder HOW he missed seeing the garrote around her neck? He certainly noted how her lips were blue and her eyes were closed. How could he miss seeing that garrote wrapped so tightly around her neck? And yet, his first actions were to remove the tape from her mouth and try to untie her hands.

:confused:

shill

11-27-2006, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Because, Shill, it is your theory that she had been suspended. If it was staged, as I think it was, of course the cord would still be around her sweater sleeve.
There isn't any evidence that she was suspended, so how can you expect me to be convinced that she was? At the very least, the cord would have been closer to her hands if she had been suspended. For that matter, maybe it was...but we will never know because no one except for John saw exactly where they were when he found her and he messed up the "crime scene" by "trying to remove them".
Don't you ever wonder HOW he missed seeing the garrote around her neck? He certainly noted how her lips were blue and her eyes were closed. How could he miss seeing that garrote wrapped so tightly around her neck? And yet, his first actions were to remove the tape from her mouth and try to untie her hands.

:confused: Her hands were suspended above her head!
That's not the same as saying she was suspended.

shill

11-27-2006, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

But that hasn't been proven.

Shill, it doesn't matter if you're 6 weeks old or 6 years old or 60 years old - people being strangled to death fight for their lives, and they fight with all of the power in their bodies.

There would ABSOLUTELY be friction burn or bruising or abrasions on JonBenet's wrists if she had struggled against her killer. It's not like, "oh, she's only six, so she isn't that strong..." Bull crap. She had good muscle tone from being a healthy well-nourished child and she would have been struggling as hard as she could with every ounce of ability in her body. She would have definitely injured herself on the wrists if they had been restrained and she was struggling against them while being strangled.

That shirt sleeve wouldn't have prevented any bruises or abrasions from occurring, either. Ever heard of carpet burn? Ever gotten chafed from your clothing? Fabric when held tight and rubbed against something, such as would have occurred with JB fighting to pull her hands free of being tied, causes abrasions, and pulling and yanking against a cord holding your arm raised would leave bruises, even through a shirt sleeve.

Even tiny little babies injure themselves while being suffocated. They certainly don't have a lot of strength, but they use every single little bit of strength they have to try to catch another breath before they pass out and die...and babies aren't even old enough to understand what's happening to them. The brain kicks into survival instinct and all that matters is twisting and pulling and kicking and struggling to gasp in another breath.

She didn't struggle. She was too unconscious to struggle. The physical evidence proves it. I don't agree with anything you wrote here. But you sure think you know what your talking about. Good luck with that theory.

thewhitewitch1

11-27-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by shill
Her hands were suspended above her head!
That's not the same as saying she was suspended.

I get your point and there still is no evidence to support that, other than the fact that her arms were over her head when she was found. There are a number of reasons how her arms could have come to be in that position.

andU

11-27-2006, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Ames
But how would the blood have pooled beneath her arms, if this was the case? Her blood was pooled on the back side of her...indicating that she had been there for awhile in the lying on her back postition. What exactly was she suspended to? Why was the rope so loose on her wrist that the coroner just slipped it off without any trouble? Why not just LEAVE her suspended...better yet...why not just leave her NAKED from the waist down and suspended. That would have REALLY got to John...if it had of been an intruder, which it wasn't. So, okay...now the intruder was kind enough, not only to re-dress her....but, after he suspended her, he took her down and laid her flat on her back? Okay...that makes no sense, if he was angry at John, and going for "pay back". IMO I am an RDI...but, I don't think that even John suspended her.

If she had been suspended and died in that position, she would not (of course) move her arms. When the perp brought her down to stage, he could have left her arms above her head, with her lying down. The pooling of blood would be explained in that way, huh? ...and the rigor/liver mortis

andU

11-27-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by shill
Has anyone other then thewhitewitch seen the photos of JB's bare wrists?

No, a link would be very nice

andU

11-27-2006, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I did not hear him say that. He did not say how he knew she struggled.

I did hear him talk about the struggle and the DNA under her finger nails

andU

11-27-2006, 04:03 PM

thewhitewitch1

11-27-2006, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by andU

If she had been suspended and died in that position, she would not (of course) move her arms. When the perp brought her down to stage, he could have left her arms above her head, with her lying down. The pooling of blood would be explained in that way, huh? ...and the rigor/liver mortis

Why would a "perp" need to stage anything? Only the Ramseys would have a need to do any staging. IMO

And maybe you can explain how John didn't see that "garrote" around her neck and try to remove it, instead of taking the tape off her mouth and trying to untie her hands. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Ames

11-27-2006, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by shill
Her arms were suspended above her head, that's different from saying she was suspended.
And I doubt you'll ever believe anything but what you want to believe.
I presented a believable scenario.
I think that is more then you have presented.

I know that when she was found, her arms were above her head, while she laid on the floor, but that does not mean that she had been suspended. I didn't say that your scenario was unbelievable, though. IMO

Ames

11-27-2006, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by shill
I don't agree with anything you wrote here. But you sure think you know what your talking about. Good luck with that theory.

It sure is a heck of alot more believable than YOUR theory. (IMO)

Ames

11-27-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by shill
Her hands were suspended above her head!
That's not the same as saying she was suspended.

HUH? Yes, we ALL know that her hands were above her head, when she was laid on the floor....so what is your point?

shill

11-28-2006, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

And maybe you can explain how John didn't see that "garrote" around her neck and try to remove it, instead of taking the tape off her mouth and trying to untie her hands. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. She's got long hair, and in the autopsy photos some of it is stuck under the garrote. It's possible that there was a lot more hair covering it that was moved for the photo.
Another explanation would be that there was more to the garrote they didn't want to disclose.
John doesn't seem to have mentioned it and investigators didn't seem to ask why.
Both the asking and telling are left out of the public records.
So yes, it is suspicious.

shill

11-28-2006, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by Ames

HUH? Yes, we ALL know that her hands were above her head, when she was laid on the floor....so what is your point? I made my point, you just didn't get it.
Simple explanations that fit the evidence.

shill

11-28-2006, 05:20 AM

I have a question for you Ames, since you have first hand knowledge, that I've been curious about.
Could JB scream out or talk when she was being choked?

Ames

11-28-2006, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by shill
I have a question for you Ames, since you have first hand knowledge, that I've been curious about.
Could JB scream out or talk when she was being choked?

No. She wouldn't have been able to do either. As her throat was being compressed, it would have cut off her airway...and the air is needed to be able to scream or talk. During my ordeal, all that I could do was gasp for air, and after my throat was totally compressed (closed from the pressure of the cord), I couldn't even do that. My mouth made the motions, because I was trying to breathe, but no sound would come out....even the gasping noises stopped. Hope that I have helped to answer your question!!

andU

11-28-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

Why would a "perp" need to stage anything? Only the Ramseys would have a need to do any staging. IMO

And maybe you can explain how John didn't see that "garrote" around her neck and try to remove it, instead of taking the tape off her mouth and trying to untie her hands. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I've read your posts and if anyone disagrees with you, you begin an attack. I am not going any further with it because you have a narrow mind and won't accept anyone else's opinion anyway.

Ames

11-28-2006, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by rashomon

The seventeen-inch space of cord between her wrists would have allowed JB to move her hands pretty freely.
That there was so much space between the wrist ties is just another proof to me that this was a staged scene done by a bungling amateur.

Did you see that document on FFJ, that listed "parachute cord" as evidence? I tried to copy and paste it, but it wouldn't work. They think that the cord around her neck was parachute cord.

andU

11-28-2006, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Did you see that document on FFJ, that listed "parachute cord" as evidence? I tried to copy and paste it, but it wouldn't work. They think that the cord around her neck was parachute cord.

Ames, who is 'they'? IMO, the cord around her neck resembles an athletic shoe lace... and I believe they (BPD) have taken them as evidence also.

LindaA

11-28-2006, 02:59 PM

So what does all this do to the theory that it was cord PR bought at the hardware store earlier in December? Hs that been kicked to the curb?

Ames

11-28-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by andU

Ames, who is 'they'? IMO, the cord around her neck resembles an athletic shoe lace... and I believe they (BPD) have taken them as evidence also.

The investigators is "they". The document that Erin Moriarty held up on "48 Hours", was paused and scanned, by someone on another forum. I posted some of this document, on another thread. There is a section in it, where the housekeeper was being questioned about seeing certain things in the Ramsey home, such as tape and "parachute cord".

andU

11-28-2006, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
So what does all this do to the theory that it was cord PR bought at the hardware store earlier in December? Hs that been kicked to the curb?

I don't think it had any relevance, IMO

Ames

11-28-2006, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
So what does all this do to the theory that it was cord PR bought at the hardware store earlier in December? Hs that been kicked to the curb?

Well, I don't know about that...the poster on the other forum, said that the hardware store where Patsy shopped, sold parachute cord. I don't have any idea what that is used for...other than parachutes, though. And, I am not saying that Patsy purchased it, only that the hardware store carries/carried it.

andU

11-28-2006, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Ames

The investigators is "they". The document that Erin Moriarty held up on "48 Hours", was paused and scanned, by someone on another forum. I posted some of this document, on another thread. There is a section in it, where the housekeeper was being questioned about seeing certain things in the Ramsey home, such as tape and "parachute cord".

Thank you, I did see the document and the show... it just didn't register with your post, sorry.

Ames

11-28-2006, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by andU

Thank you, I did see the document and the show... it just didn't register with your post, sorry.

Awwww...no need to apologize. I am trying to figure out a way to copy that document, on these boards. If anyone knows how to do that...please tell me. If not, I guess that I can just post what it says, and then give a link, for people to check it out for themselves. I just know that some things that are posted, that are from other forums, gets monitored and deleted. I can try, though.

andU

11-28-2006, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Awwww...no need to apologize. I am trying to figure out a way to copy that document, on these boards. If anyone knows how to do that...please tell me. If not, I guess that I can just post what it says, and then give a link, for people to check it out for themselves. I just know that some things that are posted, that are from other forums, gets monitored and deleted. I can try, though.

Did you say it was recorded? Is there no way you can get a 'still shot' of it and scan it into your computer? I don't know what the quality would be, but that should give you a copy to post.

Ames

11-28-2006, 03:21 PM

Here is a link to part of the document (hope it doesn't get deleted). This is an actual picture of the screen, that someone took and scanned.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8012&page=13&pp=12

It says...and I can only read part of it.....

"GENERAL DISCUSSION

The absence of matching duct tape or cord is evidence (the rest is cut off...sorry).

-The maid never saw any black duct tape in the house. P.5-600

-The duct tape found on the paintings has a different production period.

-The maid never saw parachute cord in the house. P. 5-601"

Ames

11-28-2006, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by andU

Did you say it was recorded? Is there no way you can get a 'still shot' of it and scan it into your computer? I don't know what the quality would be, but that should give you a copy to post.

I didn't record it, I should have though....doggone it. I posted a link to FFJ, ....there is a poster there, that DID take a picture, and scanned it. I just hope that the link that I provided...doesn't get deleted. If it does...then I will try another approach. I have tried to copy and paste, but, it will not work for some reason. Thanks for your suggestion though....I only wish that I had of recorded it!!!!!!

LindaA

11-28-2006, 03:40 PM

I don't think you can cut and paste because it is actually a photograph of the document and not the document itself.

Ames

11-28-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
I don't think you can cut and paste because it is actually a photograph of the document and not the document itself.

Yeah, that makes sense. If you guys would head over to FFJ...and look under the thread about John Ramsey being on "48 Hours", someone posted several pictures of that document on there. I believe theres three different pictures....I know that Erin only held up one page, but in the thread, the document had to be broken up, I guess because of space.

andU

11-28-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Yeah, that makes sense. If you guys would head over to FFJ...and look under the thread about John Ramsey being on "48 Hours", someone posted several pictures of that document on there. I believe theres three different pictures....I know that Erin only held up one page, but in the thread, the document had to be broken up, I guess because of space.

thanks! I'll check it out...

thewhitewitch1

11-28-2006, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by andU

I've read your posts and if anyone disagrees with you, you begin an attack. I am not going any further with it because you have a narrow mind and won't accept anyone else's opinion anyway.

What attack??? Please explain how I attacked you. I asked a simple question and nobody wants to answer it.
How and Why did John not see the garrote around JonBenets neck and try to remove it? Why did he choose to remove the tape and untie her hands instead of doing the one thing that may have saved her life - if he really thought she was still alive?

You either are very sensitive or you read things the wrong way. I'm not going to cry because you said I have a "narrow mind" and you shouldn't cry either when I disagree with you. I listen to other peoples' opinions but no one says I have to accept them or agree with them. You may notice that many people in this forum have their own opinions too and are not swayed by what others think. You should notice. You're one of them.
For the last time - I am not attacking you. ok?

shill

11-28-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Ames

No. She wouldn't have been able to do either. As her throat was being compressed, it would have cut off her airway...and the air is needed to be able to scream or talk. During my ordeal, all that I could do was gasp for air, and after my throat was totally compressed (closed from the pressure of the cord), I couldn't even do that. My mouth made the motions, because I was trying to breathe, but no sound would come out....even the gasping noises stopped. Hope that I have helped to answer your question!! Thank you very much for that information. And yes, you have answered my question completely.:rose:

Ames

11-28-2006, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by shill
Thank you very much for that information. And yes, you have answered my question completely.:rose:

You are quite welcome....thank you for the rose!!

LindaA

11-28-2006, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Ames

Well, I don't know about that...the poster on the other forum, said that the hardware store where Patsy shopped, sold parachute cord. I don't have any idea what that is used for...other than parachutes, though. And, I am not saying that Patsy purchased it, only that the hardware store carries/carried it.
And was the parachute cord sold in the same way and for the same amount as other cord PR was alledged to have bought?

Ames

11-28-2006, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by LindaA

And was the parachute cord sold in the same way and for the same amount as other cord PR was alledged to have bought?

Excellent question. I will head over to FFJ and see if I can find the answer for you. They are not taking any new registrations, until after Jan., so I can't join....but, we all can go over and have a looksy. They have got some excellent information on that site...they really do their homework, when it comes to this case. Since you are sorta on the fence....I posted some excellent info. from a poster on FFJ called Cherokee, about the ransom note. If you are interested, look on the Courttv JB boards, for the thread about the ransom note, my post is the last one...there is a link to the FFJ board, there.

Ames

11-28-2006, 10:30 PM

I also found this on FFJ...

I believe that this is already public knowledge though...but, I will post it anyway.

One poster writes....

"I could be wrong, but I seem to recall this in Steve's book that they traced the cord and found identical cord being sold in McGauken's or whatever that hardware store was right in Boulder. "

Another poster replies.......

::
"In the Sporting Goods Department.
And, even though the cash register receipt did not give enough detail to verify that Patsy had bought cord, it did have enough information to show that she did buy an item in the Sporting Goods Department earlier in December that was the same price as the cord.
That was from Steve's book."
__________________

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by andU

I don't think it had any relevance, IMO

They know the cord was manufactured at the same company under the same packaging as that carried at McGuckins Hardware in Boulder. A bit more touchy is proving for postitive what Patsy purchased for the same $ amount from the same department on her American Express card .

aussiesheila

11-29-2006, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by Ames
I can still remember gasping for air, as my throat closed in...and also scratching my neck, trying desperately to remove the cord so that I could breathe.
Now for the reason that I have went into my memory bank, and pulled this out....I believe that JB's head injury came first..and then the strangulation....or ELSE...she would have had severe scratches on her neck, from trying to remove the cord, AND would have had lots of her own FRESH skin (not old dna that is always present) under her fingernails. IMO the head wound came first...followed by the strangulation. Trust me....I should know. (IMO)
Ames, this must have been a most traumatic experience, absolutely horrible.

I think though, that the situation JonBenet was in was quite different from yours.

First of all, I believe JonBenet was in a fairly relaxed state, having been fed drugged pineapple before she was taken to the basement.

Secondly I believe her wrists were already bound when the ligature was placed around her neck, and she was strung up with her arms outstretched over her head (the 15 inches of cord being attached to a point overhead, possibly one of the overhead pipes along the basement ceiling, so could not have clawed at the neck ligature even if she wanted to.

Thirdly, I think this had happened to her before, because I think she had been abused before and the idea of the neck ligature was a means to simulate female orgasm by cutting off her air supply momentarily, this done for the pleasure of her abusers.

If think there is evidence in the autopsy indicating that she had been (non-fatally) strangled in this way before:

"Thyroid: ....... An occasional isolated area of chronic interstitial inflammatory infiltrate is seen. There is also a small fragment of parathyroid tissue.

"Thymus: ........ Mild vascular congestion is identified.

"Trachea: There is mild chronic inflammation in the submucosa of the trachea.

JonBenet was apparently a healthy child at the time of her murder. The abnormal conditions in three of the organs in her neck revealed in the autopsy need to be explained. I am suggesting that repeated semi-strangulations during prior sessions of sexual abuse is what caused them.

aussiesheila

11-29-2006, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by shill
IMO her hands were restrained above her head. And I believe they were restrained well enough that she was helpless to do anything about the garrote around her neck, and that was the purpose of restraining her hands. Hi shill, you are the first person I have encountered who thinks as I do, that JonBenet's hands were restrained over her head, and I have been reading at forums for nearly two years. Originally I thought they might have attached the length of cord between her two wrists to one of those hooks that clamps over a doorway (like the ones used for baby jumpers), but more recently have thought maybe they attached it to a piece of wire and hooked that over one of the overhead pipes running below the ceiling in the basement (there was a piece of wire picked up from the basement floor during one of the search warrants). What do you think?

aussiesheila

11-29-2006, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Ames

So you are saying that you believe that she was hung up by the space of rope between her hands...that she was suspended. Why not just tie them behind her back...yes, like handcuffs. Why not just just tie them TOGETHER behind her back. I thought that, according to the rigormortis...and the bruising on the underside of the body, because of the blood pooling...I believe thats called livermortis, that it was determined that she was never suspended. What was she suspended to? A hook in the basement...or something? (If they had of suspected suspension, they would have looked around to find out what she could have been suspended from, and take that into evidence.) I have read a partial list of the evidence taken, and it wasn't on there. Of course, it could be that its because its only a PARTIAL list...but, that still doesn't explain the rigormortis, and the livermortis. Why would the perp hang her up, and then take her down....why not just leave her there hanging for shock value?? She was never suspended IMO

Hi again Ames,

Yes I agree with shill. I think they stood JonBenet on a chair or stool, and that her arms were suspended up over her head, kept in that position by attaching the centre point of the 15 inches of cord to a hook that was attached possibly to one of the overhead pipes running below the ceiling in the basement. (There was a piece of wire picked up from the floor of the cellar during one of the search warrants.) I think she was restrained in this position (with the garotte around her neck) for a session of sexual abuse this being the most convenient position for the pedophiles to abuse her in. I think when she was killed in panic after she screamed in pain when a sharp object was thrust into her vagina; the one operating the garotte pulled it too tightly and another picked up a baseball bat and bashed her over the head. I think she was left long enough (maybe an hour) in that position, long enough for rigor mortis to set in in her arms. I think then she was cut down and her body placed lying down in the cellar where the livor mortis developed. I don't think the perpetrators left her hanging there because it would be obvious why she had been killed and they didn't want that known. I think they had devised a coverup plan which was that they would make it look like a kidnapping. So her body was not meant to be found in the cellar IMO, I think they hid it there temporarily, planning to dump it later somewhere in the mountains where it could be found hopefully after decomposition had obliterated the physical evidence of how she really died.

shill

11-29-2006, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by aussiesheila
Hi shill, you are the first person I have encountered who thinks as I do, that JonBenet's hands were restrained over her head, and I have been reading at forums for nearly two years. Originally I thought they might have attached the length of cord between the pooling of blood puts her on her back. her two wrists to one of those hooks that clamps over a doorway (like the ones used for baby jumpers), but more recently have thought maybe they attached it to a piece of wire and hooked that over one of the overhead pipes running below the ceiling in the basement (there was a piece of wire picked up from the basement floor during one of the search warrants). What do you think? The boiler room seemed to have a lot of options, but the train room had an escape route.

I want to say she was in a chair, There was tape on her legs and that could have been from her legs being taped to the legs of the chair. The chair would have been an obvious choice for stepping on to escape out the basement window but wasn't, maybe because JB was being restrained in it. But the pooling of blood puts her on her back, so logic would suggest she was laying down on her back.

The killer new his knots and could of hitched the extra cord to anything. Cowboys can flick the reins of the horse around a hitching post and with out even tying it, secure the horse. I'm sure there is a not to do this more securely.
I have recreated the knots on the wrist cuffs and they appear to be a Tautline Hitch knot, minus the extra turn. This is an interesting slip knot that doesn't loosen on it's own. You could slide one loop over her wrist and tighten, toss the other one over a pipe, then on to her wrist and tighten. So you don't need to have a hook or wire. There very much like handcuffs.

aussiesheila

11-29-2006, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Athena

Shill in an interview with John Walsh who was consulted early on in the case, he makes a statement that JBR was cut down as if she had been suspended. When I pointed it out everyone seemed to think he misspoke but I am not sure about that at all. I think it may have been a slip of the tongue and something that was not released to the public. She didn't have to be tied tightly around the wrists either to accomplish this; just tight enough that her hands did not slip through the loops and she also did not have to be suspended high enough to cause marks on her wrists - just enough to make it difficult for her to fight back to render her hands useless. JMO Athena thanks, that is very interesting about what John Walsh said, I didn't know that. I have always thought she had been suspended. Knowing he said that makes me just that bit more convinced I am right.

The knots making the wrist loops were tight and while the loops around the wrists were loose, they were not loose enough for her hands to slip through, as you say.

I think that if she was standing on a chair or stool with her hands upstretched but not taking her full body weight (at least not while she was alive and conscious), she would not have been able to free her hands, and there would have been no marks around her wrists because the loops were over the top of her shirtsleeves and being loose wouldn't have been cutting in all the way around her wrists anyway, they would have been partially cutting into the tougher skin on her hands.

aussiesheila

11-29-2006, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
The cord around her wrist that wasn't removed by John was very loose. If she had been suspended, why would the killer loosen the cord after he was through?

thewhitewitch, I think you are mistaken when you say the cord around her wrist that wasn't removed by John was very loose. Is this statement based on what you see in the photograph of the wrist ligature after Meyer had removed it completely from the body?

The photograph I am talking about shows the cord that was around the right wrist (the one Meyer undid) as being much larger than the one that was around the left wrist (the one John removed), which has an extra little loop to the side of it.

Do you realise that the larger (right wrist) cord is only larger than the left wrist one because Meyer UNDID the little extra little loop to the side of it that it also had in order to remove it from the wrist. So in fact when it was on the body it was just as tight as the the one John removed. If you look at the autopsy photo of the right wrist with the cord still around it you will see the extra little loop.

aussiesheila

11-29-2006, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I've read that the cord was cut and frayed on one end, but is it consistant in a way that suggests she had been suspended? THAT is the question.
And, of course we all speculate and theorize. No arguement there! I took 'cut down' to be a figure of speech, in that he meant she was taken down from a suspended position. The way I imagine she was suspended was that the 15 inch length of cord between the two wrist loops was hooked or caught with a piece of wire that was attached to something overhead.

So if I had a chance to look at that 15 inches of cord (and you can't see the centre of it in the autopsy photo because it's been cropped out), I would be looking for signs of wear and tear in that region. I have never seen any reports that mentioned anything to do with this, I don't know if that is because they are hiding something or whether they never thought to look.

shill

11-29-2006, 06:10 AM

This is a scenerio of how JB might have died.

It recently occurred to me and was varified that JB's mouth might not have needed to be taped shut until after the strangulation started because she would not be able to scream out when she was being strangled. And covering her mouth with tape would restrict her oxygen and make the garrote to risky to use if he did not want to kill her.

So he's strangling her with the garrote and she passes out. He goes to loosen the noose but the knot is sticking and he can't get it loose, and she will die on him. He takes a flat pry bar he has with him and slips it under the knot and pulls it loose, but leaves a mark on her kneck from the prybar. (see photo)
http://scorpionsupport.com///neckSMFlipPryBar.jpg
Suddenly she gasps for air and comes to. She lets out a haunting scream heard by the nieghbor. The killer strikes her in the head with the flat prybar he still has in hand. He puts tape on her mouth at this point so she can not scream again. He begins to choke her again but she is dying and his game ends and his plans must now change.

shill

11-29-2006, 06:14 AM

My first thought was "cut down" was a figure of speech.
Like he was cut down by a hail of bullets.
But everybody here and on most sites are so literal, so it's not worth the battle.

LindaA

11-29-2006, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by shill
My first thought was "cut down" was a figure of speech.
Like he was cut down by a hail of bullets.
But everybody here and on most sites are so literal, so it's not worth the battle.

I don't believe in the context Walsh used it it could be a figure of speech.

Also, what were these [ers[ doing while rigor mortis set in? Wouldn't it be risky to just hang out in the basement all that time?

Other than that this theory is interesting.

andU

11-29-2006, 08:09 AM

andU

11-29-2006, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

What attack??? Please explain how I attacked you. I asked a simple question and nobody wants to answer it.
How and Why did John not see the garrote around JonBenets neck and try to remove it? Why did he choose to remove the tape and untie her hands instead of doing the one thing that may have saved her life - if he really thought she was still alive?

You either are very sensitive or you read things the wrong way. I'm not going to cry because you said I have a "narrow mind" and you shouldn't cry either when I disagree with you. I listen to other peoples' opinions but no one says I have to accept them or agree with them. You may notice that many people in this forum have their own opinions too and are not swayed by what others think. You should notice. You're one of them.
For the last time - I am not attacking you. ok?

Ok, you weren't attacking me. I believe John suspected by looking at her, touching her that she was dead. But, who is authorized to answer your question? I wasn't there, I can't answer for John as why he didn't remove the neck rope/cord first. He was in a state of panic and disbelief, shock - he had found his missing daughter and he fled with her to get help for her? .... I truly don't know and only John can answer your question.

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by aussiesheila

<snip>

First of all, I believe JonBenet was in a fairly relaxed state, having been fed drugged pineapple before she was taken to the basement.

<snip>

I am suggesting that repeated semi-strangulations during prior sessions of sexual abuse is what caused them.

Link please that shows there were drugs in JonBenet's system.

What would have been the purpose of repeated semi-stranguations during prior sessions of sexual abuse? Which BTW I don't believe.

JMO

LindaA

11-29-2006, 09:37 AM

The only way I could account for the absence of drugs in JBR's system is if the so-called date-rape drug were being used. I believe it leaves no trace.

I don't get the semi-strangulation part because it is the one being strangled that has the heightened orgasm. Why would that enhance the perp's pleasure? Can a 6 year old even have an orgasm?

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 09:49 AM

This wiki says one of the most common DRDs can be detected in the urine up to five days and in the hair for a month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_rape_drug

The strangulation part makes no sense to me - if a DRD had been used the victim would be un/semi-conscious, right?

LindaA

11-29-2006, 10:18 AM

I agree with the last part, but I know I"ve heard on news reports that there are DRDs that do not show up in tests. Also, when someone is testes for drugs, they are tested for certain drugs -- not for everything that exists. Isn't it just possible that there could have been something in JBR's system that was not tested for?

IF she had neem given a DRD could she have regained consciouosness? Don't the effect of those last for hours?

Not saying I believe this scenario, but it does account for a lot. Interesting that authorities now seem to be considering the possibility that JMK had an accomplice in this crime.

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by LindaA
I agree with the last part, but I know I"ve heard on news reports that there are DRDs that do not show up in tests. Also, when someone is testes for drugs, they are tested for certain drugs -- not for everything that exists. Isn't it just possible that there could have been something in JBR's system that was not tested for?

IF she had neem given a DRD could she have regained consciouosness? Don't the effect of those last for hours?

Not saying I believe this scenario, but it does account for a lot. Interesting that authorities now seem to be considering the possibility that JMK had an accomplice in this crime.

The wiki talks about how long the effects can last. Appears it varies.

I don't think we've heard the last of JMK. I heard somewhere that's he back in Hamilton, AL. I'm sure he's being watched like a hawk there. (I probably shouldn't post this w/o a link, but there were at least three little girls in AL who disappeared and never found. Did you know that?)

Curious why he left Atlanta - too much attention/focus? I understand the neighborhood association where his father lives put him and the public on notice that he wasn't wanted there. Hope people everywhere continue to keep him in sight. (But, you know - there will be some out there who thinks he is being mistreated and what's even scarier - more out there just like him!)

Just to be on the safe side I'll MOO, JMO and all that.......

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by andU

Ok, you weren't attacking me. I believe John suspected by looking at her, touching her that she was dead. But, who is authorized to answer your question? I wasn't there, I can't answer for John as why he didn't remove the neck rope/cord first. He was in a state of panic and disbelief, shock - he had found his missing daughter and he fled with her to get help for her? .... I truly don't know and only John can answer your question.

I won't argue the theories. However, have you seen her autopsy photos...if you found her. And she would look substantially like what you see when John found her. How could there be even to the most sensitive of viewers a doubt she was dead. If you have not seen the photos I warn they are graphic and can be seen at candyrose. If you need a specific link that can be povided.

nuisanceposter

11-29-2006, 10:39 AM

The physical evidence to support the theory that JonBenet's hands were restrained by the cord while she was alive and conscious does not exist. Her wrists showed no signs of struggling against restraints at all, and they would have had she been conscious and restrained while being strangled.

There is no evidence of any drugs in her system.

There is no evidence of a group of pedophiles having been in the basement. How would they be in there and not leave any forensic evidence of their presence?

Aussiesheila, what's your theory concerning Patsy this week? Is it still that she opened the door for the pedo ring and let them in and handed her daughter over just before taking a nap on the couch and being woken up to write the RN, or have you changed your mind about that again?

elvislives

11-29-2006, 11:01 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ames
[B]

(or in my experience, I should say that I KNOW)...that she was hit on the head first...and then strangled.

I am in the medical field and am certain that the head injury came last. The reason I believe this is that head injuries produce enormous amounts of blood and no blood was found in the house (they used Luminol everywhere just in case it was cleaned up-- no evidence of blood). The only way a head injury would not produce tons of blood is when the heart is no longer pumping or pumping very weakly. So Jonbenet would have to have been strangled first, then hit on the head. If she had no evidence of fingernail marks on her neck, then she must have been restrained or otherwise incapacited.
This IMO is the only evidence that supports the Ramseys defense--it is conceivable that a parent might lose it and hit their child on the head and "accidentally" kill her--then stage a botched kidnapping. It is pretty hard to believe however that a parent would GARROT their child as punishment for anything, unless of course they are completely psychotic.

LindaA

11-29-2006, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

I won't argue the theories. However, have you seen her autopsy photos...if you found her. And she would look substantially like what you see when John found her. How could there be even to the most sensitive of viewers a doubt she was dead. If you have not seen the photos I warn they are graphic and can be seen at candyrose. If you need a specific link that can be povided.

Yes, CK, I think all of us have looked at the autopsy photos. They are heartbreaking.

I think the mistake we all make is expecting JR to have acted logically when he found his daughter. I'm sure on one level he was sure she was dead, but on another hoped she might not be. When faced with so many objects -- tape, cord around her neck, cord on her hands, he must have not known what to do next.

LindaA

11-29-2006, 11:07 AM

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by LindaA

Yes, CK, I think all of us have looked at the autopsy photos. They are heartbreaking.

I think the mistake we all make is expecting JR to have acted logically when he found his daughter. I'm sure on one level he was sure she was dead, but on another hoped she might not be. When faced with so many objects -- tape, cord around her neck, cord on her hands, he must have not known what to do next.

I think Linda Arndt's book which is supposed to be coming out will speak to this. I can't find my link right now and I tore apart my Favorites. If I find it back I'll repost where Linda Arndt speaks of a non verbal eye contact exchange with John....and she knew then and started to assess the bullets she had ....very enlightening. Anyone else have that link. I think its one I lost when I had some kind of thing with my computer and bios and all that.

elvislives

11-29-2006, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by LindaA

Basically I agree with you, Elvislive. But since the skin on her head was not broken would this blood have come from her nose, ears or mouth? THere has been some discussion on here about the amount of blood found in her brain itself. SOme think there was a large amount, others not.

And welcome to the forum!

If memory serves, there was an 8 centimeter crack in her skull. If the skin was intact and her heart was still pumping at the time of the head wound, this would have resulted in a HUGE hematoma. No such hematoma was found--and I think they didn't even discover the cracked skull until autopsy. I've seen the crime scene photos and there is no external evidence of the head wound (hematoma or otherwise) indicating that her skull was cracked after death or when her heart was just barely pumping.

And thanks for the welcome!

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

I think Linda Arndt's book which is supposed to be coming out will speak to this. I can't find my link right now and I tore apart my Favorites. If I find it back I'll repost where Linda Arndt speaks of a non verbal eye contact exchange with John....and she knew then and started to assess the bullets she had ....very enlightening. Anyone else have that link. I think its one I lost when I had some kind of thing with my computer and bios and all that.

There is some mention of the GMA interview with Arndt on the
Linda Arndt & PR thread on this board. I think she was being over-dramatic in the interview - JMO.

nuisanceposter

11-29-2006, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by elvislives
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ames
[B]

(or in my experience, I should say that I KNOW)...that she was hit on the head first...and then strangled.

I am in the medical field and am certain that the head injury came last. The reason I believe this is that head injuries produce enormous amounts of blood and no blood was found in the house (they used Luminol everywhere just in case it was cleaned up-- no evidence of blood). The only way a head injury would not produce tons of blood is when the heart is no longer pumping or pumping very weakly. So Jonbenet would have to have been strangled first, then hit on the head. If she had no evidence of fingernail marks on her neck, then she must have been restrained or otherwise incapacited.
This IMO is the only evidence that supports the Ramseys defense--it is conceivable that a parent might lose it and hit their child on the head and "accidentally" kill her--then stage a botched kidnapping. It is pretty hard to believe however that a parent would GARROT their child as punishment for anything, unless of course they are completely psychotic.

Are you aware that the instrument used to bludgeon JonBenet's skull did not break the skin? How is she going to bleed enough to find blood with Luminol if the skin isn't broken to allow blood to escape?

There is actually quite a bit of blood in JonBenet's head. There are three areas of pooled blood, one of which measured 7 X 4 inches and covered almost the entire hemisphere of her brain. Her brain was also swollen, and it caused the pooled blood to appear as less because it was flattened.

How long does it take for a head wound to cause swelling of the brain? I've heard it's at least ten minutes but up to an hour before the injury will cause the brain to swell.

There is also no evidence of JonBenet struggling whatsoever with the person who strangled her. There are no bruises or abrasions on her wrists, and no defensive wounds. The interior of her neck showed very little damage, indicating she did not struggle with her killer while being strangled. The insides of her cheeks and her tongue are smooth and unblemished.

I don't see any proof at all that JonBenet was strangled prior to being struck in the head. Quite the contrary.

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

There is some mention of the GMA interview with Arndt on the
Linda Arndt & PR thread on this board. I think she was being over-dramatic in the interview - JMO.

But then again it was not you or for that matter I who was kneeling making the eye contact she described. She may have actually gone into auto pilot and was functioning in a way totally consistent with her training void of allowing emotion to rule her decisions. She may well have been very cool and not dramatic at all ....unless we were there in her shoes ...how do you say that.

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

But then again it was not you or for that matter I who was kneeling making the eye contact she described. She may have actually gone into auto pilot and was functioning in a way totally consistent with her training void of allowing emotion to rule her decisions. She may well have been very cool and not dramatic at all ....unless we were there in her shoes ...how do you say that.

Well the fact that she said she "counted her bullets" does seem a bit over the top.......... Was she thinking she didn't have enough bullets? Other than John who did she think she might need a bullet for?

Bear in mind this interview was some time after the event. What point could she possibly have been trying to make with this statement? Sounds like theatrics to me.

JMO

elvislives

11-29-2006, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Are you aware that the instrument used to bludgeon JonBenet's skull did not break the skin? How is she going to bleed enough to find blood with Luminol if the skin isn't broken to allow blood to escape?

There is actually quite a bit of blood in JonBenet's head. There are three areas of pooled blood, one of which measured 7 X 4 inches and covered almost the entire hemisphere of her brain. Her brain was also swollen, and it caused the pooled blood to appear as less because it was flattened.

How long does it take for a head wound to cause swelling of the brain? I've heard it's at least ten minutes but up to an hour before the injury will cause the brain to swell.

There is also no evidence of JonBenet struggling whatsoever with the person who strangled her. There are no bruises or abrasions on her wrists, and no defensive wounds. The interior of her neck showed very little damage, indicating she did not struggle with her killer while being strangled. The insides of her cheeks and her tongue are smooth and unblemished.

I don't see any proof at all that JonBenet was strangled prior to being struck in the head. Quite the contrary.

From Autopsy:
Skull and Brain: Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7x4 inches. This grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization. At the superior extension of the is area of hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area forward tot he right frontal area across the parietal skull. In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one and three-quarters by one-half inch. The hemorrhage and the fracture extend posteriorly just past the midline of the occipital area of the skull. This fracture measures approximately 8.5 inches in length. On removal of the skull cap there is found to be a thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral hemisphere. The 1450 gm grain has a normal overall architecture. Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. No inflammation is identified. There is a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere. On the right cerebral hemisphere underlying the previously mentioned linear skull fracture is an extensive linear area of purple contusion extending from the right frontal area, posteriorly along the lateral aspect of the parietal region and into the occipital area. This area of contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches. At the tip of the right temporal lobe is a one-quarter by one-quarter inch similar appearing purple contusion. Only very minimal contusion is present at the tip of the left temporal lobe. This area of contusion measures only one-half inch in maximum dimension. The cerebral vasculature contains no evidence of atherosclerosis. Multiple coronal sections of the cerebral hemispheres, brain stem and cerebellum disclose no additional abnormalities. The areas of previously described contusion are characterized by purple linear streak-like discolorations of the gray matter perpendicular to the surface of the cerebral cortex. These extend approximately 5mm into the cerebral cortex. Examination of the base of the brain discloses no additional fractures.

The autopsy states that the hemorrhage was fresh with no evidence of organization. If the head injury occurred 10 minutes to 1 hour before death, there would be a very organized hemorrhage. Also because of the large hole in her skull (1 3/4 inches by 1/2 inch) she would have a significant subdermal hemotoma...not just a subarachnoid or subdural hematoma (and lot more blood volume than 7-8ccs). In other words, if her heart was pumping normally at the time of the blow to the head, she would have lost significant amounts of blood thru the hole in her skull which would pool beneath the skin causing a noticable hematoma. Because her hematoma was subdural and there was a large hole in her skull, that suggests that her heart was barely beating at the time of the head blow. That coupled with the fact that she had petichial hemorrhages in her lungs and eyes suggest that her heart was still beating when she was strangled (if she was already dead when strangled there would be no petechial hemorrhaging). I agree with you that there is no evidence that she struggled against the garrot, but I still think the head blow came last.

That said, I presume it is possible that she sustained multiple blows to the head....perhaps the initial blow did not crack the skull, but simply incapacitated her so she could be strangled without fighting back and then the final blow put the crack and large hole in her skull when she was already dead from strangulation, explaining why there was no subdermal hematoma. I'll have to re-read the autopsy and see if there is any evidence of multiple blows to the head. Then again, she could have been incapacitated by drugs that were not detected or perhaps a stun gun which could also explain why there was no evidence of struggle against her assailant.

sweetcharlotte

11-29-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by elvislives

<snip>

Then again, she could have been incapacitated by drugs that were not detected or perhaps a stun gun which could also explain why there was no evidence of struggle against her assailant.

Someone else mentioned the possible use of drugs ......and Linda A said that she has read that some date rape drugs can't be detected.

Do you know specifically of drugs that might have been used in this case that couldn't be detected? Just curious.

(BTW, do you live near Graceland? :) )

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Well the fact that she said she "counted her bullets" does seem a bit over the top.......... Was she thinking she didn't have enough bullets? Other than John who did she think she might need a bullet for?

Bear in mind this interview was some time after the event. What point could she possibly have been trying to make with this statement? Sounds like theatrics to me.

JMO

Sounds like a sincere attempt to convey her immediate assesment at the time to me. I think the nonverbal moment of communication she described would have been chilling no matter who you were or how you were trained. Perhaps it was the moment and the non verbal exchange that held the drama. Certainly the moment passed without high impact shoot outs or maximum theatrics or drama. I believe her account. To me it sounds very plausible.

LindaA

11-29-2006, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

I think Linda Arndt's book which is supposed to be coming out will speak to this. I can't find my link right now and I tore apart my Favorites. If I find it back I'll repost where Linda Arndt speaks of a non verbal eye contact exchange with John....and she knew then and started to assess the bullets she had ....very enlightening. Anyone else have that link. I think its one I lost when I had some kind of thing with my computer and bios and all that.

I've read about that incident and , IMO, I can't imagine ever thinking there would be a shoot-out. WIth JR? It's just ridiculous. I am, however, anxious to read LA's book. I read her account of her conversations with PR just before her death, and find them -- not what I expected.

LindaA

11-29-2006, 12:59 PM

Elvis, you've let the dogs out now! THE RDIs (RAmseys-did-its) are adamant that the head blow came first and that the amount of blood describes is signigficant. And don't let's get started on the stun gun theory! Take a look at the marks on her body in the autopsy photos and let us know what you think.

nuisanceposter

11-29-2006, 01:26 PM

Please take a few moments to read the arguments presented on the topic of order of events in the actual murder in this thread.

http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/showthread.php?t=6750

I would copy and paste the pertinent information, but I didn't write these posts, so they aren't mine to copy.

I really think it looks as though JonBenet was completely unconscious (and on her stomach) when strangled. She didn't fight the person who strangled her AT ALL.

elvislives

11-29-2006, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Someone else mentioned the possible use of drugs ......and Linda A said that she has read that some date rape drugs can't be detected.

Do you know specifically of drugs that might have been used in this case that couldn't be detected? Just curious.

(BTW, do you live near Graceland? :) )

There are a number of drugs that could be used to incapacitate someone that could go undetected...but most of these would have to be obtained from a hospital or pharmacy. Most street or otc drugs are tested for at autopsy. I have heard that some date rape drugs (I think ruhipnol may be one) cannot be detected yet.
Before long, they'll have a way to test for it.

And no I don't live near Graceland!!

elvislives

11-29-2006, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
Elvis, you've let the dogs out now! THE RDIs (RAmseys-did-its) are adamant that the head blow came first and that the amount of blood describes is signigficant. And don't let's get started on the stun gun theory! Take a look at the marks on her body in the autopsy photos and let us know what you think.

I'm not saying that the Ramseys didn't do it, I just think, based on the physical evidence that she died of asphyxia and the crack in the skull came just before, at the time of, or just after death. As far as the marks on her body, they could be stun gun injuries or they could have come from something else. I strongly believe that they should have exhumed her body to find out one way or the other.

elvislives

11-29-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Please take a few moments to read the arguments presented on the topic of order of events in the actual murder in this thread.

http://66.98.176.96/~tricia/forums/showthread.php?t=6750

I would copy and paste the pertinent information, but I didn't write these posts, so they aren't mine to copy.

I really think it looks as though JonBenet was completely unconscious (and on her stomach) when strangled. She didn't fight the person who strangled her AT ALL.

There is no question that she was somehow incapacitated when she was garroted, but she was not incapacitated from the blow to the head. She definitely died due to asphyxia. If you strangle a dead body, they will not develop petichial hemorrhaging in the eyes and lungs...the heart has to be beating for that to happen (and no, I don't know this from personal experience :))

But if you bash the skull of a person who's heart has just stopped or is bearly beating, they will still have a moderate degree of intracranial hemorrhage from breaking the blood vessels which still contain blood that has not yet coagulated. If the head blow came 2 hours after death, there would be no hemorrhage at all since the blood would have clotted. But again, if the blow to the head came while her heart was still beating there would be significant subdermal hemorrhage, which was absent.

So I've read thru the posts and have also read several books on this case and seen the experts debate....and I stand by my original theory that Jonbenet was strangled to death, then came the blow to the head.

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by elvislives

There is no question that she was somehow incapacitated when she was garroted, but she was not incapacitated from the blow to the head. She definitely died due to asphyxia. If you strangle a dead body, they will not develop petichial hemorrhaging in the eyes and lungs...the heart has to be beating for that to happen (and no, I don't know this from personal experience :))

But if you bash the skull of a person who's heart has just stopped or is bearly beating, they will still have a moderate degree of intracranial hemorrhage from breaking the blood vessels which still contain blood that has not yet coagulated. If the head blow came 2 hours after death, there would be no hemorrhage at all since the blood would have clotted. But again, if the blow to the head came while her heart was still beating there would be significant subdermal hemorrhage, which was absent.

So I've read thru the posts and have also read several books on this case and seen the experts debate....and I stand by my original theory that Jonbenet was strangled to death, then came the blow to the head.

I think they were in close proximity of each other. But there was no struggle evident so I'd have to say I think the blow to the head came before the strangulation. Or she'd of fought like mad by instinct.

andU

11-29-2006, 02:32 PM

nuisanceposter

11-29-2006, 02:36 PM

Oh, I don't think she was dead from the head wound when she was strangled. I think she was unconscious from it, though, and I think it would have eventually killed her if the strangulation hadn't.

The fact that her head wound is developed at all proves that she was alive and her heart was beating when she was hit on the head, and that it continued to beat afterwards. It wouldn't be developed at all, with the sulci narrowed and the gyri flattened if she had been hit just before dying of the strangulation.

Just how long does it take after being injured for the sulci to narrow and gyri to flatten?

In what way could one incapacitate a child so that the child cannot move while being strangled that also does not leave any physical evidence on her body? If she had been tied, we would see bruises and abrasions from where she had struggled against the restraints. There is absolutely no way anyone is going to be able to strangle a healthy 6 year old girl without her resisting, struggling, and fighting for her life...unless she was unconscious.

Here's where people trot out the stun gun theory. I don't believe those are stun guns marks. Stun guns leave burns, not abrasions, and I'm not at all certain a stun gun would have left her unconscious.

I think they should have exhumed JonBenet and the Rs didn't want to because they knew those are not stun gun marks. Why else would they pass up on the chance to solve their daughter's murder by proving suspected evidence to be valid as well as clear not only their name, but Burke's also? Because she was at rest? Good Christians are secure in the knowledge that the body is just a shell, and the soul is the part that is at rest. But then again, the Rs didn't really seem to understand the Christianity they clinged to. Patsy sounded as if Christianity was based on satisfying her, not God, and JR couldn't even name his favorite Scripture verse when asked. Don't get me started on the whole "weaving death into the fabric of Christmas" with Patsy's choice to use purple on their Christmas tree that year. She just ends up sounding crazy, imo.

I still think she was unconscious from the head wound when strangled.

andU

11-29-2006, 02:36 PM

andU

11-29-2006, 02:45 PM

elvislives

11-29-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Oh, I don't think she was dead from the head wound when she was strangled. I think she was unconscious from it, though, and I think it would have eventually killed her if the strangulation hadn't.

The fact that her head wound is developed at all proves that she was alive and her heart was beating when she was hit on the head, and that it continued to beat afterwards. It wouldn't be developed at all, with the sulci narrowed and the gyri flattened if she had been hit just before dying of the strangulation.

Just how long does it take after being injured for the sulci to narrow and gyri to flatten?

In what way could one incapacitate a child so that the child cannot move while being strangled that also does not leave any physical evidence on her body? If she had been tied, we would see bruises and abrasions from where she had struggled against the restraints. There is absolutely no way anyone is going to be able to strangle a healthy 6 year old girl without her resisting, struggling, and fighting for her life...unless she was unconscious.

Here's where people trot out the stun gun theory. I don't believe those are stun guns marks. Stun guns leave burns, not abrasions, and I'm not at all certain a stun gun would have left her unconscious.

I think they should have exhumed JonBenet and the Rs didn't want to because they knew those are not stun gun marks. Why else would they pass up on the chance to solve their daughter's murder by proving suspected evidence to be valid as well as clear not only their name, but Burke's also? Because she was at rest? Good Christians are secure in the knowledge that the body is just a shell, and the soul is the part that is at rest. But then again, the Rs didn't really seem to understand the Christianity they clinged to. Patsy sounded as if Christianity was based on satisfying her, not God, and JR couldn't even name his favorite Scripture verse when asked. Don't get me started on the whole "weaving death into the fabric of Christmas" with Patsy's choice to use purple on their Christmas tree that year. She just ends up sounding crazy, imo.

I still think she was unconscious from the head wound when strangled.

Is there any evidence that there were multiple blows to the head? Here is a scenario that would fit the physical evidence: 1st blow to the head knocks her unconscious, but does not produce the large crack/hole in her skull. Then she is strangled to death while unconscious (hence the petichial hemorrhaging and lack of defense wounds). Then a final blow to the head which produces the 8 inch crack and the large hole and since her heart has already stopped, there is little to no subdermal hemorrhage.

Anyone know if multiple head wounds have been ruled out? I'm not saying that she wasn't struck in the head before being strangled. But I am saying that the blow that caused the 8 inch crack and large hole had to be inflicted after her heart had already stopped or was just barely beating.

elvislives

11-29-2006, 02:58 PM

nuisanceposter

11-29-2006, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by andU

the coroner's report states that the cause of death was strangulation/ asphyxiation (incorrect spelling ... you know - lack of O2)

You spelled it right, dear. =)

But...the cause of death is not asphyxiation alone:

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

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9716777/detail.html

The strangulation killed her before the head injury did, but the head injury itself would have been enough to cause death. I'm not refuting that she died from being strangled, I'm saying I think the head wound was already there when she was strangled. I don't see any other way that the brain could be as injured as it was and that she did not fight her killer unless she already had the head wound when strangled and was unconscious from it.

Here's an article about Dr Ronald Wright's findings. He's a pathologist who reviewed the autopsy.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm

The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.
"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''
He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.
The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''
And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.
"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.
"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''

andU

11-29-2006, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

You spelled it right, dear. =)

But...the cause of death is not asphyxiation alone:

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

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9716777/detail.html

The strangulation killed her before the head injury did, but the head injury itself would have been enough to cause death. I'm not refuting that she died from being strangled, I'm saying I think the head wound was already there when she was strangled. I don't see any other way that the brain could be as injured as it was and that she did not fight her killer unless she already had the head wound when strangled and was unconscious from it.

Here's an article about Dr Ronald Wright's findings. He's a pathologist who reviewed the autopsy.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm

The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said...................
" (Edited to shorten the post)''

I disagree, based on the lack of blood; IMO: If the head bashing had come first, the heart would have continued to pump the blood and the swelling would have been great, perhaps even causing an open wound. I do agree that the head wound would have been enough, but my thoughts are that it was done to be sure that she didn't recover. I agree with the association statement from the autopsy report. Who is this doctor that you are quoting? I was going on the autopsy report. Again, IMO

thewhitewitch1

11-29-2006, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by andU

I disagree, based on the lack of blood; IMO: If the head bashing had come first, the heart would have continued to pump the blood and the swelling would have been great, perhaps even causing an open wound. I do agree that the head wound would have been enough, but my thoughts are that it was done to be sure that she didn't recover. I agree with the association statement from the autopsy report. Who is this doctor that you are quoting? I was going on the autopsy report. Again, IMO

I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that strangling someone is a pretty thorough way of killing them. Especially if that someone is a 45 lb. six year old. There would have been no need to "bash her head in". Because there are so many conflicting opinions on which came first by so many experts, I think we will just have to leave it open that either way was possible.

andU

11-29-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1

I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that strangling someone is a pretty thorough way of killing them. Especially if that someone is a 45 lb. six year old. There would have been no need to "bash her head in". Because there are so many conflicting opinions on which came first by so many experts, I think we will just have to leave it open that either way was possible.

... or agree to disagree, which is basically saying the same thing. I agree there was no need for 'over-kill' but, it happened. IMO

nuisanceposter

11-29-2006, 03:35 PM

His name is Dr Ronald Wright, and he was the Dade County Deputy CME from 1974-1980, and the Broward County CME from 1990-1994. He was also ME in Vermont.

http://path.med.miami.edu/umpath/faculty/wright.htm

Dr. Ronald K. Wright is Associate Professor of Pathology and Director of Forensic Pathology Division at Jackson Memorial Hospital Miami, Florida.

http://www.geradts.com/anil/ij//vol_004_no_002/reviews/tb/page001.html

andU

11-29-2006, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
His name is Dr Ronald Wright, and he was the Dade County Deputy CME from 1974-1980, and the Broward County CME from 1990-1994. He was also ME in Vermont.

http://path.med.miami.edu/umpath/faculty/wright.htm

Dr. Ronald K. Wright is Associate Professor of Pathology and Director of Forensic Pathology Division at Jackson Memorial Hospital Miami, Florida.

http://www.geradts.com/anil/ij//vol_004_no_002/reviews/tb/page001.html

Thank you!

shill

11-29-2006, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Sounds like a sincere attempt to convey her immediate assesment at the time to me. I think the nonverbal moment of communication she described would have been chilling no matter who you were or how you were trained. Perhaps it was the moment and the non verbal exchange that held the drama. Certainly the moment passed without high impact shoot outs or maximum theatrics or drama. I believe her account. To me it sounds very plausible. Sounded like she was counting bullets to know if she could stop a charging psycho on crack.
It's over the top drama.

bullmoose

11-29-2006, 07:14 PM

With regards to Linda Arndt's counting of bullets in her gun as she looked at John Ramsey; to me her story sounds like a confabulation, an artificially constructed piece of memory. People who think they have been abducted by aliens get similar fanciful memories that aren't very believale to anyone else, except fellow abductees. In others words, I find her account to be unlikely and highly implausible. As a later constructed fantasy in her mind, maybe.

Athena

11-29-2006, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
With regards to Linda Arndt's counting of bullets in her gun as she looked at John Ramsey; to me her story sounds like a confabulation, an artificially constructed piece of memory. People who think they have been abducted by aliens get similar fanciful memories that aren't very believale to anyone else, except fellow abductees. In others words, I find her account to be unlikely and highly implausible. As a later constructed fantasy in her mind, maybe.

Your analogy is funny. Thanks for the laugh.

She was totally stressed out and in above her head when it turned into a homicide; as a result she definitely over reacted.

shill

11-29-2006, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
She just ends up sounding crazy, imo.

Takes one to know one.

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 09:42 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by andU

What about herbs, valerian?; I had several that I was going to list and my feeble mind went blank! .... Darn! I think Kava-Kava, - oh, I can't think of the others! Serotinin... could these be detected? [/QUOTE

Melatonin....mmmmm yes I think even that although I don't know if that would be tested for but it that would not incapacitate.

Coloradokares

11-29-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by shill
Sounded like she was counting bullets to know if she could stop a charging psycho on crack.
It's over the top drama.

Any reason that we would assign to why she counted bullets mentally does disservice to her reasoning. The books coming.

Ames

11-29-2006, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

I think they were in close proximity of each other. But there was no struggle evident so I'd have to say I think the blow to the head came before the strangulation. Or she'd of fought like mad by instinct.

Speaking from experience...I have to agree.

shill

11-30-2006, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Any reason that we would assign to why she counted bullets mentally does disservice to her reasoning. The books coming. Her not knowing how many bullets are in her gun certainly does no disservice to what kind of cop she is.
She was probably wondering if she even loaded her gun and was counting the bullets in her pocket.

Coloradokares

11-30-2006, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by shill
Her not knowing how many bullets are in her gun certainly does no disservice to what kind of cop she is.
She was probably wondering if she even loaded her gun and was counting the bullets in her pocket.

Thats laughable....back to keystone cops right. Deputy Barney from Mayberry RFD. Perps have been shot trusting in that theory.

andU

11-30-2006, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Thats laughable....back to keystone cops right. Deputy Barney from Mayberry RFD. Perps have been shot trusting in that theory.

If they didn't all act like Keystone Cops, the jokes would not be upon them.

Coloradokares

11-30-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by andU

If they didn't all act like Keystone Cops, the jokes would not be upon them.

They were not all keystone cops. The word went down from the top called into the chief of police from the 911 call reminding them this was the Ramseys. Access Graphics....Lockheed etc. If whoever had not staged and contaminated and even had friends to come over etc....perhaps......who knows.....

One thing you might consider. Next time you cross the lobby of a hotel and there are a bunch of women there so you decide to say hello and strike up conversation they could be there for a Christian Womens Convention or a convention of prostitutes. If everyone said my goodness look at all those Ladies you'd be in their company and part of the ALL.... Bible in Hand or arrested and booked all the same. All is always a broad brush to paint with. Not all the police were acting keystone not all were doing their job by the book. You and I may or may not agree on which was whom.

bullmoose

11-30-2006, 01:35 PM

I'm not a fan of Linda Arndt, but I would have to say that the BPD put her in a horrble situation that morning being alone in that house with what was thought to be an ongoing kidnapping; the stress of that must have been almost unbearable; then John Ramsey finds Jonbenet, the house is a screaming uproar, I think she must have just about lost it. No, CK they were not all Keystone Kops, But I think Eller is the epitome of the breed, he decided right off that the Ramseys were guilty, just as you so carefully intimate. He had a presumption of guilt from the start, he didn't follow the evidence, and so screwed up the investigation from the beginning. The first day the Ramseys were told that the FBI was on its way; the second day they found out they weren't on the case; ask yourself, wouldn't you start to think that the police were already zeroing in on you if you found out the cops [Keystone variety] were lying to you? I know, from experience, when you've been lied to by the cops, you no longer trust them; you deal with them through your lawyer, to keep them from lying about what you say to them, as I suspect happened in this case. At least the Keystone Kops were funny, the cops in this case were a bad joke.

nuisanceposter

11-30-2006, 02:01 PM

I agree with you about Arndt, and the situation she was in, but not about FBI.

FBI were on the case on 12/26. Agent Ron Walker was on the case monitoring the phone and at the Ramsey house in person.

PMPT, hb, pg 11

"At headquarters, Mason met Special Agent Ron Walker, who had just arrived from the Denver FBI office with a four-man kidnapping team. The special agents were working with some police officers to set up phone taps and traps, which would give them immediate access to all incoming and outgoing calls at the Ramsey house. Agent Walker was treating the case as a kidnapping, but the ransom note was unusual. It made him wonder."

PMPT, hb, pg 17

"Fifteen minutes after Detective Arndt's page, at around 1:30 pm, Ron Walker entered the Ramseys' living room with Larry Mason and saw JonBenet's body lying at the foot of the Christmas tree. It hadn't yet been covered.

The room was empty, but they could hear the mother sobbing. She was at the rear of the house, surrounded by friends.

Mason and Walker went downstairs to the wine cellar, where they saw the white blanket, the duct tape, and the pink Barbie nightgown."

John Ramsey has been nailed in a lie.

andU

11-30-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by bullmoose
I'm not a fan of Linda Arndt, but I would have to say that the BPD put her in a horrble situation that morning being alone in that house with what was thought to be an ongoing kidnapping; the stress of that must have been almost unbearable; then John Ramsey finds Jonbenet, the house is a screaming uproar, I think she must have just about lost it. No, CK they were not all Keystone Kops, But I think Eller is the epitome of the breed, he decided right off that the Ramseys were guilty, just as you so carefully intimate. He had a presumption of guilt from the start, he didn't follow the evidence, and so screwed up the investigation from the beginning. The first day the Ramseys were told that the FBI was on its way; the second day they found out they weren't on the case; ask yourself, wouldn't you start to think that the police were already zeroing in on you if you found out the cops [Keystone variety] were lying to you? I know, from experience, when you've been lied to by the cops, you no longer trust them; you deal with them through your lawyer, to keep them from lying about what you say to them, as I suspect happened in this case. At least the Keystone Kops were funny, the cops in this case were a bad joke.

Here, Here! I am not a huge fan of Linda's either, and I agree with your post! Very well said!

bullmoose

11-30-2006, 02:27 PM

NP: Are you saying that the FBI was involved in the investigation? And that is how John Ramsey is caught in a lie? Drats, I just finished PM-PT last night but I don't have it here, my computers in the shop, so I'm at a friends terminal. I know that they were installing taps and traps on the phone line, but it has always been my understanding that the FBI no longer had automatic jurisdiction when it changed from a kidnapping to a murder. And that they[FBI] were told, we can take it from here by the Keystoners{BPD}. On page 23 of DOI, John Ramsey speaks of meeting Mason, and assumes he's FBI, but learns later he's BPD, and that the BPD have kept the FBI at bay, not letting them in the house. There sounds like there is a discrepancy in accounts to reconcile. I just bought the last of the better books on this case, so I'm going to have to do more research on this.

nuisanceposter

11-30-2006, 02:50 PM

Yes, I'm saying FBI was on the investigation from early on that morning. Special Agent Ron Walker came from Denver FBI to with a four-man kidnapping team to set up the phone taps and traps.

Agent Walker accompanied Mason to the Ramsey house to check out the scene firsthand. I'd be surprised if JR was introduced to Mason but not Walker. He may have thought Mason was FBI, but he wasn't - but FBI agent Walker was there, also.

Yes, FBI stopped being on the case when it was found to be a murder and not a kidnapping, because they no longer had jurisdiction. That was FBI's decision, not BPD's. (ST's book, hb, pg 33) "Things had changed, they said, since the agency had first been notified that a federal crime, kidnapping, had been committed. "This is now a homicide," said one. "It's local, so it's not our case." Agent Ron Walker added, "Look at the parents. No Bullsh!t, that's where you ned to be." They promised future FBI assistance and left. A third agent, from Boulder, stuck around to help.

BPD did not keep the FBI at bay...not in a kidnapping case. IMO, the RST wants everyone to think the BPD keep the FBI at bay because it helps their image of the BPD being closed-minded and having tunnel vision. Not only were FBI there then, but BPD consulted with FBI's CASKU unit to enlist their help in solving this crime. CASKU found RDI to more likely than IDI.

Yes, John Ramsey has been caught lying because he said FBI weren't there and weren't on the case and they were on both counts. JR ought to know better - this is his daughter's murder investigation. He should know exactly what's been done to find out who the killer was - if not, he's letting his daughter down immensely.

andU

11-30-2006, 03:07 PM

Please forgive me, I'm having an 'off' day... when did JR say that the FBI had not been involved? Was it during the 48 Hours show? I watched the show, but I really don't remember that (and I'm sure not saying it didn't happen - like I said, I'm just not on top of anything today). Thanks!

bullmoose

11-30-2006, 03:16 PM

NP: I do not consider the BPD's consultation of the FBI"s CASKU unit to signify any active participation in the investigation by the FBI. At the time of the crime and for some time after, the BPD was seriously undermanned to do the exhaustive investigation that the added manpower of the FBI could have provided. The other night on the TV show they showed a paper from the BPD dated12/27/96; under a heading of suspects, it showed two names only, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey. That was evidence to me of tunnelvision by the cops. And lying by the BPD because they refused to name the Ramseys as suspects, whe in fact they were really and truly the only suspects, from the first day. So I am not convinced at all that you've caught John Ramsey in any lie. If he only met Mason, it doesn't mean Walker wasn't there; maybe he didn't want to meet Ramsey, since he wasn't going to work on the case, it would have easy to hold back , considering the uproar.

Louisadelmar

11-30-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Yes, I'm saying FBI was on the investigation from early on that morning. Special Agent Ron Walker came from Denver FBI to with a four-man kidnapping team to set up the phone taps and traps.

Agent Walker accompanied Mason to the Ramsey house to check out the scene firsthand. I'd be surprised if JR was introduced to Mason but not Walker. He may have thought Mason was FBI, but he wasn't - but FBI agent Walker was there, also.

Yes, FBI stopped being on the case when it was found to be a murder and not a kidnapping, because they no longer had jurisdiction. That was FBI's decision, not BPD's. (ST's book, hb, pg 33) "Things had changed, they said, since the agency had first been notified that a federal crime, kidnapping, had been committed. "This is now a homicide," said one. "It's local, so it's not our case." Agent Ron Walker added, "Look at the parents. No Bullsh!t, that's where you ned to be." They promised future FBI assistance and left. A third agent, from Boulder, stuck around to help.

BPD did not keep the FBI at bay...not in a kidnapping case. IMO, the RST wants everyone to think the BPD keep the FBI at bay because it helps their image of the BPD being closed-minded and having tunnel vision. Not only were FBI there then, but BPD consulted with FBI's CASKU unit to enlist their help in solving this crime. CASKU found RDI to more likely than IDI.

Yes, John Ramsey has been caught lying because he said FBI weren't there and weren't on the case and they were on both counts. JR ought to know better - this is his daughter's murder investigation. He should know exactly what's been done to find out who the killer was - if not, he's letting his daughter down immensely.

And Eller's attitude toward the FBI...?

nuisanceposter

11-30-2006, 03:35 PM

I know, bullmoose, and I doubt the RST every bit as much as you doubt the BPD.

Forget CASKU then...but FBI was STILL on the case on the morning of 12/26, represented by Agent Ron Walker at the R house in person, and didn't leave until the crime changed from a kidnapping to a murder.

As for the paper shown on 48 Hours...how do you know the RST didn't doctor that paper to make you see what they wanted you to see?

And again, FBI was there, and even if JR didn't meet Agent Walker, he still should correct himself and admit the FBI were there. He has to know by now, and if he doesn't, then shame on him for not caring more about his child's murder investigation to know who was involved and what they were doing.

And unless you can prove Walker didn't want to meet JR, or can provide some link to someone saying anything of that nature, then there's no reason to believe Walker intentionally avoided meeting JR. Nothing like that is mentioned in either PMPT or ST's book.

andU - JR says FBI wasn't on the case and weren't going to be in DOI. That was a deliberate lie, IMO. He HAD to know FBI was involved. They set up the phone taps and traps, for cryin out loud - he knew about that...he mentions the phone monitoring equipment.

nuisanceposter

11-30-2006, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

And Eller's attitude toward the FBI...?

...doesn't matter. The FBI had jurisdiction over police while it was a kidnapping, and they left of their own accord when it turned into a homicide - but not before expressing suspicion that the Rs were responsible.

Louisadelmar

11-30-2006, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

...doesn't matter. The FBI had jurisdiction over police while it was a kidnapping, and they left of their own accord when it turned into a homicide - but not before expressing suspicion that the Rs were responsible.

But were they expressing a suspicion or just giving Investigation 101 advice? I have often wondered if ST took what they said too literally.

Anyway - I think it does matter because Eller didn't want help from anyone. My recollection is the FBI offered to help as did other jurisdictions and all were turned away. Eller wanted to go it alone and do it his way.

andU

11-30-2006, 03:51 PM

Thanks, NP!

bullmoose

11-30-2006, 04:10 PM

NP: Lets agree to disagree on this one; we both distrust and/or totally disbelieve each others sources. Okay? And I am going to go back and check the different accounts and see if I can reconcile them.:)

sweetcharlotte

11-30-2006, 04:16 PM

Larry Mason and Special Agent Ron Walker did not go to the Ramsey house until JonBenet's body was found. That was around 1:30 p.m.

Page 11 - PMPT

Larry Mason rec'd page at home at 9:45 a.m. that FBI was looking for him. 25 minute drive from his home to BDP.

"At headquarters, Mason met Special Agent Ron Walker, who had just arrived from the Denver FBI office with a four-man kidnapping team. The special agents were working with some police office to set up phone taps and traps*"

*my note: you do not physically go to a location to set up taps & traps. That's done via telephone w/telephone company personnel.

Page 16......

At police headquarters, Larry Mason got a page from the crime scene: "We've got a body."

"Oh, f...," Mason said, half aloud. "Ron, we don't have a kidnapping," he told Agent Walker. "It's a homicide. Do you want to go?"

"Of course," Walker........

The arrived at the Ramsey house together around 1:30 p.m.

When they returned to HQs (doesn't say what time) Eller told Mason the Bureau was no longer needed. Page 19 - PM/PT

sweetcharlotte

11-30-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

And Eller's attitude toward the FBI...?

Raising my hand - I can answer that.....

Pate 18/19 PM/PT

"When Larry Mason returned to police headquarters at midafternoon, he found John Eller upset that the FBI was still involved in the case. Eller had spent eleven years with the Dade County police before joining the Boudler PD as an administrator in 1979. He resented guys who hadn't come up from the street; they couldn't possibly know what he knew. Eller told Mason the Bureau was no longer needed."

Louisadelmar

11-30-2006, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Raising my hand - I can answer that.....

Pate 18/19 PM/PT

"When Larry Mason returned to police headquarters at midafternoon, he found John Eller upset that the FBI was still involved in the case. Eller had spent eleven years with the Dade County police before joining the Boudler PD as an administrator in 1979. He resented guys who hadn't come up from the street; they couldn't possibly know what he knew. Eller told Mason the Bureau was no longer needed."

Give the girl a gold star!

Also -

p. 6 PMPT
"...at about 7:30 AM, Pete Hofstram, head of the felony division of the Boulder County district attorney's office called Bill Wise, the first district attorney at home. [...]
Hofstrom told Wise he had asked the police when the FBI would be arriving, only to be told they hadn't even been called."

p. 17 PMPT
"'Did you learn that at the Academy?' Eller snapped. He was always baiting Mason for having attended the FBI academy in Quantico, Virginia."

shill

11-30-2006, 04:45 PM

NP you got schooled!

sweetcharlotte

11-30-2006, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

But were they expressing a suspicion or just giving Investigation 101 advice? I have often wondered if ST took what they said too literally.

Anyway - I think it does matter because Eller didn't want help from anyone. My recollection is the FBI offered to help as did other jurisdictions and all were turned away. Eller wanted to go it alone and do it his way.

They turned down help from the Boulder Sheriff's Dept., Denver PD, and FBI.

nuisanceposter

11-30-2006, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Raising my hand - I can answer that.....

Pate 18/19 PM/PT

"When Larry Mason returned to police headquarters at midafternoon, he found John Eller upset that the FBI was still involved in the case. Eller had spent eleven years with the Dade County police before joining the Boudler PD as an administrator in 1979. He resented guys who hadn't come up from the street; they couldn't possibly know what he knew. Eller told Mason the Bureau was no longer needed."

FBI still had jurisdiction over BPD when it was still a kidnapping, regardless of what Eller told Mason. Eller can tell Mason anything he wants - that doesn't mean it happens, though. FBI left because the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide.

The question was about whether FBI were on the case or not. They were, despite JR saying they weren't.

nuisanceposter

11-30-2006, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

They turned down help from the Boulder Sheriff's Dept., Denver PD, and FBI.

May I please request a link?

sweetcharlotte

11-30-2006, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

May I please request a link?

Certainly.

PM/PT - page 18

"Eller told Mason the Bureau was no longer needed."

Page 63 - " Monday morning, December 30"

"The day that JonBenet's body was found, the Boulder police had requested four of Epp's (note: Boulder county sheriff) detective to work on the Ramsey case............."

"This morning (note: December 30th) Epp's detective were upset with what they seen over the week-end."

"After meeting with his detectives, Epp called police chief Tom Koby and offered his departments' continued assistance. "

"We're fine," Koby told him. "We can handle it ourselves."

For entertainment purposes only:

When the case dragged on the sheriff's detectives made shirts that read, "WE'RE THE OTHER GUYS" and as the case continued to drag on a second set of T-shirts appeared bearing the slogan,
"WHEN IT ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY HAS TO BE SOLVED OVERNIGHT."

Page 77 - Re: Denver PD Chief - David Michaud

"On Thursday afternoon, January 2, Michaud attend a meeting of the Colorado Consortium for Community Policing with Tom Koby.
...........
When Koby left the meeting early, Michaud followed him out the door. "If there's anything we have that you need," he told Koby, "feel free to ask. We'll give you anything we've got."
"Thanks," Koby replied, and continued down the hall."

Does that cover it? Do you want me to talk about how they didn't play well with the DA's office?

Coloradokares

11-30-2006, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by shill
NP you got schooled!

Not so fast quick draw McGraw. This is the same book PMPT Reread Nuisanceposters post. You will see PMPT says they were there on the 26th....

If there is a contradiction its in the book itself. Now who got schooled.

Coloradokares

11-30-2006, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Certainly.

PM/PT - page 18

"Eller told Mason the Bureau was no longer needed."

Page 63 - " Monday morning, December 30"

"The day that JonBenet's body was found, the Boulder police had requested four of Epp's (note: Boulder county sheriff) detective to work on the Ramsey case............."

"This morning (note: December 30th) Epp's detective were upset with what they seen over the week-end."

"After meeting with his detectives, Epp called police chief Tom Koby and offered his departments' continued assistance. "

"We're fine," Koby told him. "We can handle it ourselves."

For entertainment purposes only:

When the case dragged on the sheriff's detectives made shirts that read, "WE'RE THE OTHER GUYS" and as the case continued to drag on a second set of T-shirts appeared bearing the slogan,
"WHEN IT ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY HAS TO BE SOLVED OVERNIGHT."

Page 77 - Re: Denver PD Chief - David Michaud

"On Thursday afternoon, January 2, Michaud attend a meeting of the Colorado Consortium for Community Policing with Tom Koby.
...........
When Koby left the meeting early, Michaud followed him out the door. "If there's anything we have that you need," he told Koby, "feel free to ask. We'll give you anything we've got."
"Thanks," Koby replied, and continued down the hall."

Does that cover it? Do you want me to talk about how they didn't play well with the DA's office?

I dont disagree and neither Eller or Koby survived the case.
And it was proper they did not. Heads should have rolled.

sweetcharlotte

11-30-2006, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

FBI still had jurisdiction over BPD when it was still a kidnapping, regardless of what Eller told Mason. Eller can tell Mason anything he wants - that doesn't mean it happens, though. FBI left because the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide.

The question was about whether FBI were on the case or not. They were, despite JR saying they weren't.

So let me see if I understand - some time between appx. 11:00 a.m. until midafternoon on December 26th, someone asked John Ramsey if the FBI was on the case and he said "no."

When was John Ramsey asked if the FBI was on the case? It is wasn't between those hours, he was right - they were not on the case.

JMO

andU

12-01-2006, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

FBI still had jurisdiction over BPD when it was still a kidnapping, regardless of what Eller told Mason. Eller can tell Mason anything he wants - that doesn't mean it happens, though. FBI left because the crime changed from a kidnapping to a homicide.

The question was about whether FBI were on the case or not. They were, despite JR saying they weren't.

But.... technically they weren't since the body had been found before they even made the decision to go to the house (based on the previous quote). They went because they had been called, but were technically off the case when the body was found (don't ask, this is my opinion - based on them only being involved while it was a kidnapping).

andU

12-01-2006, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Certainly.

PM/PT - page 18

"Eller told Mason the Bureau was no longer needed."

Page 63 - " Monday morning, December 30"

"The day that JonBenet's body was found, the Boulder police had requested four of Epp's (note: Boulder county sheriff) detective to work on the Ramsey case............."

"This morning (note: December 30th) Epp's detective were upset with what they seen over the week-end."

"After meeting with his detectives, Epp called police chief Tom Koby and offered his departments' continued assistance. "

"We're fine," Koby told him. "We can handle it ourselves."

For entertainment purposes only:

When the case dragged on the sheriff's detectives made shirts that read, "WE'RE THE OTHER GUYS" and as the case continued to drag on a second set of T-shirts appeared bearing the slogan,
"WHEN IT ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY HAS TO BE SOLVED OVERNIGHT."

Page 77 - Re: Denver PD Chief - David Michaud

"On Thursday afternoon, January 2, Michaud attend a meeting of the Colorado Consortium for Community Policing with Tom Koby.
...........
When Koby left the meeting early, Michaud followed him out the door. "If there's anything we have that you need," he told Koby, "feel free to ask. We'll give you anything we've got."
"Thanks," Koby replied, and continued down the hall."

Does that cover it? Do you want me to talk about how they didn't play well with the DA's office?

Yes, they went to the house because they had been called, they had to make a presence and acknowledge that they knew that the body indicated their involvement was no longer needed. So, they were involved for what?.... a few hours without any actual activity?

andU

12-01-2006, 09:40 AM

Sweet: I'm sorry... I hit the wrong quote button... I think this reply was to CK...

aussiesheila

12-01-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Ames

She would have had some sort of FRICTION BURN from the sweater fabric!! I don't care if she only weighed 10 pounds...she would have been struggling, trying to break free, to get to that cord that was around her neck....she would have had SOME SORT of friction burn, if not just a little one.....on her wrists. BUT...they would have been there. She didn't struggle when she was strangled, because the head wound came FIRST...and she was not suspended. Where is your proof? I will listen to your argument when I see proof. There is NO mention, whatsoever, that she had been suspended. And no mention in the autopsy report of friction burns on her wrists...and it would have been there, if that was the case. (IMO) I don't agree with you Ames, that she would have had to have some sort of friction burn from the sweater fabric.

When I try to reconstruct what I think is the most likely scenario, I see JonBenet being stood on a chair, and her arms held stretched straight out above her head by the 15 inch length of cord between the wrist loops attached to an overhead hook.

I don't think her wrists received friction burns for the following reasons. First of all the sleeve fabric was fairly thick giving the wrists some protection from the cord, secondly although her arms were held outstretched I don't think her wrists were taking any of body weight as she was standing and all her weight was on her feet. Thirdly I think there were a number of factors that would have kept any struggling to a bare minimum. I think this had been done to her before, so she was used to being treated this way you might say. I think she had been drugged, the pineapple she was fed having contained some soporific drug that made her woozy and compliant. I also think she had been terrorised into submission by having just witnessed a small animal being killed in front of her as she petted it. I think also a stun gun was used and if she did begin to struggle, she immediately received a stun.

There is no proof that this happened, but equally there is no proof that it didn't. IMO all of the above could have occurred without friction burns being made on her wrists.

sweetcharlotte

12-01-2006, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by andU
Sweet: I'm sorry... I hit the wrong quote button... I think this reply was to CK...

No problem.......you just reinforced the point I was making.

Athena

12-01-2006, 10:36 AM

I'm at work so have to make this quick.

Just wanted to add to what has already been posted re: FBI/BPD.

As soon as that 911 call was made, the FBI should have been contacted and should have been responsible for the investigation prior to it becoming a homicide. They would have instructed the BPD to STAY AWAY from the home. Usually when a kidnapping occurs the FBI sets up "residence" in close proximity to the home but not in the home. The reason for that is because from their experience kidnappers get angry when families contact the police and the FBI fear for the child's life (or kidnappee's life).

The BPD should have not have even gone to the residence especially in a patrol car and uniform.

This whole case was botched from the first few minutes.

Sweet.... I'm impressed with your knowledge of "taps" and "traps". Again I am in the industry and am aware of that but most "laymen" wouldn't. :) JMO

aussiesheila

12-01-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Ames

GOOD GRIEF...I guess that her being suspended must be true, because YOU keep telling me that it is. Doesn't matter that I, personally have been through the process of being strangled, to the point of almost dying. I think that I have just a little bit more knowledge about this than YOU do. And I do know that you are thinking that maybe she was suspended...and cut down...and that this may be something that they are keeping from the public. Maybe you could be right....but, I don't think so. If you have concrete evidence, then I will buy your theory. (IMO) Ames, I know you have had a most terrifying experience and I believe it must have been every bit as horrific as you say it was. But somehow I just don't think JonBenet could have had the same experience as you. For instance, it is well documented that some people indulge in a practice known as auto-erotic asphyxiation in which they set themselves up either with a noose around their neck or a plastic bag over their head to DELIBERATELY cause themselves to lose conciousness. I don't know exactly what happens but surely whatever does happen, what they experience can't be anything like what you experienced otherwise they would claw the noose or the plastic bag off before they lost conciousness. So I am thinking that maybe this might be more like what was done to JonBenet, maybe it has something to do with it happening very slowly. I really don't know. On Websleuths people were talking about something pedophiles do which is to use a garotte on their victims to make them momentarily lose conciousness and then as they regain conciousness the body goes into paroxysms which kind of simulates female orgasm. I think this is what they were doing to JonBenet before she died.

Athena

12-01-2006, 10:49 AM

I meant to post a link to my post above but too late to edit:

If a child is missing and possibly kidnapped, but no interstate transportation is known, will the FBI begin an investigation?
Yes. The FBI will initiate a kidnapping investigation involving a missing child "of tender years" even though there is no known interstate aspect. "Tender years" is generally defined as a child twelve years or younger. The FBI will monitor other kidnapping situations when there is no evidence of interstate travel, and it offers assistance from various entities including the FBI Laboratory.

http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/faqs/faqsone.htm

aussiesheila

12-01-2006, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by shill
The boiler room seemed to have a lot of options, but the train room had an escape route.

I want to say she was in a chair, There was tape on her legs and that could have been from her legs being taped to the legs of the chair. The chair would have been an obvious choice for stepping on to escape out the basement window but wasn't, maybe because JB was being restrained in it. But the pooling of blood puts her on her back, so logic would suggest she was laying down on her back.

The killer new his knots and could of hitched the extra cord to anything. Cowboys can flick the reins of the horse around a hitching post and with out even tying it, secure the horse. I'm sure there is a not to do this more securely.
I have recreated the knots on the wrist cuffs and they appear to be a Tautline Hitch knot, minus the extra turn. This is an interesting slip knot that doesn't loosen on it's own. You could slide one loop over her wrist and tighten, toss the other one over a pipe, then on to her wrist and tighten. So you don't need to have a hook or wire. There very much like handcuffs. I have never seen where it is said she had tape on her legs. Where did you read this?

I think rigor mortis begins to set in before livor mortis, so I think rigor mortis began to set in on her arms while she was suspended in the standing position. I think maybe she was left like that for about an hour before she was laid on her back in the cellar when the livor mortis began to develop.

I tried to start a thread on knots at Websleuths, it went down like a lead balloon. I think the knots are important and you are the first person I have come across who seems to be at all interested. As far as I can see, there were a number of different types of knots used and I would say that each one was used for a purpose. So to me neither the wrist cords nor the neck cord look at all staged, they look very purposefully created.

I managed to recreate the noose knot but no way could I do the wrist knots.

I read there was evidence of fibres from the cord found on JonBenet's bed. Whether this is true or not I don't know. But based on that I theorised that the first intruder (Santa) came up to her bedroom and drew that heart on her left hand, tied one end of the cord around her left wrist, then led her down to the kitchen as in some kind of game. I think that the cord around the right wrist wasn't tied on until they were down in the basement. Did you notice the extra knot on the right wrist cord when it is still in place on the body. I think Meyer must have undone it to make the wrist loop large enough to slip over the hand. So that makes two knots on the right wrist cord. I cant quite tell from the photos whether there is one knot or two on the left wrist cord. What do you think?

thewhitewitch1

12-01-2006, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by aussiesheila
I don't agree with you Ames, that she would have had to have some sort of friction burn from the sweater fabric.

When I try to reconstruct what I think is the most likely scenario, I see JonBenet being stood on a chair, and her arms held stretched straight out above her head by the 15 inch length of cord between the wrist loops attached to an overhead hook.

I don't think her wrists received friction burns for the following reasons. First of all the sleeve fabric was fairly thick giving the wrists some protection from the cord, secondly although her arms were held outstretched I don't think her wrists were taking any of body weight as she was standing and all her weight was on her feet. Thirdly I think there were a number of factors that would have kept any struggling to a bare minimum. I think this had been done to her before, so she was used to being treated this way you might say. I think she had been drugged, the pineapple she was fed having contained some soporific drug that made her woozy and compliant. I also think she had been terrorised into submission by having just witnessed a small animal being killed in front of her as she petted it. I think also a stun gun was used and if she did begin to struggle, she immediately received a stun.

There is no proof that this happened, but equally there is no proof that it didn't. IMO all of the above could have occurred without friction burns being made on her wrists.

If a stun gun had been used, she would have been limp and therefore dangling by her wrists if she had been suspended.
I am sure that the pineapple was tested for drugs and she also had no drugs in her system at the time. If she was "woozy" from being drugged, she also would have been limp and dangling from her wrists, as she would not have been able to stand up on her own.
Where is the hook used to suspend her from?
If there was tape on her legs (Shill) because her legs had been taped to a chair, I am sure that someone would have been smart enough to locate that chair and test it for tape residue.
If a small animal was killed in front of her, where is the blood from it? Where did the carcass go? There were animal hairs found but they were said to have been from a beaver. How does one capture a beaver and tame it enough to let a child pet it?
I find it highly improbable that anyone would take the time to play out sick sadistic sex games on a child in her own home when there are 3 other people in that home who could have gotten up at any moment and caught them in the act.
It still makes much more sense that the murder was commited by the persons owning the home who had the time and the security of knowing that nobody was going to come in and catch them "setting up the crime scene". IMO

nuisanceposter

12-01-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

So let me see if I understand - some time between appx. 11:00 a.m. until midafternoon on December 26th, someone asked John Ramsey if the FBI was on the case and he said "no."

When was John Ramsey asked if the FBI was on the case? It is wasn't between those hours, he was right - they were not on the case.

JMO

I don't know that anyone ever asked JR if FBI was there or not. JR said FBI weren't there and that he met Mason in DOI (copyright 2000, enough time for him to have learned FBI was there.) PMPT and ST's book both say FBI Agent Ron Walker was there with Mason. Sgt. Mason was also the person who told JR to cancel his flight out of town when he overheard JR making plans to leave asap.

FBI came from Denver to the BPD HQ and set up taps and traps on the phones in the Ramsey house by at least 10:45 am, according to PMPT (in fact, it says Mason got a page at 9:45 saying Walker was looking for Bob Whitson). They did not need to enter the Ramsey house to do so. They were part of the case and were monitoring phone calls in and out of the R house before any of the agents ever set foot in the R house after the body was found. Someone at BPD must have called FBI and told them there was kidnapping situation, don't you think?

All of this info is already on this thread and in PMPT. JR said FBI weren't there when they were, and he had plenty of time before publishing DOI to find out they were - if he had cared to look into what was being done for his daughter and print the correct information in his book, rather than say what he thinks people will believe because it makes them sound persecuted by BPD.

It just makes me sick that people will read DOI and believe every single word of it like it's the gospel truth. In this case, the info stated in DOI has been proved wrong.

Coloradokares

12-01-2006, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by andU
Sweet: I'm sorry... I hit the wrong quote button... I think this reply was to CK...

What kind of gets to me is collectively it seems IDI's totally discount what nuisanceposter sent in which is text quote from the very same book. Which indicates they were indeed there before the body was even found. Which would be immediate and appropriate given the kidnapping scenario. It appears that the book is deemed credible as its is quoted then by sweetcharlotte.

If there is a contradiction you need to work out, work out the fact the same book states it both ways. So there had to be an explanation for why the book would seemingly contradict itself. I think this is easily resolved in realizing one team was there for the kidnapping and setting up of the phone taps and traps etc. Another team was also preparing to go out which they ultimately did do irregardless ...later that day once the body had been found. What really gets me is in all this is the failure in all the subsequent discourse to acknowledge the recommendation that the FBI had for the investigators on the scene. Regarding the Ramseys Nuisance Poster posted that up too . That has largely just been ignored .... I have a thought on this.

Since we know the FBI was present there....do you suppose that was part of the impetus for the body to go ahead and be found? To get the FBI off the case? I just now thought .....If and that is a big if. If I was any part of this at all , at any level the last thing I'd want is the FBI brought in to unravel our attempt at staging. Just a thought . So the Ramseys if they had any part in this needed this to turn from the kidnapping it appeared to be to the murder it was. To take away the jurisdiction from the FBI..

Later on though when questioned John says the FBI wasn't there. That is simply not so....they were indeed. I think its distorting the question to narrow it down to the time periods on a clock they were on the scene and try to indicate John answered the question truthfully regarding the FBI by ticking off time on a clock. It misses the gravity of that line of questioning.

NP ever heard there is none so blind as those who refuse to see. I am willing to see these things because I don't have any part of my personal ego or self esteem wrapped up in who killed JonBenet. All we should want is not to be right or wrong but the goal should rather be to see justice done. Which will never happen as long as the need to be right supercedes the need to see justice served.

sweetcharlotte

12-01-2006, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

What kind of gets to me is collectively it seems IDI's totally discount what nuisanceposter sent in which is text quote from the very same book. Which indicates they were indeed there before the body was even found
<snip>

CK, maybe you'd better get the book and read it for yourself.

What nuisanceposter failed to quote from the book was the fact that the FBI were at the BPD - not at the house - until JonBenet's body was found.

JMO

sweetcharlotte

12-01-2006, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

Not so fast quick draw McGraw. This is the same book PMPT Reread Nuisanceposters post. You will see PMPT says they were there on the 26th....

If there is a contradiction its in the book itself. Now who got schooled.

There was no contradiction in the book. You have to read the applicable parts in its entirety. JMO

nuisanceposter

12-01-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

CK, maybe you'd better get the book and read it for yourself.

What nuisanceposter failed to quote from the book was the fact that the FBI were at the BPD - not at the house - until JonBenet's body was found.

JMO

Read the last post I wrote, where I specifically stated that EXACT thing - that FBI came from Denver to BPD HQ and set up taps and traps without needing to go to the Ramsey house to do so.

I said the same thing in my first post about this issue - I never once said FBI was in the R house before the body was found. I related how Walker was monitoring calls that morning and went with Mason to the Ramsey house. I even gave page numbers.

I also said JR had enough time from 12/26/96 til 2000 to get his facts right before he sat there and stated incorrect information in his book.

Coloradokares

12-01-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

CK, maybe you'd better get the book and read it for yourself.

What nuisanceposter failed to quote from the book was the fact that the FBI were at the BPD - not at the house - until JonBenet's body was found.

JMO

I am fearing that in order to have any discourse on this forum I will need to acquire my own personal copies of each of the books. I am on the list at the library to get the book and re read it. I checked yesterday again and I am still on the waiting list. I think all this stuff with the case has the books out constantly with long holds. I have nothing on my handwritten notes about where the FBI were or were not. I have said this before and I'll say it again. I did not feel it was anything I would like to support to buy the books and anyone profit from her death. But apparently there are times when you just need the darn books.

I have read the book twice. Unfortunately each time was before being on this forum. I didnt realize at the time of reading it'b be like a textbook. Which in my humble opinion it should not be. There are errors in the book. Even if it is one of the better ones on the case. One book I will never buy is DOI. I read it twice as well. I plan to go get Hodges book for the very reason that I am so irritated by attitudes and dowrigth hostilities that I think maybe the attitudes alone have convinced me its time to read a book that is directly pointing the fingers at a Ramsey. I really do respect your right to your opinions. Why is it simply not possible to extend the same courtesy?

What you failed to quote from the book was the FBI opinion and advise regarding the Ramseys possible involvement. Ommission

sweetcharlotte

12-01-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

<snip>

What you failed to quote from the book was the FBI opinion and advise regarding the Ramseys possible involvement. Ommission

Why would I have mentioned it? It was applicable to the discussion at the time.

JMO

sweetcharlotte

12-01-2006, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Read the last post I wrote, where I specifically stated that EXACT thing - that FBI came from Denver to BPD HQ and set up taps and traps without needing to go to the Ramsey house to do so.

I said the same thing in my first post about this issue - I never once said FBI was in the R house before the body was found. I related how Walker was monitoring calls that morning and went with Mason to the Ramsey house. I even gave page numbers.

I also said JR had enough time from 12/26/96 til 2000 to get his facts right before he sat there and stated incorrect information in his book.

For all practical purposes I can see where John Ramsey would have felt the FBI was not on the case since they came into his house about the same time he and Patsy were being shuffled out.
And were no longer on the case after midafternoon on the 26th.
JMO

nuisanceposter

12-01-2006, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

For all practical purposes I can see where John Ramsey would have felt the FBI was not on the case since they came into his house about the same time he and Patsy were being shuffled out.
And were no longer on the case after midafternoon on the 26th.
JMO

Well, I see your point, SC, but that's not the same as his statement that FBI hadn't been called and weren't going to be. He said police kept FBI at bay and wouldn't let them in the house - and we know from PMPT and ST's book that police (Sgt Mason) are who took FBI TO THE RAMSEY HOUSE and that they had already been on the case monitoring phone calls before they went to the house.

John and Patsy Ramsey had more than enough time between the day that happened and the day they published their book to find out FBI were there, and they still stated in their book that FBI wasn't there and hadn't been called.

That's a lie.

sweetcharlotte

12-01-2006, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Why would I have mentioned it? It was applicable to the discussion at the time.

JMO

My post should have read "Is was NOT applicable to the discussion at the time."

Sorry 'bout that.

andU

12-01-2006, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

What kind of gets to me is collectively it seems IDI's totally discount what nuisanceposter sent in which is text quote from the very same book. Which indicates they were indeed there before the body was even found. Which would be immediate and appropriate given the kidnapping scenario. It appears that the book is deemed credible as its is quoted then by sweetcharlotte.

If there is a contradiction you need to work out, work out the fact the same book states it both ways. So there had to be an explanation for why the book would seemingly contradict itself. I think this is easily resolved in realizing one team was there for the kidnapping and setting up of the phone taps and traps etc. Another team was also preparing to go out which they ultimately did do irregardless ...later that day once the body had been found. What really gets me is in all this is the failure in all the subsequent discourse to acknowledge the recommendation that the FBI had for the investigators on the scene. Regarding the Ramseys Nuisance Poster posted that up too . That has largely just been ignored .... I have a thought on this.

Since we know the FBI was present there....do you suppose that was part of the impetus for the body to go ahead and be found? To get the FBI off the case? I just now thought .....If and that is a big if. If I was any part of this at all , at any level the last thing I'd want is the FBI brought in to unravel our attempt at staging. Just a thought . So the Ramseys if they had any part in this needed this to turn from the kidnapping it appeared to be to the murder it was. To take away the jurisdiction from the FBI..

Later on though when questioned John says the FBI wasn't there. That is simply not so....they were indeed. I think its distorting the question to narrow it down to the time periods on a clock they were on the scene and try to indicate John answered the question truthfully regarding the FBI by ticking off time on a clock. It misses the gravity of that line of questioning.

NP ever heard there is none so blind as those who refuse to see. I am willing to see these things because I don't have any part of my personal ego or self esteem wrapped up in who killed JonBenet. All we should want is not to be right or wrong but the goal should rather be to see justice done. Which will never happen as long as the need to be right supercedes the need to see justice served.

The post that quoted the book previous to yours states that they were at the BPHQ, it does not state that they were at the Ramsey house. They can attach phone taps and traps without going into the home, as previously stated on this board.

andU

12-01-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

I don't know that anyone ever asked JR if FBI was there or not. JR said FBI weren't there and that he met Mason in DOI (copyright 2000, enough time for him to have learned FBI was there.) PMPT and ST's book both say FBI Agent Ron Walker was there with Mason. Sgt. Mason was also the person who told JR to cancel his flight out of town when he overheard JR making plans to leave asap.

FBI came from Denver to the BPD HQ and set up taps and traps on the phones in the Ramsey house by at least 10:45 am, according to PMPT (in fact, it says Mason got a page at 9:45 saying Walker was looking for Bob Whitson). They did not need to enter the Ramsey house to do so. They were part of the case and were monitoring phone calls in and out of the R house before any of the agents ever set foot in the R house after the body was found. Someone at BPD must have called FBI and told them there was kidnapping situation, don't you think?

All of this info is already on this thread and in PMPT. JR said FBI weren't there when they were, and he had plenty of time before publishing DOI to find out they were - if he had cared to look into what was being done for his daughter and print the correct information in his book, rather than say what he thinks people will believe because it makes them sound persecuted by BPD.

It just makes me sick that people will read DOI and believe every single word of it like it's the gospel truth. In this case, the info stated in DOI has been proved wrong.

I don't totally believe anything I read, from any source. I think what may be what everyone is missing here is that they were at the headquarters at the BP, not at the Ramsey home. the taps and traps were remotely in place, correct? They later went to the home when they were informed that the body had been found. If I am wrong, I am sorry, this is how I have come to understand it.

Coloradokares

12-01-2006, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by andU

The post that quoted the book previous to yours states that they were at the BPHQ, it does not state that they were at the Ramsey house. They can attach phone taps and traps without going into the home, as previously stated on this board.

I just now called the Library again to see where on the food chain my request is for this book. I am also going to NP latest post for some clarification on this. Thanks for the suggestion.

sweetcharlotte

12-01-2006, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Well, I see your point, SC, but that's not the same as his statement that FBI hadn't been called and weren't going to be. He said police kept FBI at bay and wouldn't let them in the house - and we know from PMPT and ST's book that police (Sgt Mason) are who took FBI TO THE RAMSEY HOUSE and that they had already been on the case monitoring phone calls before they went to the house.

John and Patsy Ramsey had more than enough time between the day that happened and the day they published their book to find out FBI were there, and they still stated in their book that FBI wasn't there and hadn't been called.

That's a lie.

I am not even going to bother to discuss this any further.

andU

12-01-2006, 02:59 PM

Ya know I can remember when this happened how shocked everyone that I spoke with about the case was that BPD didn't accept any assistance from other PDs. To me, even then, it made it look like a possible cover up of their own... I still wonder. This has more corners and jumbled facts than a Rubic's Cube, which I never conquered....

andU

12-01-2006, 03:00 PM

Coloradokares

12-01-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by andU
Ya know I can remember when this happened how shocked everyone that I spoke with about the case was that BPD didn't accept any assistance from other PDs. To me, even then, it made it look like a possible cover up of their own... I still wonder. This has more corners and jumbled facts than a Rubic's Cube, which I never conquered....

This is something we definitely agree on. No one could comprehend why the assistance offered was being refused. All Boulder citizens wanted was to see the death of this little girl resolved. We I say that having moved from that area by about 11 miles further. But having been a part of Boulder so long its hard not to claim it since I was local at the time. Still local to the Valley. But what you knew from being here is the Boulder factor and how the word went down in many peoples including mine humble opinion that the Ramseys were to be handled from the get go with kid gloves. Eller and Koby displayed a we can handle it position that was hard and even harder as time passed. JMHO

Coloradokares

12-01-2006, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by andU

Sorry, meant to specify that I'm in Indiana .... the shock waves of this case are still felt.

I still hope to have that lunch with you in Boulder. Remember our discussions of doing just that. (hugs) It might be sooner than anyone thinks. You can feel the buzz out here. Regardless if we agree or not always on every detail I do believe this with all my heart that you care and are as equally passionate on behalf of JonBenet. That means more to me than that we agree. I am prepared to accept the conviction of an intruder or a Ramsey as long as the facts bear out the evidence without reasonable doubt. What I am not prepared to do is accept JonBenet will never have the justice she so richly deserves.

shill

12-01-2006, 04:41 PM

Sure is a lot of energy being spent on trying to show examples of the Ramseys deliberiately lying as an attempt to assasinate their character.
That's what low life scummy lawyers and politicians do.

Louisadelmar

12-01-2006, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

This is something we definitely agree on. No one could comprehend why the assistance offered was being refused. All Boulder citizens wanted was to see the death of this little girl resolved. We I say that having moved from that area by about 11 miles further. But having been a part of Boulder so long its hard not to claim it since I was local at the time. Still local to the Valley. But what you knew from being here is the Boulder factor and how the word went down in many peoples including mine humble opinion that the Ramseys were to be handled from the get go with kid gloves. Eller and Koby displayed a we can handle it position that was hard and even harder as time passed. JMHO

On the other hand they didn't really handle them with kid gloves. Look at the interviews with JAR and Melinda. Melinda was in tears when it was over because they squeezed so hard. I never understood why they would 1) Treat a murder victim's family member so badly and 2) Show their hand so early.

Coloradokares

12-01-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Louisadelmar

On the other hand they didn't really handle them with kid gloves. Look at the interviews with JAR and Melinda. Melinda was in tears when it was over because they squeezed so hard. I never understood why they would 1) Treat a murder victim's family member so badly and 2) Show their hand so early.

Many feel because Patsy was allowed to go over to the Fernies and not be interviewed cause she was in such despicable shape till after the funeral then she went on National TV not to mention even other more obvious things seen as kid gloves they were virtually given a pass. I guess that is how you view it. Many feel the cuffs should have been placed on them at least by the 27th if not the 26th. Part of that was evidence and part was most murders of children in the home are by the parents. By the time the autopsy results were in Boulder right or wrong was convinced the parents were responsibile for this. Not saying my opinion just saying that was how it was viewed by a lot of people and the press out here.

Athena

12-01-2006, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

I am not even going to bother to discuss this any further.

Sweet...NP,

For what it's worth (lol) I thoroughly was engrossed in the dalogue you two had going on. Just wanted to share that. :)

nuisanceposter

12-01-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by shill
Sure is a lot of energy being spent on trying to show examples of the Ramseys deliberiately lying as an attempt to assasinate their character.
That's what low life scummy lawyers and politicians do.

Whatever, Shill. Accuse me of whatever you need to in order to put me down so you can feel better about yourself.

You want low life scummy lawyers and politicians, this case is full of them.

I'm sorry that you don't approve of me dispelling the Ramsey rumor that FBI weren't there and weren't on the case when they were, and that the Ramsey rumor is contradicted in at least two other books.

How else are people supposed to know what the truth is in this case, if people don't discuss contradictions like that? The facts and the evidence need to be as accurate as possible if this crime is ever to be solved.

Athena, I'm glad you found it to be engrossing, though honestly I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not.

Athena

12-01-2006, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Athena, I'm glad you found it to be engrossing, though honestly I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not.

NP it was DEFINITELY a compliment. With all due respect I meant that sincerely. You both debated the issues in an intelligent manner and I for one appreciated it.

I actually got caught at work on this site because I was so engrossed (by nobody important) but usually am more careful -- I honestly got up in the debate :)

Although you are RDI - I do respect your opinion. Unfortunately your posts (not you personally) got caught up in another poster's comments that kind of put me on the defensive and I do admit I lost my cool a bit. I apologize to YOU if you were offended but it was not intended to be personal. :o

shill

12-01-2006, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

Whatever, Shill. Accuse me of whatever you need to in order to put me down so you can feel better about yourself.

You want low life scummy lawyers and politicians, this case is full of them.

I'm sorry that you don't approve of me dispelling the Ramsey rumor that FBI weren't there and weren't on the case when they were, and that the Ramsey rumor is contradicted in at least two other books.

How else are people supposed to know what the truth is in this case, if people don't discuss contradictions like that? The facts and the evidence need to be as accurate as possible if this crime is ever to be solved.
How does the truth of whether the FBI was there for a couple of hours or not change the evidence in this case?
However it is an attempt to discredit the only witnesses to many details of the crime.

And don't flatter yourself, you're not even in the same league as scummy lawyers and politicians.

aussiesheila

12-01-2006, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by shill
This is a scenerio of how JB might have died.

It recently occurred to me and was varified that JB's mouth might not have needed to be taped shut until after the strangulation started because she would not be able to scream out when she was being strangled. And covering her mouth with tape would restrict her oxygen and make the garrote to risky to use if he did not want to kill her.

So he's strangling her with the garrote and she passes out. He goes to loosen the noose but the knot is sticking and he can't get it loose, and she will die on him. He takes a flat pry bar he has with him and slips it under the knot and pulls it loose, but leaves a mark on her kneck from the prybar. (see photo)
http://scorpionsupport.com///neckSMFlipPryBar.jpg
Suddenly she gasps for air and comes to. She lets out a haunting scream heard by the nieghbor. The killer strikes her in the head with the flat prybar he still has in hand. He puts tape on her mouth at this point so she can not scream again. He begins to choke her again but she is dying and his game ends and his plans must now change. You seem to thinking along the lines of a brutal intruder and if you are, I agree with you. Actually I think there was more than one intruder and that one of them was very brutal.

I think the duct tape was put on her mouth after she had died as part of the staging to look as though it was the work of a kidnapper. I don't think it was used during whatever they were doing to her before they killed her. I have read that the impression of her lips on the duct tape was a clear imprint of closed lips or at least that is the impression I got from whatever it was I read. That indicated to me that it had been placed on after death otherwise I think there would have been signs on the tape that she had been trying to open her mouth.

WRT the mark on her neck which I think you are talking about, to me it doesn't look like a metal implement (which I imagine a prybar is) was inserted there, if one had been I would expect to see traces of gouging on her skin. I think the mark was due to a burst blood vessel beneath the skin caused by the great pressure exerted by the overly tightened garotte.

I agree with you about the scream being followed by the strike over the head with a heavy object, but I think the object was the baseball bat that was found in the back yard.

aussiesheila

12-01-2006, 10:42 PM

Hi shill,

I just checked the link you provided and the autopsy report.

I suppose a prybar is quite heavy. How big are they? Maybe it's what Australians call a crowbar. Interesting idea about the mark being made by a prybar, I'm not ruling it out.

The coroner does describe the mark as an abrasion, I always thought it was a hemmorhage caused by the over tightening of the garotte. Actually I don't think I have ever come across any discussion of this mark before, except maybe this is what the people who say there are claw marks made by her fingers are talking about.

Hmm, you've got me thinking.

Ames

12-01-2006, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by aussiesheila
Ames, I know you have had a most terrifying experience and I believe it must have been every bit as horrific as you say it was. But somehow I just don't think JonBenet could have had the same experience as you. For instance, it is well documented that some people indulge in a practice known as auto-erotic asphyxiation in which they set themselves up either with a noose around their neck or a plastic bag over their head to DELIBERATELY cause themselves to lose conciousness. I don't know exactly what happens but surely whatever does happen, what they experience can't be anything like what you experienced otherwise they would claw the noose or the plastic bag off before they lost conciousness. So I am thinking that maybe this might be more like what was done to JonBenet, maybe it has something to do with it happening very slowly. I really don't know. On Websleuths people were talking about something pedophiles do which is to use a garotte on their victims to make them momentarily lose conciousness and then as they regain conciousness the body goes into paroxysms which kind of simulates female orgasm. I think this is what they were doing to JonBenet before she died.

I do believe that there is a difference in doing this to yourself...and having someone else do it to you...without your consent. If you do it to yourself...you can let go anytime you want to, the same cannot be said for an attacker...doing it to you. I guess if a person did it to themself, to "get off"...then they obviously enjoy the fact that their air is cut off (sounds pretty weird to me)...and therefore, they don't mind it.....or (you are right)...they WOULD be clawing at their neck. IMO

Ames

12-01-2006, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Coloradokares

<snipped>

Since we know the FBI was present there....do you suppose that was part of the impetus for the body to go ahead and be found? To get the FBI off the case? I just now thought .....If and that is a big if. If I was any part of this at all , at any level the last thing I'd want is the FBI brought in to unravel our attempt at staging. Just a thought . So the Ramseys if they had any part in this needed this to turn from the kidnapping it appeared to be to the murder it was. To take away the jurisdiction from the FBI..

Good point...I had never thought about that before. You may be onto something. (IMO)

aussiesheila

12-01-2006, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte

Link please that shows there were drugs in JonBenet's system.

What would have been the purpose of repeated semi-stranguations during prior sessions of sexual abuse? Which BTW I don't believe.

JMO There is no link to drugs having been found in JonBenet's system because none were found, at least not by the coroner.

In his report the coroner stated that no alcohol or drugs were detected in her system. But I would like to know what drugs he tested for. There is no way he would have tested for every drug know to humankind, my guess is he only tested for the most common drugs, the ones most likely to be found in a dead body. The fact is you do not find what you do not test for. There has to be a specific test done for each specific group of drugs. It is my belief that there was a drug fed to JonBenet, but it was an unusual one and one that the coroner did not test for, which was why he did not find it.

I got a bit of a boost for my theory when a thread appeared last August at Websleuths about Klonopin, which started because information apparently leaked out that the police eventually questioned Patsy and John about it in later interviews. Reading between the lines it seems that Klonopin might have been detected in the pineapple in the bowl, which presumably the BPD had preserved and must have had tested years and years after the murder. Maybe when they arrested Karr he told them the pineapple was laced with Klonopin so they rushed to the lab to test for it.

I think the repeated strangulations to a point where a person is reduced to unconciousness by the tightening of a neck ligature, followed by relaxation of the ligature to allow a return to consciousness is something practiced by pedophiles on their victims. From what I can make out the return to consciousness is accompanied by muscular spasms which approximate in appearance to a viewer to a female orgasm. This was something discussed way back on Websleuths which is where I heard about it. I think there was a group of pedophiles that had been abusing JonBenet for 3 years at least and had used a garotte on her on previous occasions as well as on the night she died.

Whatever you think of this theory, it does fit with the evidence wrt the state of the body, which no other theory does.

aussiesheila

12-01-2006, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by LindaA
The only way I could account for the absence of drugs in JBR's system is if the so-called date-rape drug were being used. I believe it leaves no trace.

I don't get the semi-strangulation part because it is the one being strangled that has the heightened orgasm. Why would that enhance the perp's pleasure? Can a 6 year old even have an orgasm? I have to agree that is one very likely possibility as to why no drugs were found in her system. Does the date-rape drug leave no trace because it is so rapidly metabolised? I don't know.

I am no expert, but as far as I know, what you are describing is what happens in erotic asphyxiation and auto-erotic asphyxiation. But I don't think this was the purpose of the semi-strangulations that were perfomed on JonBenet were for, if indeed they were performed, this is only a theory after all. I first read about what pedophiles apparently do at Websleuths, which is to do the semi-strangulations because as the girl they do it to returns to consciouness her muscles spasm and maybe she groans and gasps a bit and to the onlookers it approximates the appearance of female orgasm. So it is done entirely for the observers' pleasure and not the person experiencing it.

shill

12-02-2006, 12:07 AM

Aussiesheile,
More specifically a "Wonder Bar", google it.
It's about a foot long and a 1-1/2" wide. It is flat, so that would explain the skin not being cut,and the 1-3/4" wide hole. It would also make an excellent B&E tool since it is concealable, and not a bad weapon.
It's a flat wide mini crowbar.

IMO it would do more damage then one would expect, and the killer did not relize the blow was fatal until later.

thewhitewitch1

12-02-2006, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by aussiesheila
There is no link to drugs having been found in JonBenet's system because none were found, at least not by the coroner.

In his report the coroner stated that no alcohol or drugs were detected in her system. But I would like to know what drugs he tested for. There is no way he would have tested for every drug know to humankind, my guess is he only tested for the most common drugs, the ones most likely to be found in a dead body. The fact is you do not find what you do not test for. There has to be a specific test done for each specific group of drugs. It is my belief that there was a drug fed to JonBenet, but it was an unusual one and one that the coroner did not test for, which was why he did not find it.

I got a bit of a boost for my theory when a thread appeared last August at Websleuths about Klonopin, which started because information apparently leaked out that the police eventually questioned Patsy and John about it in later interviews. Reading between the lines it seems that Klonopin might have been detected in the pineapple in the bowl, which presumably the BPD had preserved and must have had tested years and years after the murder. Maybe when they arrested Karr he told them the pineapple was laced with Klonopin so they rushed to the lab to test for it.

I think the repeated strangulations to a point where a person is reduced to unconciousness by the tightening of a neck ligature, followed by relaxation of the ligature to allow a return to consciousness is something practiced by pedophiles on their victims. From what I can make out the return to consciousness is accompanied by muscular spasms which approximate in appearance to a viewer to a female orgasm. This was something discussed way back on Websleuths which is where I heard about it. I think there was a group of pedophiles that had been abusing JonBenet for 3 years at least and had used a garotte on her on previous occasions as well as on the night she died.

Whatever you think of this theory, it does fit with the evidence wrt the state of the body, which no other theory does.

You do need something to back up your statement that pedophiles do what you are claiming they do. This is not something that I have ever heard of before.
If this had been done to JB much prior to her death, don't you think someone would have noticed ligature marks around her neck? She was in the public eye quite frequently...and her own mother would have noticed.
She probably would have displayed emotional and behavioral problems as well...severe ones, at that.
There is no evidence whatsoever that she had been drugged, or that the pineapple had been drugged. I would like to know your thoughts on why an "intruder/pedophile" would take the time and risk to fix a bowl of pineapple for her in the kitchen where anyone could have come in. How did Burkes prints get on the spoon and bowl? I take it you don't believe a stun gun was used...or if you do, what need was there for it if she was drugged?
Finally, why would a pedophile write a ransom note?

aussiesheila

12-02-2006, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte
This wiki says one of the most common DRDs can be detected in the urine up to five days and in the hair for a month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_rape_drug

The strangulation part makes no sense to me - if a DRD had been used the victim would be un/semi-conscious, right? I don't know what organs and/or body fluids from JonBenet the coroner had tested for drugs, these details were not stated in the autopsy report. However, as I have stated in other posts, I think it very likely that if indeed JonBenet had been drugged, then it was an uncommon drug that the coroner did not think to test for. I am not an expert on drugs, but there must be drugs that leave you conscious but relaxed that could have been used, like the ones they give hospital patients before they are taken to the operating theatre. I think these are the kinds of drugs that pedophiles give to their child victims. I think also they like to use drugs that have amnesic properties. I don't have any links, so feel free not to believe me. I have been interested in the activites of pedophiles for over 15 years, I read things but I forget where I read them.

aussiesheila

12-02-2006, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
The physical evidence to support the theory that JonBenet's hands were restrained by the cord while she was alive and conscious does not exist. Her wrists showed no signs of struggling against restraints at all, and they would have had she been conscious and restrained while being strangled.

There is no evidence of any drugs in her system.

There is no evidence of a group of pedophiles having been in the basement. How would they be in there and not leave any forensic evidence of their presence?

Aussiesheila, what's your theory concerning Patsy this week? Is it still that she opened the door for the pedo ring and let them in and handed her daughter over just before taking a nap on the couch and being woken up to write the RN, or have you changed your mind about that again? Nuisanceposter, I have done quite a few posts now on this thread explaining what I think of the wrist cord and the absence of marks on her wrists so if you want to argue about that evidence with me would you please relate it to the specific comment that I have posted.

I have also posted on this thread about why I think the drugs that I believe were in her system were not detected by the tests the coroner performed. I believe I have clearly shown why you cannot conclude there were no drugs in her system just because the coroner did not detect any.

If you choose to go into denial about evidence that exists for a group of pedophiles having been in the basement that is your choice. I say there is plenty of evidence of a number of intruders that I believe were pedophiles, this is what immediately comes to mind:

the Santa bear in her bedroom

the pineapple in the bowl

a functional garotte around her neck

wrist ties of an unusual and complicated design, not at all like what would have been constructed by a kidnapper who would have been intent only on restraining her in the quickest possible way while abducting her or by someone attempting a kidnapping staging

arms set in rigor mortis outstretched and over her head in a position likely to have been the result of her having been killed in while her arms were in that unusual postion

a head wound that to all appearances could have only been inflicted intentionally and by an exceptionally violent and strong male person

black fibres found on her body and shirt

the footprint in the cellar room

marks on her body, most believably explained as having been made by a stungun

a scuff mark on the train room wall

the suitcase pushed up against the window in the trainroom

the pieces of broken glass dislodged from the window ledge on the top of the suitcase

the baseball bat outside in the yard where children do not normally play

animal hair under her fingernails

non-Ramsey DNA on her panties and under her fingernails

vaginal injuries caused by insertion of a foreign object

the disturbance of the garden bed in the area outside the basement toilet window

Also could you please provide the link to where I have said that Patsy "opened the door for the pedo ring and let them in and handed her daughter over". It's just that I have never said that so I would be very interested to know where you got the idea that is what I think happened. Thanks.