Question For Board

[watson]

I always thought the best way to approach this case was by taking a new look at the original known facts and evidence free from any preconcieved ideas or media opinions of who 'done it'. However some of the things I thought were agreed upon known facts may not be. For example I thought it was an accepted medical case fact that JB was strangled first (to the point of clinical death) and then hit in the head, because.....of the main cause of death being asphyxia, the general lack of bleeding from the head wound, the tiny amount of blood in the brain from the head blow (7-8cc ME report p.7), that the head blow was so severe it would have killed her in seconds (not enough time for her then to be strangled). Pathologists Cyril Wecht, Werner Spitz and other pathologists are of this view. Also the petechia, the marks on the throat that may be fingernail marks, the use of a sophisticated garrote all circumstancially indicate a conscious strangling victim meaning the strangling had to come first..........So, the question....does anyone know of a pathologist that says the opposite and says with certainty that the head blow came first, then the strangling and why?.... I haven't been able to find any. It would be nice to establish the order of the strangling and head blow in this case as accepted fact.......Any info appreciated.

[elvislives]

I always thought the best way to approach this case was by taking a new look at the original known facts and evidence free from any preconcieved ideas or media opinions of who 'done it'. However some of the things I thought were agreed upon known facts may not be. For example I thought it was an accepted medical case fact that JB was strangled first (to the point of clinical death) and then hit in the head, because.....of the main cause of death being asphyxia, the general lack of bleeding from the head wound, the tiny amount of blood in the brain from the head blow (7-8cc ME report p.7), that the head blow was so severe it would have killed her in seconds (not enough time for her then to be strangled). Pathologists Cyril Wecht, Werner Spitz and other pathologists are of this view. Also the petechia, the marks on the throat that may be fingernail marks, the use of a sophisticated garrote all circumstancially indicate a conscious strangling victim meaning the strangling had to come first..........So, the question....does anyone know of a pathologist that says the opposite and says with certainty that the head blow came first, then the strangling and why?.... I haven't been able to find any. It would be nice to establish the order of the strangling and head blow in this case as accepted fact.......Any info appreciated.

This is an excellent question. I too have googled extensively and can't find a medical expert to explain this. I have heard several mds, mes, etc say that it is theoretically possible that she was in fact struck on the head, then immediately strangled and the reason for the lack of bleeding into her brain was due to the fact that her carotid arteries and her jugular veins were constricted by the ligature around her neck. So IF she was hit on the head prior to strangulation, it was immediately before..and I have a hard time speculating a scenario where that could have been an accident. But the majority of medical exerts that I have spoken with or read about believe-based on the autopsy report -that the strangulation came first and the head wound was inflicted shortly before or just after she died of strangulation. I will check out medline and see if I can find anything.

[shill]

Patsy accidentally killed JB with a head blow and then did everything else as a cover up.
Now you need to make the evidence fit the theory if any body is going to believe it, so they did.

[Louisadelmar]

Patsy accidentally killed JB with a head blow and then did everything else as a cover up.
Now you need to make the evidence fit the theory if any body is going to believe it, so they did.

She also had to have decided JonBenet was dead or dying despite the fact there were no external injuries on JonBenet's body and Patsy had no medical training.

[Ames]

She also had to have decided JonBenet was dead or dying despite the fact there were no external injuries on JonBenet's body and Patsy had no medical training.


I am sure that with a head wound that bad (with the skull cracked like an egg shell)...that JB would have been either unconscious or convulsing. Patsy may have even heard the sound of JB cracking skull...I am sure that it had to have made some horrible cracking sound. Patsy freaked out...(she either was afraid to take her to the ER, for fear of being arrested for child abuse....or it was a mercy killing after the head blow, because JB was convulsing.) IMO


Off the subject here...but, is it also a pain in the butt for you guys to EDIT any of your posts? Its like jumping through hoops....

[shill]

No problems editing for me, as long as I do it before the 5 minutes runs out.

[nuisanceposter]

Yeah, I think it's ridiculous that people are only given five minutes to edit their own posts.

If those marks on JonBenet's neck had come from her clawing at the cord, then Meyer would have found her skin and blood under her nails. There is no mention of that whatsoever in the autopsy, and Lou Smit is the only person who has ever said there was any indication of JonBenet having anything like that under her nails. I'm pretty sure if that was true then more people and not just Smit would be saying it.

[lsu]

link attached for the following excerpt from Det. Steve Thomas' book:

"Patsy would not be the first mother to lose control in such a situation. One of the doctors we consulted cited toileting issues as a textbook example of causing a parental rage. So, in my hypothesis, there was some sort of explosive encounter in the child's bathroom sometime prior to one o'clock in the morning, the time suggested by the digestion rate of the pineapple found in the child's stomach [during the autopsy]. I believe JonBenet was slammed against a hard surface, such as the edge of a tub, inflicting a mortal head wound. She was unconscious, but her heart was still beating. Patsy would not have known that JonBenet was still alive, because the child already appeared to be dead. The massive head trauma would have eventually killed her.

"It was the critical moment in which she had to either call for help or find an alternative explanation for her daughter's death. It was accidental in the sense that the situation had developed without motive or premeditation. She could have called for help but chose not to. An emergency room doctor probably would have questioned the "accident" and called the police. Still, little would have happened to Patsy in Boulder. But I believe panic overtook her.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

[lsu]

excerpt continued:

"As I envisioned it, Patsy returned to the basement, a woman caught up in panic, where she could have seen – perhaps by detecting a faint heartbeat or a sound or a slight movement – that although completely unconscious, JonBenet was not dead. Others might argue that Patsy did not know the child was still alive. In my hypothesis, she took the next step, looking for the closest available items in her desperation. Only feet away was her paint tote. She grabbed a paintbrush and broke it to fashion the garrote with some cord. Then she looped the cord around the girl's neck.

"In my scenario, she choked JonBenet from behind, with a grip on the broken paintbrush handle, pulling the ligature. JonBenet, still unconscious, would never have felt it…

"Then the staging continued to make it look more like a kidnapping. Patsy tied the girl's wrists, in front, not in back, for otherwise the arms would have not have been in that overhead position. But with a 15-inch length of cord between the wrists and the knot tied loosely over the clothing, there was no way such a binding would have restrained a live child. It was a symbolic act to make it appear the child had been bound."

[Ames]

No problems editing for me, as long as I do it before the 5 minutes runs out.

If I have alot of stuff that I forgot to bold, and I want to go back...my time runs out. And when you edit, you have to sign in again (well, at least...I do..anyway), and that takes some of your five minutes...not alot...BUT...I need all the minutes that I can get. Or, if you want to put info in the body of your post by copying and pasting...and then, have to go back and do the link the same way....my time runs out every single time that I do that. :mad:

[Ames]

excerpt continued:

"As I envisioned it, Patsy returned to the basement, a woman caught up in panic, where she could have seen – perhaps by detecting a faint heartbeat or a sound or a slight movement – that although completely unconscious, JonBenet was not dead. Others might argue that Patsy did not know the child was still alive. In my hypothesis, she took the next step, looking for the closest available items in her desperation. Only feet away was her paint tote. She grabbed a paintbrush and broke it to fashion the garrote with some cord. Then she looped the cord around the girl's neck.

"In my scenario, she choked JonBenet from behind, with a grip on the broken paintbrush handle, pulling the ligature. JonBenet, still unconscious, would never have felt it…

"Then the staging continued to make it look more like a kidnapping. Patsy tied the girl's wrists, in front, not in back, for otherwise the arms would have not have been in that overhead position. But with a 15-inch length of cord between the wrists and the knot tied loosely over the clothing, there was no way such a binding would have restrained a live child. It was a symbolic act to make it appear the child had been bound."

I totally agree with your scenario...except that I think that either all of the commotion woke John, or Patsy woke him in a panic....and he helped her in the cover up. Another thought...JB could have been convulsing after that massive head blow that cracked her skull like an egg shell....and her murder was a mercy killing....(just a thought). IMO

[lsu]

I totally agree with your scenario...except that I think that either all of the commotion woke John, or Patsy woke him in a panic....and he helped her in the cover up. Another thought...JB could have been convulsing after that massive head blow that cracked her skull like an egg shell....and her murder was a mercy killing....(just a thought). IMO

just to clarify - it wasn't my theory - it was taken from another site. I agree there could have been a dual cover up. However, had I killed my child, my husband would NOT help me cover it up - he would probably kill me before the cops could get there. And vice versa - I would not help w/a cover up for him if it was my child. I would be freaking out and even if I tried to cover for him - I'm sure I'd screw it up and spill the beans because I would be so angry and distraught. If that's what actually happened - those two must be GOOD actors.

[LadyFisher]

link attached for the following excerpt from Det. Steve Thomas' book:

"Patsy would not be the first mother to lose control in such a situation. One of the doctors we consulted cited toileting issues as a textbook example of causing a parental rage. So, in my hypothesis, there was some sort of explosive encounter in the child's bathroom sometime prior to one o'clock in the morning, the time suggested by the digestion rate of the pineapple found in the child's stomach [during the autopsy]. I believe JonBenet was slammed against a hard surface, such as the edge of a tub, inflicting a mortal head wound. She was unconscious, but her heart was still beating. Patsy would not have known that JonBenet was still alive, because the child already appeared to be dead. The massive head trauma would have eventually killed her.

"It was the critical moment in which she had to either call for help or find an alternative explanation for her daughter's death. It was accidental in the sense that the situation had developed without motive or premeditation. She could have called for help but chose not to. An emergency room doctor probably would have questioned the "accident" and called the police. Still, little would have happened to Patsy in Boulder. But I believe panic overtook her.

http://www.crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

Sorry, Isu, I don't buy it! If Patsy had been a teenage mother with little experience and a problem with her temper, then it MIGHT be conceivable. She wasn't! There is nothing that has been discovered concerning Patsy Ramsey that would even begin to implicate her. She was not an abusive parent. She was a woman nearly 40 y/o who had just survived ovarian cancer, who imho wouldn't have a clue about garrotting a human being, much less, her own child! People do not garrott their own children! There is not another case ever discovered by the FBI where such an incident has occurred, that should tell us something!

[thewhitewitch1]

Sorry, Isu, I don't buy it! If Patsy had been a teenage mother with little experience and a problem with her temper, then it MIGHT be conceivable. She wasn't! There is nothing that has been discovered concerning Patsy Ramsey that would even begin to implicate her. She was not an abusive parent. She was a woman nearly 40 y/o who had just survived ovarian cancer, who imho wouldn't have a clue about garrotting a human being, much less, her own child! People do not garrott their own children! There is not another case ever discovered by the FBI where such an incident has occurred, that should tell us something!

The FFJ forum has some cases posted where parents have strangled their children, LF.
Also, there is not another case ever discovered where anything like this has ever happened, to my knowledge.
Both parents were involved. One could not have done all of these things on their own. JR was probably the one who made the garrote and used it. IMO
I believe both parents were awake and present when the "accidental" head blow occured, otherwise I think one of them would have called 911 immediately. (the one not present who came in after the fact) IMO

[lsu]

Sorry, Isu, I don't buy it! If Patsy had been a teenage mother with little experience and a problem with her temper, then it MIGHT be conceivable. She wasn't! There is nothing that has been discovered concerning Patsy Ramsey that would even begin to implicate her. She was not an abusive parent. She was a woman nearly 40 y/o who had just survived ovarian cancer, who imho wouldn't have a clue about garrotting a human being, much less, her own child! People do not garrott their own children! There is not another case ever discovered by the FBI where such an incident has occurred, that should tell us something!

this was an inserted quote - not my personal opinion. I am totally on the fence here. HOWEVER, even though there may not (or may) be another case regarding a Mother using a garotte on her child (I haven't researched this) - there are many cases where Mothers actually kill their children. i.e. drowning all 5 in bathtub; killing their child and staging their abduction from convenience store; etc. etc. As sick as it is - it happens. I agree w/you that it doesn't seem likely that Patsy used or staged a garotte - but maybe that's why some people suggest John helped out in the matter. Either way - it really does point to a man in my opinion.

[watson]

Thanks for all the replies so far, but I have to ask again......
Does anyone know of an actual to goodness pathologist that has examined the evidence and is willing to conclude within a degree of medical certainty, that the head blow came first and then the strangling. I ask because the other side has at least two actual, real and noted pathologists (Cyril Wecht, Werner Spitz) that have examined the evidence and have concluded in their medical opinion the strangling came first and head blow second.
I know that former police officer Steve Thomas guessed that the head blow was first, and strangling second (actually he's the one that started this idea), but he and Det Arndt are the 2 knuckleheads that flubbed up this case beyond all recognition in the first place, neither are still detectives, and it doesn't seem like law enforcement or criminal detection was ever their strong suit.
To Nuiasance.............
Yes it's true the ME did not ID the neck marks as fingernails marks, but it's also true he didn't ID them as 'not' being fingernail marks. In fact he didn't ID them at all, just described them. What does this prove? IMO nothing. They still could be fingernail marks and they could still not be fingernail marks.
Actually I don't think anyone in the public knows what kind of material was found under JB's nails, but your right no one has said to the public if they were skin cells, or if they were, if they were fresh. If her fingernails did make the marks, she didn't absolutely have to scrape off skin to make them. And yep, Lou Smit is the main pusher of the marks as fingernail marks after he saw them on photographs, and on the photographs they do look like such, which of course doesn't prove they are. It's just another indication in the evidence. That their fingernail marks has not been 'disproven'. IMO it's still a good 'possible' or 'likely' explanation for the marks, and I haven't heard a better one, but it is not strong evidence.

[Athena]

Thanks for all the replies so far, but I have to ask again......
Does anyone know of an actual to goodness pathologist that has examined the evidence and is willing to conclude within a degree of medical certainty, that the head blow came first and then the strangling. I ask because the other side has at least two actual, real and noted pathologists (Cyril Wecht, Werner Spitz) that have examined the evidence and have concluded in their medical opinion the strangling came first and head blow second.
I know that former police officer Steve Thomas guessed that the head blow was first, and strangling second (actually he's the one that started this idea), but he and Det Arndt are the 2 knuckleheads that flubbed up this case beyond all recognition in the first place, neither are still detectives, and it doesn't seem like law enforcement or criminal detection was ever their strong suit.
To Nuiasance.............
Yes it's true the ME did not ID the neck marks as fingernails marks, but it's also true he didn't ID them as 'not' being fingernail marks. In fact he didn't ID them at all, just described them. What does this prove? IMO nothing. They still could be fingernail marks and they could still not be fingernail marks.
Actually I don't think anyone in the public knows what kind of material was found under JB's nails, but your right no one has said to the public if they were skin cells, or if they were, if they were fresh. If her fingernails did make the marks, she didn't absolutely have to scrape off skin to make them. And yep, Lou Smit is the main pusher of the marks as fingernail marks after he saw them on photographs, and on the photographs they do look like such, which of course doesn't prove they are. It's just another indication in the evidence. That their fingernail marks has not been 'disproven'. IMO it's still a good 'possible' or 'likely' explanation for the marks, and I haven't heard a better one, but it is not strong evidence.

John Meyers appeared to have used general terms in describing most of her injuries by using the word "abrasion" and not being very specific or descriptive either which is why the autopsy report leaves itself open to so many different interpretations.
JMO

[Coloradokares]

If I have alot of stuff that I forgot to bold, and I want to go back...my time runs out. And when you edit, you have to sign in again (well, at least...I do..anyway), and that takes some of your five minutes...not alot...BUT...I need all the minutes that I can get. Or, if you want to put info in the body of your post by copying and pasting...and then, have to go back and do the link the same way....my time runs out every single time that I do that. :mad:

Same thing with me. I never get it done in time. I am so embarassed:(

[Coloradokares]

Thanks for all the replies so far, but I have to ask again......
Does anyone know of an actual to goodness pathologist that has examined the evidence and is willing to conclude within a degree of medical certainty, that the head blow came first and then the strangling. I ask because the other side has at least two actual, real and noted pathologists (Cyril Wecht, Werner Spitz) that have examined the evidence and have concluded in their medical opinion the strangling came first and head blow second.
I know that former police officer Steve Thomas guessed that the head blow was first, and strangling second (actually he's the one that started this idea), but he and Det Arndt are the 2 knuckleheads that flubbed up this case beyond all recognition in the first place, neither are still detectives, and it doesn't seem like law enforcement or criminal detection was ever their strong suit.
To Nuiasance.............
Yes it's true the ME did not ID the neck marks as fingernails marks, but it's also true he didn't ID them as 'not' being fingernail marks. In fact he didn't ID them at all, just described them. What does this prove? IMO nothing. They still could be fingernail marks and they could still not be fingernail marks.
Actually I don't think anyone in the public knows what kind of material was found under JB's nails, but your right no one has said to the public if they were skin cells, or if they were, if they were fresh. If her fingernails did make the marks, she didn't absolutely have to scrape off skin to make them. And yep, Lou Smit is the main pusher of the marks as fingernail marks after he saw them on photographs, and on the photographs they do look like such, which of course doesn't prove they are. It's just another indication in the evidence. That their fingernail marks has not been 'disproven'. IMO it's still a good 'possible' or 'likely' explanation for the marks, and I haven't heard a better one, but it is not strong evidence.

My understanding from asking almost the same identical question before is this. They state fact. Render professional opinion when called in court to do so. Another reason I want to see this in a courtroom. I think alot will clear up as its presented as fact in court.

[Louisadelmar]

My understanding from asking almost the same identical question before is this. They state fact. Render professional opinion when called in court to do so. Another reason I want to see this in a courtroom. I think alot will clear up as its presented as fact in court.

Didn't Wood and Kane? once agree on LKL to ask to have the GJ transcripts released and then Hunter? quashed the idea?

Even those transcripts would help clear up what is true and what isn't.

[elvislives]

Thanks for all the replies so far, but I have to ask again......
Does anyone know of an actual to goodness pathologist that has examined the evidence and is willing to conclude within a degree of medical certainty, that the head blow came first and then the strangling. I ask because the other side has at least two actual, real and noted pathologists (Cyril Wecht, Werner Spitz) that have examined the evidence and have concluded in their medical opinion the strangling came first and head blow second.
I know that former police officer Steve Thomas guessed that the head blow was first, and strangling second (actually he's the one that started this idea), but he and Det Arndt are the 2 knuckleheads that flubbed up this case beyond all recognition in the first place, neither are still detectives, and it doesn't seem like law enforcement or criminal detection was ever their strong suit.
To Nuiasance.............
Yes it's true the ME did not ID the neck marks as fingernails marks, but it's also true he didn't ID them as 'not' being fingernail marks. In fact he didn't ID them at all, just described them. What does this prove? IMO nothing. They still could be fingernail marks and they could still not be fingernail marks.
Actually I don't think anyone in the public knows what kind of material was found under JB's nails, but your right no one has said to the public if they were skin cells, or if they were, if they were fresh. If her fingernails did make the marks, she didn't absolutely have to scrape off skin to make them. And yep, Lou Smit is the main pusher of the marks as fingernail marks after he saw them on photographs, and on the photographs they do look like such, which of course doesn't prove they are. It's just another indication in the evidence. That their fingernail marks has not been 'disproven'. IMO it's still a good 'possible' or 'likely' explanation for the marks, and I haven't heard a better one, but it is not strong evidence.

I think the answer to your question, Watson is that no, there is no reputable forensic pathologist who can support the theory of the head blow coming first(unless you count the ones who say it is theoretically possible that it came IMMEDIATELY before) .I have searched for this answer all over the internet, and btw I found a lot more who support that the garrotting came first than the 2 you mentioned. I wish there was a medical explanation for the head blow coming first (and for some reason not bleeding much) and the garrotting much later as part of the staging. Then I could go back to my original theory that Patsy killed JB by bashing her on the head in a rage, then staged the rest to corroborate the kidnap theory.

[Coloradokares]

Didn't Wood and Kane? once agree on LKL to ask to have the GJ transcripts released and then Hunter? quashed the idea?

Even those transcripts would help clear up what is true and what isn't.


I can see Hunter quashing the idea. To spare his own tar and feathering perhaps. However aside....no I never heard that. Which the Grand Jury transcripts are not totally meaningless but close when they did not interview the Ramseys. Did not wait for pending tests etc. But Lin Wood and Kane neither one could offer to release the GJ transcripts those were sealed by order. So it was a rather meaningless offer. That is what makes a grand jury effective normally the fact that anything said done or taken etc. is sealed. All the Grand Jury can do is offer opinion .....

[Louisadelmar]

I can see Hunter quashing the idea. To spare his own tar and feathering perhaps. However aside....no I never heard that. Which the Grand Jury transcripts are not totally meaningless but close when they did not interview the Ramseys. Did not wait for pending tests etc. But Lin Wood and Kane neither one could offer to release the GJ transcripts those were sealed by order. So it was a rather meaningless offer. That is what makes a grand jury effective normally the fact that anything said done or taken etc. is sealed. All the Grand Jury can do is offer opinion .....

Aired August 30, 2000 - 9:00 p.m. ET

[…]
WOOD: Mr. Kane, why don't you just tell us why the grand jury didn't take any action. It is a fair question. The public is entitled to know. This is not...
KANE: No, I'm not -- I'll tell you what, Mr. Wood, I'll tell you what: If you will go to court with me, and ask the president judge to authorize a release of that information, I will release it.
WOOD: I will walk into that courtroom with you, I may not...
KANE: I will sign that petition with you, Mr. Wood, I will sign.
WOOD: Let's get this case...
KING: Wait a minute.
WOOD: Let's get this case out fully and fairly before the public.
KING: We have made some progress here tonight. Lin Wood will release all the tapes he has got. And Michael and Lin will go to court together; Lin will ask for the release of the grand jury, Michael will say is OK.
WOOD: I look forward to seeing you in court, Michael.
KANE: I will tell the judge I have no objection. If you say that you will waive rule 6 and allow us to release that information, I will tell the court I have no objection.
WOOD: Let's the truth come out, Mr. Kane.
KANE: All right, very well.
KING: We're going to have you both back for an hour when all of it comes out, and I appreciate you being with us, Lin Wood and Michael Kane, and the dilemma goes on.

[Coloradokares]

Aired August 30, 2000 - 9:00 p.m. ET

[…]
WOOD: Mr. Kane, why don't you just tell us why the grand jury didn't take any action. It is a fair question. The public is entitled to know. This is not...
KANE: No, I'm not -- I'll tell you what, Mr. Wood, I'll tell you what: If you will go to court with me, and ask the president judge to authorize a release of that information, I will release it.
WOOD: I will walk into that courtroom with you, I may not...
KANE: I will sign that petition with you, Mr. Wood, I will sign.
WOOD: Let's get this case...
KING: Wait a minute.
WOOD: Let's get this case out fully and fairly before the public.
KING: We have made some progress here tonight. Lin Wood will release all the tapes he has got. And Michael and Lin will go to court together; Lin will ask for the release of the grand jury, Michael will say is OK.
WOOD: I look forward to seeing you in court, Michael.
KANE: I will tell the judge I have no objection. If you say that you will waive rule 6 and allow us to release that information, I will tell the court I have no objection.
WOOD: Let's the truth come out, Mr. Kane.
KANE: All right, very well.
KING: We're going to have you both back for an hour when all of it comes out, and I appreciate you being with us, Lin Wood and Michael Kane, and the dilemma goes on.

Sounds like two cockadoodledoos strutting and preening in the barnyard when ....you note nothing ever came of it that I know of. As you see it Grand Jury's are sealed by judicial order. It'd take an order to unseal it and i doubt that would be done. If you find any info regarding this particular Grand Jury having a release to the seal.....I'll be impressed very impressed and interested in seeing the outcome.

[shill]

If I have alot of stuff that I forgot to bold, and I want to go back...my time runs out. And when you edit, you have to sign in again (well, at least...I do..anyway), and that takes some of your five minutes...not alot...BUT...I need all the minutes that I can get. Or, if you want to put info in the body of your post by copying and pasting...and then, have to go back and do the link the same way....my time runs out every single time that I do that. :mad:
You shouldn't have to sign in each time. Make sure you checked "keep me signed in" if that is an option.
Use the "preview" as much as possible before posting.
Copy and paste your post into Word or some other spell checking format, and re-copy it out.

[shill]

My understanding from asking almost the same identical question before is this. They state fact. Render professional opinion when called in court to do so. Another reason I want to see this in a courtroom. I think alot will clear up as its presented as fact in court.

I think you would be even more disappointed if this was brought to court, because much of the evidence you think is so supporting of a conclusion, would not be admissible in court.

[rashomon]

This is an excellent question. I too have googled extensively and can't find a medical expert to explain this. I have heard several mds, mes, etc say that it is theoretically possible that she was in fact struck on the head, then immediately strangled and the reason for the lack of bleeding into her brain was due to the fact that her carotid arteries and her jugular veins were constricted by the ligature around her neck. So IF she was hit on the head prior to strangulation, it was immediately before..and I have a hard time speculating a scenario where that could have been an accident. But the majority of medical exerts that I have spoken with or read about believe-based on the autopsy report -that the strangulation came first and the head wound was inflicted shortly before or just after she died of strangulation. I will check out medline and see if I can find anything.
There was no lack of bleeding in JB's brain, and the head wound was also fully developed, so some time must have elapsed between the striking of the head blow and the strangulation.
Cyril Wecht deliberately left out that part of the autopsy report where the massive hemorrhage was mentioned.
He did this to support his (idiotic imo) "JB died from strangulation in some kinky erotic ashhyxiation game with her father John" theory.

Other things to consider:

- Just because she died of strangulation does not necessarily mean that the blow came after.

- Just because she actually DID die of strangulation state does not mean that there was no "staged strangulation".

Meaning: The blow (probably struck by an enraged parent) could have rendered her unconscious, making the perp think that she was already dead. The perp then could have attempted a staged strangulation which could have been the actual cause of death.
It is also important to note that the head blow in itself would finally have been fatal too.

[nuisanceposter]

I think one the strongest arguments for "head wound came first" (other than its state of development) is the obvious lack of any struggle whatsoever between the killer and JonBenet.

She did not fight her killer at all. She had no defense wounds anywhere on her hands, arms, feet, or legs, and there was very little damage to the interior of her neck.

Some say she might have been bound during this time, but there is also no injuries indicating that she struggled against restraints. Unless she was tied up much tighter while strangled and then the killer undid that binding, there's no indication that she was conscious at all while being strangled - and I really can't see the killer tying her up really really good, strangling her, and then untying her after she was dead to the state she was found in.

The restraints that had been tied on her were not sufficient to have restrained her while she was conscious. The wrists were tied loosely, over the cuff, which would have made it easier for her slip out of. There's a reason people don't usually tie restraints over the shirtsleeves, and that's why - it's much easier to slip out. There was 15 inches of length between the wrists, as well - and with her hands tied in front of her, she would have easily been able to reach up and fight.

Not only that, but the garotte was "built" on her neck - the person who fashioned it did not construct it and then put it around her neck, it was constructed while on her neck, as evidenced by her hair being tied into it. Can you imagine a six year old girl just sitting there quietly and patiently while some intruder ties a cord around her neck, catching her hair in the cord? That did not happen.

Not only that, but JonBenet's undies and long johns were urine-stained in the crotch and in the front, indicating that she lying face down when she met her death and her bladder released one final time.

Just how is someone going to tie a cord around the neck of a girl and strangle her to death face down without any resistance or struggle from the child at all unless she's completely unconscious?

Follow the evidence, guys, she didn't fight. IMO, the only reason she didn't fight is because she was totally incapacitated by unconsciousness from the head wound. Occam's razor. No other explanation makes as much sense.

[watson]

I think the answer to your question, Watson is that no, there is no reputable forensic pathologist who can support the theory of the head blow coming first(unless you count the ones who say it is theoretically possible that it came IMMEDIATELY before) .I have searched for this answer all over the internet, and btw I found a lot more who support that the garrotting came first than the 2 you mentioned. I wish there was a medical explanation for the head blow coming first (and for some reason not bleeding much) and the garrotting much later as part of the staging. Then I could go back to my original theory that Patsy killed JB by bashing her on the head in a rage, then staged the rest to corroborate the kidnap theory.
*******************************************
That very well could be the answer elvislives, but this thread will be around for awhile so if anyone does come up with a scientist, ME, or pathologist that agrees with the head blow came first theory first advanced by policemen Thomas and still advanced by others today, they can put it here,and we can all check it out.
Otherwise medical and scientific opinion of experts does concur that strangling was first and head blow second as I originally thought was a solid case fact.

[watson]

You both seem to be good arguers. I agree an argument 'CAN' be made for the head blow coming first but an argument 'can' be made for just about anything, especially in this case with it's contradictory evdence. That's just the point of my original question, dispite that an argument 'can' be made the weight or perhaps all real scientific medical opinion says the strangling was first and head blow second. But to get to some of your points.......
RASH.....
You say there was no lack of bleeding in JB's brain, but the ME report p.7 found only....... 'a thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere'..... 7-8cc is a little over a teaspoon full. Considering the huge volume of blood that goes to head and brain, wouldn't this be a lack of bleeding?
You say the head wound was 'fully developed' I don't find this phrase in the ME report, in fact does it not say in regards to the head wound and bleeding....'This grossly appears to be a fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization.' (p7) Doesn't that mean the blood had not had a chance to puddle or pool in 1 (organized) area yet (because the victim died before then)?
Last you say pathologist Cyril Wecht left out the part about a 'massive' hemorrhage concerning the head wound. Is 'massive' the word the ME uses in the report? Doesn't the report actually say.....'an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage.....' (p7). Where 'extensive' indicates it's spread out size under the skin (7" x 4") but not it's volume?
And I agree Cyril Wecht never should have guessed about the nonsense of asphixia sex games, which he did even before the ME report was fully out, just so he could rush his book and tv apperances to market and make money, but IMO this doesn't invalidate his real scientific credentials, his years of ME service, and his professional scientific opinions.
NUISANCE.....I just type too slow have to come back later for your points.

[shill]

If the theory is, they accidentally bashed her head in and then staged all this crap, how come they didn't stage a cover up for the head wound?

They were trying to cover for the head wound weren't they? So they should have taken a flashlight or something and bashed her head in some more to make the wound unidentifiable and then left the flashlight by the body.

That would be the way you cover up an accidental head wound.

[shill]

If you are a RDI, then you think the Ramseys are liars because they said they didn't kill her.
So any explanation the Ramseys give that an RDI doesn't believe will be explained as a lie.
Explanations provided for what might have happened are never going to be taken seriously by an RDI as long as they can easily say the Ramseys did it and are lying about it.
The more elaborate the lies, the harder it is to not get caught in a lie and this case is full of lies according to RDIs. The garrote, ligature, ransom note, JB was asleep, Burke didn't wake up, didn't feed her pineapple, changed the underwear, the head wound, window was opened, never had the tape or chord used, all being lied about but the BP still can’t prove they're lying.

[watson]

NUISANCE.....I just type too slow have to come back later for your points.[/QUOTE]
Sorry I had to go nuisanceposter, we were discussing the apparent FACT that no scientist, medical doctor, or pathologist will back policeman Thomas's original idea that the head blow came first and then the strangling, but you and Rashomon advance circumstancial arguments in support of this idea anyway. Here's the responce of why 'EVEN' the circumstancial evidence more likely indicates the strangling came first...........
You say that the strongest argument for the head blow coming first and strangling second is that JB did not struggle while being strangled from behind (implying she was already unconscious from the head blow)....BUT.....
1.) Isn't it even more likely she didn't struggle because she 'was' strangled from behind, surprised and caught unawares?
2.) A garotte was used, isn't 'one' of the main purposes of a garotte all through history (the Tugee cult of India, the Assassians of Syria, mafia killers in movies like the Godfather) to sneak up on a victim with stealth from behind, get a loop round their neck and start strangling them 'before' they can struggle?
If JB was already unconscious and helpless and near death from the head blow, why make a garrote at all.......why didn't the killer just put his/or her hand over her mouth and nose smothering her, or smother her with a pillow, or use bare hands to strangle her, or a handy electrical cord or such to strangle her??? Doesn't the use of a from behind stealth weapon like a garotte, all the time and trouble to make one, more likely imply a conscious victim, instead of 1 near death?
3.) You say that JB was lying face down while strangled because of the knot in the strangling string in the middle of the back of her neck, and because the string did not move up or down much on her neck....BUT....isn't just as likely or more likely that JB was on her feet facing away from the killer, who knelt behind her....wouldn't the knot still be in the middle of the back of her neck and the strangling string not move up and down much?
4.) You say the garotte was constructed 'on' her neck as some of her hair was tangled in it during the tying process, but isn't this just a guess, because it is just as likely that some of her hair was tangled in it during the 'strangling' process?
5.) Last, what really gives this whole thing away and way tips the circumstancial evidence (besides the medical and scientific evidence already being there) toward strangling first, is the 'form' of the garotte....it's a long string with a loop at one end and a pull handle at the other 17 1/2 inches away from the loop. If the victim was already unconscious when strangled (like you say), and the knot at the back of her neck making the loop was a static unmoving knot, what on earth was the pull handle for 17 1/2" away? How do you explain it???
A pull handle at only one end of a garotte 17 1/2" away from the knot forming the strangling loop can mean only one thing, the knot forming the loop is a 'slip' knot, and the handle is used to pull the string very quickly through the knot after the loop has been tossed over the victims head from behind, making it strangling tight, before she can take action, and this means it HAD to be used on a conscious victim.
P.S. Just to remind everyone although the ananlysis of the knots and string were never released, the knot does in photographs look like a slip knot (as do the others), AND NO ONE, not a single person at the FBI, police, team Ramsey, or anyone else has ever denied that the neck knot and others are slip knots (as they seems to be).

[shill]

There is testimony to the ligature being slipknots, and I have recreated those knots and they are indeed slipknots of a specific kind used in camping and boating.

[Coloradokares]

I think you would be even more disappointed if this was brought to court, because much of the evidence you think is so supporting of a conclusion, would not be admissible in court.

That really is all I am looking for. Justice for JonBenet and a conclusion. I know you could be right. Any time lawyers get involved. :(

[thewhitewitch1]

If you are a RDI, then you think the Ramseys are liars because they said they didn't kill her.
So any explanation the Ramseys give that an RDI doesn't believe will be explained as a lie.
Explanations provided for what might have happened are never going to be taken seriously by an RDI as long as they can easily say the Ramseys did it and are lying about it.
The more elaborate the lies, the harder it is to not get caught in a lie and this case is full of lies according to RDIs. The garrote, ligature, ransom note, JB was asleep, Burke didn't wake up, didn't feed her pineapple, changed the underwear, the head wound, window was opened, never had the tape or chord used, all being lied about but the BP still can’t prove they're lying.


It's easy for the Ramseys to get away with their lies. All they had to do (and did) was deny any knowledge of the garrote, RN, underwear, pineapple and tape. How can you get caught in a lie for those things if you've denied knowing anything about them from the very beginning?
That's the very reason why the R's had to say JB was asleep when they got home. That's the reason they claimed Burke was asleep through the entire "panic" when the ransom note was found. Now, we all know that Burke was not asleep and the R's claimed not to have known about it until it came out in the GJ. Do you really think he just laid there in bed and didn't come out to see what all of the commotion was about? I very much doubt it. I would sure love to hear that enhanced tape with his voice on it that I very much believe does exist.
You are right about one thing...the BP can't prove they are/were lying but they sure know something isn't/wasn't right.

[Ames]

You shouldn't have to sign in each time. Make sure you checked "keep me signed in" if that is an option.
Use the "preview" as much as possible before posting.
Copy and paste your post into Word or some other spell checking format, and re-copy it out.

Thanks for the info. shill...I will give that a try!!:rose:

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=watson;8788811]You both seem to be good arguers. I agree an argument 'CAN' be made for the head blow coming first but an argument 'can' be made for just about anything, especially in this case with it's contradictory evdence. That's just the point of my original question, dispite that an argument 'can' be made the weight or perhaps all real scientific medical opinion says the strangling was first and head blow second. But to get to some of your points.......
RASH.....
You say there was no lack of bleeding in JB's brain, but the ME report p.7 found only....... 'a thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere'..... 7-8cc is a little over a teaspoon full. Considering the huge volume of blood that goes to head and brain, wouldn't this be a lack of bleeding?
You say the head wound was 'fully developed' I don't find this phrase in the ME report, in fact does it not say in regards to the head wound and bleeding....'This grossly appears to be a fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization.' (p7) Doesn't that mean the blood had not had a chance to puddle or pool in 1 (organized) area yet (because the victim died before then)?

Organization is a hematology term that refers to pooling, followed by the process of hemostasis (the biochemical process of clotting, which includes platelet agregation,adherence,etc). Unless JB had a clotting disorder such as Hemophilia, then her blood would begin the hemostatic process immediately after the injury was sustained. Because the autopsy report says that there was "no evidence of organization", that indicates that she was dead immediately after or upon recieving the headblow. Again, since the cause of death was asphixia and it takes 5+ minutes to asphixiate a child with her lung capacity, there is no medical explanation for the fact that her blood would not have begun the clotting process unless she was dead (unless of course the killer injected her with heparin, which they surely would have tested for at autopsy). Patients with clotting disorders may take 5+ minutes (even hours) to begin the hemostasis cascade, but patients with healthy hemodynamics (such as Jonbenet) will always begin the coagulation process immediately. So I have to agree with all the MEs/MDs who have weighed in on the case that the strangulation came first.

Can any of you creative types come up with a scenario where Patsy could have done this? Docg has his theory about John which does mesh with the physical evidence, but again can some of you in the patsy done it camp put forth a theory?

[rashomon]

Just to remind everyone although the ananlysis of the knots and string were never released, the knot does in photographs look like a slip knot (as do the others), AND NO ONE, not a single person at the FBI, police, team Ramsey, or anyone else has ever denied that the neck knot and others are slip knots (as they seems to be).
Wrong. Dr. Meyer explicitly called the knot around JB's head a 'double knot'.
A double knot is a shoe-lace-type knot which would make any pulling on a hande ineffective:
Last, what really gives this whole thing away and way tips the circumstancial evidence (besides the medical and scientific evidence already being there) toward strangling first, is the 'form' of the garotte....it's a long string with a loop at one end and a pull handle at the other 17 1/2 inches away from the loop. If the victim was already unconscious when strangled (like you say), and the knot at the back of her neck making the loop was a static unmoving knot, what on earth was the pull handle for 17 1/2" away? How do you explain it???
But those multiple loops of cord around a stick make that pull handle pretty ineffective. Try it out yourself.

[rashomon]

[QUOTE=watson;8788811]You both seem to be good arguers. I agree an argument 'CAN' be made for the head blow coming first but an argument 'can' be made for just about anything, especially in this case with it's contradictory evdence. That's just the point of my original question, dispite that an argument 'can' be made the weight or perhaps all real scientific medical opinion says the strangling was first and head blow second. But to get to some of your points.......
RASH.....
You say there was no lack of bleeding in JB's brain, but the ME report p.7 found only....... 'a thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere'..... 7-8cc is a little over a teaspoon full. Considering the huge volume of blood that goes to head and brain, wouldn't this be a lack of bleeding?
You say the head wound was 'fully developed' I don't find this phrase in the ME report, in fact does it not say in regards to the head wound and bleeding....'This grossly appears to be a fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization.' (p7) Doesn't that mean the blood had not had a chance to puddle or pool in 1 (organized) area yet (because the victim died before then)?

Organization is a hematology term that refers to pooling, followed by the process of hemostasis (the biochemical process of clotting, which includes platelet agregation,adherence,etc). Unless JB had a clotting disorder such as Hemophilia, then her blood would begin the hemostatic process immediately after the injury was sustained. Because the autopsy report says that there was "no evidence of organization", that indicates that she was dead immediately after or upon recieving the headblow. Again, since the cause of death was asphixia and it takes 5+ minutes to asphixiate a child with her lung capacity, there is no medical explanation for the fact that her blood would not have begun the clotting process unless she was dead (unless of course the killer injected her with heparin, which they surely would have tested for at autopsy). Patients with clotting disorders may take 5+ minutes (even hours) to begin the hemostasis cascade, but patients with healthy hemodynamics (such as Jonbenet) will always begin the coagulation process immediately. So I have to agree with all the MEs/MDs who have weighed in on the case that the strangulation came first.

Can any of you creative types come up with a scenario where Patsy could have done this? Docg has his theory about John which does mesh with the physical evidence, but again can some of you in the patsy done it camp put forth a theory?
Docg's theory does NOT mesh with the physical evidence.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=elvislives;8789370]
Docg's theory does NOT mesh with the physical evidence.

It meshes with the physical evidence of the autopsy. IOW, he describes a scenario where JB was strangled first and then hit on the head. THIS PART of his theory does mesh with the phsysical evidence since, like it or not, the physical evidence indicates that she was strangled first. I am not in any way suggesting that docg's theory is accurate...only that it is consistent with the evidence. So again, are there any of you creative types who can come up with a scenario where Patsy would have strangled JB then hit her on the head? As I stated before, Patsy is the likely suspect imo but I can't seem to come up with a theory that fits the evidence revealed at autopsy. Anyone?

[Ames]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8789399]

<snipped>

So again, are there any of you creative types who can come up with a scenario where Patsy would have strangled JB then hit her on the head?


Nope, because the head wound came FIRST, and then the strangulation...(where are the marks on JB's neck where she clawed herself, trying to remove the cord? Where is all of that skin from her neck, that WOULD have been under her nails?)

[shill]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rashomon View Post

<snipped>

So again, are there any of you creative types who can come up with a scenario where Patsy would have strangled JB then hit her on the head?

This is why Patsy couldn't have killed her. You can't explain what didn't happen.

[nuisanceposter]

Watson:

1. Even if she had been snuck up on and surprised by the person strangling her, she still would have had enough time between the cord hitting her neck and her passing out from lack of oxygen to claw at that cord. It could have happened instinctively, as even people who commit suicide by hanging have been known to claw at the rope, and they wanted to die - the brain kicks into survival mode and tells the body what to do to preserve life. There is no struggle whatsoever, and I simply do not believe there is a way to strangle a conscious 6 year old child without that child injuring herself in the process of fighting her killer. Even if she had been tied up (and the way she was tied would not have restrained her), there would still be bruises and abrasions from her struggling to free herself. There's none of that.

2. The garotte was built on her neck - her hair is caught in it. It's also caught in the handle knot. No one snuck up on her...they walked up to her and tied it around her neck and pulled it tight, and she didn't fight at all.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Evidence%20of%20Staging

Addendum: JonBenet's hair was tied into the knot behind her neck and into the knot on the stick, per the crime scene photos. This would be extremely difficult and nonsensical for an intruder to do on a living, resisting child. Also, the strangulation caused no internal damage to the throat.

3. I think she was strangled lying face down not only because the knot is at the back of her neck, but because her clothing was urine-stained in the crotch and in the front. I believe that happened at the time she died, as the bladder is known to void any contents at the time of death as the muscles relax. The only way her clothes could have the urine stains where they do is if she was on her stomach when the urine came out. If she was standing, it would have run out and down her leg, not soaked up into the front of her clothes as well as the crotch.

4. No. See link in #2.

5. The pull handle, imo, was the result of an inexperienced person trying to stage a crime without knowing what a real garotte and crime scene should look like, and using all the rest of the cord they had left.

Absolutely Meyer described it as a double knot. I don't know where you got the idea that NO ONE has ever said the knots on JonBenet weren't slip knots.

[andU]

[QUOTE=elvislives;8789439]


Nope, because the head wound came FIRST, and then the strangulation...(where are the marks on JB's neck where she clawed herself, trying to remove the cord? Where is all of that skin from her neck, that WOULD have been under her nails?)

I believe the strangulation came first... there is no proof that her hands weren't bound so that she couldn't get to the cord. My interpretation of the coroner's report is that the strangulation came and then the blow to the head.

[andU]

That really is all I am looking for. Justice for JonBenet and a conclusion. I know you could be right. Any time lawyers get involved. :(

This case was a mess before the atty got involved... you want it to go to court, but that can't happen without atty representation, ya know.

[nuisanceposter]

[QUOTE=Ames;8789516]

I believe the strangulation came first... there is no proof that her hands weren't bound so that she couldn't get to the cord. My interpretation of the coroner's report is that the strangulation came and then the blow to the head.

The lack of phyiscal evidence of any kind of struggle on JonBenet's part is the proof that her hands weren't bound when she was strangled. Look at the binding that was done - her hands were tied in front of her, not behind, with fifteen inches of length between the wrists. How is that going to restrain her at all? She could reach right up and claw at the cord or strike at her killer - but because there's no skin under her nails, no bruises or abrasions on her wrists or arms from struggling against restraints, and no defensive wounds from fighting her killer, we know she didn't do that.

[andU]

[QUOTE=andU;8789648]

The lack of phyiscal evidence of any kind of struggle on JonBenet's part is the proof that her hands weren't bound when she was strangled. Look at the binding that was done - her hands were tied in front of her, not behind, with fifteen inches of length between the wrists. How is that going to restrain her at all? She could reach right up and claw at the cord or strike at her killer - but because there's no skin under her nails, no bruises or abrasions on her wrists or arms from struggling against restraints, and no defensive wounds from fighting her killer, we know she didn't do that.

If (and I stress IF) she had been hanging by those cords that bound her hands from something, they would not be free. That would also explain her arms above her head when she was found and rigor had set in... I believe this has been mentioned before but RDI's don't accept anything that COULD have happened if it doesn't indicate RDI.

[nuisanceposter]

If she had had her hands restrained above her, then we would see bruises and abrasions on her wrists from her yanking her arms as hard as she possibly could in effort to get them free so she could claw at the cord around her neck. Even with the shirt sleeve cuff between the cord and her skin, there would be fabric burns and bruises on her wrists. She would have been fighting to free herself as hard as she could, with no iota of energy and strength spared.

I can accept indications that have solid evidence to back them up, whether they indicate IDI or RDI. Just because I'm saying I think it looks as though JonBenet was already unconscious when she was strangled doesn't mean that idea will only fit an RDI theory. Perhaps she already was unconscious when strangled - two ways to make that fit IDI is that the killer rendered her unconscious before he strangled her - perhaps he struck her on the head as he got her up out of bed, then took her to basement to strangle her because she wouldn't fight or make noise when unconscious, or perhaps he really did have a stun gun, and zapped her right off, and it knocked her unconscious and then he strangled her.

If this killer really was a psychopath with a grudge against JR and he planned to murder JB to punish JR, then it wouldn't matter if he strangled her while conscious or not because his goal was to strangle her to death anyway.

[elvislives]

If she had had her hands restrained above her, then we would see bruises and abrasions on her wrists from her yanking her arms as hard as she possibly could in effort to get them free so she could claw at the cord around her neck. Even with the shirt sleeve cuff between the cord and her skin, there would be fabric burns and bruises on her wrists. She would have been fighting to free herself as hard as she could, with no iota of energy and strength spared.

I can accept indications that have solid evidence to back them up, whether they indicate IDI or RDI. Just because I'm saying I think it looks as though JonBenet was already unconscious when she was strangled doesn't mean that idea will only fit an RDI theory. Perhaps she already was unconscious when strangled - two ways to make that fit IDI is that the killer rendered her unconscious before he strangled her - perhaps he struck her on the head as he got her up out of bed, then took her to basement to strangle her because she wouldn't fight or make noise when unconscious, or perhaps he really did have a stun gun, and zapped her right off, and it knocked her unconscious and then he strangled her.

If this killer really was a psychopath with a grudge against JR and he planned to murder JB to punish JR, then it wouldn't matter if he strangled her while conscious or not because his goal was to strangle her to death anyway.

Agreed. If she had been restrained there would definitely be evidence of that. Especially if she was suspended..she would have red grooves around her wrists from the pressure, but she had none. So the only reasonable conclusion is that she was definitely not suspended. And if she was restrained at all, she was not conscious or she would have fought the restraints leaving physical evidence. Btw rigormortis takes a while to set in. SHe could have died with her hands next to her body then someone positioned them over her head before rigor set in.

[andU]

If she had had her hands restrained above her, then we would see bruises and abrasions on her wrists from her yanking her arms as hard as she possibly could in effort to get them free so she could claw at the cord around her neck. Even with the shirt sleeve cuff between the cord and her skin, there would be fabric burns and bruises on her wrists. She would have been fighting to free herself as hard as she could, with no iota of energy and strength spared.

I can accept indications that have solid evidence to back them up, whether they indicate IDI or RDI. Just because I'm saying I think it looks as though JonBenet was already unconscious when she was strangled doesn't mean that idea will only fit an RDI theory. Perhaps she already was unconscious when strangled - two ways to make that fit IDI is that the killer rendered her unconscious before he strangled her - perhaps he struck her on the head as he got her up out of bed, then took her to basement to strangle her because she wouldn't fight or make noise when unconscious, or perhaps he really did have a stun gun, and zapped her right off, and it knocked her unconscious and then he strangled her.

If this killer really was a psychopath with a grudge against JR and he planned to murder JB to punish JR, then it wouldn't matter if he strangled her while conscious or not because his goal was to strangle her to death anyway.


I'm still thinking that her 'special' plate may have contained some over the counter herb, root or alternative medication that induces drowsiness or sleep. They are out there.

[rashomon]

RASH.....
You say there was no lack of bleeding in JB's brain, but the ME report p.7 found only....... 'a thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere'..... 7-8cc is a little over a teaspoon full. Considering the huge volume of blood that goes to head and brain, wouldn't this be a lack of bleeding?
You say the head wound was 'fully developed'. I don't find this phrase in the ME report, in fact does it not say in regards to the head wound and bleeding....'This grossly appears to be a fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization.' (p7) Doesn't that mean the blood had not had a chance to puddle or pool in 1 (organized) area yet (because the victim died before then)?
Watson,

Dr. Meyer speaks of an "extensive area of scalp hemorrhage measuring 7x11 inches."
And wasn't this in addition to the "thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring 7-8 cc?"

Meyer also mentions "mild narowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri". I remember someone said this refers to brain swelling, and doesn't it take some time for a brain to swell after an injury?

[Elvislives]Organization is a hematology term that refers to pooling, followed by the process of hemostasis (the biochemical process of clotting, which includes
platelet agregation,adherence,etc). Unless JB had a clotting disorder such as Hemophilia, then her blood begin the hemostatic process immediately after the injury was sustained. Because the autopsy report says that there was "no evidence of organization", that indicates that she was dead immediately after or upon recieving the headblow. Again, since the cause of death was asphixia and it takes 5+ minutes to asphixiate a child with her lung capacity, there is no medical explanation for the fact that her blood would not have begun the clotting process unless she was dead (unless of course the killer injected her with heparin, which they surely would have tested for at autopsy). Patients with clotting disorders may take 5+ minutes (even hours) to begin the hemostasis cascade, but patients with healthy hemodynamics (such as Jonbenet) will always begin the coagulation process immediately.
Elvislives:
interesting comment re the hematology term 'organization'.
I'll post it over on FFJ where there are quite a few people with medical knowledge too, to get a 'second opinion'. :)

BTW, Dr. Meyer does not say that the strangulation came first. "Associated with" does not refer to a time line.
And even if the cause of death was strangulation, this does not have to mean that the strangulation came first. JB could have been in a deep coma from the head blow when the perp finally tied the knot around her neck and cut off her oxygen supply.

[Louisadelmar]

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 7 X 4 inches. This grossly appears to be a fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization. At the superior extension of this area of hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area forward to the right frontal area across the parietal portion of the 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 brain 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 5 mm into the

Page 8

cerebral cortex. Examination of the base of the brain discloses no additional fractures.

[Coloradokares]

This case was a mess before the atty got involved... you want it to go to court, but that can't happen without atty representation, ya know.

Not very long it hadn't . They lawyered up yet that day. Besides I need for you to think about this. What you want is what I want. The killer of JonBenet behind bars for the rest of their natural life. Right? When things go into the court room. Lawyer lies end....if they don't wish to be disbarred. Correct? And the evidence is laid out. Then we hear the expert testimony not just see written subjective reports. We hear the coroners opinion not just the detail required on autopsy. We see the fibers that don't exist if they do exist and the experts on that. We actually see the case get reconstructed and proof or lack of it laid out in a judges presense. My question to anyone who says what they want is justice for JonBenet is this. Deal or No Deal.... You can find guilty or exonderate but first lets put this matter into the hands of a special prosecutor who starts with the evidence and the facts rebuilds this case and gets on with it ......is that to much for us to ask for on behalf of a little six year old girl who died a horrible death. You'd want whoever killed her to be charged and tried and convicted right?

[andU]

Not very long it hadn't . They lawyered up yet that day. Besides I need for you to think about this. What you want is what I want. The killer of JonBenet behind bars for the rest of their natural life. Right? When things go into the court room. Lawyer lies end....if they don't wish to be disbarred. Correct? And the evidence is laid out. Then we hear the expert testimony not just see written subjective reports. We hear the coroners opinion not just the detail required on autopsy. We see the fibers that don't exist if they do exist and the experts on that. We actually see the case get reconstructed and proof or lack of it laid out in a judges presense. My question to anyone who says what they want is justice for JonBenet is this. Deal or No Deal.... You can find guilty or exonderate but first lets put this matter into the hands of a special prosecutor who starts with the evidence and the facts rebuilds this case and gets on with it ......is that to much for us to ask for on behalf of a little six year old girl who died a horrible death. You'd want whoever killed her to be charged and tried and convicted right?


Of course, and as I have told you before, I have signed the petition requesting that special prosecutor.....

[Coloradokares]

[QUOTE=nuisanceposter;8789658]

If (and I stress IF) she had been hanging by those cords that bound her hands from something, they would not be free. That would also explain her arms above her head when she was found and rigor had set in... I believe this has been mentioned before but RDI's don't accept anything that COULD have happened if it doesn't indicate RDI.

You say that the RDI's dont accept anything that could have happened if it doesn't indicate RDI. The same can be said for the IDI not accepting anything that happened if it would work against the intruder theory. Simple as that this is not about who is right or who is wrong its about getting it right and doing justice for a six year old little girl. Taking my soap box down again. This case is messed up.....but it does not have to be humpty dumpty. It can be put back together again at the Colorado taxpayers expense.... If there was an intruder in that home that night and that intruder killed JonBenet we all know there is no such thing as a perfect flawless crime. Not even when every hair was shaved from the naked body of the gloved murderer. Lets get it on.....not let it sit and self destruct without a care in the world for this little girl. If her parents are proved not suspected of killing her would you want them to get away with it? I would not want to see them convicted if it is proved there was an intruder. And that is how it should be.

[andU]

[QUOTE=andU;8789697]

You say that the RDI's dont accept anything that could have happened if it doesn't indicate RDI. The same can be said for the IDI not accepting anything that happened if it would work against the intruder theory. Simple as that this is not about who is right or who is wrong its about getting it right and doing justice for a six year old little girl. Taking my soap box down again. This case is messed up.....but it does not have to be humpty dumpty. It can be put back together again at the Colorado taxpayers expense.... If there was an intruder in that home that night and that intruder killed JonBenet we all know there is no such thing as a perfect flawless crime. Not even when every hair was shaved from the naked body of the gloved murderer. Lets get it on.....not let it sit and self destruct without a care in the world for this little girl. If her parents are proved not suspected of killing her would you want them to get away with it? I would not want to see them convicted if it is proved there was an intruder. And that is how it should be.

So, there ya go, we all have our opinions, we all want the same thing .... justice for JB and every child.

[Coloradokares]

I'm still thinking that her 'special' plate may have contained some over the counter herb, root or alternative medication that induces drowsiness or sleep. They are out there.

Yes those things are out there. But to the best of proof of the toxicology report they were not in her. Unless that is something that would be placed into evidence that has been witheld from the public as credible information there was no drug or natural substance listed. Besides Burke said that she was awake and helped carry in presents and climbed the stairs herself to go to bed. He said that until after having been with his mom and dad again. Then he might have been mistaken. C'mon. I have no problem at all with the an intruder theory if it fits the evidence and the facts. However to suggest that some substance was introduced into JonBenet's system by a special plate is not any more likely than the substance if there was one (and I don't have reason to think there was) was introduced into JonBenet's system via the pinapple.

[Coloradokares]

Of course, and as I have told you before, I have signed the petition requesting that special prosecutor.....

Thankyou this is the only dog I got in this fight. Lets rattle the pillars of the Colorado State Government and shake down Boulder till we get this out of the hands of Mary Lacey and get this into the hands of those who are competent.....PROFESSIONAL and most of all Impartial, I have heard so many locals who would be in a postion to have more brains than I got about investigating and prosecuting a murder say it straight out. This murder is not solveable if it remains under the auspices of the DA's office out here. We needed help then we need a special prosecutor now. Somebody is getting away with murder out here. Thats NUTS.

[andU]

Thankyou this is the only dog I got in this fight. Lets rattle the pillars of the Colorado State Government and shake down Boulder till we get this out of the hands of Mary Lacey and get this into the hands of those who are competent.....PROFESSIONAL and most of all Impartial, I have heard so many locals who would be in a postion to have more brains than I got about investigating and prosecuting a murder say it straight out. This murder is not solveable if it remains under the auspices of the DA's office out here. We needed help then we need a special prosecutor now. Somebody is getting away with murder out here. Thats NUTS.

Well, since you are a Colorado tax payer and I live in Indiana, you are better equipped to do more than I. All I can do is be a cheer leader, I can't imagine why something hasn't been done by citizens before now --almost 10 yrs after the fact.

[Coloradokares]

[QUOTE=Coloradokares;8789768]

So, there ya go, we all have our opinions, we all want the same thing .... justice for JB and every child.

Which at the end of the day leaves us a whole lot more alike than not. What we should be doing instead of fighting each other .....is pooling our collective braincells and resources and demanding that Colorado stop the nonsense and find the you know what that did this to JonBenet. No matter where it leads. I tell you the simple truth. I want the b word that did this to her so bad. I want them tried and convicted and sentenced to the maxium allowed under law. Period. When I think of how that little girl died... discarded like a broken toy in the basement in a dark damp moldy room. I get a little motivated to want the truth. No one should ever be allowed to do this to a beautiful innocent little child and get away with it. Children are our most innocent and pure delight and when one is taken in the way she was their should be no excuse acceptable till her killer is behind bars.

[Coloradokares]

Well, since you are a Colorado tax payer and I live in Indiana, you are better equipped to do more than I. All I can do is be a cheer leader, I can't imagine why something hasn't been done by citizens before now --almost 10 yrs after the fact.

Short of bubbling the tar and collecting the feathers we have done all we are empowered to do, We have petitioned we have written letters we have peacefully protested and held vigils. We have rattled chains and shouted from the rooftops that this is not acceptable. While we have had Alex Hunter and his protege's in office nothing is happening. IMO You'd think lightening couldn't possilby strike twice right? Take a good look at the Jason Midyette case. I don't know all the details on that ...but once again a wealthy family is getting special treatment. We keep saying its the Boulder factor and no one thinks it could possibly be like that.....
Yet does lightening really strike twice?

[watson]

Wrong. Dr. Meyer explicitly called the knot around JB's head a 'double knot'.
A double knot is a shoe-lace-type knot which would make any pulling on a hande ineffective:

But those multiple loops of cord around a stick make that pull handle pretty ineffective. Try it out yourself.
**************************************************
Come on Rash......what Meyer said about the knot at the neck is meaningless. He's a medical doctor concerned with doing an autopsy, only.
He didn't examine this knot, nor is he supposed to even touch it. He's not a forensic weapons examiner or forensic knot expert he just cuts the string and bags the knot and string intact as evidence for forensic exam. If he says the knot was 'double' he means it visually appeared to be tied more than once round the string, big deal. ALL kinds of knots are 'double' including slip knots.
Now you get the 'real' analysis of the neck knot from the forensic examiner, the FBI, and Colorado state crime lab, and if they said it's not a slip knot I'd believe you, but then they've witheld the report, never said one way or another and have 'never' denied it's a slip knot.
On the pull handle......really Rash the multiple wrapped loop knots look the same as the killer made everywhere else, neck, wrists. It's not necessary that he wrapped and tied what looks like 6 times to make a pull handle (he could've just tied once) but this must be one compulsive uptight individual. And making what looks like 3 of these wrapped looped knots on each side of the long leader to the neck loop, works just fine and 'does' fashion a handle that looks like the 'T' type configuration of a typical pull handle (such as a lawn mower pull handle).

[watson]

There is testimony to the ligature being slipknots, and I have recreated those knots and they are indeed slipknots of a specific kind used in camping and boating.
*************************************************
Shill, great! If someone in LE or involved in this case has confirmed that the knots, that look like slip knots, seem like they could only work as slip knots, are slip knots I'd love to have more info on it and a source or site.
I agree with you 110% that the loop that was used to strangle the victim in this case looks for all the world like the pre-made loop at the end of a pleasue boaters bow and stern temporary mooring lines. The ones that a boater approaching a dock or pier for gas, groceries, to pick up passangers etc. has ready made to throw over the dock cleat, or post, where once over this stationary (cleat or post) he only has to pull on one end with one hand to zip tighten the line in a secod around the tie or cleat and on leaving only has to loosen the loop and not touch or undo the knot.

[shill]

[QUOTE=andU;8789648]

The lack of phyiscal evidence of any kind of struggle on JonBenet's part is the proof that her hands weren't bound when she was strangled. Look at the binding that was done - her hands were tied in front of her, not behind, with fifteen inches of length between the wrists. How is that going to restrain her at all? She could reach right up and claw at the cord or strike at her killer - but because there's no skin under her nails, no bruises or abrasions on her wrists or arms from struggling against restraints, and no defensive wounds from fighting her killer, we know she didn't do that.

Asked and aswered.
We do know the body found with hands over her head, both wrists bound tightly.

[shill]

Not very long it hadn't . They lawyered up yet that day. Besides I need for you to think about this. What you want is what I want. The killer of JonBenet behind bars for the rest of their natural life. Right? When things go into the court room. Lawyer lies end....if they don't wish to be disbarred. Correct? And the evidence is laid out. Then we hear the expert testimony not just see written subjective reports. We hear the coroners opinion not just the detail required on autopsy. We see the fibers that don't exist if they do exist and the experts on that. We actually see the case get reconstructed and proof or lack of it laid out in a judges presense. My question to anyone who says what they want is justice for JonBenet is this. Deal or No Deal.... You can find guilty or exonderate but first lets put this matter into the hands of a special prosecutor who starts with the evidence and the facts rebuilds this case and gets on with it ......is that to much for us to ask for on behalf of a little six year old girl who died a horrible death. You'd want whoever killed her to be charged and tried and convicted right?

So you want them to take the Ramseys to court. And if they are found to be not guilty, then what? Do you think a court trial that ends up proving they are not guilty is going to change one RDI's opinion? It will just be more arguments about how they beat the system since they are guilty. It will never end with a trial unless the Ramsys are found guilty.

[elvislives]

Elvislives:
interesting comment re the hematology term 'organization'.
I'll post it over on FFJ where there are quite a few people with medical knowledge too, to get a 'second opinion'. :)

BTW, Dr. Meyer does not say that the strangulation came first. "Associated with" does not refer to a time line.
And even if the cause of death was strangulation, this does not have to mean that the strangulation came first. JB could have been in a deep coma from the head blow when the perp finally tied the knot around her neck and cut off her oxygen supply.

The significance of the strangulation being the cause of death is that it makes this a first degree murder, instead of second degree. I'm not sure how you classify murders in Germany, but in the US a first degree murder is intentional and premeditated and, depending on the state, can carry the death penalty. If she had died of the head wound, then was strangled just for show, the defense attorney could argue that it was an accident.

[watson]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8789755]Watson,

Dr. Meyer speaks of an "extensive area of scalp hemorrhage measuring 7x11 inches."
And wasn't this in addition to the "thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring 7-8 cc?"

************************************************
Yes, Meyer specifys an 'extensive area' of scalp hemorrhage (p7) measuring 7 x 4 inches (a correction from the above), BUT.....the words are just that an 'extensive area of ......hemorrhage'....NOT....an 'extensive hemorrhage'.
The words 'extensive' and 'area' are next to each other, he's referring to the fairly large (or extensive) 'area' covered by some 'unstated' quanity of bleeding NOT to a fairly large (or extensive) 'amount' of bleeding.
Since the crack in the victims skull ran from between her eyes, across the side of her head to the middle of the back of the skull, you'd expect a large 'area' of bleeding if there was hardly any bleeding at all. Even if only tiny amounts of blood seeped out along and around this crack, the 'area' of bleeding would be 'extensive'!
What Meyer does not report finding is a large 'amount' of blood anywhere. Inside the skull only 7-8cc, outside, under the skin (or scalp) despite bleeding along the crack in an area 7 x 4 inches, he doesn't even bother measuring the amount of blood (presumably because there was not enough). No where does he say something like......'under the skull is a large amount of congealed blood measuring......by volume' as he would have if such was found. He also said what bleeding there was under the scalp was 'fresh' and not organized meaning not pooled or puddled, indicating it couldn't be old.

[Coloradokares]

So you want them to take the Ramseys to court. And if they are found to be not guilty, then what? Do you think a court trial that ends up proving they are not guilty is going to change one RDI's opinion? It will just be more arguments about how they beat the system since they are guilty. It will never end with a trial unless the Ramsys are found guilty.

Maybe I am way to simple minded then Shill and honest. But I believe that whoever is taken to court. If that be the Ramsey that remains, then the evidence that is used and presented at trial to exonerate or convict by a jury of peers will also be that which will put the matter to rest. I have complete faith in our judicial system. If they exonerate them by evidence I will be the first one to start searching for the Intruder we have yet to find. Why must the Ramseys be found guilty for the matter to end. We must only find the murderer by the evidence and close the matter with justice for JonBenet. You are saying to me that the murderer of JonBenet was so perfect as to leave without a trace. Not a trace that could be found in 10 years. Someone had to have left evidence lets find that someone and seek justice for this little girl.

[Louisadelmar]

[QUOTE=Coloradokares;8790054][...] I have complete faith in our judicial system. [...]QUOTE]

You should read "Actual Innocence" by Barry Sheck. By the way, how do you feel about OJ?

[Ames]

I don't know why this page is screwed up, but theres alot of quotes on here that are listed under the WRONG person. I don't know how THAT happened. One is a quote from someone else about the strangulation coming before the head blow...and it has MY screen name above it, like it was taken from something that I had posted. And we all KNOW that I believe that the head wound came FIRST. Something is screwy with this page...

[LindaA]

The RDIs keep saying the intruder left no evidence at all. That is merely their take on the matter. There is a lot of unexlained evidence that could well be from an intruder. There are also items used in the crime that are no longer there that acould well have been removed by the intruder. And just because evidence wasn't found or listed in an inventory of evidence doesn't mean it wasn't there. The police could have failed to find said evidence or are keeping its existence secret. JMO.

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>
I don't know all the details on that ...but once again a wealthy family is getting special treatment. We keep saying its the Boulder factor and no one thinks it could possibly be like that.....
Yet does lightening really strike twice?

You "don't know all the details"...........and on that you are willing to come to the conclusion that a "wealthy family is getting special treatment."

Well, ok.

[rashomon]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8789755]Watson,

Dr. Meyer speaks of an "extensive area of scalp hemorrhage measuring 7x11 inches."
And wasn't this in addition to the "thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring 7-8 cc?"

************************************************
Yes, Meyer specifys an 'extensive area' of scalp hemorrhage (p7) measuring 7 x 4 inches (a correction from the above), BUT.....the words are just that an 'extensive area of ......hemorrhage'....NOT....an 'extensive hemorrhage'.
The words 'extensive' and 'area' are next to each other, he's referring to the fairly large (or extensive) 'area' covered by some 'unstated' quanity of bleeding NOT to a fairly large (or extensive) 'amount' of bleeding.
Since the crack in the victims skull ran from between her eyes, across the side of her head to the middle of the back of the skull, you'd expect a large 'area' of bleeding if there was hardly any bleeding at all. Even if only tiny amounts of blood seeped out along and around this crack, the 'area' of bleeding would be 'extensive'!
What Meyer does not report finding is a large 'amount' of blood anywhere. Inside the skull only 7-8cc, outside, under the skin (or scalp) despite bleeding along the crack in an area 7 x 4 inches, he doesn't even bother measuring the amount of blood (presumably because there was not enough). No where does he say something like......'under the skull is a large amount of congealed blood measuring......by volume' as he would have if such was found. He also said what bleeding there was under the scalp was 'fresh' and not organized meaning not pooled or puddled, indicating it couldn't be old.
Sorry about my typo, Watson. It says of course 7x4 inches in the autopsy.
But 7x4 inches is still quite an expanse. I'm aware that the 'area' of blood doesn't refer to to the 'amount' of blood, for area and volume are two different things.
And for whatever reason, Dr. Meyer didn't measure by volume the amount of blood in the area (scalp hemorrhage) which was 7x4 inches. Maybe it was difficult to measure by volume because it had spread so much, and not pooled?

BTW, I've put yours and Elvislives' comments on the lack of 'organization' of the hemorrhage over on Forums for Justice, where there are also quite a few posters with medical knowledge. I' going to put a link here to whatever answers I'm going to get from them.

This is a pivotal issue, and has got be be cleared up.
For it might actually provide a very specific info about the time line of events.

[rashomon]

On the pull handle......really Rash the multiple wrapped loop knots look the same as the killer made everywhere else, neck, wrists. It's not necessary that he wrapped and tied what looks like 6 times to make a pull handle (he could've just tied once) but this must be one compulsive uptight individual. And making what looks like 3 of these wrapped looped knots on each side of the long leader to the neck loop, works just fine and 'does' fashion a handle that looks like the 'T' type configuration of a typical pull handle (such as a lawn mower pull handle).
Do lawn mower pull handles have numerous turns of rope around the handle?

Have you read D. England's analysis of the garrote?

He says:
"Do you know of any pull-start engines with numerous turns of rope around the handle? Surely, if this is a professional advantage, some manufactuer would use this as a marketing feature."

http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis2.htm

[aussiesheila]

If she had had her hands restrained above her, then we would see bruises and abrasions on her wrists from her yanking her arms as hard as she possibly could in effort to get them free so she could claw at the cord around her neck. Even with the shirt sleeve cuff between the cord and her skin, there would be fabric burns and bruises on her wrists. She would have been fighting to free herself as hard as she could, with no iota of energy and strength spared.If JonBenet had been fed a drug to make her subdued and compliant then I think it is unlikely that she would have struggled sufficiently to create fabric burns, bruises and abrasions on her wrists, especially if she was stunned by the stungun if she tried.

[rashomon]

Elvislives and Watson:
The autopsy also mentions "a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemishphere".

So we have the amount of blood (7-8cc) inside her skull, then there was the extensive area of scalp hemorrrhage measuring 7x4 inches and the thin film of subarachnoid bleeding overlying the entire right cerebral hemoshphere.
What exactly is 'subarachnoid' bleeding?

In addition there was a "large area of contusion" measuring 8x1.75 inches. Doesn't it take some time for a contusion to form?

All this doesn't give the impression as if there was only little blood in JB's brain.

From someone's post on Websleuths (forensic evidence thread):

"More importantly, the brain was swollen so much that it pressed flat against the skull. That takes time, a lot of it. 20 to 60 minutes, in fact. Werner Spitz, Tom Henry, Ron Wright and Henry Lee all say so."

[aussiesheila]

The garotte was built on her neck - her hair is caught in it. It's also caught in the handle knot. No one snuck up on her...they walked up to her and tied it around her neck and pulled it tight, and she didn't fight at all.A more likely scenario IMO, is that some hair was caught in the noose knot as the noose was being tightened around her neck and some more hair was caught in the handle knot as the handle was twisted around and excess cord was wound around it during the noose tightening process.



Also, the strangulation caused no internal damage to the throat.IMO this was because the strangulation was slow and gradual. It was slow and gradual I believe because it was carried out over a period of about an hour prior to her death because of pedophiles using repeated mini-stangulations during a session of sexual abuse,



I think she was strangled lying face down not only because the knot is at the back of her neck, but because her clothing was urine-stained in the crotch and in the front. I believe that happened at the time she died, as the bladder is known to void any contents at the time of death as the muscles relax. A victim of strangling does not completely empty their bladder at the time of death. However a person who experiences a moment of great terror can completely empty their bladder, as for instance a child who might have witnessed a small animal they were playing with, being taken and slaughtered in front of them.



The only way her clothes could have the urine stains where they do is if she was on her stomach when the urine came out. If she was standing, it would have run out and down her leg, not soaked up into the front of her clothes as well as the crotch.Not so, if she had been kneeling over on all fours it would have run down the fronts of her legs.



The pull handle, imo, was the result of an inexperienced person trying to stage a crime without knowing what a real garotte and crime scene should look like, and using all the rest of the cord they had left.The handle was not a pull handle, more of a wind handle and constructed by an experienced person who knew how to construct a knot that would stay in place and not slip as the handle was twisted around to wind up the excess cord and cause the noose to tighten around JonBenet's neck, IMO



Absolutely Meyer described it as a double knot. I don't know where you got the idea that NO ONE has ever said the knots on JonBenet weren't slip knots.So Meyer was not an expert on naming knots. He described it incorrectly.

[rashomon]

The significance of the strangulation being the cause of death is that it makes this a first degree murder, instead of second degree. I'm not sure how you classify murders in Germany, but in the US a first degree murder is intentional and premeditated and, depending on the state, can carry the death penalty. If she had died of the head wound, then was strangled just for show, the defense attorney could argue that it was an accident.
It's the same in Germany. First degree murder has to be premeditated and intentional.
Very difficult question if the strangulation as the cause of death would classify as a first degree murder in the Ramsey case. For any defense attorney worth his salt would argue that the Ramseys thought JB was already dead when they put the cord around her neck. And since you can't murder a dead person, and no prosecutor in the world would be able to prove what the Ramseys really thought, they would not have gotten first-degree murder imo.
They would probably have been charged with second-degree murder (rage attack) followed obstruction of justice, and a clever defense attorney might even be able to convince a jury that it was 'only' manslaughter.

[aussiesheila]

Agreed. If she had been restrained there would definitely be evidence of that. Especially if she was suspended..she would have red grooves around her wrists from the pressure, but she had none. So the only reasonable conclusion is that she was definitely not suspended. And if she was restrained at all, she was not conscious or she would have fought the restraints leaving physical evidence. Btw rigormortis takes a while to set in. SHe could have died with her hands next to her body then someone positioned them over her head before rigor set in.I know you are the medical expert elvis, so I shouldn't be arguing with you on this point but I will anyway.

It is my belief that JonBenet was made to stand on a chair and had her arms tied and hooked up to a point overhead so that they were outstretched over her head in such a way that they were fully straightened but not actually taking any body weight. I also think JonBenet had been dosed up with a drug to render her subdued and compliant as well as having just been made to witness a small animal killed in front of her, that she had been subjected to this treatment before and experience had taught her it was useless to struggle and that she was stunned with the stungun when she did show signs of beginning to struggle.

So I don't agree with you that there would have been physical evidence of a struggle on her wrists especially with the protection given by the sleeves of her shirt.

[aussiesheila]

Yes those things are out there. But to the best of proof of the toxicology report they were not in her. Unless that is something that would be placed into evidence that has been witheld from the public as credible information there was no drug or natural substance listed.Although the coroner did not find any drugs in her system that does not necessarily mean that there were none present. It just means that the drugs he tested for were not present. But what about an uncommon drug that he might not have thought to test for? Pedophiles are cunning enough to use an unusual drug, one not likely to be tested for and that is exactly what I think they did.



Besides Burke said that she was awake and helped carry in presents and climbed the stairs herself to go to bed. He said that until after having been with his mom and dad again. Then he might have been mistaken.I don't know where this bit of information about Burke saying JonBenet was awake came from. The police interview of Burke has not been released, neither have the Grand Jury proceedings. So I don't understand how people can claim they know what Burke's evidence was. This isn't yet another gem of misinformation dreamed up by Steve Thomas is it?

[aussiesheila]

From someone's post on Websleuths (forensic evidence thread):

"More importantly, the brain was swollen so much that it pressed flat against the skull. That takes time, a lot of it. 20 to 60 minutes, in fact. Werner Spitz, Tom Henry, Ron Wright and Henry Lee all say so."I'm pretty sure that was one of SuperDave's posts, rashomon. This statement of his is wrong. The brain was not swollen. He isn't an expert you know, you shouldn't quote him as though he is.

[elvislives]

Elvislives and Watson:
The autopsy also mentions "a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemishphere".

So we have the amount of blood (7-8cc) inside her skull, then there was the extensive area of scalp hemorrrhage measuring 7x4 inches and the thin film of subarachnoid bleeding overlying the entire right cerebral hemoshphere.
What exactly is 'subarachnoid' bleeding?

In addition there was a "large area of contusion" measuring 8x1.75 inches. Doesn't it take some time for a contusion to form?

All this doesn't give the impression as if there was only little blood in JB's brain.

From someone's post on Websleuths (forensic evidence thread):

"More importantly, the brain was swollen so much that it pressed flat against the skull. That takes time, a lot of it. 20 to 60 minutes, in fact. Werner Spitz, Tom Henry, Ron Wright and Henry Lee all say so."

First off, subarachnoid bleeding is simply bleeding into the subarachnoid space. Basically, there are 3 layers of tissue--the pia, the arachnoid, and the dura....and subarachnoid bleeding means that blood got trapped between the pia and the arachnoid layers (this space is usually filled with cerebral spinal fluid)

Doesn't it take some time for a contusion to form?
The answer to this is no. A contusion is the result of blood that has no where to escape...in other words, internal blood vessels were injured or severed and therefore bleed, but the external covering (skin) was left intact...so instead of bleeding out, a contusion forms. This would happen immediately after the vessel was injured and would continue (absent any medical intervention) until the blood began to coagulate or the patient dies. Here is an experiment you can try: take a hammer and smash your finger very hard (use the blunt end of the hammer so as not to break the skin)--then see how long it takes for a contusion to form...if you break blood vessels, it happens immediately, I guarantee you wont have to wait for 20-60 minutes. If you are in doubt, give it a try.

"More importantly, the brain was swollen so much that it pressed flat against the skull. That takes time, a lot of it. 20 to 60 minutes, in fact. Werner Spitz, Tom Henry, Ron Wright and Henry Lee all say so."[/QUOTE]

I would LOVE to see a link where any ME says that it takes 20-60 minutes for the brain to swell. Do a medline search on subarachnoid bleeding and you will find that intracrainial pressure increase is IMMEDIATE. Also if you look at the autopsy photos it is clear that her swelling was minimal...it wasnt even noticed by the coroner until they opened the skull for the internal exam.

Rash: I know that the wording of the autopsy may sound like there was a lot of blood to you, but all I can tell you is that a head wound of this magnitude would produce PINTS and PINTS of blood. I don't know if you have a connection at your local hospital, but if so go look at some autopsy reports of people who died of head trauma. You will be shocked at how much bleeding they have in the brain....and their autopsy photos will reveal a head that looks almost alien due to so much swelling. JB had very little bleeding relative to her injuries.

[rashomon]

I'm pretty sure that was one of SuperDave's posts, rashomon. This statement of his is wrong. The brain was not swollen. He isn't an expert you know, you shouldn't quote him as though he is.
Aussiesheila:
yes, it was. I know SD is no medical expert (nor has he ever claimed to be), but he is a very thorough poster who has done a lot of reserach on the case.

This leaves Werner Spitz, Tom Henry, Ron Wright and Henry Lee (all of them experts) who said that brain swelling takes 20 to 60 minutes. What do we make of their statements?

Elvislives: thanks for the medical info.
But why then did the above mentioned experts say that brain swelling takes 20 to 60 minutes?

[Louisadelmar]

[...]]

I would LOVE to see a link where any ME says that it takes 20-60 minutes for the brain to swell. Do a medline search on subarachnoid bleeding and you will find that intracrainial pressure increase is IMMEDIATE. Also if you look at the autopsy photos it is clear that her swelling was minimal...it wasnt even noticed by the coroner until they opened the skull for the internal exam.

[...].

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm
Pathologist: No doubt of JonBenet sex assault
Girl was hit on head before she was strangled, expert says
By Charlie Brennan
%%byline%%By Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer


BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.
Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.
''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.
"She's had vaginal penetration.''
Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.
The experts reviewed the autopsy report released Monday by a judge's order.
"I think there's some kind of sexual assault,'' said Dr. Robert Kirschner, formerly deputy chief medical examiner in Cook County, Ill. He is now a clinical associate in department of pathology and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
"There is evidence of acute injury'' in the vaginal area, Kirschner said.
Wright, whose best-known case as Broward Medical Examiner was the unsolved abduction and murder of 6-year-old Adam Walsh in Hollywood, Fla., was surprised to hear some experts are uncertain whether Boulder's slain beauty princess was sexually assaulted.
"Somebody's injured her vagina,'' said Wright. "And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?''
Wright said the presence of a small amount of food in JonBenet's small intestine -- possibly pineapple fragments -- indicates she died well after her final meal, most likely late at night or early in the morning.
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.''
Wright noted that the presence of "birefringent (shiny) foreign material'' in JonBenet's vaginal tract could be consistent with someone penetrating her while wearing rubber gloves.
That, combined with prior disclosures that someone appeared to wipe down the body, is inconsistent with a typical child sex offender.
"It's not the typical pattern of somebody who decides they like having sex with young girls,'' said Wright.
"This looks like something different. If you're into having sex with kids, it's usually not so subtle.''
Wright was particularly intrigued by the girl's empty bladder. Evacuation of the bladder often occurs at the time of death, he said, but it's usually only partial.
Complete emptying of the bladder, he said, would be consistent with her having done so intentionally while awake, near the time of the crime, or a bed-wetting.
July 16, 1997

[elvislives]

Aussiesheila:
yes, it was. I know SD is no medical expert (nor has he ever claimed to be), but he is a very thorough poster who has done a lot of reserach on the case.

This leaves Werner Spitz, Tom Henry, Ron Wright and Henry Lee (all of them experts) who said that brain swelling takes 20 to 60 minutes. What do we make of their statements?

Elvislives: thanks for the medical info.
But why then did the above mentioned experts say that brain swelling takes 20 to 60 minutes?

I have never heard the above experts make that statement and would love to see a link with their explanation. I googled, but couldnt find it. Can you provide a link?

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=Louisadelmar;8790176]http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm
Pathologist: No doubt of JonBenet sex assault
Girl was hit on head before she was strangled, expert says
By Charlie Brennan
%%byline%%By Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer

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.''

Thanks for posting this Louisadelmar. I have no idea why this md would say it took 20-60 minutes between the skull fracture and strangulation. That makes no sense to me at all. I agree completely that she was alive when strangled, but totally disagree with his other statement. Bleeding and swelling do not take a while to happen. Whenever a blood vessel is damaged, bleeding is immediate. I would love to debate with this doctor. Again if you doubt that bleeding is immediate, take a knife and cut your hand...it wont take 20-60 minutes to bleed.

[elvislives]

Excerpt from Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Synonyms, Key Words, and Related Terms: SAH, intracranial hemorrhage, hemorrhagic stroke, subarachnoid bleeding, subarachnoid space, head trauma, intracranial aneurysms, benign perimesencephalic hemorrhage, nontraumatic SAH, traumatic SAH, aneurysmal SAH

Please click here to view the full topic text: Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Background: Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is bleeding into the subarachnoid space around the brain and spinal cord. This space is normally filled with clear, colorless cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The most common causes of SAH are head trauma and rupture of an intracranial aneurysm. Atraumatic SAH accompanied by sudden onset of neurologic symptoms has been termed hemorrhagic stroke. Radiologic evaluation is essential in determining the prognosis and treatment of SAH. Radiologic interventional procedures have an increasingly important role in the management of this condition.
For excellent patient education resources, visit eMedicine's Brain and Nervous System Center and Stroke Center. Also, see eMedicine's patient education articles Aneurysm, Brain; Stroke; and Spinal Tap.



Pathophysiology: Three layers of meninges surround the brain and spinal cord: the pia mater, the arachnoid, and dura mater. The subarachnoid space exists between the pia mater and arachnoid. It is normally filled with clear, colorless CSF and contains fine trabeculae of connective tissue. Distal to the cavernous sinus, the internal carotid arteries and branches are in this space. Hemorrhage into the subarachnoid space causes immediate elevation of intracranial pressure, decreasing cerebral perfusion and often results in a transient loss of consciousness. Delayed effects of SAH include vasospasm, which can lead to brain infarctions and communicating hydrocephalus.

Causes of SAH

Common causes of SAH include the following:


Head trauma

Intracranial aneurysms

Benign perimesencephalic hemorrhage
Less frequent causes of SAH include the following:


Arteriovenous malformation (AVM)

Arterial dissection

Extension from intracerebral hemorrhage

Iatrogenic during surgery or intervention

Arteriovenous fistulae

Meningitis

Neoplasm
Rupture of a saccular intracranial aneurysm causes approximately 80% of nontraumatic SAH. Intracranial aneurysms develop predominantly at vessel bifurcation or branching points. Saccular aneurysms are acquired lesions that rarely present before the third decade of life. Theories of pathogenesis include underlying congenital weakness in the arterial wall, degenerative weakening in the arterial wall from atherosclerosis, and stress of arterial pulsations on the arterial wall at turning or branching points. It is likely that a combination of these factors are involved in the formation of intracranial aneurysms.

Other problems to consider

Traumatic SAH must be distinguished from spontaneous SAH. Cerebral angiography may sometimes be avoided if it can be confidently established that the hemorrhage is caused by trauma. This distinction can be difficult to make because the traumatic event may not have been witnessed, and the patient may be unable to provide a reliable history. Frequently, this question arises: "Did this patient lose consciousness while driving because of spontaneous SAH and subsequently crash his car, or did the patient sustain head injury from the motor vehicle accident causing traumatic SAH?" When in doubt, it is usually best to obtain a cerebral angiogram to exclude an underlying aneurysm or vascular malformation. Such angiograms can sometimes be limited to the location of the hemorrhage, if no pathology is detected.

I will try and find a link that supports the widely held theory that bleeding is immediate upon vessel injury. I seriously thought that was common sense and cannot believe that an md or even a layperson for that matter would think it takes 20-60 minutes for bleeding to occur!!!!:confused:

[Ames]

[QUOTE=Louisadelmar;8790176]http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm
Pathologist: No doubt of JonBenet sex assault
Girl was hit on head before she was strangled, expert says
By Charlie Brennan
%%byline%%By Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer

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.''

Thanks for posting this Louisadelmar. I have no idea why this md would say it took 20-60 minutes between the skull fracture and strangulation. That makes no sense to me at all. I agree completely that she was alive when strangled, but totally disagree with his other statement. Bleeding and swelling do not take a while to happen. Whenever a blood vessel is damaged, bleeding is immediate. I would love to debate with this doctor. Again if you doubt that bleeding is immediate, take a knife and cut your hand...it wont take 20-60 minutes to bleed.

Dr. Cyril Wecht is one of the most famous ME in the country. I believe that since he was there, and actually saw JB's body, he probably knows a little bit more about this than we all do. Some of the autopsy report may have not even been released to the public...who knows. I believe that JB's autopsy report was based on his findings, and he didn't say which came first.

Cyril Wecht was involved in the evaluation of the forensic evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case, the Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald case, the Dr. Stephen Scher case, the Elvis Presley cause of death, the JFK cause of death.....just to name a few.

[Louisadelmar]

Don't forget the Alien Autopsy!

[Athena]

[QUOTE=elvislives;8790180]

Dr. Cyril Wecht is one of the most famous ME in the country. I believe that since he was there, and actually saw JB's body, he probably knows a little bit more about this than we all do. Some of the autopsy report may have not even been released to the public...who knows. I believe that JB's autopsy report was based on his findings, and he didn't say which came first.

Cyril Wecht was involved in the evaluation of the forensic evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case, the Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald case, the Dr. Stephen Scher case, the Elvis Presley cause of death, the JFK cause of death.....just to name a few.

The problem is that he DID NOT see JBR's body nor was he there. He viewed photos.

[Athena]

Don't forget the Alien Autopsy!

And don't forget JFK's assasination - which he consistently backpedals from.

[rashomon]

And don't forget JFK's assasination - which he consistently backpedals from.
I'm a bit confused now, folks: I thought the discussion was about Dr. Ronald Wright (see Louisadelmar's post), and not about Dr. Cyril Wecht (?).

[LindaA]

Rash, I believe you are correct.

[Louisadelmar]

Dr. Cyril Wecht is one of the most famous ME in the country. I believe that since he was there, and actually saw JB's body, he probably knows a little bit more about this than we all do. Some of the autopsy report may have not even been released to the public...who knows. I believe that JB's autopsy report was based on his findings, and he didn't say which came first.

Cyril Wecht was involved in the evaluation of the forensic evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey case, the Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald case, the Dr. Stephen Scher case, the Elvis Presley cause of death, the JFK cause of death.....just to name a few.

Think it veered off course here.

[elvislives]

I'm a bit confused now, folks: I thought the discussion was about Dr. Ronald Wright (see Louisadelmar's post), and not about Dr. Cyril Wecht (?).

You are right. I believe Cyril Wecht has weighed in that he believes the head injury was last. He's got that weird erotic asphixia theory,

[watson]

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm
Pathologist: No doubt of JonBenet sex assault
Girl was hit on head before she was strangled, expert says
By Charlie Brennan
%%byline%%By Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer


BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.
Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.
''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.
"She's had vaginal penetration.''
Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.
The experts reviewed the autopsy report released Monday by a judge's order.
"I think there's some kind of sexual assault,'' said Dr. Robert Kirschner, formerly deputy chief medical examiner in Cook County, Ill. He is now a clinical associate in department of pathology and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
"There is evidence of acute injury'' in the vaginal area, Kirschner said.
Wright, whose best-known case as Broward Medical Examiner was the unsolved abduction and murder of 6-year-old Adam Walsh in Hollywood, Fla., was surprised to hear some experts are uncertain whether Boulder's slain beauty princess was sexually assaulted.
"Somebody's injured her vagina,'' said Wright. "And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?''
Wright said the presence of a small amount of food in JonBenet's small intestine -- possibly pineapple fragments -- indicates she died well after her final meal, most likely late at night or early in the morning.
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.''
Wright noted that the presence of "birefringent (shiny) foreign material'' in JonBenet's vaginal tract could be consistent with someone penetrating her while wearing rubber gloves.
That, combined with prior disclosures that someone appeared to wipe down the body, is inconsistent with a typical child sex offender.
"It's not the typical pattern of somebody who decides they like having sex with young girls,'' said Wright.
"This looks like something different. If you're into having sex with kids, it's usually not so subtle.''
Wright was particularly intrigued by the girl's empty bladder. Evacuation of the bladder often occurs at the time of death, he said, but it's usually only partial.
Complete emptying of the bladder, he said, would be consistent with her having done so intentionally while awake, near the time of the crime, or a bed-wetting.
July 16, 1997
**************************************************
Lou....My original question (top of the thread) was if anyone had info on a ME expert who examined the evidence and was willing to say with medical certainty the head blow came first and the strangling second, thanks for responding with the info on Dr. Wright and above article from Rocky Mtn. News. I look forward to reseaching it and any other possible expert ME statements saying what seems to have become the minority view over the years that the head blow came first. Since it would be nice to have settled the order of what happened and where the majority of expert medical opinion actually stands. Some possible problems that I see with Dr. Wrights statement right off..........
1.) It's very old (prior to July 16, 1997) according to the time line this was just 2 days after more of the then still sealed autopsy report was released by the judge on July 14, 1997, the full report was not released until 8-13-97, so Dr. Wright was working on partial info here.
2.) It's not 'his' statement, it's the statement of Charlie Brennan a reporter for the News of what Brennan says Wright said (I'm not saying Brennan lied only that technically it's not Wright's statement only a qoute from a reporter so Wright is not putting his professional reputation or career on the line by making it).
3.) The Rocky News came to Wright and no doubt paid him for his impressions of a partial report he could only be seeing for the first time (since it had just been released the day before) giving him only hours to look at it and give his impressions by telephone (since Wright was in Miami).
Still thanks for the info and I'll do by best to find out wht else I can about it.

[watson]

[QUOTE=rashomon

Have you read D. England's analysis of the garrote?
******************************************
No I haven't but I will. Thanks for the info. I'd like to read any analysis or forensics on the garotte since there is so little forensic evidence in the basic case facts on the garotte and knots which is afterall the murder weapon in this case.

[watson]

Thanks again on the info about a real life pathologist who has said the head blow came first and strangling second, rather than the other way round.
Dr. Ronald C. Wright went to college and medical school in Missouri, practiced and got experience in St. Louis and Vermont before moving to Florida, he is currently an assoc. professor at University of Miami medical school, and was at the time of his July 1997 statement to the Rocky Mountain news about the JBR case (apparently his only statement on the case I could find). He holds himself out as a consulting ME expert for hire. Asside from his MD degree he has a JD (Law) degree from Florida, and is a board certified pathologist. Dispite what anyone wants to say about LA, New York or Ivy league medical degrees and experience over other ones, Wright has the credentials of a qualified pathologist, and medical professor. I can't account for his statements to the Rocky Mountain News back in July 1997 that seems to fly in the face of the medical evidence of the autopsy report, except to say that his 1997 statement was made only 1 day after most of the report was released, and 1 month before it was released in full, and he certainly didn't have any time for study before giving his opinion to Rocky Mtn. News.
It would be REALLY interesting to see if he is still of the same opinion now in 2006, with the 'full' report long out, and all these years later to examine and consider. I could not find any web articles or opinions by him on the case except the 1 he was asked to do with the partial report just released from the judge for a paper interview back in July 1997. He has a website and email address at www.rkwrightmd.com.

[bullmoose]

My impression of Dr. Wright is that he was just a hired gun, asked to give an opinion based on only a partial report. Considering how overwhelmingly negative the reporting was at that time, it surprizes me not at all and impresses me equally. I too would like to see if he still holds to that view.

[watson]

Rash..........I just read Delmar Englands analysis of the handle and knots as you suggested. (It is 'Delmar' England not 'Doctor' England). I think I'd seen it before once long ago. Anyway this private citizen who describes himself as 'knowing the physics involved, and being long schooled in ropes, knots etc.)' gives a long personal analysis of the knots and handle. In para 16 and 19 he correctly identifys the neck knot and loop as looped wrapped slip knot type, and notes how this would explain the pull handle para 23, 24 (which is what the original evidence first and most clearly indicates) but then he rejects this. Why, is sort of unclear, he gives reasons of the garrote being 'bulit' on her neck because of the hair in it para 25 but then later in para 34 admits this doesn't have to be so, he says that if it was a slip knot noose like it looks like then the slip knot at the back of the neck would leave the skin surface and not make a complete circular mark (this is clearly not true if the killer held the knot and the back of the victims neck with one hand while he pulled with the other as would be necessary), he last says that if the handle was a pull (or rip cord) handle to zip through the slip knot and zip the loop down to strangling tight, the killers elbow would have to be bent at 90 degrees at the end of the pull and the end wouldn't end up 17" from the neck loop. WHY??? he says this I can't imagine, the only way a human arm CAN work while pulling something is to bend 90 degrees at the elbow (pull out your desk drawer all the way, isn't your elbow bent 90 degrees?). Also he's DEAD wrong of the 17" distance, if the killer with his zip pull handle started with it a few inches behind the victims head, held her stationary with his left hand and pulled with his right, his fully contracted right arm would end up with the right hand just about exactley 17" from the loop and the vicims head unless the killer has an arm length different from all other humans (with your left arm mostly fully extended and you right hand mostly pulled back from it (with elbow bent at c.90 or more degrees) what is the distance between your right hand and left wrist?). For these really mixed up reasons he disregards the basic evidence and his first impressions of a slip knot loop with pull handle and contrives a really far fetched but barely possible scenario of a face down unconscious victim, a strangling, with the string then removed, then retied a second time (In the same furrow) as staging, the handle added as further un-needed staging etc. etc.
I do agree however on his statement about the handle itself, the killers series of looped wrapped knots on it are not necessary to make a pull handle better, nor do they make the handle more 'mechanically efficent' IMO it's just ideosincracy of the killer..

[Coloradokares]

Although the coroner did not find any drugs in her system that does not necessarily mean that there were none present. It just means that the drugs he tested for were not present. But what about an uncommon drug that he might not have thought to test for? Pedophiles are cunning enough to use an unusual drug, one not likely to be tested for and that is exactly what I think they did.



I don't know where this bit of information about Burke saying JonBenet was awake came from. The police interview of Burke has not been released, neither have the Grand Jury proceedings. So I don't understand how people can claim they know what Burke's evidence was. This isn't yet another gem of misinformation dreamed up by Steve Thomas is it?


It is possible that they didn't test for a more unusual drug or substance. However in this case I think they'd of run a pretty far and wide screen.

[nuisanceposter]

Mmmkay...I gotta ask. What drug is there that's a pedophile's preference - one that renders a child incapable of fighting off molesters who want to have an orgy with her, but allows her to stand on a chair during the orgy with her hands restrained over her head, but doesn't leave her so stoned that she's able to remain standing the entire time, without letting her weight rest on the restraints that hold her hands up?

Due to the molestation aspect, I'd be willing to bet the tests conducted on JonBenet were looking for just such a drug. Nothing like that was found in her system.

[elvislives]

My impression of Dr. Wright is that he was just a hired gun, asked to give an opinion based on only a partial report. Considering how overwhelmingly negative the reporting was at that time, it surprizes me not at all and impresses me equally. I too would like to see if he still holds to that view.

I've looked into this guy too and I think he just didn't have all the facts yet. Watson is right that his comments were based on the portion of the autopsy report that was available at the time. Since the release of the full autopsy report, I have NEVER heard a single credible medical expert say that there was any significant time frame between the bash and the strangulation. In fact, almost all say that the strangulation was definitely first, and the head wound second. The ones in the minority say that the head wound and strangulation were simultaneous or that the head wound was first, then immediately followed by the strangulation.

[andU]

Mmmkay...I gotta ask. What drug is there that's a pedophile's preference - one that renders a child incapable of fighting off molesters who want to have an orgy with her, but allows her to stand on a chair during the orgy with her hands restrained over her head, but doesn't leave her so stoned that she's able to remain standing the entire time, without letting her weight rest on the restraints that hold her hands up?

Due to the molestation aspect, I'd be willing to bet the tests conducted on JonBenet were looking for just such a drug. Nothing like that was found in her system.

Once again, I will ask: What about non-convention or OTC herbs, roots, etc.? Would they show up or be tested for? Couldn't they have been used? There are several that are used for sleeplessness and 'calming' effects....

[LindaA]

AndU, earlier in one of the other threads we discussed the possible so-called date-rape drugs, some of which do not show up in tests. I'm no expert on drugs, but I do know that you have to test for every substance individually or in groups (i.e. opiates). Unless something specific is tested for, it will not be detected. Also, if I'm not mistaken, one sets the level at whcih any substance is reported as positive. If the level were set higher than the amount in a person's system, a negative would be reported by the test. I believe that is how it works now, but 10 years ago it was a bit less precise.

[LadyFisher]

Once again, I will ask: What about non-convention or OTC herbs, roots, etc.? Would they show up or be tested for? Couldn't they have been used? There are several that are used for sleeplessness and 'calming' effects....

I don't know about any drugs that might possibly have been used....but, there are those marks on JB's body that appear to be from a stun gun, there is no other logical explanation ever given for them....even the ME and Colorado FBI stated they could very well have come from a stun gun!

[elvislives]

. I believe that is how it works now, but 10 years ago it was a bit less precise.

Keep in mind that samples of JB's blood and body fluids would be preserved to this day. I'm not too impressed with the investigation in this case, but it is routine to maintain samples and to retest them when new diagnostic technologies become available. I gotta believe (maybe wishful thinking) that the investigators in this case would continue to test and retest.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=watson;8789856]

BTW, I've put yours and Elvislives' comments on the lack of 'organization' of the hemorrhage over on Forums for Justice, where there are also quite a few posters with medical knowledge. I' going to put a link here to whatever answers I'm going to get from them.

This is a pivotal issue, and has got be be cleared up.
For it might actually provide a very specific info about the time line of events.

Hey Rash, I know you are a member of several different boards where this case is discussed and you seem to be intelligent and logical. I am only hooked up with this board so maybe you can share some knowledge with me. Have you been able to find anyone with a credible theory as to how it would be physiologically possible for the head wound to have come anywhere longer than just a few minutes before the strangulation? I work at a university hospital and these high profile forensic cases are argued to death. Everyone I work with (including the pathologists) believe that the strangulation was first OR came immediately after the head blow (I wont bore you with all the medical jargon) .
I agree with you that this is a pivotal point but for some reason we seem to go round and round on this board and solve nothing.
I am in the minority at work in that I still suspect the Rs based on their behaviour. I am well aware that behaviour is not a hard science, but can't get past it. So if you can share any theories that others have put forth that are medically possilbe, can you please post? I'm a big believer that two heads are better than one and maybe someone out there has a theory thats viable. Thanks in advance for any info.

[rashomon]

Asked and aswered.
We do know the body found with hands over her head, both wrists bound tightly.
Shill: Wrists bound tightly? One wrist ligature had already come off, and the other was tied so loosely on top of her sleeve that pulling at one end of the shoe-lace type bow would easily have undone the ligature.
This casts a huge doubt on John Ramseys allegation that JB's wrists were 'bound tightly'.

And as for JB's hands being "over her head": even that is to be doubted.
For in this picture, JB's right arm is actually bent at the elbow (this is from the Lou Smit presentation and shows JB's body after it had been carried up and put on the living room carpet):
Scroll to the fifth picture down:

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

Could the well-known artist rendition (first picture) have gotten it wrong?

For JB was already in rigor mortis when the real picture was taken, and when Coroner Dr. Meyer spoke of the victim lying on her back with arms extended over her head, maybe her arms (bent at the elbows) stuck up in the air?

[rashomon]

Rash..........I just read Delmar Englands analysis of the handle and knots as you suggested. (It is 'Delmar' England not 'Doctor' England). I think I'd seen it before once long ago. Anyway this private citizen who describes himself as 'knowing the physics involved, and being long schooled in ropes, knots etc.)' gives a long personal analysis of the knots and handle. In para 16 and 19 he correctly identifys the neck knot and loop as looped wrapped slip knot type, and notes how this would explain the pull handle para 23, 24 (which is what the original evidence first and most clearly indicates) but then he rejects this. Why, is sort of unclear, he gives reasons of the garrote being 'bulit' on her neck because of the hair in it para 25 but then later in para 34 admits this doesn't have to be so, he says that if it was a slip knot noose like it looks like then the slip knot at the back of the neck would leave the skin surface and not make a complete circular mark (this is clearly not true if the killer held the knot and the back of the victims neck with one hand while he pulled with the other as would be necessary), he last says that if the handle was a pull (or rip cord) handle to zip through the slip knot and zip the loop down to strangling tight, the killers elbow would have to be bent at 90 degrees at the end of the pull and the end wouldn't end up 17" from the neck loop. WHY??? he says this I can't imagine, the only way a human arm CAN work while pulling something is to bend 90 degrees at the elbow (pull out your desk drawer all the way, isn't your elbow bent 90 degrees?). Also he's DEAD wrong of the 17" distance, if the killer with his zip pull handle started with it a few inches behind the victims head, held her stationary with his left hand and pulled with his right, his fully contracted right arm would end up with the right hand just about exactley 17" from the loop and the vicims head unless the killer has an arm length different from all other humans (with your left arm mostly fully extended and you right hand mostly pulled back from it (with elbow bent at c.90 or more degrees) what is the distance between your right hand and left wrist?). For these really mixed up reasons he disregards the basic evidence and his first impressions of a slip knot loop with pull handle and contrives a really far fetched but barely possible scenario of a face down unconscious victim, a strangling, with the string then removed, then retied a second time (In the same furrow) as staging, the handle added as further un-needed staging etc. etc.

I do agree however on his statement about the handle itself, the killers series of looped wrapped knots on it are not necessary to make a pull handle better, nor do they make the handle more 'mechanically efficent' IMO it's just ideosincracy of the killer.
But don't those multiple and useless loops just scream that it is a staged scene, Watson?

I terms of your elaboration about Delmar England analysis of the garrote:
D. England is also a poster on FFJ (poster name "EasyWriter").
I only know very little about ropes and knots, which is why I'd like to put your post over there and ask Delmar what he has to say about it. But I will only do so if it is okay with you.

[LindaA]

I never thought of that, Rash. It might explain why JR carried her so far from his body when he brought her upstairs. Not only was she stiff, but her arms would have been straight out in front of her and in his face.

[andU]

Shill: Wrists bound tightly? One wrist ligature had already come off, and the other was tied so loosely on top of her sleeve that pulling at one end of the shoe-lace type bow would easily have undone the ligature.
This casts a huge doubt on John Ramseys allegation that JB's wrists were 'bound tightly'.

And as for JB's hands being "over her head": even that is to be doubted.
For in this picture, JB's right arm is actually bent at the elbow (this is from the Lou Smit presentation and shows JB's body after it had been carried up and put on the living room carpet):
Scroll to the fifth picture down:

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

Could the well-known artist rendition (first picture) have gotten it wrong?

For JB was already in rigor mortis when the real picture was taken, and when Coroner Dr. Meyer spoke of the victim lying on her back with arms extended over her head, maybe her arms (bent at the elbows) stuck up in the air?

They were bent over her head also... in the fifth photo she had been rolled over on her side, arms were still in the same position, IMO

[rashomon]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8790112]

Hey Rash, I know you are a member of several different boards where this case is discussed and you seem to be intelligent and logical. I am only hooked up with this board so maybe you can share some knowledge with me. Have you been able to find anyone with a credible theory as to how it would be physiologically possible for the head wound to have come anywhere longer than just a few minutes before the strangulation? I work at a university hospital and these high profile forensic cases are argued to death. Everyone I work with (including the pathologists) believe that the strangulation was first OR came immediately after the head blow (I wont bore you with all the medical jargon) .
I agree with you that this is a pivotal point but for some reason we seem to go round and round on this board and solve nothing.
I am in the minority at work in that I still suspect the Rs based on their behaviour. I am well aware that behaviour is not a hard science, but can't get past it. So if you can share any theories that others have put forth that are medically possilbe, can you please post? I'm a big believer that two heads are better than one and maybe someone out there has a theory thats viable. Thanks in advance for any info.
Elvislives, this case can indeed drive posters crazy because one so often gets the feeling of having to start all over again (I think you call this being 'back to square one' in the English language).

This is a quote from the # 85 post on this thread (bold type mine):

The experts reviewed the autopsy report released Monday by a judge's order.
"I think there's some kind of sexual assault,'' said Dr. Robert Kirschner, formerly deputy chief medical examiner in Cook County, Ill. He is now a clinical associate in department of pathology and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
"There is evidence of acute injury'' in the vaginal area, Kirschner said.
Wright, whose best-known case as Broward Medical Examiner was the unsolved abduction and murder of 6-year-old Adam Walsh in Hollywood, Fla., was surprised to hear some experts are uncertain whether Boulder's slain beauty princess was sexually assaulted.
"Somebody's injured her vagina,'' said Wright. "And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?''
Wright said the presence of a small amount of food in JonBenet's small intestine -- possibly pineapple fragments -- indicates she died well after her final meal, most likely late at night or early in the morning.
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.''

Both Kirschner and Wright state that the head blow had to have come first, their reasoning being that
- bleeding and brain swelling could not have happened if JB had already been dead from strangulation.

- JB was still alive when strangled (petechial hemorrhaging, etc.)

So their time line is: 1) head blow 2) strangulation.

And it seems that even the world-famous Dr. Henry Lee (!) is of the same opinion, but I can't find the post on Websleuths right now where he is quoted.

That JB may (finally) have died from strangulation does not necessarily imply that the strangulation came first. Quite the contrary imo.

[Re the bleeding in JB's brain, with some of the bleeding not being 'organized']:

Here is a link to the discussion about your post on FFJ: (starting with my # 446 post):

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7760&page=38&pp=12

Just a thought: suppose JonBenet was instantly put in a deep coma from the head blow, with barely a pulse anymore, in short: she was nearing death.
And maybe this is why less bleeding was found in her brain than would normally have been there after a head blow?
Maybe JonBenet was already 'more dead than alive' after the head bash, to a degree where her bodily functions were already so weak that they failed to 'organize' (= clot) some of the blood in her brain?

Could this have been possible from a medical point of view?

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=elvislives;8791695]
Elvislives, this case can indeed drive posters crazy because one so often gets the feeling of having to start all over again (I think you call this being 'back to square one' in the English language).

This is a quote from the # 85 post on this thread (bold type mine):



Both Kirschner and Wright state that the head blow had to have come first, their reasoning being that
- bleeding and brain swelling could not have happened if JB had already been dead from strangulation.

- JB was still alive when strangled (petechial hemorrhaging, etc.)

So their time line is: 1) head blow 2) strangulation.

And it seems that even the world-famous Dr. Henry Lee (!) is of the same opinion, but I can't find the post on Websleuths right now where he is quoted.

That JB may (finally) have died from strangulation does not necessarily imply that the strangulation came first. Quite the contrary imo.

[Re the bleeding in JB's brain, with some of the bleeding not being 'organized']:

Here is a link to the discussion about your post on FFJ: (starting with my # 446 post):

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7760&page=38&pp=12

Just a thought: suppose JonBenet was instantly put in a deep coma from the head blow, with barely a pulse anymore, in short: she was nearing death.
And maybe this is why less bleeding was found in her brain than would normally have been there after a head blow?
Maybe JonBenet was already 'more dead than alive' after the head bash, to a degree where her bodily functions were already so weak that they failed to 'organize' (= clot) some of the blood in her brain?

Could this have been possible from a medical point of view?

First off, I dont dispute that the head blow could have come before the strangulation...I just question the time in between injuries. And I have done some research on the two experts mentioned above and found that their comments were made the day after the partial autopsy report was made public. I read that report at the time too and tho I cant remember the specifics, I concluded that Patsy was the killer. The full autopsy report tells another story, as do the autopsy photos. e.g. I dont think anyone would dispute that she had lost consciousness, based on the huge crack and hole in her skull, yet he says she 'may' have lost consciousness. I don;t doubt his credentials or intelligence, I just think he was working off partial information and had not yet seen the autopsy photos.

Regarding Henry Lee, I have heard him speak on this and he expressed a different view, the same view held by the majority of forensic pathologists. I just googled to see if I could find something written by him, but havent yet--I'll check again later when I have some time. He has written some books, but I havent read any of them. Anyway when he discussed this crime, he was rather tight lipped about it. I'm not sure why...it was after the GJ chose not to indict, but maybe he is under some contractual obligation or something. In any case, the majority of his comments revolved around the fact that the crime scene was so horribly contaminated that a prosecution was unlikely. But when asked about the chronology of injuries, he said that it is impossible to tell from the evidence, but they occurred relatively close together in time.

So even if I give Dr Wight the benefit of all doubt and say that the head wound occurred 20-60 minutes before the strangulation, it is still hard to imagine that any parent---if they ACCIDENTALLY killed their child--it is hard to believe they could construct a kidnap theory,then garrotte the child, even if they had as long as 20 minutes to an hour. IMO if one of the Ramseys did this, it was intentional.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=elvislives;8791695]

Just a thought: suppose JonBenet was instantly put in a deep coma from the head blow, with barely a pulse anymore, in short: she was nearing death.
And maybe this is why less bleeding was found in her brain than would normally have been there after a head blow?
Maybe JonBenet was already 'more dead than alive' after the head bash, to a degree where her bodily functions were already so weak that they failed to 'organize' (= clot) some of the blood in her brain?

Could this have been possible from a medical point of view?

Usually when the body is in survival mode, the hemostatic cascade is accellerated so the clotting should come faster...an effort by the body to save itself. However, if her pulse was weak (which means her heart was beating weakly) that could account for the lack of bleeding since massive hemorrhage requires blood pressure.

Also, pulmonologists have weighed in on this and according to them, she would not have developed petechiae on her lungs unless she was breathing fairly strongly. Someone here said that she would need to be conscious in order to develop petechial hemorrhage in the lungs, but every pulmonologist and every medical text I have read disputes this.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8792266]

Usually when the body is in survival mode, the hemostatic cascade is accellerated so the clotting should come faster...an effort by the body to save itself. However, if her pulse was weak (which means her heart was beating weakly) that could account for the lack of bleeding since massive hemorrhage requires blood pressure.

Also, pulmonologists have weighed in on this and according to them, she would not have developed petechiae on her lungs unless she was breathing fairly strongly. Someone here said that she would need to be conscious in order to develop petechial hemorrhage in the lungs, but every pulmonologist and every medical text I have read disputes this.

Another thing I neglected to mention. If her carotid arteries (the main blood vessels that supply blood to the brain) had been constricted by the ligature right after the head blow...that could also account for the relatively insignificant bleeding in her brain.

[watson]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8792165]But don't those multiple and useless loops just scream that it is a staged scene, Watson?
************************************************** ****
In a word, Rashomon.....NO....There is a lot of staging in this overal crime scene, but the series of looped wrapped knots on the 'handle' are IMO as the evidence indicates not staging, they are the unique, and unintentional (as far as the crime goes) signature of the criminal. Evidence indicates the killer is a very stuck up, compulsive sociopathic individual, with grandiose and unrelastic fantasies. The series of looped wrapped knots on the handle would seem to come from this aspect, as....since he is used to making them (see all other 'knots' in this case), he wrapped and looped them while considering whether he should go through with this killing, or why in his opinion he 'had' to go on with this killing.
'Staging' is the totally fake wrist ties, which as found, would never restrain the victim, were NEVER tightened on her wrists (no ligature wrist marks), and which could be undone without un-tying (the double empty wrist 2 loops). Although there was a lot of staging this victim was in FACT murdered by asphyxiation by that string round her neck.

[rashomon]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8792266]

Usually when the body is in survival mode, the hemostatic cascade is accellerated so the clotting should come faster...an effort by the body to save itself. However, if her pulse was weak (which means her heart was beating weakly) that could account for the lack of bleeding since massive hemorrhage requires blood pressure.

Also, pulmonologists have weighed in on this and according to them, she would not have developed petechiae on her lungs unless she was breathing fairly strongly. Someone here said that she would need to be conscious in order to develop petechial hemorrhage in the lungs, but every pulmonologist and every medical text I have read disputes this.
I hope poster Athena is reading this, for it was she who said that a person would need to be 'conscious' in order to develop petechiae.
This has been disputed by FFJ posters with medical knowledge, and your post, Elvislives, only confirms these posters' opinions.
I suppose Athena confused 'conscious' with 'alive'.

Elvislives: where in the autopsy report does it say that there was petechial hemorrhage in JB's lungs?

[Louisadelmar]

Lungs: The 200 gm right lung and175 gm left lung have a normal lobar configuration. An occasional scattered subpleural petechial hemorrhage is seen on the surface of each lung. The cut sections of the lungs disclose an intact alveolar architecture with a small amount of watery fluid exuding from the cut surfaces with mildpressure. The intrapulmonary bronchi and vasculature are unremarkable. No evidence of consolidation is seen.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=elvislives;8792702]
I hope poster Athena is reading this, for it was she who said that a person would need to be 'conscious' in order to develop petechiae.
This has been disputed by FFJ posters with medical knowledge, and your post, Elvislives, only confirms these posters' opinions.
I suppose Athena confused 'conscious' with 'alive'.

Elvislives: where in the autopsy report does it say that there was petechial hemorrhage in JB's lungs?

Rash, Here it is:

>Lungs: The 200 gm right lung and 175 gm left lung have a normal lobar configuration. An occassional scattered subpleural petechial hemorrhage [/B[B]]is seen on the surface of each lung. The cut sections of the lungs disclose and intact alveolar architecture with a small amount of watery fluid exuding from the cut surfaces with mild pressure. The intrapulmonary bronchi and vasculature are unremarkable. No evidence of consolidation is seen.<

And I think Athena developed that opinion because some doctor (forget his name right now) said that. I never found another md or another source to corroborate that. I did find that md's comments on the internet, but still dont understand why he said that...it could have been a typo or misspeak...he said the patient had to be conscious in order to form petechiae, maybe he meant to say alive. Just my own specutation.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8792912]

Rash, Here it is:

>Lungs: The 200 gm right lung and 175 gm left lung have a normal lobar configuration. An occassional scattered subpleural petechial hemorrhage [/B[B]]is seen on the surface of each lung. The cut sections of the lungs disclose and intact alveolar architecture with a small amount of watery fluid exuding from the cut surfaces with mild pressure. The intrapulmonary bronchi and vasculature are unremarkable. No evidence of consolidation is seen.<

And I think Athena developed that opinion because some doctor (forget his name right now) said that. I never found another md or another source to corroborate that. I did find that md's comments on the internet, but still dont understand why he said that...it could have been a typo or misspeak...he said the patient had to be conscious in order to form petechiae, maybe he meant to say alive. Just my own specutation.

Oops, I intended to bold 'petechial hemorrhage" but you get the idea...

[shill]

8792740]But don't those multiple and useless loops just scream that it is a staged scene, Watson?
************************************************** ****
[QUOTE=watson8792740]
'Staging' is the totally fake wrist ties, which as found, would never restrain the victim, were NEVER tightened on her wrists (no ligature wrist marks), and which could be undone without un-tying (the double empty wrist 2 loops). Although there was a lot of staging this victim was in FACT murdered by asphyxiation by that string round her neck.
The "double empty wrist 2 loops" is the end result of part of the knot being pulled apart by John's attempt to undue the tightly bound wrist restraints.

[Athena]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8792912]

Rash, Here it is:

>Lungs: The 200 gm right lung and 175 gm left lung have a normal lobar configuration. An occassional scattered subpleural petechial hemorrhage [/B[B]]is seen on the surface of each lung. The cut sections of the lungs disclose and intact alveolar architecture with a small amount of watery fluid exuding from the cut surfaces with mild pressure. The intrapulmonary bronchi and vasculature are unremarkable. No evidence of consolidation is seen.<

And I think Athena developed that opinion because some doctor (forget his name right now) said that. I never found another md or another source to corroborate that. I did find that md's comments on the internet, but still dont understand why he said that...it could have been a typo or misspeak...he said the patient had to be conscious in order to form petechiae, maybe he meant to say alive. Just my own specutation.

The Dr of the post that I made specifically used the word "conscious" and only specifically with the whites of the eyes and strangulation. Those were not MY words. I have read that unconscious people can have pectechial hemorrhages in many organs but his article specifically refers to the petechiae which appears to me that it is being isolated from other hemorrhage found.

I am nowhere near having credentials of a doctor -- but I cannot find any documentation to suggest that the hemorrhage of the eyes can be found in an unconscious person. Here's another one:

"The tiny red spots (petechiae) characteristic of many cases of strangulation are due to ruptured capillaries—the smallest blood vessels in the body—and sometimes may be found only under the eyelids (conjunctivae).
6
However, sometimes they may be found around the eyes in the peri-orbital region, anywhere on the face, and on the neck in and above the area of constriction. Petechiae tend to be most pronounced in ligature strangulation.
7
Blood red eyes (subconjunctival hemorrhages) are due to capillary
rupture in the white portion (sclera) of the eyes. This phenomenon suggests a particularly vigorous struggle between the victim and assailant

http://tinyurl.com/ygvz8q

[Athena]

From the autopsy report - almost sounds like the above excerpt could be explaining this:

Ligature strangulation

1. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow of neck.
2. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhage, neck
3. Petechial hemorrhage hemorrhage, conjunctival surface of eyes and skin of face