Debunking The #1 Case Myth [Archive] - Page 2 - Crime Library Message Boards

elvislives

02-05-2007, 06:01 PM

If I had the benefit of visual aids, or a chalk board, I could probably explain this very easily. But the best I can do here without getting into a whole anatomy and physiology discussion about the skull is probably an analogy/visual to make the point.

So picture (if you will) a bowling ball covered by an orange peel and in between the bowling ball and the orange peel is some cushiony foamy soft material.

Now picture the same external orange peel with the same cushion material, but instead of a bowling ball, this one contains an egg.

If you were to take a blunt object (sharp objects will perforate the scalp causing external bleeding) and bash the bowling ball, you would probably break the orange peel because the bowling ball is very hard (like an adult's skull).

If you used that same amount of force and struck the egg...what would happen? In many cases, the egg would crack and the orange peel would remain intact because the egg absorbs the force of the blow.

Does this make sense to anyone??

Its the best I can do right now in terms of an analogy because the skull and the tissues surrounding it are very unique.

Basically the pediatric skull is more susceptible to fracture than the adult skull. We see children all the time who have been hit in the head with baseball bats and have skull fractures without external damage to the skin. However, the scalp WILL eventually swell and develop a bump or hematoma at the impact site and usually it will bruise. JB had none of these external symptoms, imo, because she was killled before her body could react.

So the bottom line is that she could have been hit directly with a blunt object and it may not have damaged her scalp (the skin on the scalp btw is much 'tougher' than that on the rest of the body)

It of course is ALSO possible that the instrument she was struck with was buffered with some sort of cloth....or that her head was covered with a blanket or something to soften the blow. But again, the lack of scalp damage does not in any way prove that a buffer was used.

I hope this makes sense. Why do I feel like everyone is staring at me blankly??

rashomon

02-05-2007, 06:08 PM

rashomon could you be specific about length of time elapsed between these two events please.

That is, the length of time elapsed between head blow and ligature finally tied around neck.

Dr. Wright said 20 to 60 minutes.

"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.
"
Dr. Spitz and several other doctors consulted on the case also agreed with Whright.
rashomon, a person in a near death coma is incapable of breathing vigorously
But what happens when cord is tied around this person's neck? Wouldn't this stong constriction cause even a person in a coma to gasp for air?
Interesting also what doctor Spitz said about petechiae.

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/0317200...ndiscovery.htm

Narrator Lyn Cannon
Guest Forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz

LC: Dr.Warner Spitz has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies. In 1997, he was consulted by the Boulder police investigating the murder. He says he reviewed more than 100 autopsy photos which have never been released to the public.
You believe JBR was hit on the head first, and then strangled.
Dr. WS: Yes.
LC: But in reports published this week, a former detective, who also worked on the case, claimed the head wound did not bleed enough to be the first injury, but Spitz says, he can prove his case, and it's believed the Boulder police agree.
Dr.WS: Because there was hemmoraging in the brain.
LC: There was hemmoraging in the brain?
Dr.WS: There was hemmoraging in the scalp, in the skin,in other words,
LC: Spitz says those hemmorages would not have formed if JB was already dead of strangulation when she suffered the head injury.
Dr.WS: She did have a circulation....she did have blood clots, she did have heart beat, she did breathe, for awhile, after the head injury.
LC:Let me say that the noose, made of cord similar to this, was not tied around her neck after death. He believes that she was dying of the head injury while she was strangled. His evidence,...a tell tale pattern of hemmoraging on the internal surface of her eye lids. Petechial or penpoint hemmorages.
Dr.WS: When strangulation occurs, there is a point where the blood vessels to the neck get obstructed. The blood still flows into the head, but it doesn't flow out. LC: That's because veins, which have lower blood pressure, are shut off first. Arteries, with higher blood pressure, keep flowing longer.
Dr.WS: ........?..there is increased pressure above the knees, and tiny little blood vessels in the eyes and around the eyes, may break.
LC: Jon Benet eyes did show this pattern of hemmoraging, indicating, Spitz says, that her heart was still beating when the noose was applied.

aussiesheila

02-05-2007, 06:20 PM

I agree. In lookng at the picture all one would have to do is grab the tail of the knot close to her neck, grab the rope on the other side and pull. I don't think the paintbrush end really enters into it.I think you are quite wrong here Louisa. I don't think the reason for the handle on the ligature has ever been discussed other that the RDIs saying that it was fake. It is quite intricately constructed the way it is wrapped around and around the handle. I think this type of knot constuction stops it from slipping around the handle. There would have been no need to go to the trouble of constructing this type of knot when a much simpler one would have sufficed unless it was important for the knot not to slip IMO.

I can provide a possible reason for its use in this particular strangulation device. I don't believe the ligature was constructed with the purpose of killing JonBenet in mind at all. I believe it was constructed for the purpose of tightening it just sufficiently to cause her to lose conciousness. Once this had been acheived I believe the idea was to release the pressure allowing her to regain conciousness. I think pedophiles do this for added thrills because the victim will exhibit some sort of muscular spasms as they come to and if the victim is a female child it will approximate the appearance of a female orgasm.

So I think the purpose of that handle was to twist the ligature slowly, and then untwist it, over and over again. I don't think they ever meant to kill her with it, it's just that she screamed that horrific scream, I think when someone jabbed the end of the broken paintbrush up her vagina, and the operator of the ligature twisted it way too tightly and for way too long in his extreme panic.

aussiesheila

02-05-2007, 06:29 PM

If anyone can find direct quotes from forensic pathologists that have commented on the time line between the 2 injuries, can you please post?
Interesting that some here have commented that they have not heard key forensic pathologists comment on the lack of swelling, wound organization, hemorrhage, etc. I HAVE heard them comment on this. I think it's a case of selective perception. Head wounds are pretty much my life so that's the info I absorb (obviously I didn;t retain much of what I heard about garrotes!).
Anyway, I saw a round table discussion on Catherine Crier live about this with Henry Lee, Cyril Wecht, Michael Baden and a few others. The majority of the discussion centered around which wound came first. But as Henry Lee pointed out (and I agree with him completely) it is difficult to prove which injury came first, but it is safe to say they happened with in a very very short time frame.
Sorry to keep harping on this issue...I know its boring to a lot of people. But imo this is the most pivotol issue of this entire case, and the reason that no charges were ever filed.

elvis,

your question - time between head bash and strangulation?

my answer - ZERO

IMO they were simeltaneous, well perhaps he head blow was up to 10 seconds later (the time taken to locate the baseball bat on the floor and pick it up)

aussiesheila

02-05-2007, 06:43 PM

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-679

MJenn (aka KoldKase):

Another thing that bothers me that ties in with the hanging question are the fingernail abrasions Smit claims are in evidence on JonBenet's neck. I personally can see those when I view Smit's "Today Show" interviews and the autopsy pics I recorded from them. But I can't see them that well on the fourth generation pics that show up on the net from those interviews, so I understand anyone who didn't tape the interviews not seeing them and thinking they're petechial hemorrhages. They look like elliptical fingernail marks to me.I'm not saying I completely disregard what you are saying Louisa, but don't you think Meyer would have noted any fingernail abrasions on her neck if there were any? They would have been very obvious on the body itself, I doubt if he could have missed them, and they would have been highly significant so I feel sure he would have recorded them if they were there.

I think there must be some other explanation for those marks you saw in the autopsy pics on Smit's "Today Show" interviews.

aussiesheila

02-05-2007, 07:30 PM

This is also a very interesting link to FFJ where I asked about the lack of blood organization.

A poster pointed out that in an study of 519 blod clots, of all the clots that were examined, organization of the blood clot was found in only 5 cases:

I thought the formation of a blood clot WAS organisation???

LindaA

02-05-2007, 07:31 PM

I thought the blood clot WAS the organisation???
Me, too. I thought "organization" was the medical term for blood forming into a clot.

Louisadelmar

02-05-2007, 07:42 PM

I'm not saying I completely disregard what you are saying Louisa, but don't you think Meyer would have noted any fingernail abrasions on her neck if there were any? They would have been very obvious on the body itself, I doubt if he could have missed them, and they would have been highly significant so I feel sure he would have recorded them if they were there.

I think there must be some other explanation for those marks you saw in the autopsy pics on Smit's "Today Show" interviews.

I don't think a ME will limit himself by being too specific. He did mention the abrasions on her neck:

. The skin of the anterior neck above and below the ligature furrow contains areas of petechial hemorrhage and abrasion encompassing an area measuring approximately 3 X 2 inches.

docg

02-05-2007, 07:51 PM

Watson writes:
>You print a very likely possible solution to this case, that 'does' follow the evidence.

Thanks.

>Let me suggest tweaking it just a bit, if you would consider....
What's an even more kind way to kill someone you love, even more gentle?.............Seems to me that you'd want to make your victim unconscious first, so she wouldn't feel anything. 'You'd want to do it from behind so you wouldn't have to look into her eyes....' by placing a slipknot noose round her neck from behind, holding the slipknot against the back of her neck with one hand while pulling the noose tight through the knot with the handle in the other. Your victim is knocked out in 30-60 seconds, no pain, no fuss, no particular violence, just a quick faint into unconsciousness.

Asphyxiation is an extremely painful way to die. A head blow is instantaneous and pain free. She would have never known what hit her -- or who.

>The head blow was a 'coup de gras' , a final violent shot to make sure of death, the victim would not feel.

You could be right. As I see it, the real problem is the "garotte," not the head blow. Mainly because of the tufts of hair entwined therein.

>PS I personally put no significance in the hair 'entwined' in the knots except to prove that the killer, the killers hands, the noose and string came into close contact with the victim and the victims head (something already obvious). The transfer of short hair from the back of the victims neck to the slipknot at the back of her neck obviously happened when that knot was tightened and super tightened from direct contact with the skin and that hair.

The device was actually constructed while the killer was on top of his victim. Tufts of her hair were found entwined in BOTH knots, not just the knot that would have been around her neck. It looks like the killer must have been in close proximity to his victim at the time the "garotte" itself was constructed. And if that's the case, she must have already been unconscious, because both knots are very neatly tied, something that could not have been done if they'd been tied while JonBenet was struggling desperately for her life.

>The transfer of long strands of the victims hair to the stick handle and it's wrappings, could have come from the killers hands/clothing while making the wrapping, or because the wrappings round the handle weren't always as tight as they ended up, but maybe were looser at the start of the srangling process, tightening during it, some strands of the victims 24" hair being caught up in it as the handle never got more than 18" away from her. Maybe after the crime the killer began to untie and loosen the wrapping around the handle, thought better of it, and retightened, some hair being caught up. IMO there are lots of ways for the victims long hair to have been caught up in those knots, and it in no way means that the knots 'had' to be made 'on' her neck or 'on' her head.

Looks to me like you are really reaching here, and sorry I can't buy it. The killer would have had no reason to fuss with those knots. Looks to me like the "garotte" was an afterthought, constructed in a panic by someone who was so desperate as to hardly be aware of what he was doing. I think it's purpose was to destroy any prints that might have been left by manual strangulation. I think he struck her to knock her out painlessly, then strangled her manually, and then, later panicked out of fear his prints could be lifted from her neck.

And THAT, my dear Watson, explains EVERYTHING, no? :punch:

aussiesheila

02-05-2007, 07:55 PM

See Rashomon..... we can agree to an extent. I believe both Thomas and Hunter exhibited a lack of professionalism. Hunter knew they had him when that tape recording was presented to him. As far as him leaking info about the case itself though it was more him trying to dig dirt up on certain members of the BPD rather than releasing confidential information to the newspapers.

This is where I believe Thomas went way over the line. In addition to that as Bullmoose states above he was sent confidential case files from other members of the BPD and kept copies of case files that should have been turned over when he resigned. As much as I believe Thomas was sincere in wanting to find JBRs murderer, his ethics and credibility left alot to be desired. He so lacked professionalism and ethics. He also let Mason take the fall for his leaks. JMOI do like this post Athena. It expresses exactly what I believe but much better than I could have done it.

docg

02-05-2007, 08:07 PM

Maglite is a brand name and they don't make a rubber-coated flashlight. The do make an accessory rubber tip that is slipped over the lens, but it is hexagonal in shape not round (this keeps the flashlight from rolling off a flat surface)
And a cylinder object is going to fit a slot area that varies in width. A 3" diameter cylinder object would fit perfectly in a slot of 1" to 3" wide for example. That doesn't mean it is the murder weapon.

This particular maglite has been described as having a thick rubber head. Whether it was an accessory or hexagonal I have no idea. Also, from what I've read, the authorities regard it as the most likely weapon. There's been speculation about a baseball bat or a golf club, but if she'd been struck with either of these there would have been a nasty gash. Same with being slammed against a bathtub or bathroom sink, etc. A fall down the stairs might have produced no blood, but is not likely to have cracked her skull open so completely. This does NOT look to me like an accident, far from it. The accident scenario was produced as an act of desperation by an investigation team thrown totally off the track by the decision to rule John out. With John ruled out all they had was Patsy, who clearly had no motive for killing her beloved daughter. In such situations it is almost always the father who needs to be looked at, not the mother.

Athena

02-05-2007, 08:56 PM

This particular maglite has been described as having a thick rubber head. Whether it was an accessory or hexagonal I have no idea. Also, from what I've read, the authorities regard it as the most likely weapon. There's been speculation about a baseball bat or a golf club, but if she'd been struck with either of these there would have been a nasty gash. Same with being slammed against a bathtub or bathroom sink, etc. A fall down the stairs might have produced no blood, but is not likely to have cracked her skull open so completely. This does NOT look to me like an accident, far from it. The accident scenario was produced as an act of desperation by an investigation team thrown totally off the track by the decision to rule John out. With John ruled out all they had was Patsy, who clearly had no motive for killing her beloved daughter. In such situations it is almost always the father who needs to be looked at, not the mother.

Hi docg:

I do agree with you that it definitely was not a fall or an accident either. I have to say every time I read your theories re: JR they do make sense and far more than any other RDI theories I have ever read. I have to admit I wonder if it is my refusal to believe that a parent could have carried out this horrific crime that keeps me from being convinced. But if I had to choose one it would be JR over PR. I believe 100% that Patsy had nothing to do with this crime even if JR were involved. Although I lean towards IDI your theory leaves me with nagging doubts.

aussiesheila

02-05-2007, 09:52 PM

Dr. Spitz mentions blood clots.Well good for him. But I don't see that it has any relevance to this case, because there weren't any. The coroner who examined the body for the autopsy said so in his report.

Dr. Spitz's theory is that someone strangled somewhat JB first, perhaps manually, and then hit her on the head, and that the ligature around her neck came last.Yes maybe. And perhaps they injected her with megadoses of Factors VIII and IX and Vitamin K to stop massive hemmorhaging from the head wound while they were constructing the garotte.

Then I suppose with all their wealth and influence they bribed Meyer not to mention the hand print bruising around her neck.

Maybe an enraged parent first grabbed JB by the neck and than yanked her against the bathtub.If you can fit the physics required to achieve a head wound like the one that JonBenet sustained by that means then you will be doing very well. Go for it rashomon.

aussiesheila

02-05-2007, 10:11 PM

Elvislives is one of the most intelligent and also open minded individuals I've ever encountered on any of these forums, and also as you say a medical authority, so I'm reluctant to question his/her judgement. Nevertheless it's hard for me to understand how a soft SKULL could make the SKIN on a child's scalp any less vulnerable to laceration. Kids get head wounds all the time and they are typically very bloody. The kid and the parents get scared to death, but there's lots of blood running around in the scalp, so when it gets penetrated, it spills out all over the place. Such wounds tend thankfully to be minor. JonBenet, on the other hand, suffered a very serious wound that showed NO external sign at all. No blood because there was NO laceration of the scalp whatsoever. Also, if you look carefully at that awful photo of her skull, you'll see that this is NOT the type of wound you get from, say falling down the stairs, which can result in a concussion or a broken neck, but NOT a huge long crack on the TOP of the head. Sorry, this looks very much like someone took very careful aim and struck her deliberately, probably with the intention of knocking her unconscious. If this was done with the maglite, by far the most likely candidate, then that was obviously chosen as the least likely instrument to result in laceration of the scalp and massive bleeding.I agree with pretty much all of this, although I think it was a baseball bat rather than a Maglite. I don't think that whoever bashed her over the head had it well thought out beforehand though. I just think the part of her head that he hit was the most accessible at the time and I don't think he meant to render her 'just' unconcious. Her hair which appears to have been fairly thick would have protected the skin quite well I would have thought.

watson

02-05-2007, 11:19 PM

Watson writes:

And THAT, my dear Watson, explains EVERYTHING, no?
***********************************************
Well, docg it explains everything from your perspective, and mostly from mine.
I still think your chasing an unimportant red herring detail with the hair in the knot thing, but I'll leave that alone.
I think your main theory that this was intended as a 'gentle kill' by a 'caring' killer is right on, and IMO is indicated by all the evidence, the blanket (or actually 2 blankets), the covering of the victim, everything (head blow and strangling) from behind, the Barbie keepsake, condition of body, etc. etc.
I also agree that 'as it turned out' the 1 head blow was quicker and kinder than the fainting out with the strangling cord (2 seconds of intense pain v. 30 seconds of fear, discomfort, and struggle), but I reject it absolutely as a 'kind, caring' killers choice. Because, have you considered the killer had no way of knowing this? We only know the head blow would have worked out kinder because it's already happened, and we know the outcome, the killer couldn't know.
Put yourself in his shoes 'before' the crime happened. Putting myself in JR's or an inexperienced killers shoes I would never have chosen the head blow as kinder or 1st. I wouldn't know how hard to hit her. What if I didn't hit her hard enough, then that would REALLY hurt, and she'd scream bloody murder. What if I hit her hard enough, but it bled all over, would I want that? What if I hit her hard enough but she staggered and spun around for a minute, her head spouting blood? What if I had to hit her again and again? And then just the sound of the object striking the head.
No way if I cared for the victim, and was her father, and or inexperienced, I could have chose the head blow first, it's too violent, too potentially grotesque. Mostly, I'd have no way of being sure 1 blow would do it, no way of knowing it wouldn't hurt. No way to be sure. Plus I wouldn't risk the possibility of blood, or blood splatter, or of tons of screaming, or of having to hit her again and again. Nope..........
From the killers shoes I'd choose the garotte as kinder and 1st (because I could be totally sure it would work) (this also explains why the 'fainting out' garotte appears at all in this case), I wouldn't have to hit anyone when they could feel it, there'd be no screaming, or crying, fear and discomfort, but no intense pain, and it would only last 30 seconds or so. Then if I had to hit I could be sure of no suffering.
IMO from the evidence I think your on to the right theory and solution, but should consider changing the order of strangling, and head bashing.

shill

02-05-2007, 11:26 PM

My point is, you're resorting to your usual insults when running out of arguments.
So did Jeffrey MacDonald and Darlie Routier get away with their crimes?

watson

02-06-2007, 12:07 AM

These statements are categorically wrong Tober.

If you study the photograph of the ligature knot there is enough detail showing for you to make out the structure of the knot. You can even copy it and construct a ligature of your own, which I did, and the knot slipped along the cord like a dream, convincing me that this was indeed a 'real' strangulation device.
************************************************** ***
Aussiesheila
Congrats for posting this. It's so great to see a truth in print. When I 1st saw the photo's (there's more than 1 angle avaiable too) of the knots I was shocked by how readily identifiable they were as common slip knots. This of course completely explains why the 'garotte' has a 'pull' handle, (to pull the cord through the knot to tighten the loop equally all around the victims neck). Yet critics will point out that we can't absolutely prove this, because they know as do we all, that that the forensic report on the knots and their construction has never been released to the public. (there are however many references in print (PMPT for one), and in media to the obvious truth of these knots as slip knots.
And, your so right, by looking at the photo's which are of such high quality they're almost 3-D, you can easily duplicate these simple wrapped looped slip knots that some evil mind turned into a deadly ligature.
In fact back in June/July 06' after studing the photo's I posted on this site step by step instructions 'on How to Make a JonBenet Ligature Knot' at least 10 posters said they followed the instructions and it worked 'perfect' just like your expeirement. RASHOMON where were you? It takes about 30 seconds once you know how to do it, the knots are NOT complex, they are NOT official knots. They are the type of slip knots a sophisticated child might make and then carry on into adult life because there're used a lot.
P.S. If anyone wants instructions, check my archived post from June/July...ok...maybe May of 06'. Not availiable there...ok....I'll have to write them again, especially for you Rashomon...it would be 'cool' if you could get it, even if you still don't 'agree' with it.

shill

02-06-2007, 03:46 AM

The hand ligature is basically a "tautline hitch knot" also called a "rolling hitch knot", commonly used in tent tie down lines and boat mooring lines.

aussiesheila

02-06-2007, 04:47 AM

Well, the injury to the head/brain showed signs of her body responding, so that means her heart was beating when she was hit on the head and continued to beat for a little while afterwards. There wouldn't be signs of her body responding to the cranial insult if she had been hit on the head at the same moment she drew her last breath.Yes I would agree with this. As elvis has told us, it takes about 4 to 5 minutes to die from strangulation. (this is from memory and I hope I am stating this correctly).

I believe the moment that JonBenet began to let out that horrific scream thing went drastically wrong for my pedophiles in that basement. I think the one operating the breath control ligature immediately began tightening and tightening it until the scream died down and in his panic left it tightened so that she began dying of asphyxiation asphyxiation.

At that same moment I think another of the pedophiles (he might have been holding a stun gun) was so enraged by that cry that he immediately looked around him for a weapon to hit her over the head with. I think his eyes fell on a baseball bat and he picked it up and bashed her over the head with it. I have been saying that the strangulation and head bash were simultaneous, but this would not be quite correct as the head basher would have needed a few moments to do all of the above after the ligature operator had already started tightening the neck ligature.

There just isn't any evidence to support your pedo ring theory, imo.
True, there isn’t (so far), but there isn’t any that disproves it either.

I don't believe Patsy would believe Charles Kuralt was coming to photograph her daughter after midnight on Christmas night. She'd been to a million photo shoots, for both herself and her daughter, and "after midnight in your own home on Christmas Night" would raise some red flags. I don't believe she would keep JonBenet up past midnight (for a photo shoot that she didn't bother to tell anyone else about,) and I don't believe she would let Santa (or anyone else) in, hand over JB, and then go lay down elsewhere and take a nap. Why wouldn't she tell other people that Charles Kuralt was coming to photograph JB, if she actually believed that was going to happen? Why wouldn't she tell her husband, at least? Why wouldn't she want to be the involved mom she was known to be, and want to watch her daughter be photographed, suggest poses, clothes changes, fix make up, etc?
I know I have posted my answer to this many times over. But just in case you haven’t read any of these answers I’ll go over it again. (Sorry to bore all those who have already read this). According to John, in one of his interviews he said that Santa had told people that his friend Charles Kuralt the photographer was going to come to their Christmas party on the 23rd. (I hope I’ve got that right). But in the event Charles Kuralt did not turn up. It occurred to me that Santa might have got Patsy to agree to allow both Santa and Charles Kuralt come to her house for a short time to take photos of Santa and JonBenet together at Christmas on Christmas Day. I think Santa would have told Patsy that it was for a magazine publication and that Charles wanted to write a story about how former beauty queen overcomes cancer etc etc. People believe what they want to believe and I don't think Patsy would have been any exception. I know she had been to a million photo shoots, for both herself and her daughter, but had they ever had a story about them in some fancy upmarket magazine? I don’t think so, and I think the idea was very pleasing to Patsy and she would have jumped at the opportunity. I think Santa would have told her to be sure not to tell John because he wouldn’t approve. I don’t think Patsy would have worried about JonBenet losing sleep as I think she would have reasoned that JonBenet would be able to catch up on her sleep on the 2 or 3? plane flights the next day and I think that would have suited Patsy very well because then a bored JonBenet would not be pestering her on the flights. At first I thought Charles Kuralt was a glamour photographer, but then Lousiadelmar I think it was, posted that he took more informal, natural shots for his homespun, feelgood types of American pie stories, which fitted in better with my theory because there would have been no need for JonBenet to dress up, he would have only wanted her in her Barbie nightgown. Nevertheless, I am sure Patsy wanted to be around when Charles Kuralt was there, and I am sure Santa would have promised to wake her up when he arrived. I am sure she went to sleep very reluctantly, but sometimes there is just no staying awake no matter how much you want to, and I think this was one of those times for Patsy.

There is barely enough evidence to support the theory of one non-Ramsey person in that house that night, let alone an extra two to make up the three you have subjecting JB to Christmas Night pedophilia. If they were all abusing JB, taking turns or whatnot, why is there no forensic evidence of them on her or in the crime scene or the rest of the house? There is no evidence that JonBenet's wrists were restrained by the cord while she was alive (no defense wounds, no abrasions or bruising on her wrists), and there is no evidence that she was ever standing on a chair with her hands tied and dangling from a hook on a pipe over her hand. There is no evidence that a pedo ring starring McSanta and JonBenet ever existed, with or without side players popping every now and then to get a chance to molest a 6 year old girl - complete with bondage and asphyxia.
I feel sure there was plenty of evidence there, it’s just that it wasn’t found by BPD. First of all I think FW tampered with some of it at 6.05 am the next morning before any detectives ever got to the house. Secondly I don’t think BPD were looking evidence of an intruder, only evidence that would incriminate the Ramseys for the first 5 months. After that much of the evidence of the intruders has disappeared. I do think some has been found subsequently but that has never been made public, unlike all the pseudo-anti-Ramsey evidence that was leaked by the likes of ST during the first few months of the investigation.

aussiesheila

02-06-2007, 04:54 AM

Didn't you say you'd thought this pedo ring had been involving JB in their activity for years? How were they gaining access to her all those times?
What about the times DP minded the Ramsey children? What about the times FW minded them? What about all those parties with houses full of people where children were off unaccounted for probably in some remote corner of the house with who knows who? That might have been the reason for that 911 call on the 23rd – another child trying to obtain help for a younger child, and the reason for an earlier 911 call from the White residence.

Why would Patsy cover up for these people for all this time and not just say, "Look, these are the monsters that killed my daughter!" What would they have over her that would get her to write the note and then lie for them until the day she died (and not tell who was responsible on her deathbed?) How was she able to keep it covered up from John for all of those years?
I have posted my answer to this already too. Basically it is that FW threatened her and she realized that if she didn’t write the note and keep quiet, John would be told certain things that would cause him to file for divorce and custody of Burke and would probably win on both counts. I think she never told John about it because she was in denial about the abuse and it was more comfortable for her to ignore it. Besides I think the abuse mostly occurred when John was away on his many business trips.

And what's this about JonBenet kneeling as her hands are tied and she's being molested and choked, and her urine runs down her legs? What is your source for that?
You can’t have read my post properly, I did not say that she was kneeling as she was being molested and choked, I said she was kneeling when a baby rabbit was killed in front of her. There is a huge difference. I won’t go further on this point because I run the risk of being rude to you.

When did you switch up from her standing on the chair when strangled to death to kneeling?
So, I haven’t switched from saying anything. I think she was standing on the chair when strangled to death, I always have and I still do.

The autopsy says:

"The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs."

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

Anterior means front. That's not the same as saying the urine ran down her legs. It looks to me like she was strangled face-down and her urine ran out in death and wet her undies and long johns, in the crotch and in the front, like the autopsy says.
OK, I’ll admit I was in error here in that I didn’t give the source on which my comments were based. I have read the autopsy report and I understand the meaning of ‘anterior’, but that is referring to the urine stains on the longjohns. What I have read in addition to the autopsy report was where Tom Trujillo brought a black flurosecent light to the autopsy room and scanned the skin around her her pubic area. As Jim Byfield reported, it lit up the area of her upper inner and outer left thigh and upper inner right thigh, which is a bit more detailed about the specific areas involved. My understanding is that the black fluorescent light can make certain molecules in body fluids such as blood, semen and urine fluoresce, and since there was no blood or semen there, I concluded that it was urine and I am guessing that the areas where the fluorescence was observed were the areas on her thighs where the urine flowed. So I think she would have been kneeling slightly to the left with her right thigh uppermost and her right hand patting the rabbit when she urinated.

aussiesheila

02-06-2007, 05:25 AM

That's exactly what I'm saying. If the urine ran out when her bladder released in death and wet her clothing in the crotch and in the front, then she had to have been lying on her belly when it happened. Being on her knees is an interesting idea, but there are no wounds on her knees that would correspond with having been attacked, and/or strangled, and/or killed while in a kneeling position. I guarantee you her knees would be at least bruised if not abraded had she been conscious and attacked and/or killed while on her knees. No child is going to be gang-molested and choked to death in the process without some visible trauma to her knees.
I have replied to all this in a later post, and as I pointed out there I did not say I think she was molested while kneeling down, I said I think there was a rabbit killed in front of her while she was kneeling down.

I really would appreciate it nuisanceposter, if you would take the trouble to read any post of mine thoroughly before you launch into a criticism of of it.

I really have to wonder, aussiesheila, why it is that you think the Rs kept company with people who are nothing more than self-centered, lying, scheming, remorseless child molesters who have sex parties with their daughter - for years, until they bring in an outsider (cause apparently so many of the people in the circle of the R's acquaintances want sex with children) who inadvertantly kills JonBenet.For one thing I don't think John Ramsey had any idea of what was going on. Patsy, on the other hand, I think did know, but IMO she saw it as fairly normal having come (as I believe) from a family where the father molested his daughters. I am not a psychologist and I don't know the jargon but I believe such situations commonly occur where the mother does nothing to stop the abuse of her daughter. The other thing is that pedophiles do not go around with placards on their chests. Quite the contrary, they come across as the most likeable and friendly people you would want to meet, that is they 'groom' the parents as well as the child.

shill

02-06-2007, 05:28 AM

The other thing is that pedophiles do not go around with placards on their chests. Quite the contrary, they come across as the most likeable and friendly people you would want to meet, that is they 'groom' the parents as well as the child.
Someone like Fleet White would fit this description.

aussiesheila

02-06-2007, 05:46 AM

Someone like Fleet White would fit this description.Now then shill, what a thing to say!

shill

02-06-2007, 05:53 AM

aussiesheila

02-06-2007, 07:25 AM

I meant that he does "come across as the most likeable and friendly guy you would want to meet" who became best of friends with JB's parents in less then 3 years even though they had friends in town they knew for 20 years and he was happy to take care of JB when needed.

He's a great guy!
Yes I agree he does appear to be a great guy. After all, look how quickly he came over to the Ramsey house after Patsy called at 5.55 am. The other one of John's friends took much longer to get there. It just shows how caring, how compassionate FW really is.

rashomon

02-06-2007, 11:51 AM

I think he struck her to knock her out painlessly, then strangled her manually, and then, later panicked out of fear his prints could be lifted from her neck.

But why bother to strangle her manually at all? If (per your theory) JonBenet was going to spill the beans and John Ramsey wanted to silence her for good, why not just deliver a second ferocious blow to the head?

thewhitewitch1

02-06-2007, 01:05 PM

But why bother to strangle her manually at all? If (per your theory) JonBenet was going to spill the beans and John Ramsey wanted to silence her for good, why not just deliver a second ferocious blow to the head?

Even with the garrote in place, I believe there would have been obvious signs that she had been strangled manually. The only way you can strangle someone manually and not leave tell-tale bruises is by doing it with the crook of your arm. (I did some reading last night.:) )

Athena

02-06-2007, 01:59 PM

elvis,

your question - time between head bash and strangulation?

my answer - ZERO

IMO they were simeltaneous, well perhaps he head blow was up to 10 seconds later (the time taken to locate the baseball bat on the floor and pick it up)

Notice in the same interview posted by an RDI above and in bold -- Spitz specifically says "hit in the head WHILE being strangled". Sounds simultaneous or as close to it as possible to me. I think Dr. Wright is wrong and Spitz was the ONLY expert who consulted with and looked at real slides with Meyer not photos from the tabloid. JMO

rashomon

02-06-2007, 02:03 PM

rashomon

02-06-2007, 02:19 PM

Notice in the same interview posted by an RDI above and in bold -- Spitz specifically says "hit in the head WHILE being strangled". Sounds simultaneous or as close to it as possible to me. I think Dr. Wright is wrong and Spitz was the ONLY expert who consulted with and looked at real slides with Meyer not photos from the tabloid. JMO
Where does Dr. Spitz say that? If you meant the part of the interview I posted, it was the interviewer who said that he (Dr. Spitz) believes JB was in the process of dying from the head injury while being strangled. So it was the other way round.
And yes, Dr. Spitz examined about 100 autopsy photos. And it was he who stated that there were blood clots in JB's brain.

andU

02-06-2007, 02:29 PM

Notice in the same interview posted by an RDI above and in bold -- Spitz specifically says "hit in the head WHILE being strangled". Sounds simultaneous or as close to it as possible to me. I think Dr. Wright is wrong and Spitz was the ONLY expert who consulted with and looked at real slides with Meyer not photos from the tabloid. JMO

What if ..... the perp/perv had the rope/cord around her neck and lifted her by the rope with the garotte and bashed her head? Is that possible? Good grief, I feel awful thinking this! But, I've heard it said that ya have to think like the perp/perv to catch him/her/them.

rashomon

02-06-2007, 02:51 PM

So did Jeffrey MacDonald and Darlie Routier get away with their crimes?
No, and that was the gist of my post where I said that criminally unsophisticated perps who try to stage a scene hardly ever get away with it.
"Hardly ever" does not mean "never", therefore the fact that the Ramseys got away with it does not contradict what I said. What's so difficult to understand about that?

rashomon

02-06-2007, 02:53 PM

What if ..... the perp/perv had the rope/cord around her neck and lifted her by the rope with the garotte and bashed her head? Is that possible? Good grief, I feel awful thinking this! But, I've heard it said that ya have to think like the perp/perv to catch him/her/them.
In that case the rope would have made no perfectly circumferential furrow on the neck.

andU

02-06-2007, 03:01 PM

In that case the rope would have made no perfectly circumferential furrow on the neck.

True, there would have been a slant.

rashomon

02-06-2007, 04:47 PM

If you can fit the physics required to achieve a head wound like the one that JonBenet sustained by that means then you will be doing very well. Go for it rashomon.
Aussiesheila, the main problem with the forensic evidence re the head wound is that even people with substantial medical knowledge disagree on major points.
But the wound seems to have been caused by a blunt object, not a sharp one. That is one point on which virtually everyone seems to agree.

From what I have read on other forums (where there are also posters with a lot of medical knowledge) it is just not that simple with e. g. "fresh hemmorhage" = JB must have died immediately afterward.

havhttp://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=121571&highlight=blood+organization#post121571
Start reading from the #177 post downward and you can see what a complex issue this is. Post #174 is very interesting too.

For example, was there really so little blood in JB's brain? Since we don't even know which object struck the skull, how can we say that so and so much blood "should have" been in her brain?
What was found, according to poster BluesStrat on FFJ:

"extensive area of scalp hemorrhage" - there was a lot of bleeding directly under her scalp.

"a thin film of subdural hemorrhage" - minor bleeding under the dura membrane.

"a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage" - minor bleeding under the arachnoid membrane.

"contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches" - a huge bruise was on the top of her brain.

What the autopsy reveals is that the piece of skull bone that broke loose did not penetrate either brain membrane, which would have caused much more bleeding.

The RST claims there was only a small amount (7-8 cc) of blood, therefore the garrote was in place before the head blow. However, that amount was "subdural"--between the dura and arachnoid membranes. The real amount of massive bleeding was under her scalp and labeled "extensive" by Coroner Meyer.

Poster Zotto (post #179) wrote that a few years back, (s)he had the opportunity to speak with a university professor of Anatomy who had a lot of experience with head injuries in children, and he professor said that this was quite a lot of bleeding in a child's skull.

According to poster Sue, one might not end up with much bleeding in the brain from a skull fracture. It all depends on whether or not blood vessels were torn during the injury and whether they were large blood vessels or just small ones.

Here is important info about the (lack of) blood organization/blod clots:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=133946&highlight=blood+organization#post133946

It seems to be quite complicated.

And not only do the posters disagree, the famous medical experts consulted on the case disagree too. Just think of what Cyril Wecht said as opposed to the others.

shill

02-06-2007, 06:05 PM

No, and that was the gist of my post where I said that criminally unsophisticated perps who try to stage a scene hardly ever get away with it.
"Hardly ever" does not mean "never", therefore the fact that the Ramseys got away with it does not contradict what I said. What's so difficult to understand about that?

It's difficult to understand because you lumped the Ramseys in with those two cases that didn't get away with it, as if the Ramseys didn't get away with it.
So you implied they were in a group of those who "hardly ever get away with it".
What's so difficult to understand about that?

DolphinSpirit

02-06-2007, 09:21 PM

to me, that is why this case is sooo confusing. No one, not even the experts can agree on things. I wish it were not so complicated. All I can say is that if a RDI, they must have been very smart as to not get caught. I know many will say money kept them out of trouble. But that is crazy, considering a child died here and it was a terrible death. I'm sure, if that was the case....a few more folks then the Ramseys live with this on their conscience every day. Or they are diabolical......scary to me.:confused:

docg

02-07-2007, 10:41 AM

But why bother to strangle her manually at all? If (per your theory) JonBenet was going to spill the beans and John Ramsey wanted to silence her for good, why not just deliver a second ferocious blow to the head?

Your question is logical and makes sense. The fact remains, however, that there WAS both a head blow AND strangulation. So her attacker must have had a reason for doing both, regardless of WHO it was. To explain this mystery we need to get inside the head of her attacker and try to understand his thought process.

What I'm suggesting is that John may have 1. wanted to knock her out first, so she'd feel no pain; 2. wanted to avoid spilling blood because his plan was to stage a kidnapping. Repeated blows to the head could have led to bleeding, so he might have opted for manual strangulation after she'd been rendered unconscious. By the way, it IS possible to strangle someone manually without leaving any outward trace of that (search for the "Althusser case" on the Internet to learn more about that). But I think his main concern would have been the possibility that his prints could be lifted from her neck. That would explain the "garotte," which is one of the most bizarre aspects of the case.

It's not enough to simply accept that she was strangled with such a device, it's important to be able to explain why. My theory offers an explanation for that, none of the others do.

I'm not saying I HAVE to be right, but it IS important to at least make the attempt to account for ALL aspects of this very puzzling case.

LindaA

02-07-2007, 11:48 AM

Docg, the head blow was a death blow, not somethng intended to render her unconscious. She would have been dead of it within minutes. It sounds to me as though you are saying he hit her so she wouldn't feel the pain of the strangling. I'm not following -- the head blow by itself would have killed her -- no need to strangle her. It makes sense to me only if we assume the killer gave the head blow and then thought he had not hit her hard enough and had to resort to the strangling as a second measure because to hit her again, even harder might cause too much blood spatter. Then, I believe, too much time would have to have elapsed for him to devise the garotte plan, gather what he needed and execute the plan. The two events occurred to close in time, IMO. That's where you think th manula strangulation came it? And the the garotte to cover it up? That's just not something there seems to be any evidence of. Nor would a goritte have covered the evidence of a manual strangulation, to cord was just too narrow to cover hand prints. IMO

bullmoose

02-07-2007, 02:02 PM

Athena

02-07-2007, 04:43 PM

In that case the rope would have made no perfectly circumferential furrow on the neck.

Ah but there was a slight deviation upward which is why I thought perhaps she may have been even hanged:

It is almost completely horizontal with slight upward deviation from the horizontal towards the back of the neck.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html

rashomon

02-07-2007, 05:33 PM

I remember seeing a movie some years back where the garrotte was being used to execute would-be rebels on a caribean island; after the garotting was done, the executioner chopped off the head, to be sure they were dead. I didn't watch mutch of that movie, it was too grisly and graphic to me; but ever since Jonbenet's murder I have truly wondered if the massive blow to the head was struck to make sure she was dead; she probably didn't look dead after the strangulation, maybe just unconcious. A killer that wanted to be sure she was dead would logically, IMO, administer a coup-de-grace blow to her head. JMHO
In that case I think chopping off the head was done for other purposes than to make sure the rebels were dead. For in that context, chopping off the head of a political enemy is used as an ultimate gesture of humiliation and triumph over the enemies. Which also explains that the chopped-off heads are sometimes used as 'trophies' which are triumphantly displayed in public.

rashomon

02-07-2007, 05:47 PM

LindaA

02-07-2007, 06:50 PM

Excellent post, Linda. Very astute observation about that piece of cord around JB's neck being far too narrow to cover any hand prints from manual strangulation. Thanks, Rash. I'm glad you could make sense out of it in spite of those types. I should never post at work. :)

elvislives

02-07-2007, 07:25 PM

[QUOTE=nuisanceposter;8810595]Well, the injury to the head/brain showed signs of her body responding, so that means her heart was beating when she was hit on the head and continued to beat for a little while afterwards. There wouldn't be signs of her body responding to the cranial insult if she had been hit on the head at the same moment she drew her last breath.

That is true. Her heart was probably beating for a few minutes after the head wound was inflicted.

It is a similar injury to the one she sustained in her vagina--in the sense that both injuries appear to have been inflicted shortly before her heart stopped beating (neither was inflicted after death imo, but she only lived for a few minutes after both).

This is one of the reasons I struggle with the RDI theory (with the exception of Docg's theory). But if Patsy had accidentally killed her, it seems bizarre that she starts staging a sexual assault before JB is even dead. And I have heard the arguement that perhaps Patsy thought she was dead, but that is also hard to believe since JB would have still been very warm. This is the aspect of the PDI theory that doesn't sit well imo.

elvislives

02-07-2007, 07:29 PM

Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the very illustrative explanation, Elvislives!

Thanks, Rash. I'm one of those people who talks with their hands a lot (lots of gesturing) to get my points accross, so I always wonder if anyone here knows what I'm talking about ! Some of these topics are hard to articulate using only lay terms so I'm glad it made sense...at least to you.

docg

02-07-2007, 11:54 PM

LindaA:
>Docg, the head blow was a death blow, not somethng intended to render her unconscious. She would have been dead of it within minutes. It sounds to me as though you are saying he hit her so she wouldn't feel the pain of the strangling. I'm not following -- the head blow by itself would have killed her -- no need to strangle her.

I understand your perplexity. I'm not 100% sold on this aspect of my theory. But I'M perplexed by some things that don't seem to bother you. :shrug:
So I'm doing the best I can to puzzle it all out in a way that makes sense, at least to me.

What I'm trying to do is get inside the head of whoever did this to her. And if it was John, as I strongly suspect, then it does seem to me he might well have decided to knock her unconscious so she wouldn't feel any fear or pain and wouldn't know who had attacked her. It was a death blow for sure, but maybe that was not his intention, maybe he didn't know his own strength. Or maybe he was hoping the blow in itself would be enough to kill her, but then realized she was still breathing. Rather than strike another blow, which might draw blood, he could have decided to finish her off by strangling her. I guess my principal reason for assuming he must have manually strangled her is the timing. Constructing the "garotte" device would have taken time and in that time it looks as though there would have been more internal bleeding. It seems he must have constructed the garotte AFTER the blow because of the hair entwined in the knots. So the head blow plus immediate manual strangulation seems to fit the evidence best. The act of strangulation would serve as a kind of tourniquet, preventing blood flow to the head, and once she was dead there'd be no additional blood flow. That would explain the small amount of internal bleeding.

>It makes sense to me only if we assume the killer gave the head blow and then thought he had not hit her hard enough and had to resort to the strangling as a second measure because to hit her again, even harder might cause too much blood spatter.

Yes, as I say above, that variation works for me as well.

>Then, I believe, too much time would have to have elapsed for him to devise the garotte plan, gather what he needed and execute the plan. The two events occurred to close in time, IMO.

Yup, I agree. That's why I think he must have stangled her manually first.

>That's where you think th manula strangulation came it? And the the garotte to cover it up? That's just not something there seems to be any evidence of. Nor would a goritte have covered the evidence of a manual strangulation, to cord was just too narrow to cover hand prints. IMO.

As I see it, and maybe you agree, the "garotte" was used to cover SOMETHING up. The question is: what? The notion of Patsy accidently causing that extreme head injury and then devising something so bizarre as such a device as part of the staging of a kidnapping, sorry that just doesn't register with me, I can't imagine her doing anything like that. So what was the purpose of this device. The ONLY reason I can come up with is that it must have been used to either cover up the attacker's hand prints or at the very least point away from their existence. And by the way, if you study the photos you'll see that the cord was tightened around her neck twice, in two different places. This is consistent with an effort to hide hand prints, it seems to me. At the very least it could have been a desperate attempt at misdirection. I could be wrong, but I just don't see any other reason for her attacker to take the trouble to concoct such a strange device.

docg

02-08-2007, 12:09 AM

rashomon

02-08-2007, 10:15 AM

The hand ligature is basically a "tautline hitch knot" also called a "rolling hitch knot", commonly used in tent tie down lines and boat mooring lines.

A while back I asked Delmar England ("EasyWriter" on FFJ) this question and he completely disagreed, calling it "utter nonsense unrelated to the evidence" (post # 339 on this FFJ thread, further info on post #. 345):

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=128866&highlight=tautline+hitch+knot#post128866

D. England wrote verbatim: "As for a rolling (tautline) hitch
with a small, soft cord, (especially flat, or near flat) forget
it."

According to DE, there was no tautline hitch knot at the crime scene. The crime scene constructions do not appear in any knot book, but were clumsily done slip knots to create loops, which points to the stager of the scene being ignorant both of the ligature material and its use as well as of knot construction.
This points away from John Ramsey, for surely as a boat owner would not have been that ignorant about functioning knots.
And why go to the trouble of tying a specific cord at all if you are then going to leave a 15.5 inch space between the ligatures?
That large space between the ligature is the strongest indicator of bungling imo. For this would have allowed the victim to move her hands.
And who in his right mind would tie a ligature on top of a sleeve? The victim needs only to tug at the sleeve, pull it out from under the ligature, and the ligature would be loosely around the wrist.
And the other ligature was so loosely tied that it had already come off.

rashomon

02-08-2007, 10:56 AM

As I see it, the real problem has always been the tendency to assume that if it IS RDI, then it would have to have been Patsy and not John. Simply because some "experts" ruled him out in a decision that has NEVER been explained or even questioned, simply accepted as gospel. There are a great many very good reasons to assume Patsy was innocent. And as you say, the whole accident-followed-by-overthetop staging is way too bizarre to take seriously. That, coupled with many other elements of the case, such as the fact that she called 911 when the body was still in the house, tells me she must be innocent. The case walks talks acts and quacks like a duck -- i.e., something the dominant MALE in the house might do. Incest can be a powerful motive for murder. And it happens in the BEST homes as well we know. Why oh why did the BPD, the media and just about everyone else give John Ramsey a pass?
We've been through this many times, but one can't stress it often enough.

- the forensic evidence links both Ramseys to the staging of the scene, Patsy Ramsey even more that John, for fibers from her jacket were found in the wrappings of the garrote, in the paint tray and on the duct tape - all very incriminating locations - and she in all probability wrote the note.
The clumsily done ligatures point to her too, as well as the dramatic tone in the ransom note. Also the rambling. I can't imagine close-mouthed John writing that note, nor doing that kind of overthetop staging. But overthetop staging would be perfectly consistent with Patsy's drama queen character.
Overthetop staging also served her to undo the crime in her own mind.
- yes, Patsy called 911 with the body still in the house - what has that got to do with John being the perp? They couldn't very well let JB rot in the wine cellar and fly to Michigan, could they?
- Also, your theory that Patsy "spoiled" John's plan by calling the police is
a - NOT supported by the circumstantial evidence, for it was John who told Patsy to call the police.
b - even if John had actually wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would have seen to it that she did not get to read the ransom note alone, with him being upstairs in the shower. He would have shown the note to her instead and manipulated her into not calling the police.

Yes, the case walks talks acts and quacks like a duck, and I think the duck's name is Patsy Ramsey, whose husband let her run this show from start to finish. He probaby helped her somewhat in the staging, but was mostly a bystander imo.

rashomon

02-08-2007, 11:09 AM

And by the way, if you study the photos you'll see that the cord was tightened around her neck twice, in two different places. This is consistent with an effort to hide hand prints, it seems to me. At the very least it could have been a desperate attempt at misdirection. I could be wrong, but I just don't see any other reason for her attacker to take the trouble to concoct such a strange device.
The two-ended cord could first have been pulled around JB's neck to strangle her, and afterwards the knot could have been tied. And as the knot was being tied, the cord was pushed upwards.

I also read something in a crime fiction book which might explain the type of marks on JB too. From Donna Leon "Fatal Remedies", p. 127 (Donna Leon is a very popular crime fiction author here in Europe).

[the victim, Mitri, has been strangled and there are two circular indentations in his neck. The coroner Dr. Rizzardi comes to the following conclusion in his report]:

"The double mark on Mitri's neck was, he had determined, a hesitation mark on the part of the murderer, who had probably loosened the cord momentarily to tighten his grip, shifting it and thus leaving a second indentation in Mitri's flesh."

Maybe something similar happened with JB? The perp tried to tighten his/her grip, loosened the cord and shifted it, and that's why there are two circular marks around JB's neck?

baddboyy

02-08-2007, 11:28 AM

The minute I heard about the details of this case I thought, long term child sexual abuse that got out of hand. I read the Ramseys book and was sympathetic to their cause until I got to the end and found out that in later writings Patsy made the same spelling and grammar errors that the note writer did. She defended this by saying that the police made her write the letter so many times that it just became habit.
This is ridiculous. She's been writing for 40 years then has to write the letter maybe three or four times and the grammer and spelling habits stick for the rest of her life. The murderer wrote the letter. Patsy in later writings makes the same type of errors. Patsy wrote the letter. That makes Patsy one of the murderers. If a father sexually molests his daughter then murders her the mother is not going to cover it up and stay with him unless she was involved. This is probably some kind of diabolical long term society of molesters. The only other thing that maybe makes sense is that the brother did it. The Ramseys told police he wasn't awake when they made the call to police but you could hear him in the background and Patsy was heard saying, "go to bed". I could imagine that horrified parents who found that there young son had killed his sister might cover for him so as not to lose both their children. This I suppose is possible. I would lean towards the sex club if I was the police however and look into the Ramseys friends and associations for child abusers. The fact though that the Whites were there that night with the Ramseys and the Mr White later turned against John seems to say that this might not have been the case. That's my 2 cents.

docg

02-09-2007, 01:05 PM

Rashomon:

>We've been through this many times, but one can't stress it often enough.

Yes, we HAVE been over the same evidence time after time, but you don't seem to have learned anything from that process.

>- the forensic evidence links both Ramseys to the staging of the scene, Patsy Ramsey even more that John, for fibers from her jacket were found in the wrappings of the garrote, in the paint tray and on the duct tape - all very incriminating locations

Not incriminating in the least. As JonBenet's mother, the person who put her to bed and tucked her in, why wouldn't her fibers (from a garment that was obviously VERY sheddy) be all over her own daughter? Once they were on the victim's body, they could very easily have been transferred to the crime scene, via both the victim AND her attacker. It may SOUND really suspicious that fibers from Patsy's jacket were found entwined in the knots of the "garotte." But when we learn that tufts of JonBenet's hair were entwined in those same knots, that changes the picture entirely. How easy it would have been for Patsy's fibers to get into JonBenet's hair, and thus be carried into those knots via the hair. The fibers do NOT constitute evidence implicating Patsy. They are, to the contrary, evidence of how desperate certain investigators have been to find any scrap of anything at all that could be used to implicate her in a crime she could NOT have committed. Same with ALL the so-called evidence against her. Take, e.g., her prints on the bowl of pineapple. Why wouldn't her prints be on that bowl? They were probably on every dish in the cupboard. She was the one who put them there, so her prints would be on them. They are "evidence" against her ONLY because the Keystone Kops were following their noses rather than listening to their brains. They wanted desperately to link her to the crime, and sure enough they found all sorts of links. Only they were links to the crime SCENE, i.e., the HOUSE, where Patsy lived. Her pad, her pen, her brush, so WHAT? If she were involved WHY would she use her OWN things? She was wearning the same outfit the next morning. That tells ME she must be innocent. Because if she were up all night staging a phoney kidnapping, she'd have been SURE to shower and change before greeting the cops that AM. No matter. They fixated on her, so whatever they could find became evidence. Even her looking funny at one of the officers became "evidence", convincing a great many that she HAD to be the one.

Same with the ransom note, which looks nothing like Patsy's printing style and sounds nothing like her prose style. Even the phrase "and hence" was assumed to come from her, though it's far more likely to have originated with her husband.

>The clumsily done ligatures point to her too,

The knotting of the "garotte" isn't clumsy at all. John Ramsey was a navy-trained yachtsman who certainly knew how to tie a knot. It's hard to see Patsy tying such a knot. But since you simply MUST have Patsy's head on a plate, then even the knot somehow points to her.

bullmoose

02-09-2007, 02:11 PM

bullmoose

02-09-2007, 02:38 PM

We've been through this many times, but one can't stress it often enough.

- the forensic evidence links both Ramseys to the staging of the scene, Patsy Ramsey even more that John, for fibers from her jacket were found in the wrappings of the garrote, in the paint tray and on the duct tape - all very incriminating locations - and she in all probability wrote the note.
The clumsily done ligatures point to her too, as well as the dramatic tone in the ransom note. Also the rambling. I can't imagine close-mouthed John writing that note, nor doing that kind of overthetop staging. But overthetop staging would be perfectly consistent with Patsy's drama queen character.
Overthetop staging also served her to undo the crime in her own mind.
- yes, Patsy called 911 with the body still in the house - what has that got to do with John being the perp? They couldn't very well let JB rot in the wine cellar and fly to Michigan, could they?
- Also, your theory that Patsy "spoiled" John's plan by calling the police is
a - NOT supported by the circumstantial evidence, for it was John who told Patsy to call the police.
b - even if John had actually wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would have seen to it that she did not get to read the ransom note alone, with him being upstairs in the shower. He would have shown the note to her instead and manipulated her into not calling the police.

Yes, the case walks talks acts and quacks like a duck, and I think the duck's name is Patsy Ramsey, whose husband let her run this show from start to finish. He probaby helped her somewhat in the staging, but was mostly a bystander imo.Your entire argument , rashoman, passes the duck test, IMO, for it assumes the guilt from the get-go, yes, they were there at the same house that their daughter was murdered at and fibers from them were all over the house. Have you ever been to a duck's nest, rashie? Feathers and bits of feathers everywhere. Down floating, stirred by a person walking by, sticking to your shoes and clothes. Of course fibers were going to be found in the house. Quack! get a duck! You say, she in all probability wrote the note; how many people in the city of Boulder had writing styles that more closely matched the note? Quack! Oops, the Caped Crime Fighters of the BPD won't release that number. Remember just a few months ago, when Karr was arrested? Quack! Seems to me that a number of handwriting experts 'matched' his writing to the note. Quack? Do you mean that handwriting analysis is not an exact science? You mean it is a Quacked assumption to believe that Patsy wrote the note, or Karr??? I think perhaps you have been watching too many old looneytoons, where one of the characters was Superduck. Your arguments do not convince me in any way that the case passes the duck test; IMHO your reasoning is badly quacked.:biggrin:

rashomon

02-09-2007, 03:08 PM

Rashomon:

Yes, we HAVE been over the same evidence time after time, but you don't seem to have learned anything from that process.
Docg,
Imo it is you who plainly ignore crucial forensic evidence because it doesn't fit into your story.
Instead you hinge your theory on something which exists only in your imagination: you simply fantasize that Pasty 'foiled' John's plans because she called the police. And when it is pointed out to you that if John had not wanted her to call the police, he would have arranged things differently, you simply ignore such arguments.

They fixated on her, so whatever they could find became evidence. Even her looking funny at one of the officers became "evidence", convincing a great many that she HAD to be the one.
Eyeing someone through splayed fingers in such a situation is far more than looking 'funny', it is something else: a person doing this wants to test if her performance is convincing.

Same with the ransom note, which looks nothing like Patsy's printing style and sounds nothing like her prose style. Even the phrase "and hence" was assumed to come from her, though it's far more likely to have originated with her husband.
It was Patsy's handwriting which linked her to the note in the first place. She was one of the few people who could not be excluded as the author of the note. (No need to come up with your Italian linguist or whatever who said it was John - I'd trust the CBI handwriting experts more in that case).
Aside from that, can you imagine close-mouthed John writing such a dramatic and rambling ransom note?

The knotting of the "garotte" isn't clumsy at all. John Ramsey was a navy-trained yachtsman who certainly knew how to tie a knot. It's hard to see Patsy tying such a knot. But since you simply MUST have Patsy's head on a plate, then even the knot somehow points to her.
Indeed, John was a trained yachtsman, which is why he imo would not have tied a wrist ligature on top of a sleeve, and not mummy-wrapped a handle, for multiple loops around a stick actually prevent effective pulling. Try it out yourself.

A while back I asked Delmar England ("EasyWriter" on FFJ) the question if the knot was a so-called tautline hitch knot (like one poster here had claimed), and he completely disagreed, calling it "utter nonsense unrelated to the evidence" (post # 339 on this FFJ thread, further info on post #. 345):

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...not#post128866

D. England wrote verbatim: "As for a rolling (tautline) hitch
with a small, soft cord, (especially flat, or near flat) forget
it."

According to DE, there was no tautline hitch knot at the crime scene. The crime scene constructions do not appear in any knot book, but were clumsily done slip knots to create loops, which points to the stager of the scene being ignorant both of the ligature material and its use as well as of knot construction.
This points away from John Ramsey, for surely as a boat owner he would not have been that ignorant about functioning knots.
And why go to the trouble of tying a specific cord at all if you are then going to leave a 15.5 inch space between the ligatures?
That large space between the ligature is the strongest indicator of bungling imo. For this would have allowed the victim to move her hands.
And who in his right mind would tie a ligature on top of a sleeve? The victim needs only to tug at the sleeve, pull it out from under the ligature, and the ligature would be loosely around the wrist.
And the other ligature was so loosely tied that it had already come off.
But since you simply MUST have Patsy's head on a plate, then even the knot somehow points to her.
Knots in a murder ligature are extremely important forensic evidence, and according to D. England, these knots point to the stager of the scene as being a bungling amateur. And John R. was no amateur.
Patsy Ramsey herself put her head on the plate, leaving behind so much incriminating forensic evidence.
And I think John was involved too. Both Ramseys were in this up to their neck, but I think John let Patsy do the staging of the scene.

bullmoose

02-09-2007, 03:19 PM

Lookout, its SUUUPEEERRRDDDUUUCCCCKKKK! QQQQUUAAACCCKKK!!!!!!JMHO:biggrin:

thewhitewitch1

02-09-2007, 03:25 PM

Lookout, its SUUUPEEERRRDDDUUUCCCCKKKK! QQQQUUAAACCCKKK!!!!!!JMHO:biggrin:

In the words of Austin Powers: "Ohhh Behave!"

Sprocket

02-09-2007, 03:27 PM

Lookout, its SUUUPEEERRRDDDUUUCCCCKKKK! QQQQUUAAACCCKKK!!!!!!JMHO:biggrin:

Instead of claiming "SuperDuck," why not actually try to develop some reasonable arguments to refute rashomon's analysis/arguments? You'll need to use logic to do it though. Good luck with that.

LindaA

02-09-2007, 03:29 PM

In the words of Austin Powers: "Ohhh Behave!"

Second the motion. :no:

LindaA

02-09-2007, 03:30 PM

Instead of claiming "SuperDuck," why not actually try to develop some reasonable arguments to refute rashomon's analysis/arguments? You'll need to use logic to do it though. Good luck with that.

Actually, I think he has done that, many times over. I daresay, IMO, the reply was a reflection of the posters frustration at having to repeat himself yet again.

Zoey

02-09-2007, 03:42 PM

I'm sorry, but who is this? Was he one of the experts that was there when the garrote was removed from JB or is he just another poster on another forum with another opinion or speculation?

Sprocket

02-09-2007, 03:48 PM

You don't know who Delmar England is? (http://www.acandyrose.com/delmarengland.htm)

His analysis of the "garote" is highly respected.

bullmoose

02-09-2007, 03:53 PM

IMO, Rashoman likes to state as fact points of view that she holds, which is fine; I'll dispute them. On other, Ramsey-hating sites, Rashoman posts her views and is not questioned. I do not post on those other sites, just here, and when she brings up the duck test for the case,I cannot help but think of either the AFLAC duck; which is in commercials that I doubt she sees in Germany, or SUPERDUCK, who was, of course, Daffy Ducks' alter ego. Superduck meant well, of course,but inevitably got things all screwed up, because he basically didn't have a clue as to what was actually going on. When rational dialogue fails; for me a little silly humor keeps me from getting frustrated with re-restating basic points of argument. Truly, I don't take myself too seriously, why do you think my moniker is bullmoose?:biggrin:

bullmoose

02-09-2007, 03:58 PM

You don't know who Delmar England is? (http://www.acandyrose.com/delmarengland.htm)

His analysis of the "garote" is highly respected.

I'm familiar with his site and views; IMO he is a legend in his own mind.

Sprocket

02-09-2007, 03:58 PM

rashomon

02-09-2007, 03:58 PM

I'm sorry, but who is this? Was he one of the experts that was there when the garrote was removed from JB or is he just another poster on another forum with another opinion or speculation?
His analysis of the so-called 'garrote' can be found on the ACandyRose site.
A must-read!
http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis2.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis3.htm

Sprocket

02-09-2007, 04:08 PM

I'm familiar with his site and views; IMO he is a legend in his own mind.
Why do you think he is a legend only in his own mind? I mean, anyone who develops an opinion about anything does so through their own set of criteria and analysis to come to a conclusion and form an opinion. We've all done this. We've gone through our own evaluation process, and through a process of elimination, accept or reject offered conclusions about an event. And, usually, we've relied on our own life experience and/or the life experience/analysis of someone else who's analysis or conclusions that we respect, to form our opinions. Have you actually performed your own testing on ropes and experimented with knots? In other words, write something that can be proven, that logically supports your opinion, and refutes his.

If he "really is" a legend in his own mind, write something that logically and scientifically refutes his analysis and conclusions. I mean, you must have done that at some point to come to your opinion, right?

bullmoose

02-09-2007, 04:48 PM

Why do you think he is a legend only in his own mind? I mean, anyone who develops an opinion about anything does so through their own set of criteria and analysis to come to a conclusion and form an opinion. We've all done this. We've gone through our own evaluation process, and through a process of elimination, accept or reject offered conclusions about an event. And, usually, we've relied on our own life experience and/or the life experience/analysis of someone else who's analysis or conclusions that we respect, to form our opinions. Have you actually performed your own testing on ropes and experimented with knots? In other words, write something that can be proven, that logically supports your opinion, and refutes his.

If he "really is" a legend in his own mind, write something that logically and scientifically refutes his analysis and conclusions. I mean, you must have done that at some point to come to your opinion, right?
What, did I hit a nerve, sprocket? Your last post stated as fact that I have yet to post a logical argument; you didn't say IMO or any of the other qualifiers, did you????? I used a qualifier; but, truth be told, his opinions do not impress me in the least, thats my privilage, isn't it? He is very much anti-Ramsey and it colors his 'work'; IMO it is self-evident. I do not have to do any testing or experiments to be unimpressed with his work or conclusions, any more than you have to do tests or experiments to be so very impressed with what he's done. IMHO, its a push, sprocket.

Sprocket

02-09-2007, 05:38 PM

Nope. No nerve hit with me. :biggrin:

I do not have to do any testing or experiments to be unimpressed with his work or

I take it that's a "no."

you didn't say IMO or any of the other qualifiers, did you????? In all the posts I've made, I think you totally missed my siggy. :biggrin:

bullmoose

02-09-2007, 06:06 PM

My mistake on your siggy,sprocket.:biggrin:

Athena

02-09-2007, 06:18 PM

His analysis of the so-called 'garrote' can be found on the ACandyRose site.
A must-read!
http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis2.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis3.htm

Personally his analyses does not impress me at all. He professes he knows enough about a garrotte but doesn't say how he knows it. No search that I have done makes me believe he is any more knowledgeable about the construction of a garrotte than anyone else in the forums that have done research. When one professes to have some kind of expert opinion I also expect to find legitimate credentials. The websites he posts commentaries are obscure at best and he is definitely not mainstream as is a book he wrote back in 1997:

http://www.wepin.com/wsph_f/ws_ph.html

I do however respect his opinion as I do any other person's opinion - no more; no less as I believe everyone is entitled to one

I would also like to point out that I read his writings as soon as they were available and I was not at that time IDI. JMO

rashomon

02-09-2007, 07:30 PM

Personally his analyses does not impress me at all. He professes he knows enough about a garrotte but doesn't say how he knows it.
Of course he says how he knows it. Just read his analyses.

Sprocket

02-09-2007, 07:38 PM

Of course he says how he knows it. Just read his analyses.

From Delmar's Analysis (bolding mine)

However, if we equate professional with efficiency in form and function, a claim of professional can be validated or invalidated by objective criteria relying on the physics of the material as pertains to construction and application. This is the real evidence that tells us much about the crime scene and the person or persons who created it.

As it turns out, I do have the background of experience and knowledge that enables me to evaluate this part of the crime scene by definitive criteria. Its not that I go around garroting individuals, but do know the physics involved as well as being long schooled in ropes, knots, handles and that sort of thing. Indeed, these things have been so much a part of my life that evaluation of the garrote scene is almost by mental reflex taking less than a minute. The read is easy as well as loud and clear.

He says that he was "long schooled in ropes, knots, handles" His detailed analysis, which includes going into the physics of particular knots and their properties, supports his claim that he knows what he's talking about.

Sprocket

02-09-2007, 08:01 PM

I forgot to add where Delmar goes into more detail, addressing "jameson":

Since you have made this an issue and your "reason" why I should not be believed, let's take the issue to its conclusion.

I have tied up and tied down everything from a small English Setter pup to a huge five pole circus tent. In between, I have tied thousand of knots of different types for different uses. I have made and used lassos, made and used animal capture snares which work by a garroting action. I know by experience effective design, the physics involved in the material and certainly the element of efficient leverage. By this experience and knowledge, I can quickly and easily differentiate between the work of an amateur and that of one with considerable experience. It is upon the foregoing experience and knowledge that the analysis of the garrote scene was written.

Zoey

02-09-2007, 08:08 PM

I forgot to add where Delmar goes into more detail, addressing "jameson":

Please don't bash me, but, anyone can say they are "experts" on these forums. It doesn't mean they are. These boards are full of people claiming to be something they aren't, and we are none the wiser.

Second, I have a real problem with someone who was not at the crime scene, did not have first hand view of the garrote, did not see the knots, did not touch the rope, and claims to know "exactly" how it was tied. It just does not work for me, IMO.

Sprocket

02-09-2007, 08:43 PM

Please don't bash me, but, anyone can say they are "experts" on these forums. It doesn't mean they are. These boards are full of people claiming to be something they aren't, and we are none the wiser.

Second, I have a real problem with someone who was not at the crime scene, did not have first hand view of the garrote, did not see the knots, did not touch the rope, and claims to know "exactly" how it was tied. It just does not work for me, IMO.

Well, that means (in your opinion) that every case that the FBI Behavioral Science Unit looks at (and, they look at cases after the fact; they are not routinely on scene with a body to examine) and the conclusions they come to are invalid because they were not there at the crime scene. What you are actually saying is, no one can look at crime scene photographs and have an expert opinion about them (that can be considered) because they "were not there" or " to touch" an element of the scene for themselves. With this high standard, we can't believe one forensic expert who looked at the crime scene and autopsy photographs after the fact and gave an opinon because they were not there to personally examine the scene and "to touch" the body or the rope or whatever.

That opinion flies in the face of everything we know about how people learn. With this logic, no one could even learn anything from images in books because they are not there when the photograph was taken to actually "touch" the object.

That's comical.

Zoey

02-09-2007, 09:32 PM

Well, that means (in your opinion) that every case that the FBI Behavioral Science Unit looks at (and, they look at cases after the fact; they are not routinely on scene with a body to examine) and the conclusions they come to are invalid because they were not there at the crime scene. What you are actually saying is, no one can look at crime scene photographs and have an expert opinion about them (that can be considered) because they "were not there" or " to touch" an element of the scene for themselves. With this high standard, we can't believe one forensic expert who looked at the crime scene and autopsy photographs after the fact and gave an opinon because they were not there to personally examine the scene and "to touch" the body or the rope or whatever.

That opinion flies in the face of everything we know about how people learn. With this logic, no one could even learn anything from images in books because they are not there when the photograph was taken to actually "touch" the object.

That's comical.

I am glad I amuse you because that is not what I meant nor what I said.

What I said was, there is no way to know what anyone on these boards does or is, so someone on FFJ claiming to be a knot expert does nothing for me.

What I also said was, someone on FFJ claiming to be a knot expert who did not see first hand what the knots were is not an expert to me.

Turn it around however you want to. It is not even close to what I said.

rashomon

02-09-2007, 10:08 PM

Zoey

02-09-2007, 10:15 PM

Remember that Lou Smit was not at the crime scene and didn't have a first hand view of the garrote either. Nor is Smit a rope expert. Does this work for you?

I guess this is one of those time where what I want to say is not coming out right.

Lou Smit is an expert in that he is a detective, has solved many, many cases, saw the rope up close and personal, etc, etc, etc.

Delmar is a person posting on a forum. We have no idea if he is an expert, therefore I have a hard time taking what he says to be fact because he claims to be an expert.

Any clearer??

Louisadelmar

02-09-2007, 10:17 PM

If someone claims to be an expert I would expect them to offer up something in terms of experience to validate that. Haven't yet seen anything to suggest Delmar is an expert in any field related to this case. In googling around I did find this from him:

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t1483.html

"Unless the photos are very misleading, the cord in question is
not a common utility cord found in hardware stores. From all
appearances, it is a specialty item. Most likely it came
from a sewing supplies outlet. Most likely it is used to support
collars and lapels. Most likely this cord was taken from Patsy's
sewing supplies."

England is on his own when he suggests the cord is some kind of sewing item. I can't think of a single investigator who has seen the cord who agrees. If he is thinking of the type of cord used as welting in upholstery it is very different. Unless he can point to a specific matching cord used in sewing and unless he can find anything to indicate Patsy sewed and had specialty cord I think he's just off in the weeds.

[….]
"As stated above, the cord was TIED around the
neck, not pulled tightly. Also, the swollen part in not
immediate. It is a post mortem effect."

Elvislives addressed this recently here. The cord was drawn tightly
There is actually no such thing as post mortem swelling per se. The ligature was pulled extremely tight and was indeed embedded in her neck.

There is probably some confusion because dead bodies will eventually 'swell' from the gases that form after death. Usually it is most obvious in the abdomen which will swell up like a big balloon (this is why dead bodies that are under water will eventually rise to the surface). But the swelling from the gasses takes several days. In JBs case, the ligature was pulled very tight.

[…]
"Notice by their own admission, Patsy is downstairs after John and
Burke had gone up to bed."

John’s interview
TT: Okay. You went upstairs and got ready for bed; was Patsy already in bed by the time you went upstairs?
JR: She was in bed when I went to go to bed, I remember that. Uh, . . .

Patsy’s interview:
TT: Okay. What time did John go to bed that night? Do you remember hearing him come upstairs at all.
PR: Yeah. I remember him coming to bed. I don’t know what time it was. It was shortly after I came to bed.

According to Jameson's 2B WS, after England wrote his ridiculous letter to Mary Lacy he contacted more than 80 people to try and get recognition as some sort of expert in this case. All seem to have seen through his wordy smokescreen (except for some poor souls at FFJ and WS) and he is still out in the cold spewing out pages and pages of tripe. I think he hopes we will be so intimidated by the sheer quantity of his output that we won't think to question the quality.

rashomon

02-09-2007, 11:16 PM

If someone claims to be an expert I would expect them to offer up something in terms of experience to validate that. Haven't yet seen anything to suggest Delmar is an expert in any field related to this case. In googling around I did find this from him:

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t1483.html

"Unless the photos are very misleading, the cord in question is
not a common utility cord found in hardware stores. From all
appearances, it is a specialty item. Most likely it came
from a sewing supplies outlet. Most likely it is used to support
collars and lapels. Most likely this cord was taken from Patsy's
sewing supplies."

England is on his own when he suggests the cord is some kind of sewing item. I can't think of a single investigator who has seen the cord who agrees. If he is thinking of the type of cord used as welting in upholstery it is very different. Unless he can point to a specific matching cord used in sewing and unless he can find anything to indicate Patsy sewed and had specialty cord I think he's just off in the weeds.

[….]
"As stated above, the cord was TIED around the
neck, not pulled tightly. Also, the swollen part in not
immediate. It is a post mortem effect."

Elvislives addressed this recently here. The cord was drawn tightly

[…]
"Notice by their own admission, Patsy is downstairs after John and
Burke had gone up to bed."

John’s interview
TT: Okay. You went upstairs and got ready for bed; was Patsy already in bed by the time you went upstairs?
JR: She was in bed when I went to go to bed, I remember that. Uh, . . .

Patsy’s interview:
TT: Okay. What time did John go to bed that night? Do you remember hearing him come upstairs at all.
PR: Yeah. I remember him coming to bed. I don’t know what time it was. It was shortly after I came to bed.

According to Jameson's 2B WS, after England wrote his ridiculous letter to Mary Lacy he contacted more than 80 people to try and get recognition as some sort of expert in this case. All seem to have seen through his wordy smokescreen (except for some poor souls at FFJ and WS) and he is still out in the cold spewing out pages and pages of tripe. I think he hopes we will be so intimidated by the sheer quantity of his output that we won't think to question the quality.
It might interest you that Delmar England answered to Jameseon's gibberish on the ACandyRose site:

http://www.acandyrose.com/07272001delmaranalysis5.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/07272001delmaranalysis6.htm

And D.E's letter to Mary Keenan (Lacy) is in no way 'ridiculous' (I suppose you haven't read it, but just parroted what Jameson said ), but an absolutely compelling and brilliant analysis of the case:

http://www.acandyrose.com/05202003keenanletter.htm

If you can refute any of the arguments in that letter, please post it here.

bullmoose

02-09-2007, 11:29 PM

Remember that Lou Smit was not at the crime scene and didn't have a first hand view of the garrote either. Nor is Smit a rope expert. Does this work for you? Are you saying that Lou Smit never got to inspect the crime scene, or just that he wasn't at the crime scene when the crime occurred? I guess I'm confused by your statement. What exactly do you mean? Smit was at the crime scene after he was hired on the case, he certainly inspected the garrote, although not while it was on Jonbenet's neck, so what is your point? Does it pass the Superduck test? JMHO:biggrin:

docg

02-09-2007, 11:50 PM

rashomon:
>Imo it is you who plainly ignore crucial forensic evidence because it doesn't fit into your story.
>Instead you hinge your theory on something which exists only in your imagination: you simply fantasize that Pasty 'foiled' John's plans because she called the police. And when it is pointed out to you that if John had not wanted her to call the police, he would have arranged things differently, you simply ignore such arguments.

Look, it's really very simple: if they were in it together, they would NOT have decided to call the police before getting the body out of the house; if Patsy did this on her own, then she wouldn't have wanted that call made either.

So either John is our perp and Patsy spoiled his plan or we are dealing with an intruder, it's as simple as that. What you call my "fantasy" is an attempt to reconstruct what might have happened in a way that's consistent with the evidence, including the evidence that there was NO intruder, which IMO is overwhelming.

If it's impossible for you to swallow Patsy calling 911 against John's wishes, then I invite you to come up with some other scenario that makes sense. Because insider staging plus the 911 call with the body still in the house does NOT make sense. No one goes to the trouble of writing a phoney ransom note providing the perfect excuse NOT to call the police and then deliberately destroys their own plan by calling the police anyhow. No jury would buy that. And if for some reason they lost their nerve and decided not to dump the body then they'd have torn up the ransom note, because with the body still in the house it would only have made them look more suspicious, which is what happened.

>Eyeing someone through splayed fingers in such a situation is far more than looking 'funny', it is something else: a person doing this wants to test if her performance is convincing.

Neither you nor I nor that policemen nor anyone else knows what Patsy meant when she splayed her fingers, assuming that's what actually happened. No judge would permit "evidence" of that sort to be presented at trial, it's junk.

>It was Patsy's handwriting which linked her to the note in the first place. She was one of the few people who could not be excluded as the author of the note. (No need to come up with your Italian linguist or whatever who said it was John - I'd trust the CBI handwriting experts more in that case).

NONE of the real experts, the ones who actually examined all the exemplars, said that Patsy wrote the note, not even close. The consensus was that it was unlikely she wrote it, but that she couldn't be ruled out. On the other hand, the example of John's printing on Brugnatelli's website was never even seen by these experts.

>Aside from that, can you imagine close-mouthed John writing such a dramatic and rambling ransom note?

Yes I can. Stylistically it is far closer to John than Patsy, both the printing and the content.

>Indeed, John was a trained yachtsman, which is why he imo would not have tied a wrist ligature on top of a sleeve, and not mummy-wrapped a handle, for multiple loops around a stick actually prevent effective pulling. Try it out yourself.

If you look at the photo of the "garotte" you can then ask yourself if this is the sort of thing one learns to do as a pageant princess, journalism student or housewife. Whether it was actually designed to do what Delmar England assumes it was, it's clearly something created by someone who had experience with knots. We know John did. There's no evidence Patsy did.

shill

02-10-2007, 01:01 AM

You don't know who Delmar England is? (http://www.acandyrose.com/delmarengland.htm)

His analysis of the "garote" is highly respected.

Respected by who?
He seems clueless to me. Just another RDI that claims he knows knots.

Every bit of the hand ligature and garrote has been explained to its practical and legitimate use, backed by the victim's hand position and the LE line of questioning about suspects with boating and camping knowledge.

But all of it being real doesn't fit the RDI theory, so of coarse you will never see the real crime scene.

shill

02-10-2007, 01:14 AM

If he "really is" a legend in his own mind, write something that logically and scientifically refutes his analysis and conclusions. I mean, you must have done that at some point to come to your opinion, right?I recreated the knots of the hand ligature and tested how they work. I researched the knots to find out what kind of knot they are and it's common use. I also showed LE interview quotes asking if John knew someone who knew boating and camping knots.
I am the one who posted this finding and Rashomon asked the D his opinion.
D did not logically and scientifically refute my analysis and conclusions. He just said my conclusions were ridiculous.
Sounds like he is no expert at all.

shill

02-10-2007, 01:37 AM

Indeed, John was a trained yachtsman, which is why he imo would not have tied a wrist ligature on top of a sleeve, and not mummy-wrapped a handle, for multiple loops around a stick actually prevent effective pulling. Try it out yourself.

John was trained by Fleet White.

The mummy wrapping as you call it is to precisely adjust the length of the cord. It can be shortened and lengthened by adding or subtracting wrappings and keeps the brush from sliding out when it is pulled sideways.
The ligature and garrote's design were real and really used on the victim as is evident of her hand position, the deep neck indentation, and the vaginal penetration.

rashomon

02-10-2007, 07:37 AM

rashomon:
If you look at the photo of the "garotte" you can then ask yourself if this is the sort of thing one learns to do as a pageant princess, journalism student or housewife. Whether it was actually designed to do what Delmar England assumes it was, it's clearly something created by someone who had experience with knots. We know John did. There's no evidence Patsy did.
My little kindergartners can do that too: wrap a piece of cord around a stick and tie some clumsy slip knots.
Look, it's really very simple: if they were in it together, they would NOT have decided to call the police before getting the body out of the house; if Patsy did this on her own, then she wouldn't have wanted that call made either.
You simply assume that people who stage a scene think clearly and logically. but this is seldom the case. People trying to get away with a crime by staging a scene mostly make horrible mistakes in their staging. The Ramseys were no exception. Imo that whole staging business was nothing but a wild shot and chaos from start to finish.
They simply threw everything into the mix, staging too much. They wanted to stage ist as a sexual predator scene and as a kidnapping gone wrong -things which seldom happen together.

So either John is our perp and Patsy spoiled his plan or we are dealing with an intruder, it's as simple as that. What you call my "fantasy" is an attempt to reconstruct what might have happened in a way that's consistent with the evidence, including the evidence that there was NO intruder, which IMO is overwhelming.
Nothing in the staged scene points to there beng any refined 'plan' behind it - on the contrary, it is precisely the planlessness which is so obvious. Panicked parents having their back to the wall and frantically trying to get out of this mess by staging a scene - that's what I see in it.

If it's impossible for you to swallow Patsy calling 911 against John's wishes, then I invite you to come up with some other scenario that makes sense. Because insider staging plus the 911 call with the body still in the house does NOT make sense. No one goes to the trouble of writing a phoney ransom note providing the perfect excuse NOT to call the police and then deliberately destroys their own plan by calling the police anyhow. No jury would buy that. And if for some reason they lost their nerve and decided not to dump the body then they'd have torn up the ransom note, because with the body still in the house it would only have made them look more suspicious, which is what happened.
Imo the RN was nothing more than a wild concoction of movie lines and downright silly phrases, like the "gentlemen do not particuarly like you" . And since most ransom note contain a warning not to call the polilce, the Ramseys threw this in too.
I don't think any plan was behind the note other than to introduce an 'outside' element which they needed. This is why they did not destroy the note. For if they had torn up the ransom note, the police would have found a strangled child with a bashed-in head in her own home - game up for the Ramseys.

Neither you nor I nor that policemen nor anyone else knows what Patsy meant when she splayed her fingers, assuming that's what actually happened. No judge would permit "evidence" of that sort to be presented at trial, it's junk.
Behavior is circumstantial evidence too.
The consensus was that it was unlikely she wrote it, but that she couldn't be ruled out.
Didn't the CBI handwriting expert Chet Ubowski state "she probably wrote it"? Adn Ubowski was by no means alone with his conclusion, other experts were of the same opinion.

In another post of yours, you said that Patsy wearing the same clothes as the night before proved to you that she was innocent, for surely she would have showered and put on a different outfit if she wanted to fool the police.
Again you project a level of planning into the scene which I don't think existed. I believe Patsy never went to bed that night, and did not think for one minute about the clothes she was still wearing and the inference the police might draw from this.
She was still wearing make-up too. Would a mother who had just found her child had been kidnapped take the trouble to put on make-up?

In terms of the ransom note taken from pen and paper from the home: they had to write it on pen and paper from their own home, didn't they? And since they had to do this, they may have gotten the spontaneous idea to pin the crime on their housekeeper LHP. Remember Patsy Ramsey said she thought the housekeeper had left her a note and pointed out that LHP was in dire straits financially.

LindaA

02-10-2007, 07:46 AM

She was still wearing make-up too. Would a mother who had just found her child had been kidnapped take the trouble to put on make-up?

No, she wouldn't have been able to. Nor would she have been able to if she had killed her. PR put her makeup on before she discovered the rn. If she had just wanted to convince police that she had been frantically searching for JBR she would have appeared in her robe and un-made-up face. But that's not what she did because she did not have any reason to be concerned until after she had gotten dressed and come downstairs. That's part of the reason why I believe her story.

Louisadelmar

02-10-2007, 09:03 AM

It might interest you that Delmar England answered to Jameseon's gibberish on the ACandyRose site:

http://www.acandyrose.com/07272001delmaranalysis5.htm

http://www.acandyrose.com/07272001delmaranalysis6.htm

And D.E's letter to Mary Keenan (Lacy) is in no way 'ridiculous' (I suppose you haven't read it, but just parroted what Jameson said ), but an absolutely compelling and brilliant analysis of the case:

http://www.acandyrose.com/05202003keenanletter.htm

If you can refute any of the arguments in that letter, please post it here.

I've read his letter and his assorted responses. Since I mentioned Jameson merely as the source I was using for the statement he had contacted a huge number of people and got no response, his 'answer' to her isn't relevant here. I did have another source for the statement he'd contacted over 80 people but last night didn't feel like hunting down which computer it was on. I'd forgotten that even Thomas gave him the brush-off. The link I have doesn't work but I think you'll find the original post (which was in response to a question from you) at FFJ. True to form it goes on and on and on. Here it is.

#17
May 3, 2006, 4:21 pm, Wed May 3 16:21:17 CDT 2006
EasyWriter
Member

[QUOTE=rashomon] Easywriter, did you receive a reply from Mary Keenan?[QUOTE]

No.

“In your closing line you wrote that in case you got no reply
from her, you would initiate plan B. What exactly did you mean by
plan B?”(ibid)

The plan was to contact various media with the truth about
assorted fallacies being propagated and promoted, including the
aberrations of Lou Smit. This included all major networks with
criticism of specific programs, especially those featuring Looney
Louie. If I count newspapers and magazines, I made over a hundred
contacts with zero interest in the truth. This is an illustration
of just how deep and influencing the garbage was and is after all
the years of lies upon lies.

Long before I wrote that letter to Keenan, I had contacted Steve
Thomas. I agreed with Thomas about Patsy being “good for it”, but
didn’t agree with how he thought it came down. Of course, Steve’s
belief goes along with a staged crime scene. The problem was,
Steve did not understand the staging well enough to prove it.
That’s what I wrote him about in general terms to keep the email
short for better chance of being read.

I knew full well that the attorneys for him and for the
publishers didn’t have a clue as to what was really going on.
First, Steve was hamstrung by the “powers that be in Boulder,
then he was more or less locked into the situation with dumb
attorneys that kept him away from critical information about the
staging. These attorneys would rather loose a case than have
their egos threatened by an outsider. Ergo, Steve’s response was
no surprise:

“Dear Delmar,

Thank you so much for the information. As you can appreciate, I
am not in a position to be discussing the particulars via e-mail.
But your e-mail brought up interesting points. Might you hold
these thoughts for the moment, as we determine if they may be of
use to us? I appreciate your consideration and confidentiality,
Delmar. Let's touch base again ina week or two. Sincerely,
Steve Thomas” (Tue, 17 Apr 2001)

That was the last I heard from him. The suit was settled out of
court and the Ramseys never had to face interrogation and
exposure of the staged crime scene. Status quo.

The tragedy of the death of JonBenet is compounded by the tragedy
that any semblance of truth is buried under voluminous
fabrications instigated and propagated by the very persons who
are responsible for her death and cover up. They did not do it alone. Again
and again, simple and irrefutable evidence is either ignored
completely, or distorted beyond recognition to preserve the
illusion of Ramsey innocence.

Aside from a few passing sound bites, my introduction to the case
came in March of 2000 via a Barbara Walters interview of John and
Patsy Ramsey. I usually don’t watch interviews because they are
usually boring. I usually don’t watch Barbara Walters because she
is even more boring. Nevertheless, for reasons I can’t recall at
the moment, I watched this “no hold barred” farce. This was my
introduction to the dumbest, most inept staging in history
exceeded only by the dumbest, most inept “investigators” in
history.

Going in, I had no conclusions as to guilt or innocence, but
immediately picked up on the orchestration that stacked up to be
nothing more than a Ramsey forum. The next day, I took an online
look and the conclusion of staged crime scene jumped from the
pages of the autopsy report. How has this charade of innocence
been carried out so successfully and for so long? The tv
interview in focus answers the question quite well.

BARBARA WALTERS This is a very brutal murder, and yet some of the
authorities have said that you staged this. Um, that you loosely
tied your daughter's hands. That you put the noose, the garrote,
to make it look as if some terrible person had done this. That
this whole… picture was staged.(end quote)

JOHN RAMSEY Well, that's absurd. This was done by a terrible
person. The garrote...was deeply embedded in JonBenet's throat.
Her hands were tightly bound, I couldn't get the knot untied, I
tried to get it untied, even before I brought her upstairs, The
fundamental issue is no logic has been applied to any of this
case. Why would I for example have staged this horrible scene,
and then disturbed it myself, pulled the tape off her mouth,
carried her upstairs, tried to untie the hands before I brought
her upstairs. If I'd have staged it, I would've wanted the police
to see it as I staged it. It's not logical. Makes no sense.(end
quote)

Notice that BW introduces the description of loosely tied while
John adamantly declares and implies more than once that
JonBenet’s hands were tied tightly. Where did BW get the
description of loosely tied? From the autopsy report? Did she
attempt to confirm of deny the description of loosely tied before
the show? What would have happened if Barbara had confronted John
with the autopsy report AND photos and asked him to either show
the report and photo to be fake, or else explain where he got the
bound tightly stuff, or any binding at all?

Where would this line of questioning led? To the end of the lies?
Of course, BW did not challenge. John’s declaration, directly
contradicting the evidence, was allowed to go out to the national
audience. This incident of deception is just one of millions fed
to a vast audience who know no better because they get the
information from “truth in the media”.

Everybody knows that Lou Smit is an idiot for accepting John word
“as a Christian.” How about all those like BW who accept John’s
word because of “social status.” Is there really any difference
in these mentalities? If the end result is to avoid the evidence
to favor the Ramseys, what difference does motivation make? It’s
the same end result of aiding and abetting felons.

In this “no holds barred” interview, right behind lying John came
lying Patsy.

PATSY RAMSEY: First of all we know from the evidence that this
was a premeditated murder. The way in which she… died. The
garrote that was around her neck.(end quote)

No questions. No challenge; just whatever lies these “socialite
Christians” say are paraded as truth. Naturally, BW had to be
kind to the “guests” lest these audience-drawing guests refuse to
return and adversely affect the ratings and bottom line.

Sickening.

thewhitewitch1

02-10-2007, 10:23 AM

No, she wouldn't have been able to. Nor would she have been able to if she had killed her. PR put her makeup on before she discovered the rn. If she had just wanted to convince police that she had been frantically searching for JBR she would have appeared in her robe and un-made-up face. But that's not what she did because she did not have any reason to be concerned until after she had gotten dressed and come downstairs. That's part of the reason why I believe her story.

Yet, beyond her word, there is no proof that Patsy was not still wearing the same make-up from the night before. It is very well possible that she never went to bed that night. IMO

Athena

02-10-2007, 10:38 AM

Of course he says how he knows it. Just read his analyses.

I did read it rashomon and I've read other articles by him as well. Simply I see no credentials that he is a knot expert or any other kind of expert for that matter other than self-professed. He does not impress me. I'll just leave it at that and agree to disagree. JMO

rashomon

02-10-2007, 11:01 AM

I'd forgotten that even Thomas gave him the brush-off. [/I]
ST told D. England in one of his e-mails that he finds his descriptions and logical presentations fascinating and reasonably founded.
But D. England is of the opinion that ST failed to recognize the garrote scene as being a staged scene.

Jayelles

02-10-2007, 11:11 AM

I recreated the knots of the hand ligature and tested how they work. I researched the knots to find out what kind of knot they are and it's common use. I also showed LE interview quotes asking if John knew someone who knew boating and camping knots.
I am the one who posted this finding and Rashomon asked the D his opinion.
D did not logically and scientifically refute my analysis and conclusions. He just said my conclusions were ridiculous.
Sounds like he is no expert at all.

Well I've just read his refutal and it's approximately 7500 words longer than "he just said my conclusions were ridiculous"! His refutal is also considerably more "scientific" than you imply! (not sure how much more scientific you can make knot tying than this!)

e.g.:-

In tying a tautline hitch,
after the rope is brought around the post, the rope is then
looped around itself, then wrapped around itself twice on the
inside to make the loop - then it is brought outside of the loop
and finished with a single slip knot around the tie line going
away. In other words, with a tautline hitch, you wind up with two
turns inside the loop and one turn outside with the rope clamped
between the other two turns due to the slip knot finish.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=128927&postcount=345

I've been meaning to ask you for your opinion about John Ramsey leaving the rope loose in order to form a "satanic grin".... (quote - Toaster, ex-member of WS)

bullmoose

02-10-2007, 06:16 PM

[QUOTE=rashomon;8813868]Remember that Lou Smit was not at the crime scene and didn't have a first hand view of the garrote either. Nor is Smit a rope expert. Does this work for you?[/QUOTE Look out, Its SUPERDUCK!!!!!!!!Didn't pass the duck test, huh?? QUACKKK!!!!!JMHO:biggrin:

LindaA

02-10-2007, 07:05 PM

Yet, beyond her word, there is no proof that Patsy was not still wearing the same make-up from the night before. It is very well possible that she never went to bed that night. IMO

But if she had been wearing the same makeup, after murdering her daughter , it would hardly have been fresh. She would have had to re-touch it. Makeup just doesn't stay on that long under the best of circumstances. I daresay if she committed this crime she would have broken a sweat and that would have further affected her makeup.

shill

02-10-2007, 08:53 PM

Well I've just read his refutal and it's approximately 7500 words longer than "he just said my conclusions were ridiculous"! His refutal is also considerably more "scientific" than you imply! (not sure how much more scientific you can make knot tying than this!)

e.g.:-You example is him describing how to tie the knot. You could have just Googled it if you wanted to know how to tie it.
So he got a merit badge in Boy Scouts for tying knots, big deal.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=128927&postcount=345

I've been meaning to ask you for your opinion about John Ramsey leaving the rope loose in order to form a "satanic grin".... (quote - Toaster, ex-member of WS) John states the knot was tight and he tried to loosen it to free her hands.
I don't know what she means by John forming a satanic grin with the rope, do you?

shill

02-10-2007, 09:08 PM

Yet, beyond her word, there is no proof that Patsy was not still wearing the same make-up from the night before. It is very well possible that she never went to bed that night. IMO

How many hours did she go with out sleep if she had been up all night and yet no one ever mentions her behavior as tired or exhausted.

How do you answer a statement that the reasoning is based on saying, "they lied"?
You don't want to believe their testimony so it's a lie.
You're judging her behavior as a sign of guilt if she did something a certain way or for a certain reason, but when she says why or how she did it and it makes sense, you claim she must be lying to us to get us to think it makes sense.

bullmoose

02-10-2007, 09:26 PM

How many hours did she go with out sleep if she had been up all night and yet no one ever mentions her behavior as tired or exhausted.

How do you answer a statement that the reasoning is based on saying, "they lied"?
You don't want to believe their testimony so it's a lie.
You're judging her behavior as a sign of guilt if she did something a certain way or for a certain reason, but when she says why or how she did it and it makes sense, you claim she must be lying to us to get us to think it makes sense.Ramsey-haters are obsessesed with trying to pound square pegs through round holes; seemingly they think if they hit the square peg enough times they can get it to fit.

thewhitewitch1

02-10-2007, 09:28 PM

But if she had been wearing the same makeup, after murdering her daughter , it would hardly have been fresh. She would have had to re-touch it. Makeup just doesn't stay on that long under the best of circumstances. I daresay if she committed this crime she would have broken a sweat and that would have further affected her makeup.

By that token, with all of her hysteria and "frantic running around" that morning (and I am imagining she probably cried, as well), her make-up shouldn't have appeared fresh anyway. IMO

rashomon

02-10-2007, 09:32 PM

But if she had been wearing the same makeup, after murdering her daughter , it would hardly have been fresh. She would have had to re-touch it. Makeup just doesn't stay on that long under the best of circumstances. I daresay if she committed this crime she would have broken a sweat and that would have further affected her makeup.
Maybe she did just that: retouch the make-up she had been wearing from the night before.
Didn't Patsy state that she - before putting on make up -
discovered JB was missing very early in the morning, I know that the Ramseys have changed their time line to make the evidence fit the facts, but I'd like to know Patsy' earliest statements about this morning.

thewhitewitch1

02-10-2007, 09:48 PM

Ramsey-haters are obsessesed with trying to pound square pegs through round holes; seemingly they think if they hit the square peg enough times they can get it to fit.

You know, I am tired of getting called a "Ramsey hater".
Just because I am not convinced of the Ramseys innocence doesn't mean I hate them. Give me a freakin break.
You and others choose to believe every word they have uttered. I am not quite so trusting when I see evidence that leads me to believe otherwise.
I am open to an intruder but I've yet to be convinced that there actually was one.
I have no emotion towards the Ramseys one way or another. I am simply interested in finding out what happened and emotions have no place in ameture sleuthing...nor in professional detective work.
You and Shill seem to have the Ramseys placed on some pedestal and are unable to look at anything objectively because of it. I guess if you think I'm a "Ramsey Hater", that must make you two "Ramsey Worshipers". How can you be so emotionally involved with people you don't even know? :shrug:

shill

02-10-2007, 10:39 PM

You and Shill seem to have the Ramseys placed on some pedestal and are unable to look at anything objectively because of it. I guess if you think I'm a "Ramsey Hater", that must make you two "Ramsey Worshipers". How can you be so emotionally involved with people you don't even know? :shrug:

The Ramseys are the only witnesses. If you believe everything they say are lies and the crime scene staged, then you are disregarding the majority of the evidence.

I believe the Rs because their testimony fits the crime scene evidence.
I believe if you want to solve a crime you should rely on the testimony of eyewitnesses and view the evidence as a real crime scene to find the killer.

RDIs believe the crime scene is staged and the R's are lying, which is saying the only evidence we have is not believable so you have to build a case that shows the Ramseys are in fact lying based on the fact that nothing is as it appears and the evidence is a lie.
And all this staging and lying is based on a motive of covering up an accident.

Now how smart is it to try and solve a crime by saying that all the evidence is fake and the witnesses are liars so we'll ignore what the clues imply really happened and just make up a story to try and explain how the Ramseys did it all.

And I don't know the Ramseys and there is a good chance I wouldn't like them if I met them.

aussiesheila

02-10-2007, 10:53 PM

I tried this experiment too, but the knot locked.Well mine worked. If we had some way of producing diagrams here I could show you how to replicate the exact same knot in the autopsy photo and it wouldn't lock.

thewhitewitch1

02-10-2007, 11:17 PM

The Ramseys are the only witnesses. If you believe everything they say are lies and the crime scene staged, then you are disregarding the majority of the evidence.

I believe the Rs because their testimony fits the crime scene evidence.
I believe if you want to solve a crime you should rely on the testimony of eyewitnesses and view the evidence as a real crime scene to find the killer.

RDIs believe the crime scene is staged and the R's are lying, which is saying the only evidence we have is not believable so you have to build a case that shows the Ramseys are in fact lying based on the fact that nothing is as it appears and the evidence is a lie.
And all this staging and lying is based on a motive of covering up an accident.

Now how smart is it to try and solve a crime by saying that all the evidence is fake and the witnesses are liars so we'll ignore what the clues imply really happened and just make up a story to try and explain how the Ramseys did it all.

And I don't know the Ramseys and there is a good chance I wouldn't like them if I met them.

It is not only the RDIs who are of the opinion that the crime scene was staged. The police and the FBI thought so also, did they not?
What are the Ramseys "witnesses" of? They saw nothing. They heard nothing. Everything about the scenerio is suspicious. All these years and all these detectives working for "team Ramsey" have come up with nothing. If that doesn't tell you something, I don't know what will. IMO

bullmoose

02-10-2007, 11:51 PM

It is not only the RDIs who are of the opinion that the crime scene was staged. The police and the FBI thought so also, did they not?
What are the Ramseys "witnesses" of? They saw nothing. They heard nothing. Everything about the scenerio is suspicious. All these years and all these detectives working for "team Ramsey" have come up with nothing. If that doesn't tell you something, I don't know what will. IMO
I firmly believe that the crime scene was staged; first and foremost to incriminate the Ramseys. I think it was successful; the fact that the Ramseys saw and heard nothing obviously incriminates them, to you and RDI's everywhere. The fact that is {"All those detectives[in your opinion] working for Team Ramsey[again,inyour unbiased opinion] have come up with nothing.[if you say so] If that doesn't tell you something, I don't know what will."} During these past ten years, nobody has been indicted by the efforts of the BPD, either; remember them? And they were first on the scene,weren't they? No, I am not a Ramsey worshipper, but I hate a phony game. This one was from the start with the cops falling right into the trap, yes the staging left by whoever the real killer/s were. And when you get a murder investigator with the experience and expertice like the Twister trying to prove a truly asinine scenario of murder and coverup like he did, with his Twisterpiece of a book following a couple years later, I just couldn't stand the smell anymore. I started researching the case for myself, and came to the conclusions that I did, which I gladly share with you on this board whenever I can. :biggrin:

thewhitewitch1

02-11-2007, 12:53 AM

I firmly believe that the crime scene was staged; first and foremost to incriminate the Ramseys. I think it was successful; the fact that the Ramseys saw and heard nothing obviously incriminates them, to you and RDI's everywhere. The fact that is {"All those detectives[in your opinion] working for Team Ramsey[again,inyour unbiased opinion] have come up with nothing.[if you say so] If that doesn't tell you something, I don't know what will."} During these past ten years, nobody has been indicted by the efforts of the BPD, either; remember them? And they were first on the scene,weren't they? No, I am not a Ramsey worshipper, but I hate a phony game. This one was from the start with the cops falling right into the trap, yes the staging left by whoever the real killer/s were. And when you get a murder investigator with the experience and expertice like the Twister trying to prove a truly asinine scenario of murder and coverup like he did, with his Twisterpiece of a book following a couple years later, I just couldn't stand the smell anymore. I started researching the case for myself, and came to the conclusions that I did, which I gladly share with you on this board whenever I can. :biggrin:

Well, I respect your opinion. I fail to see why anyone other than the Ramseys had to "stage" a crime scene. I am not convinced that anyone staged it to appear that the Ramseys had done it. If that were the case, they could have done a much more convincing and thorough job. There was no need for the RN. Having JBs body turn up with no explanation would have been plenty incriminating against the Ramseys. They could have used any item from the Ramsey home to strangle her (let's say Beths scarf, for example). They could have used ordinary duct tape from the home and then the rest of the roll would have been discovered. They could have exited the house through a door instead of leaving a window open with a suitcase under it. They could have done a lot of things that would have left much more doubt about the possibility of the evidence pointing towards anyone except the Ramseys. I don't feel that a "nyah nyah" rub it in your face bogus ransom note was necessary for the illusive "vindictive" killer to get his "revenge" against JR. The murder of his daughter would have been enough. IMO
When people question why the Ramseys would use their own items in the murder, I have to ask what would you have them use? I don't think they were exactly in the state of mind or position to run down to Wal-Mart to pick up fresh supplies that couldn't be traced to them. I still believe this was not premeditated and they had to use what was available and hope for the best.
I honestly believe that no "intruder" will ever be found and no one will ever know what really happened that night.

bullmoose

02-11-2007, 02:05 AM

Well, I respect your opinion. I fail to see why anyone other than the Ramseys had to "stage" a crime scene. I am not convinced that anyone staged it to appear that the Ramseys had done it. If that were the case, they could have done a much more convincing and thorough job. There was no need for the RN. Having JBs body turn up with no explanation would have been plenty incriminating against the Ramseys. They could have used any item from the Ramsey home to strangle her (let's say Beths scarf, for example). They could have used ordinary duct tape from the home and then the rest of the roll would have been discovered. They could have exited the house through a door instead of leaving a window open with a suitcase under it. They could have done a lot of things that would have left much more doubt about the possibility of the evidence pointing towards anyone except the Ramseys. I don't feel that a "nyah nyah" rub it in your face bogus ransom note was necessary for the illusive "vindictive" killer to get his "revenge" against JR. The murder of his daughter would have been enough. IMO
When people question why the Ramseys would use their own items in the murder, I have to ask what would you have them use? I don't think they were exactly in the state of mind or position to run down to Wal-Mart to pick up fresh supplies that couldn't be traced to them. I still believe this was not premeditated and they had to use what was available and hope for the best.
I honestly believe that no "intruder" will ever be found and no one will ever know what really happened that night. A stager stages a crime however they do to please themselves, not to fit a mold or satisfy amateur crime researchers like us. I do not see how they could have done a better job; I think they probably knew the caliber of cop they were dealing with and set the trap accordingly; I agree there was no need for the ransom note--to you and me, but I firmly believe whoever wrote it knew that it would only act to cause the cops to zero in on John and Patsy,which it did. Yes, they could have used a scarf to strangle her, but they didn't, they used a particular flat nylon cord that they apparently brought in and left with. They couldn't have used any duct tape from the home, there wasn't any there, so they brought in duct tape and left with it. They may have left the house through a door, they may have come in that way, or they may have come in through the window.The suitcase may be a red herring, I wouldn't go out that way. The note may be one,too, but there's too much knowledge displayed in it for me to think so. I think there was a message in that note that only the writer of it understands, that was addressed to John Ramsey. THere is IMO a deep pathological viseral hatred dripping from that note, and IMO it is a gloating hatred. I do not understand what you mean when you say that they used their own items in the murder? Not the tape, nor the cord, the killer/s brought them in and took them out, so what are you speaking of? What supplies?I disagree about the murder itself, I firmly believe that this was a cold-hearted deliberate murder, but unless the DNA pans out someday, I too doubt it will be solved. But then again, Gary Ridgway, the GreenRiver serial killer was caught on 20 year old DNA, so I still hope.

thewhitewitch1

02-11-2007, 03:00 AM

A stager stages a crime however they do to please themselves, not to fit a mold or satisfy amateur crime researchers like us. I do not see how they could have done a better job; I think they probably knew the caliber of cop they were dealing with and set the trap accordingly; I agree there was no need for the ransom note--to you and me, but I firmly believe whoever wrote it knew that it would only act to cause the cops to zero in on John and Patsy,which it did. Yes, they could have used a scarf to strangle her, but they didn't, they used a particular flat nylon cord that they apparently brought in and left with. They couldn't have used any duct tape from the home, there wasn't any there, so they brought in duct tape and left with it. They may have left the house through a door, they may have come in that way, or they may have come in through the window.The suitcase may be a red herring, I wouldn't go out that way. The note may be one,too, but there's too much knowledge displayed in it for me to think so. I think there was a message in that note that only the writer of it understands, that was addressed to John Ramsey. THere is IMO a deep pathological viseral hatred dripping from that note, and IMO it is a gloating hatred. I do not understand what you mean when you say that they used their own items in the murder? Not the tape, nor the cord, the killer/s brought them in and took them out, so what are you speaking of? What supplies?I disagree about the murder itself, I firmly believe that this was a cold-hearted deliberate murder, but unless the DNA pans out someday, I too doubt it will be solved. But then again, Gary Ridgway, the GreenRiver serial killer was caught on 20 year old DNA, so I still hope.

The tape and the cord....why bring in these items? How did this person know there would not be duct tape at the Ramseys? Most people have duct tape. Why duct tape anyway? There are any number of ways to silence a person. Any kind of rope, scarf, belt etc could have been used to strangle her...taken from the home to further implicate the Ramseys. If the intent was to make a "garrote", why didn't he already have it made, complete with handle? Why only use the paintbrush to implicate Patsy?
Why would the killer "bring in" or "take out" anything that may be found later to implicate himself?
Why would the suitcase be a "red-herring?"
The RN did not cause the police to "zero in" on the Ramseys. Her body in the wine cellar is what raised the red flags. Those red flags would have been raised without the ransom note.
I have to say that one of the main reasons I am so suspicious of the Ramseys is the way they handled things upon reading that note. I do not particularly fault them for calling the police but I would have stressed the importance of how my child would be murdered if disgression was not used and I most certainly would not have called in a bunch of my friends when the ransom note distinctly and repeatedly warned me not to so much as "talk to a stray dog". It appears as though they did not take the note seriously in the least and I can only think of one reason why that would be. IMO

aussiesheila

02-11-2007, 03:09 AM

Dr. Wright said 20 to 60 minutes.
Quote:
"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."
Dr Wright, wasn’t he the one elvis contacted and found out that he was quoted out of context? Didn’t he tell her he was asked the question: How long does it take for someone to die of a headwound? Without the questioner mentioning anything about a strangulation event being in there somewhere?

Where did you get those quotes of Wright’s from?

aussiesheila

02-11-2007, 03:19 AM

Dr. Spitz and several other doctors consulted on the case also agreed with Whright.
Quote:

Narrator Lyn Cannon
Guest Forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz

LC: Dr.Warner Spitz has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies. In 1997, he was consulted by the Boulder police investigating the murder. He says he reviewed more than 100 autopsy photos which have never been released to the public.
You believe JBR was hit on the head first, and then strangled.
Dr. WS: Yes.
LC: But in reports published this week, a former detective, who also worked on the case, claimed the head wound did not bleed enough to be the first injury, but Spitz says, he can prove his case, and it's believed the Boulder police agree.
Dr.WS: Because there was hemmoraging in the brain.
LC: There was hemmoraging in the brain?
Dr.WS: There was hemmoraging in the scalp, in the skin,in other words,
LC: Spitz says those hemmorages would not have formed if JB was already dead of strangulation when she suffered the head injury.
Dr.WS: She did have a circulation....she did have blood clots, she did have heart beat, she did breathe, for awhile, after the head injury.

rashomon, if you believe the length of time elapsed between the head blow which you say came first and the ligature being finally tied around neck was a minimum of 20 minutes, how do you explain the absence of the large amount of hemorrhaging that would be expected to have occurred in that time?

I know we have been through this over and over, not just here but all through last year at Websleuths, and it has been others besides me who have argued with you as well on this point. I did think when a qualified medico in the form of elvislives came to this forum and began telling you the same thing ie that short of some Godly miracle, that heavy hemorrhaging should have occurred in this case in that 20 minutes and as it clearly didn't (and elvis has told over and over that it didn't, no matter how much you think that it did), you would give up on this idea, but no, you keep on bringing up quotes from other medicos who were either quoted out of context or prima donnas who just want their 15 minutes of fame and so will come up with any old opinion as long as it gets their words into print and their faces on the television to prop up this notion of yours.

Dr Meyer who performed the autopsy said there was no sign of organization, which we now know for sure means clotting because elvis has confirmed that it does. Then we have the opinion of Dr Werner Spitz who only saw autopsy photos of JonBenet’s body provided by BPD, even if there were 100 of them.

So you have the doctor who dissected the actual body saying there were no clots, then another doctor who has only seen photos comes onto a television show and proclaims that "...she did have blood clots."

I know who I am going to believe.

OK, so Spitz has conducted 50,000 autopsies. What proportion of these would have been head injury deaths? 1%? 5%, even 10% would only be 5,000. How many autopsies would Meyer have performed? How many head injuries would elvis have seen? I suppose she will ruin this line of argument by saying she has only seen 100. I’ll still go with her and Meyer’s opinions though.

Even Spitz does not say she survived 20 minutes after the head blow before the application of the ligature. He does not specify an exact length of time, only that it was a while, whatever that means.

aussiesheila

02-11-2007, 03:40 AM

Interesting also what doctor Spitz said about petechiae.

Quote:
Narrator Lyn Cannon
Guest Forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz

LC:Let me say that the noose, made of cord similar to this, was not tied around her neck after death. He believes that she was dying of the head injury while she was strangled. His evidence,...a tell tale pattern of hemmoraging on the internal surface of her eye lids. Petechial or penpoint hemmorages.
Dr.WS: When strangulation occurs, there is a point where the blood vessels to the neck get obstructed. The blood still flows into the head, but it doesn't flow out. LC: That's because veins, which have lower blood pressure, are shut off first. Arteries, with higher blood pressure, keep flowing longer.
Dr.WS: ........?..there is increased pressure above the knees, and tiny little blood vessels in the eyes and around the eyes, may break.
LC: Jon Benet eyes did show this pattern of hemmoraging, indicating, Spitz says, that her heart was still beating when the noose was applied.
(I think where it says 'above the knees' it is meant to be 'above the neck'.)

With respect to the petechiae, IMO JonBenet developed them prior to being fatally strangled. IMO she was repeatedly semi-strangled during the hour or so preceding her death which was one of the sex practices performed on her by the pedophiles who I think were there. So I think it was during this time that she got those petechiae. They are pretty easy to get, even pushing out a baby during childbirth can give you those if you are a woman.

Sharon

02-11-2007, 04:28 AM

(I think where it says 'above the knees' it is meant to be 'above the neck'.)

With respect to the petechiae, IMO JonBenet developed them prior to being fatally strangled. IMO she was repeatedly semi-strangled during the hour or so preceding her death which was one of the sex practices performed on her by the pedophiles who I think were there. So I think it was during this time that she got those petechiae. They are pretty easy to get, even pushing out a baby during childbirth can give you those if you are a woman.

I really hope it didnt happen like this.

You seem convinced that pedophiles were involved. I guess it shouldnt be that surprising because (1) some one has to be a pedophile and (2) they often turn out to be people who are rich, highly respected in the community, and or quite educated.

Do you think the parents together or individually knew about pedephiles in their midst that may have been abusing JBR

bullmoose

02-11-2007, 05:29 AM

The tape and the cord....why bring in these items? How did this person know there would not be duct tape at the Ramseys? Most people have duct tape. Why duct tape anyway? There are any number of ways to silence a person. Any kind of rope, scarf, belt etc could have been used to strangle her...taken from the home to further implicate the Ramseys. If the intent was to make a "garrote", why didn't he already have it made, complete with handle? Why only use the paintbrush to implicate Patsy?
Why would the killer "bring in" or "take out" anything that may be found later to implicate himself?
Why would the suitcase be a "red-herring?"
The RN did not cause the police to "zero in" on the Ramseys. Her body in the wine cellar is what raised the red flags. Those red flags would have been raised without the ransom note.
I have to say that one of the main reasons I am so suspicious of the Ramseys is the way they handled things upon reading that note. I do not particularly fault them for calling the police but I would have stressed the importance of how my child would be murdered if disgression was not used and I most certainly would not have called in a bunch of my friends when the ransom note distinctly and repeatedly warned me not to so much as "talk to a stray dog". It appears as though they did not take the note seriously in the least and I can only think of one reason why that would be. IMOGood questions.Why bring in the tape and cord? Why indeed, unless the house had been cased and the killer/s knew they would not find what they specifically wanted to use in the house, so they brought their own. As for the duct tape, I have a roll in my house, 2inches wide. If you have a roll, tear a six inch long piece off and stick it over your mouth; now try to scream or get it off. Not very easy is it, and you can't breathe through it, can you? It would give Jonbenet's killer total control over her for as long as he/they wanted or needed for what they were doing and staging. Was the intent to make that garotte? Ithink so, that part of it is missing makes me think the missing part was and is the trophy for the psychopath killer. Also, carefully thought out staging; of course the cops are going to think Patsy because it was her brush. Smart Cops. I think the killer brought in a bag of things needed and took it back out, but not up on the suitcase and out the window. It was near the window, true but probably wasn't when entrance was gained, if through that window. It was probably put there to mislead the BPD, as if they needed any help. To me the way out would have been through a door, one was found ajar by the cops that morning.Once Jonbenet's body was found, of course the cops would zero in on the parents. That is natural and normal; the cops then work out from the parents in a more ordinary case. The strange so called ransom note kept the BPD from doing so. Eller, the lead detective was telling the mayor that the BPD knew it was the Ramseys well before her funeral. I think the note was why.I have to say that I simply disagree with the reason you became suspicious of their actions after they read the note; panicked people do not have to react like we would want them to; everboby reacts differently. They called all their friends for comfort in their panic,I wouldn't have, but their actions don't surprise me.

rashomon

02-11-2007, 05:41 AM

Dr Wright, wasn’t he the one elvis contacted and found out that he was quoted out of context? Didn’t he tell her he was asked the question: How long does it take for someone to die of a headwound? Without the questioner mentioning anything about a strangulation event being in there somewhere?

Where did you get those quotes of Wright’s from?
Here is the link.
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm

Wright was the one Elivslives contacted, but he did not tell her where exactly he was quoted out of context. Charlie Brennan is a very thorough reporter, and I can't imaginne him misstating Wright completely on that subject.
In the article, Wright spoke about swelling in JB's brain, and that it takes a while for swelling to fully develop. And this seems to have been the case with JB.

rashomon

02-11-2007, 05:58 AM

rashomon, if you believe the length of time elapsed between the head blow which you say came first and the ligature being finally tied around neck was a minimum of 20 minutes, how do you explain the absence of the large amount of hemorrhaging that would be expected to have occurred in that time?

I know we have been through this over and over, not just here but all through last year at Websleuths, and it has been others besides me who have argued with you as well on this point. I did think when a qualified medico in the form of elvislives came to this forum and began telling you the same thing ie that short of some Godly miracle, that heavy hemorrhaging should have occurred in this case in that 20 minutes and as it clearly didn't (and elvis has told over and over that it didn't, no matter how much you think that it did), you would give up on this idea, but no, you keep on bringing up quotes from other medicos who were either quoted out of context or prima donnas who just want their 15 minutes of fame and so will come up with any old opinion as long as it gets their words into print and their faces on the television to prop up this notion of yours.

Dr Meyer who performed the autopsy said there was no sign of organization, which we now know for sure means clotting because elvis has confirmed that it does. Then we have the opinion of Dr Werner Spitz who only saw autopsy photos of JonBenet’s body provided by BPD, even if there were 100 of them.

So you have the doctor who dissected the actual body saying there were no clots, then another doctor who has only seen photos comes onto a television show and proclaims that "...she did have blood clots."

I know who I am going to believe.

OK, so Spitz has conducted 50,000 autopsies. What proportion of these would have been head injury deaths? 1%? 5%, even 10% would only be 5,000. How many autopsies would Meyer have performed? How many head injuries would elvis have seen? I suppose she will ruin this line of argument by saying she has only seen 100. I’ll still go with her and Meyer’s opinions though.

Even Spitz does not say she survived 20 minutes after the head blow before the application of the ligature. He does not specify an exact length of time, only that it was a while, whatever that means.
We don't even know which object cracked JB's skull and at what angle. and unless we know it, all we can do is speculate a to how much blood "should" or "should not" have been in JB's brain.

In my # 290 post on this thread, I have listed a number of medical opinions from people who seem every bit as informed on the subject as the doctor here.
Getting a "second opinion", so to speak. :)

What was found, according to poster BluesStrat on FFJ:

"extensive area of scalp hemorrhage" - there was a lot of bleeding directly under her scalp.

"a thin film of subdural hemorrhage" - minor bleeding under the dura membrane.

"a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage" - minor bleeding under the arachnoid membrane.

"contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches" - a huge bruise was on the top of her brain.

What the autopsy reveals is that the piece of skull bone that broke loose did not penetrate either brain membrane, which would have caused much more bleeding.

The RST claims there was only a small amount (7-8 cc) of blood, therefore the garrote was in place before the head blow. However, that amount was "subdural"--between the dura and arachnoid membranes. The real amount of massive bleeding was under her scalp and labeled "extensive" by Coroner Meyer.

I know who I am going to believe.
I don't.
All I can say is that both posters with medical knowledge as well as world-famous experts seem to disagree on crucial points.

LindaA

02-11-2007, 08:11 AM

Maybe she did just that: retouch the make-up she had been wearing from the night before.
Didn't Patsy state that she - before putting on make up -
discovered JB was missing very early in the morning, I know that the Ramseys have changed their time line to make the evidence fit the facts, but I'd like to know Patsy' earliest statements about this morning.
No, no, no. Her story is that she got dressed and applied her makeup before going downstairs and discovering the rn.

thewhitewitch1

02-11-2007, 01:20 PM

Good questions.Why bring in the tape and cord? Why indeed, unless the house had been cased and the killer/s knew they would not find what they specifically wanted to use in the house, so they brought their own. As for the duct tape, I have a roll in my house, 2inches wide. If you have a roll, tear a six inch long piece off and stick it over your mouth; now try to scream or get it off. Not very easy is it, and you can't breathe through it, can you? It would give Jonbenet's killer total control over her for as long as he/they wanted or needed for what they were doing and staging. Was the intent to make that garotte? Ithink so, that part of it is missing makes me think the missing part was and is the trophy for the psychopath killer. Also, carefully thought out staging; of course the cops are going to think Patsy because it was her brush. Smart Cops. I think the killer brought in a bag of things needed and took it back out, but not up on the suitcase and out the window. It was near the window, true but probably wasn't when entrance was gained, if through that window. It was probably put there to mislead the BPD, as if they needed any help. To me the way out would have been through a door, one was found ajar by the cops that morning.Once Jonbenet's body was found, of course the cops would zero in on the parents. That is natural and normal; the cops then work out from the parents in a more ordinary case. The strange so called ransom note kept the BPD from doing so. Eller, the lead detective was telling the mayor that the BPD knew it was the Ramseys well before her funeral. I think the note was why.I have to say that I simply disagree with the reason you became suspicious of their actions after they read the note; panicked people do not have to react like we would want them to; everboby reacts differently. They called all their friends for comfort in their panic,I wouldn't have, but their actions don't surprise me.

Re: the open door you refer to - I believe that is the same door that John Fernie went to upon his arrival that he states was not only closed but locked.
I understand what you are saying about people panicking but in a case like this, you would think that people wouldn't be so hasty to make a decision like that when their childs life is at stake. IMO

bullmoose

02-12-2007, 04:33 AM

Re: the open door you refer to - I believe that is the same door that John Fernie went to upon his arrival that he states was not only closed but locked.
I understand what you are saying about people panicking but in a case like this, you would think that people wouldn't be so hasty to make a decision like that when their childs life is at stake. IMO I agree in principle about people panicking, but I have been in catastrophic situations, where life and death were involved and some people will do and say things that are totally irrational to those who are keeping their composure in the same emergency situation. A brother-in-law of mine some years back was rear-ended while driving to a Montana Ski Resort. The road was icy,so it was a hard impact, smashing the car and banging him and his wife up. As they sat in their wrecked car, stunned, a good samaritan ran up to see if he could help; whereupon my brother-in-law punched him inthe chin,and berated him in the worst way despite the fact it obviously wasn't him that was in the wreck. It was a bizarre reaction, brought on by the shock he was suffering.from.I think it was something like that with the Ramseys. IMO:shrug:

elvislives

02-12-2007, 12:45 PM

elvislives:

This is one of the reasons I struggle with the RDI theory (with the exception of Docg's theory). But if Patsy had accidentally killed her, it seems bizarre that she starts staging a sexual assault before JB is even dead. And I have heard the arguement that perhaps Patsy thought she was dead, but that is also hard to believe since JB would have still been very warm. This is the aspect of the PDI theory that doesn't sit well imo.

Does this mean you aren't struggling with MY theory? Well, congratulations, El. :beer:

As I see it, the real problem has always been the tendency to assume that if it IS RDI, then it would have to have been Patsy and not John. Simply because some "experts" ruled him out in a decision that has NEVER been explained or even questioned, simply accepted as gospel. There are a great many very good reasons to assume Patsy was innocent. And as you say, the whole accident-followed-by-overthetop staging is way too bizarre to take seriously. That, coupled with many other elements of the case, such as the fact that she called 911 when the body was still in the house, tells me she must be innocent. The case walks talks acts and quacks like a duck -- i.e., something the dominant MALE in the house might do. Incest can be a powerful motive for murder. And it happens in the BEST homes as well we know. Why oh why did the BPD, the media and just about everyone else give John Ramsey a pass?

What's up, doc. Your theory imo is consistent with the physical evidence of the autopsy, which the pdi accidentally theory is not.
I am not an expert on handwriting analysis, knots, or fiber evidence so I am speaking only in terms of the autopsy evidence.
That said, the problem I have with your theory is that in order for it to be true, JR would have to be a sociopath. He could be, may be, but I just haven't seen any evidence to support it OR any evidence to support that he was molesting JB.
But I do give you credit for constructing a theory that is concordant with the physical evidence of the autopsy report.

elvislives

02-12-2007, 12:55 PM

Dr Wright, wasn’t he the one elvis contacted and found out that he was quoted out of context? Didn’t he tell her he was asked the question: How long does it take for someone to die of a headwound? Without the questioner mentioning anything about a strangulation event being in there somewhere?

Where did you get those quotes of Wright’s from?

That is true. He said he never made those statements.

Does anyone know of any other source (besides that Rocky Mtn paper) that supports an MD or ME having the opinion that the head wound was inflicted 20-60 minutes before JBs death?

I googled extensively and that is the only one I can find. EVERY OTHER MD or ME I have ever heard quoted (accurately) says that the head wound and strangulation were inflicted within a very short period of time. Cyril Wecht believes the strangulation came first. Henry Lee says you cant tell for sure, but they happened within minutes of each other.

Does anyone have any other sources???

elvislives

02-12-2007, 01:24 PM

rashomon, if you believe the length of time elapsed between the head blow which you say came first and the ligature being finally tied around neck was a minimum of 20 minutes, how do you explain the absence of the large amount of hemorrhaging that would be expected to have occurred in that time?

I know we have been through this over and over, not just here but all through last year at Websleuths, and it has been others besides me who have argued with you as well on this point. I did think when a qualified medico in the form of elvislives came to this forum and began telling you the same thing ie that short of some Godly miracle, that heavy hemorrhaging should have occurred in this case in that 20 minutes and as it clearly didn't (and elvis has told over and over that it didn't, no matter how much you think that it did), you would give up on this idea, but no, you keep on bringing up quotes from other medicos who were either quoted out of context or prima donnas who just want their 15 minutes of fame and so will come up with any old opinion as long as it gets their words into print and their faces on the television to prop up this notion of yours.

Dr Meyer who performed the autopsy said there was no sign of organization, which we now know for sure means clotting because elvis has confirmed that it does. Then we have the opinion of Dr Werner Spitz who only saw autopsy photos of JonBenet’s body provided by BPD, even if there were 100 of them.

So you have the doctor who dissected the actual body saying there were no clots, then another doctor who has only seen photos comes onto a television show and proclaims that "...she did have blood clots."

I know who I am going to believe.

OK, so Spitz has conducted 50,000 autopsies. What proportion of these would have been head injury deaths? 1%? 5%, even 10% would only be 5,000. How many autopsies would Meyer have performed? How many head injuries would elvis have seen? I suppose she will ruin this line of argument by saying she has only seen 100. I’ll still go with her and Meyer’s opinions though.

Even Spitz does not say she survived 20 minutes after the head blow before the application of the ligature. He does not specify an exact length of time, only that it was a while, whatever that means.

I have seen well over 40,000 head injuries. I see them all day, every day..from very minor to massive and lethal. I KNOW how head injuries respond and am 100% confident that JBs head injury was sustained shortly before, at the time of, or just after she died of ligature strangulation

I do have a question for the skeptics out there. How much blood do you think JB lost from that head wound?

And how much blood do you think a 45 lb kid would lose from a massive head wound over a 20-60 minute period? Keep in mind that a 45lb child would need to lose approximately 4 cups of blood in order to go into multiple organ failure (IOW start to die from blood loss). And it would take her about 10-50 minutes to die ( I go a little less than the standard 20-60 because of the severe nature of her wound and the fact that she had a hole in her skull).

So where did all this blood go?

elvislives

02-12-2007, 01:28 PM

elvislives

02-12-2007, 01:40 PM

Here is the link.
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm

Wright was the one Elivslives contacted, but he did not tell her where exactly he was quoted out of context. Charlie Brennan is a very thorough reporter, and I can't imaginne him misstating Wright completely on that subject.
In the article, Wright spoke about swelling in JB's brain, and that it takes a while for swelling to fully develop. And this seems to have been the case with JB.

He didn;t say he was quoted out of context, he said he never made most of the statements attributed to him. According to him, he got a call from a reporter who asked him how long it would take a child to die who had suffered an 8 inch fracture to the skull. He gave the standard 20-60 minutes... he was NOT asked and did not consider the strangulation.

After scrutinizing the article, I concluded that perhaps his quotes were mixed up with another ME (Kirshner), tho I could be wrong.

This arguement is an exact parallel to the pineapple one. I keep getting into discussions with people who say that 'doctors have said that she could have eaten the pineapple as early as the day before'. So far NO ONE has been able to explain to me how this would be physiologically possible.

Same with the head wound. It doesn't impress me at all that a doctor said anything....I need to understand the rationale and get an explanation for their comments.

But this board is interesting. I think the pineapple people who want to believe that JB ate the pineapple the day before will continue believing that. Same with those who want to believe the head wound was inflicted 20-60 minutes before death. I am sure nothing will convince either of these groups otherwise.

elvislives

02-12-2007, 01:48 PM

We don't even know which object cracked JB's skull and at what angle. and unless we know it, all we can do is speculate a to how much blood "should" or "should not" have been in JB's brain.

In my # 290 post on this thread, I have listed a number of medical opinions from people who seem every bit as informed on the subject as the doctor here.
Getting a "second opinion", so to speak. :)

What was found, according to poster BluesStrat on FFJ:

"extensive area of scalp hemorrhage" - there was a lot of bleeding directly under her scalp.

"a thin film of subdural hemorrhage" - minor bleeding under the dura membrane.

"a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage" - minor bleeding under the arachnoid membrane.

"contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches" - a huge bruise was on the top of her brain.What the autopsy reveals is that the piece of skull bone that broke loose did not penetrate either brain membrane, which would have caused much more bleeding.

The RST claims there was only a small amount (7-8 cc) of blood, therefore the garrote was in place before the head blow. However, that amount was "subdural"--between the dura and arachnoid membranes. The real amount of massive bleeding was under her scalp and labeled "extensive" by Coroner Meyer.

I don't.
All I can say is that both posters with medical knowledge as well as world-famous experts seem to disagree on crucial points.

So knowing how small the subdural and subarachnoid spaces are: How much BLOOD VOLUME do you think she lost thru this head wound?

andU

02-12-2007, 03:20 PM

So knowing how small the subdural and subarachnoid spaces are: How much BLOOD VOLUME do you think she lost thru this head wound?

Blood loss within the skull, right? I'm going to say 1tsp - tbsp. I don't know why, but I don't think there was that much blood pooled inside her skull.

bullmoose

02-12-2007, 03:32 PM

Does anyone have a link to the picture of the flashlite found in the kitchen, or have the actual dimensions of the found flashlight? This is bothering me; how could a eight inch long fracture that is 1.75 inches wide be caused by a flashlight? A maglite is all metal, thats true, but I need to know how long the flashlight in the kitchen was. Anybody?

shill

02-12-2007, 04:51 PM

But this board is interesting. I think the pineapple people who want to believe that JB ate the pineapple the day before will continue believing that. Same with those who want to believe the head wound was inflicted 20-60 minutes before death. I am sure nothing will convince either of these groups otherwise.

Ignorance is bliss!

cami

02-12-2007, 05:18 PM

Louisadelmar, this is the exact quote I sent to him--he says he didn't say that. Now that I'm reading it again, I am wondering if his comments got mixed up with this 'Kirschner". Do you know who Kirschner is?

Also, when I copy and paste the email, it keeps leaving the hospital logo and won't let me delete it (the delete option turns into that light gray and wont let me select it). Anyway I'm sure there's a way...I'll figure it out.

Copy and paste it into microsoft paint if you have it...you can edit the logo out.

cami

02-12-2007, 05:41 PM

Gee, I would be willing to bet that it was you or your clone that jumped all over me last year;the shrillness and pedantic tone are eerily similar. I don't recall what the poster name was listed but if it was you I know it wasn't as Rashoman you were posting.Very odd:cool:

Maybe it was me. I don't recall doing so though...but I've done it before so don't rule it out.

Louisadelmar

02-12-2007, 06:56 PM

Can we all agree for starters that she was hit on the side of the head and not the top?

rashomon

02-12-2007, 07:10 PM

So knowing how small the subdural and subarachnoid spaces are: How much BLOOD VOLUME do you think she lost thru this head wound?
Before continuing the discussion, question back to you: suppose a victim sustains a horrible head injury and does not die from it until an hour later, how much BLOOD VOLUME do you think will be found in these areas, knowing how small the subarachnoid and subdural spaces are?

elvislives

02-12-2007, 07:29 PM

Before continuing the discussion, question back to you: suppose a victim sustains a horrible head injury and does not die from it until an hour later, how much BLOOD VOLUME do you think will be found in these areas, knowing how small the subarachnoid and subdural spaces are?

If a head wound of that severity went untreated for 20-60 minutes (or until the patient died)... she would have gone into multiple organ failure after losing about 2 pints of blood, maybe a little bit more depending on her bp. She may continue losing about 1/2 pint more, with a very low blood pressure, until her heart stopped completely. This blood however would not stay in the subdural or subarachnoid space because those membranes were perforated and her skull was cracked. The majority of the blood volume would create hematomas that would "swell' up under her scalp. They would be visibly obvious.

rashomon

02-12-2007, 07:47 PM

If a head wound of that severity went untreated for 20-60 minutes (or until the patient died)... she would have gone into multiple organ failure after losing about 2 pints of blood, maybe a little bit more depending on her bp. She may continue losing about 1/2 pint more, with a very low blood pressure, until her heart stopped completely. This blood however would not stay in the subdural or subarachnoid space because those membranes were perforated and her skull was cracked. The majority of the blood volume would create hematomas that would "swell' up under her scalp. They would be visibly obvious.
Maybe it was this:
[QUOTE]"contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches" /QUOTE]

elvislives

02-12-2007, 07:59 PM

Maybe it was this:
[QUOTE]"contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches" /QUOTE]

A contusion is simply a bruise. The 4-5 cups of blood that would have hemorrhaged from that wound have filled up the skull, then "swelled" outward creating huge hematomas. There would have been very noticable on the autopsy photos.

rashomon

02-13-2007, 07:03 AM

A contusion is simply a bruise. The 4-5 cups of blood that would have hemorrhaged from that wound have filled up the skull, then "swelled" outward creating huge hematomas. There would have been very noticable on the autopsy photos.
[EL]This blood however would not stay in the subdural or subarachnoid space because those membranes were perforated and her skull was cracked. The majority of the blood volume would create hematomas that would "swell' up under her scalp. They would be visibly obvious.
From the FFJ post:
"contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches" - a huge bruise was on the top of her brain.What the autopsy reveals is that the piece of skull bone that broke loose did not penetrate either brain membrane, which would have caused much more bleeding.
Conflicting statmements, El: you wrote that both membranes were perforated, according to BluesStrat (who seems to have substantial medical knowledge too), they were not.

Question: Where in the autopsy report does it state that both membranes were perforated?

Sharon

02-13-2007, 07:11 AM

I am with you, Sharon. I would love to believe that someone hit JB over the head and she was instantly unconscious. That would be the most merciful explanation where she endured the least amount of pain and terrror. I wish the physical evidence supported that, but unfortunately the evidence points to something far more sinister.

The way you explained that shows me that you are clever, kind & considerate. Thank you for telling me the truth so gently. Its really upsetting as I think the RDI would have been the better way if it had to be one or the other.

I find the truth of the autopsy a little hard to think about & imagine especially since I have little kids of my own.

Elvis lives, you must be quite an asset IRL to those around you.

Athena

02-13-2007, 07:28 AM

Sprocket

02-13-2007, 01:36 PM

Doctors DO say she could of eaten the pineapple the day before. Could you quote someone for us? Someone who has a medical degree, that has seen the case file?

If she ate it that night it would still be in her stomach! Can you supply some knowledgeable sources that definitively say how long it would take a child's stomach to digest pineapple before it moves onto the small intestine?

docg

02-13-2007, 03:07 PM

What's up, doc. Your theory imo is consistent with the physical evidence of the autopsy, which the pdi accidentally theory is not.
I am not an expert on handwriting analysis, knots, or fiber evidence so I am speaking only in terms of the autopsy evidence.
That said, the problem I have with your theory is that in order for it to be true, JR would have to be a sociopath. He could be, may be, but I just haven't seen any evidence to support it OR any evidence to support that he was molesting JB.
But I do give you credit for constructing a theory that is concordant with the physical evidence of the autopsy report.

Thanks. The fact that someone with your background finds my theory consistent with the evidence is helpful. Especially because I myself am none too sure about what could have happened when JonBenet was attacked. I always look for scenarios that make sense and are consistent with the evidence. My theory of the attack makes sense (at least to me) and if it's consistent with your understanding of the evidence then I do think it could have happened that way. Assuming John Ramsey was the one who attacked her, natch.

Would have to be a sociopath to do that? Well, for one thing, we know a lot less about John Ramsey then is generally supposed. He was out of town a lot and out of the counry a lot and we know little or nothing about any of those activities. It HAS been established that he is capable of lying in his teeth for an extended period of time. But "cheating on your wife" may not be regarded as all that serious a matter these days. I'm sure it was to his wife.

Murder is commited for all sorts of reasons by all sorts of people in all sorts of situations. It is never pretty.

IMO the watchword here is NOT sociopathy, but incest. As we know, it DOES happen in the best of families. And the fathers who enact this perversion on their daughters are usually not serial killers or even pedophiles. This is the stuff of "deep dark secrets" that most vicitms would rather not think about, much less discuss or reveal. Is John Ramsey the sort of person who might have had an incestuous relationship with his daughter? As I see it, it is simply impossible to say for sure. But he COULD have -- and there IS some evidence for that, as a possibility, evidence of prior molestation and fiber evidence. IF in fact he WERE molesting his daughter, then the need to cover that up could in itself have been a huge motivator for murder. No need for a sociopath here, just a very self absorbed, ambitious and cold, calculating person willing to do anything to anyone to preserve his standing in the world -- not to mention his freedom.

rashomon

02-13-2007, 05:53 PM

Thanks. The fact that someone with your background finds my theory consistent with the evidence is helpful. Especially because I myself am none too sure about what could have happened when JonBenet was attacked. I always look for scenarios that make sense and are consistent with the evidence. My theory of the attack makes sense (at least to me) and if it's consistent with your understanding of the evidence then I do think it could have happened that way. Assuming John Ramsey was the one who attacked her, natch.

Would have to be a sociopath to do that? Well, for one thing, we know a lot less about John Ramsey then is generally supposed. He was out of town a lot and out of the counry a lot and we know little or nothing about any of those activities. It HAS been established that he is capable of lying in his teeth for an extended period of time. But "cheating on your wife" may not be regarded as all that serious a matter these days. I'm sure it was to his wife.

Murder is commited for all sorts of reasons by all sorts of people in all sorts of situations. It is never pretty.

IMO the watchword here is NOT sociopathy, but incest. As we know, it DOES happen in the best of families. And the fathers who enact this perversion on their daughters are usually not serial killers or even pedophiles. This is the stuff of "deep dark secrets" that most vicitms would rather not think about, much less discuss or reveal. Is John Ramsey the sort of person who might have had an incestuous relationship with his daughter? As I see it, it is simply impossible to say for sure. But he COULD have -- and there IS some evidence for that, as a possibility, evidence of prior molestation and fiber evidence. IF in fact he WERE molesting his daughter, then the need to cover that up could in itself have been a huge motivator for murder. No need for a sociopath here, just a very self absorbed, ambitious and cold, calculating person willing to do anything to anyone to preserve his standing in the world -- not to mention his freedom.
But suppose John Ramsey had been sexually abusing his daughter - wouldn't this point to him being a sociopath? The term of sociopath is not limited to people like serial killers.
No need for a sociopath here, just a very self absorbed, ambitious and cold, calculating person willing to do anything to anyone to preserve his standing in the world -- not to mention his freedom
But this is in fact the perfect desription of a sociopath. If John Ramsey actually killed his daughter for these reasons, he is the perfect sociopah.

There exists forensic evidence indicating prior vaginal trauma inflicted on JB, and the majority of medical experts agreed that it was sexual abuse and not something like toilet rage (violent wiping etc).
So the question is "Who was JB's sexual abuser?"
Statistically speaking, John Ramsey is the most likely, for the vast majority of girls abused by family members are abused by their fathers.

But even if you believe John Ramsey was JB's killer and think she was strangled immediatley after the head blow - how realistic is that? If John Ramsey wanted to silence JB for good, why not give her another whack on the head? Why bother to put a cord around her neck which did not even damage her larynx?

elvislives

02-13-2007, 08:29 PM

elvislives

02-13-2007, 09:09 PM

SnarkyCow

02-13-2007, 09:43 PM

Help me, Jesus...

BWHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! :beer:

Athena

02-13-2007, 10:09 PM

Help me, Jesus...

LMAO! :lol:

Athena

02-14-2007, 11:02 AM

From the FFJ post:

Conflicting statmements, El: you wrote that both membranes were perforated, according to BluesStrat (who seems to have substantial medical knowledge too), they were not.

Question: Where in the autopsy report does it state that both membranes were perforated?

How do you think the blood got into the subarachnoid space if it wasn't ruptured? This is a space that normally contains csf...not blood. I guess it's possible that she had a spontaneous rupture of an aneurysm or an undiagnosed AV malformation that coincidentally ruptured right at the time she was killed. But we are talking about a TRAUMATIC head wound here NOT organic brain disease!!!! Why are the coriticol neurons and glial cells surrounded by clear halos if her membranes are intact? Another rare organic disorder? I dont have time right now, but later I will put up the autopsy and explain (or attempt to). I think your poster on FFJ is confused.

I have reread and reread and Spitz's statement. Why is it not possible to Spitz did not consider that the strangling had started, she screamed, and then was hit on the head and strangled until death? There is nothing that he says that indicates the strangling and head injury did not occur within a tight time frame; he did not clarify what "awhile" meant to him nor does he clarify whether or not she could have been hit while being strangled. All he says is she was alive when hit. Also I did not read anything in the autopsy report that says that there was any swelling? There is nothing that says edema in that report which IMO indicates she was dead from strangling before swelling occurred. Every article I've read says that brain edema starts 20 minutes after impact and yet the autopsy report finds "no inflammation".

"LC: Dr.Warner Spitz has conducted more than 50,000 autopsies. In 1997, he was consulted by the Boulder police investigating the murder. He says he reviewed more than 100 autopsy photos which have never been released to the public.
You believe JBR was hit on the head first, and then strangled.
Dr. WS: Yes.
LC: But in reports published this week, a former detective, who also worked on the case, claimed the head wound did not bleed enough to be the first injury, but Spitz says, he can prove his case, and it's believed the Boulder police agree.
Dr.WS: Because there was hemmoraging in the brain.
LC: There was hemmoraging in the brain?
Dr.WS: There was hemmoraging in the scalp, in the skin,in other words,
LC: Spitz says those hemmorages would not have formed if JB was already dead of strangulation when she suffered the head injury.
Dr.WS: She did have a circulation....she did have blood clots, she did have heart beat, she did breathe, for awhile, after the head injury."

rashomon

02-14-2007, 02:38 PM

Doctors DO say she could of eaten the pineapple the day before. I think she ate it before the party and thats why it is in her intestines. Or she could of ate some celery AT the party. Doctors can't even say for sure that its pineapple, just fruit or vegetable matter. If she ate it that night it would still be in her stomach! The doctors dont agree on anything in this case. You are just one person with your opinion that you use to support your theory. Other doctors have other opinions. People just go with the version that supports there theory. Whatever.
JFYI: NO doctor has ever said that JB could have eaten the pineapple the day before, be it a forum poster or a world-renowned doctor.

And it was in fact pineapple which was found in JB's small intestine - even Lou Smit admitted this.
The fecal matter found further down in JB's digestive tract obviously was the cracked crab she had eaten at the Whites' party - therefore she must have consumed the pineapple after eating the crab. Pineapple wasn't served at the Whites' party, but instead we have bowl of pineapple sitting on the Ramsey kitchen counter. What else do you need?

Athena

02-14-2007, 03:41 PM

JFYI: NO doctor has ever said that JB could have eaten the pineapple the day before, be it a forum poster or a world-renowned doctor.

And it was in fact pineapple which was found in JB's small intestine - even Lou Smit admitted this.
The fecal matter found further down in JB's digestive tract obviously was the cracked crab she had eaten at the Whites' party - therefore she must have consumed the pineapple after eating the crab. Pineapple wasn't served at the Whites' party, but instead we have bowl of pineapple sitting on the Ramsey kitchen counter. What else do you need?

Actually rashomon, (not that I believe it) according to PMPT p558 a Boulder ME (who is not named) said she could have eaten it as early as 4:30PM the before she left the Whites but most experts do agree that it was eaten 2-3 hours prior to death.

For every bit of evidence in this case there are disagreeing experts. No wonder this case can't be solved. This is also why I don't understand how anyone, RDI, IDI, BDI PODI, can be 100% sure about anything.

Athena

02-14-2007, 03:44 PM

I know I was within 5 minutes but couldn't edit??

I do want to add however that FW never said pineapple was not served; he said he could not recall.

Athena

02-14-2007, 03:48 PM

Louisadelmar

02-14-2007, 04:42 PM

Geez - what's up with the edit feature?

Again I wanted to add that there is so much misinformation out here that is repeated over and over by both RDI AND IDI especially old information from media articles that are posted that have since been either clarified, some misquoted, and some totally debunked. :shrug:

I think Kane (among others) mentioned that there is a lot of misinformation out and about. It would be nice if someone who has up-to-date knowledge would publish a list of what is or isn't correct. On the other hand I can understand not wanting to stir things up. I've only written two emails regarding this case to people "in the know". One of them, after answering my question, asked that I not quote them or use their name because they didn't want to be inundated with emails from internet case followers.

rashomon

02-15-2007, 10:41 AM

Actually rashomon, (not that I believe it) according to PMPT p558 a Boulder ME (who is not named) said she could have eaten it as early as 4:30PM the before she left the Whites but most experts do agree that it was eaten 2-3 hours prior to death.

But what about the cracked crab JB ate at the Whites'? For if she ate the pineapple before, then it would have been found further down JB's digestive tract than the cracked crab, but this was not the case. It was the other way round.
According to the forensic evidence found in JB's digestive system, what she had eaten last was pineapple.

elvislives

02-15-2007, 05:27 PM

The way you explained that shows me that you are clever, kind & considerate. Thank you for telling me the truth so gently. Its really upsetting as I think the RDI would have been the better way if it had to be one or the other.

I find the truth of the autopsy a little hard to think about & imagine especially since I have little kids of my own.

Elvis lives, you must be quite an asset IRL to those around you.

Sharon, when I first heard of this crime, I presumed that PR had hit JB on the head in a rage, then staged the rest. That was how it was being reported in the press and unfortunately it happens all the time. Case closed. This was also about the same time when it was reported that some MEs thought she had suffered the head trauma for some time before she died. When the autopsy report was published, it became obvious to those of us in medical circles that there is NO WAY it happened like that. I have read all sorts of medical misinformation on these forums as well as seen it reported in the press...I WISH it were true. Sadly, somebody brutally and intentionally murdered this child.

elvislives

02-15-2007, 05:39 PM

Actually rashomon, (not that I believe it) according to PMPT p558 a Boulder ME (who is not named) said she could have eaten it as early as 4:30PM the before she left the Whites but most experts do agree that it was eaten 2-3 hours prior to death.

For every bit of evidence in this case there are disagreeing experts. No wonder this case can't be solved. This is also why I don't understand how anyone, RDI, IDI, BDI PODI, can be 100% sure about anything.

You are absolutely right, Athena. I have also seen this reported on the news and on Nancy Grace. People are always quoting that 'doctors say she could have eaten the pineapple as early as the day before'. It makes me insane. But for some people, if it gets reported they will believe it, regardless of how preposterous it may be.

IMO this is NO different from the fact that it has been reported that the head wound came 20-60 minutes before death. That is ludicrous, but there are still people who will believe that in spite of the fact that it can't be explained physiologically.

Sure, there are people who have gallbladder disease and digest foods very slowly. There are also some rare blood disorders that could cause a person to lose very little blood, but that is not the case here. This is a healthy 6 year old child. If she had ANY of these rare disorders, she would have been extremely symptomatic while living and they would have been obvious at autopsy.

So thru-out this case, there has been medical misinformation--maybe doctors were misquoted, maybe their comments were taken out of context, maybe they misspoke, maybe the reporter got confused, maybe the doctor was a quack and didn't know what he was talking about....who knows??? But somehow this nonsense gets reported and worse yet gets believed.

elvislives

02-15-2007, 05:41 PM

But what about the cracked crab JB ate at the Whites'? For if she ate the pineapple before, then it would have been found further down JB's digestive tract than the cracked crab, but this was not the case. It was the other way round.
According to the forensic evidence found in JB's digestive system, what she had eaten last was pineapple.

Not to split hairs, but different foods digest at different rates. So just because someone eats one food before another doesn't necessarily mean that it will be ahead of it in the digestive tract.

rashomon

02-15-2007, 06:09 PM

Not to split hairs, but different foods digest at different rates. So just because someone eats one food before another doesn't necessarily mean that it will be ahead of it in the digestive tract.
Thanks for the info, EL.
But the pineapple, despite the fact that it is a food which digests really fast, was not found ahead in the digestive tract

rashomon

02-15-2007, 06:18 PM

Sharon, when I first heard of this crime, I presumed that PR had hit JB on the head in a rage, then staged the rest. That was how it was being reported in the press and unfortunately it happens all the time. Case closed. This was also about the same time when it was reported that some MEs thought she had suffered the head trauma for some time before she died. When the autopsy report was published, it became obvious to those of us in medical circles that there is NO WAY it happened like that. I have read all sorts of medical misinformation on these forums as well as seen it reported in the press...I WISH it were true. Sadly, somebody brutally and intentionally murdered this child.
EL, you hinge your theory on the 'lack of organization' of the hemmorhage under JB's scalp, inferring from it that JB had to have been strangled immediately after the head wound.
But remember that Dr. Meyer also lists other areas in JB's brain where there was bleeding, and he does NOT mention a lack of organization there.
So we can assume that the blood in these areas did have the time to organize itself?

elvislives

02-15-2007, 06:28 PM

Thanks for the info, EL.
But the pineapple, despite the fact that it is a food which digests really fast, was not found ahead in the digestive tract

Yeah I hear you, Rash. And you're preaching to the choir. I don't for a minute believe that JB ate the pineapple the day before, it's absurd. But there are lots of people who will continue believing that. And unfortunately it has been reported as a viable theory, even a Boulder ME said it. And people whose theory of the crime depends on that misinformation will run with it.

elvislives

02-15-2007, 06:33 PM

EL, you hinge your theory on the 'lack of organization' of the hemmorhage under JB's scalp, inferring from it that JB had to have been strangled immediately after the head wound.
But remember that Dr. Meyer also lists other areas in JB's brain where there was bleeding, and he does NOT mention a lack of organization there.
So we can assume that the blood in these areas did have the time to organize itself?

Actually my theory is based on a number of factors:

lack of wound organization
lack of significant hemorrhage
Absence of hematoma
lack of significant intracranial swelling

I have heard the arguement that the bash came after death. I do not believe that since imo that theory doesn't fit the physical evidence. But I also do not believe that this head wound was bleeding for 20-60 minutes before she died. I think it's more like 8 minutes or less.

I don't have much time right now, but let me plaster up a copy of the autopsy on the next post and explain (briefly).

elvislives

02-15-2007, 06:41 PM

FINAL DIAGNOSIS:
I. Ligature strangulation
A. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow
of neck
B. Abrasions and petechial hemorrhages, neck
C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces of eyes and
skin of face

II. Craniocerebral injuries
A. Scalp contusion
B. Linear, comminuted fracture of right side of skull
C. Linear pattern of contusions of right cerebral
hemisphere
D. Subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage
E. Small contusions, tips of temporal lobes

Skull and Brain: Upon reflection of the scalp there is found
to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right
temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge,
posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This
encompasses an area measuring approximately 7x4 inches. This
grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of
organization. At the superior extension of the is area of
hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which
extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area
forward tot he right frontal area across the parietal skull.
In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly
rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one
and three-quarters by one-half inch. The hemorrhage and the
fracture extend posteriorly just past the midline of the
occipital area of the skull. This fracture measures
approximately 8.5 inches in length. On removal of the skull
cap there is found to be a thin film of subdural hemorrhage
measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right
cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral
hemisphere. The 1450 gm 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 5mm into the cerebral cortex.
Examination of the base of the brain discloses no additional
fractures.
Brain: Sections from the areas of contusion disclose
disrupted blood vessels of the cortex with surrounding
hemorrhage. There is no evidence of the inflammatory
infiltrate or organization of the hemorrhage. Subarachnoid
hemorrhage is also identified. Cortical neurons are surrounded
by clear halos, as are glial cells

elvislives

02-15-2007, 06:47 PM

The ME mentions a couple times that there is no evidence of organization or inflamation (very significant). The brain weighs 1450 grams--normal for a 45 lb child (a "swollen" brain would be much heavier)

Also there is only mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri (should be acute after about 5 minutes and wouldn't be affected at all if the head wound was inflicted after death)

Sorry I'm out of time, but will come back later and discuss further..

Athena

02-15-2007, 07:42 PM

You are absolutely right, Athena. I have also seen this reported on the news and on Nancy Grace. People are always quoting that 'doctors say she could have eaten the pineapple as early as the day before'. It makes me insane. But for some people, if it gets reported they will believe it, regardless of how preposterous it may be.

IMO this is NO different from the fact that it has been reported that the head wound came 20-60 minutes before death. That is ludicrous, but there are still people who will believe that in spite of the fact that it can't be explained physiologically.

Sure, there are people who have gallbladder disease and digest foods very slowly. There are also some rare blood disorders that could cause a person to lose very little blood, but that is not the case here. This is a healthy 6 year old child. If she had ANY of these rare disorders, she would have been extremely symptomatic while living and they would have been obvious at autopsy.

So thru-out this case, there has been medical misinformation--maybe doctors were misquoted, maybe their comments were taken out of context, maybe they misspoke, maybe the reporter got confused, maybe the doctor was a quack and didn't know what he was talking about....who knows??? But somehow this nonsense gets reported and worse yet gets believed.

I also believe it is the way some questions are posed to the experts. If the experts are answering a specific question without all of the details they could be correct in their analysis based on the specific question. There are also many reporters, not necessarily deliberate, but not understanding medical terminology, who interpret what the experts have said incorrectly in their reports. People who rely on these reports believe them as you mention above.

After reading the autopsy report I did research on my own rather than rely on what I was reading. I can very well be incorrect in my conclusions as I do not have a medical background. What I did do was look up every single word in that autopsy report in as many online medical resources as I could find. I read other autopsy reports and analyses of them and although I could not word for word interpret the autopsy report at least I have a better understanding. Then reading posts from people such as yourself with your background, I either realize I was wrong (and I have no problem admitting it) or realize that some of the conclusions I have come to are confirmed.

I will admit I was one of those who thought the pineapple could have been eaten the evening before because it was said it was possible until I did research. I have found nothing that says pineapple will remain undigested for that long of a period.

I did however read in a forensic jouornal that some criminals are wise enough to know that food digestion can give ME's a way to determine time of death and thus force feed their victims to throw the time off. Could that have happened? I have not a clue but it has been said to be possible and with all of the other "staging" or "framing" elements in this case, why not? JMO

shill

02-15-2007, 08:51 PM

I did however read in a forensic jouornal that some criminals are wise enough to know that food digestion can give ME's a way to determine time of death and thus force feed their victims to throw the time off. Could that have happened? I have not a clue but it has been said to be possible and with all of the other "staging" or "framing" elements in this case, why not? JMO
That would explain why there is only one small piece.
But how would the time of death help except for an alibi? So the killer would have to be worried he would be a prime suspect and questioned about his where about at a specific time.
Certainly it wouldn't benifit J&P.

elvislives

02-15-2007, 10:32 PM

I STILL HAVENT FIGURED OUT HOW TO SNIP, SO I'LL RESPOND TO EACH OF YOUR POINTS IN ALL CAPS.

I also believe it is the way some questions are posed to the experts. If the experts are answering a specific question without all of the details they could be correct in their analysis based on the specific question.

I THINK YOU NAILED IT HERE. WHEN I SPOKE TO R. WRIGHT HE SAID HE GOT A CALL FROM A REPORTER ASKING HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE A CHILD TO DIE AFTER SUFFERING AN 8 INCH SKULL FRACTURE. HE RESPONDED THE STANDARD 20-60 MINUTES (WHICH IS THE TIME IS TAKES FOR THE BRAIN TO SWELL SUFFICIENTLY OR THE BODY TO LOSE 25% BLOOD VOLUME TO BRING ABOUT DEATH). HOW HIS WORDS GOT SO TWISTED IS ANYBODY'S GUESS.

MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE OTHER BOULDER ME GOT A CALL FROM SOMEONE SAYING SOMETHING LIKE ' IF A PERSON DIED AT MIDNIGHT AND PINEAPPLE WAS FOUND IN THE PROXIMAL SMALL INTESTINE, WHEN IS THE EARLIEST THEY COULD HAVE CONSUMED IT?' THE ME RESPONDS, 'THEY COULD HAVE EATEN IT AS EARLY AS 4:30 THE DAY BEFORE' (HE OF COURSE IS CONSIDERING THAT THE DECEDENT COULD HAVE HAD GALLBLADDER DISEASE OR ANY NUMBER OF DIGESTIVE DISORDERS). HE DOESN'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE CASE.

There are also many reporters, not necessarily deliberate, but not understanding medical terminology, who interpret what the experts have said incorrectly in their reports. People who rely on these reports believe them as you mention above.

I SEE THIS ALL THE TIME.

After reading the autopsy report I did research on my own rather than rely on what I was reading. I can very well be incorrect in my conclusions as I do not have a medical background. What I did do was look up every single word in that autopsy report in as many online medical resources as I could find. I read other autopsy reports and analyses of them and although I could not word for word interpret the autopsy report at least I have a better understanding. Then reading posts from people such as yourself with your background, I either realize I was wrong (and I have no problem admitting it) or realize that some of the conclusions I have come to are confirmed.

GOOD FOR YOU. I WISH OTHERS HERE WOULD DO THE SAME. THE REASON I POST ON THIS FORUM IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF POSTERS HERE...WHETHER RDI, IDI, OR FS...ARE EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE GET INTIMIDATED BY MEDICAL JARGON, BUT WHEN YOU REALLY GET INTO IT, IT IS A VERY LOGICAL SCIENCE.

I will admit I was one of those who thought the pineapple could have been eaten the evening before because it was said it was possible until I did research. I have found nothing that says pineapple will remain undigested for that long of a period.

SEE, YOU WERE WISE ENOUGH TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND NOT RELY ON WHAT SOME NEWSCASTER OR MAGAZINE SAID. BEFORE YOU POINTED OUT THAT YOU WERE NOT MEDICALLY TRAINED, I ASSUMED THAT YOU WERE DUE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE BASE.

I did however read in a forensic jouornal that some criminals are wise enough to know that food digestion can give ME's a way to determine time of death and thus force feed their victims to throw the time off. Could that have happened? I have not a clue but it has been said to be possible and with all of the other "staging" or "framing" elements in this case, why not? JMO

HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. I AM NOT SAYING IT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, BUT THIS IS A SUBJECT I FIND FASCINATING.

OKAY, I'M WIPED OUT...I'LL ELABORATE ON THE AUTOPSY REPORT LATER.

Athena

02-15-2007, 11:49 PM

That would explain why there is only one small piece.
But how would the time of death help except for an alibi? So the killer would have to be worried he would be a prime suspect and questioned about his where about at a specific time.
Certainly it wouldn't benifit J&P.

You are correct Shill. I should have elaborated on my statement. If staging were involved via JR & PR I do not believe this would benefit them. As it turned out it was the one question that cannot be explained away and therefore left them suspect. Much like the ransom note using the $118K amount which rather than point away from the Ramseys; made it more questionable (framing).

And if one were trying to frame them, what better way to frame them than by force-feeding JBR pineapple; writing a ransom note with the $118K, using her pen and paper. Re: the pineapple: the perp(s) knew they were asleep and would not be able to explain this event easily and the perp if suspected could create an alibi based on time. MOO

Athena

02-15-2007, 11:51 PM

OKAY, I'M WIPED OUT...I'LL ELABORATE ON THE AUTOPSY REPORT LATER.

I really do appreciate the time you take out of what must be a hectic schedule to participate in these discussions and many others do as well. Can't thank you enough. :)

andU

02-16-2007, 07:41 AM

I really do appreciate the time you take out of what must be a hectic schedule to participate in these discussions and many others do as well. Can't thank you enough. :)

I soooo agree! Elvis, your postings have given me insight and understanding of many aspects of this case. Thank you for the time you give!

aussiesheila

02-16-2007, 08:05 AM

I don't think a ME will limit himself by being too specific. He did mention the abrasions on her neck:

. The skin of the anterior neck above and below the ligature furrow contains areas of petechial hemorrhage and abrasion encompassing an area measuring approximately 3 X 2 inches. OK Louisa, so that is what you are referring to. I read it differently though. Since I think that neck ligature was tightened and released many times over during a period of an hour or so before the final fatal tightening, I suppose I just assumed that areas of 'abrasion' referred to areas that had been chafed by the ligature. But maybe it could refer to areas of scratch marks as you say.

aussiesheila

02-16-2007, 08:41 AM

The device was actually constructed while the killer was on top of his victim. Tufts of her hair were found entwined in BOTH knots, not just the knot that would have been around her neck. It looks like the killer must have been in close proximity to his victim at the time the "garotte" itself was constructed.I'm sorry docg, but you will have to explain to me why tufts of her hair being found entwined in BOTH knots means that the killer was on top of his victim and in close proximity to her at the time of construction. I cannot see why this necessarily has to be so.

It seems to me most likely that the hair became entwined in the handle knot as the cord was twisted around the handle in the process of tightening the ligature. So much so that eventually the cord was shortened to such an extent that the handle was touching her neck and hair, and as the handle was twisted some more some hair got twisted around it along with the cord. I think hair also became caught in the slip knot during the tightening of the ligature in much the same way.

And if that's the case, she must have already been unconscious, because both knots are very neatly tied, something that could not have been done if they'd been tied while JonBenet was struggling desperately for her life.Surely both knots could have been neatly tied during a construction of the ligature which took place BEFORE the ligature was placed around her neck. Since the one of the knots was a slipknot, the noose it created could have been enlarged and placed over her head once her hands were restrained, and then tightened once it was in place around her neck.
Looks to me like you are really reaching here, and sorry I can't buy it. The killer would have had no reason to fuss with those knots. Looks to me like the "garotte" was an afterthought, constructed in a panic by someone who was so desperate as to hardly be aware of what he was doing. What is it about the "garotte' that you think makes it look like and afterthought docg? The way it is constructed looks to me as though the operator would have been able to strangle someone very effectively to me.I think it's purpose was to destroy any prints that might have been left by manual strangulation. I think he struck her to knock her out painlessly, then strangled her manually, and then, later panicked out of fear his prints could be lifted from her neck.

And THAT, my dear Watson, explains EVERYTHING, no? :punch: If he had strangled her manually there would have been marks left on her neck that would indicate that was what had happened. And I don't think wide hand print marks could be covered up by marks left by a 1/4 inch cord.

elvislives

02-16-2007, 12:40 PM

Thanks AndU and Athena. I actually enjoy this board---it's a nice distraction from my hectic life---kind of like a soap opera with the whole cast of characters. And like I've said before I find the caliber of poster here to be very impressive...much different than other forums I have seen.

elvislives

02-16-2007, 12:54 PM

Athena

02-16-2007, 06:45 PM

Before further dissection of the autopsy report, I have a question for Rash (and any other PDI accidentally theorist):

Why is it SO hard to accept that Patsy may have intentionally strangled this child? Let us assume that Patsy is the killer. The physical evidence just does not support an accidental head bash followed by a cover-up...the injuries were just too close together. So if Patsy was the culprit, would it be impossible to believe that she strangled JB intentionally?

I know that as a mother, it is easier to believe that Patsy lost it for just a split second, bashed her child, then panicked and staged the rest.I know that you wouldn't do that to your child, but does that mean that Patsy couldn't either? Take a look at the Susan Smith case. This was a woman who had no history of abusing her children. Sure she had some issues in her personal life, but by all accounts seemed like a loving mother. And she intentionally murdered both of her children. And it wasn't a split second thing either...she could have easily saved them for at least 10-15 minutes after she "lost it". But she didn't. Hard to believe a mother could do such a thing, but it DOES happen.

Elvis,

I understand what you are saying I have never doubted that a parent is capable of killing their child under duress or periods of high stress. In Susan's case her boyfriend specifically rejected her because of her children. He made it sound like they could be good together but without him. She had a motive and she wasn't stable. Honestly I have yet to read a case of a mom killing her children that did not have issues. What could have happened between the time they got home and the death of JBR that would make her lose it? I'm definitely open to what you all think but in the vein that it was murder not an accident with coverup.

This is what is bizarre to me about this case. I don't believe the death was accidental but a cold and calculated murder. If someone could establish a motive or even put her in a high stress situation maybe I could go for it. She was even in the best part of her remission from cancer. But by all accounts she had no precursive behavior that would make me think she could do this. I will never say never, LOL, however, I need something more before I could believe she could wrap a cord around her baby's neck and strangle her, bash her in the head that is said that the force was enough to kill a 300lb man and then penetrate her with a paintbrush.

If a RDI I would put my money on John rather than Patsy which is why I find docg's theory as close as any theory of RDI I may be inclined to swallow.

rashomon

02-16-2007, 07:19 PM

Sprocket

02-16-2007, 07:53 PM

So if Patsy was the culprit, would it be impossible to believe that she strangled JB intentionally?

From my understanding, the physical evidence of the ligature shows that it was constructed around her neck (vs made and then slipped over her head) because of her hair that was caught up in the knots and looping of the cord. (Rashomon, please correct me if I'm wrong on this; I'm referencing Delmar's analysis/opinion of how it was constructed.)

From my understanding, there are no defensive wounds on JonBenet that indicate she struggled against an attacker while this device was constructed around her neck.

aussiesheila

02-16-2007, 08:01 PM

This particular maglite has been described as having a thick rubber head. Whether it was an accessory or hexagonal I have no idea. Also, from what I've read, the authorities regard it as the most likely weapon. There's been speculation about a baseball bat or a golf club, but if she'd been struck with either of these there would have been a nasty gash. Same with being slammed against a bathtub or bathroom sink, etc. A fall down the stairs might have produced no blood, but is not likely to have cracked her skull open so completely. This does NOT look to me like an accident, far from it. The accident scenario was produced as an act of desperation by an investigation team thrown totally off the track by the decision to rule John out. With John ruled out all they had was Patsy, who clearly had no motive for killing her beloved daughter. In such situations it is almost always the father who needs to be looked at, not the mother.I am not interested in a golf club as being the possible murder weapon, but I am interested in the maglite found on the kitchen bench and the baseball bat found on the ground outside the house.

I wasn't aware that particular maglite had a thick rubber head, are you sure of this and can you give a reference please docg? I have not come across any statement as to how big it was either and can only come up with an estimate from one I have seen which I would guess was about 15 by 2.5 inches. Any comments please?

Also docg, I would like to know why you think there would have been a nasty gash if she had been bashed by a metal baseball bat? (And how long is a baseball bat please?)

elvislives

02-16-2007, 08:14 PM

Question back for Elvislives: does the physical evidence support a scenario where JB was intentionally strangled before the head bash?
Jmpo, but if she had died from strangulation before, she would not have bled so profusely in her brain afterward.

Rash, I agree with you completely on this point. I have seen several discussions of world renowned forensic pathologists (henry lee, cyril wecht, etc) and I think it was Cyril Wecht who believes this theory (I could be wrong on this). But if memory serves, he is the one who thinks JB was strangled to death, then bashed in the head after death. He had an explanation for the post mortem hemorrhage-- possible, but a huge stretch imo.

There is some leeway on the exact timing of the events, but most likely she was bashed on the head, then strangled immediately (within seconds or possibly up to 3 minutes). Or she could have been strangled...and during the strangulation was bashed on the head (asphixia in a 45 lb child would take about 4-5 minutes, the bash on the head would take just a second).

It has been argued that the strangulation confounds the evolution of the head wound somewhat (theoretically the constriction of the carotid arteries could have prevented some hemorrhage into the brain, and because the cord was so deeply embedded it could have restricted flow thru the carotids (which is a fairly superficial artery). But if you study cerebral circulation, you will note that there are a lot of redundancies in the vasculature. I.e. if the carotids are occluded, the vertebral arteries will compensate. The vertebrals are very "deep' within the neck, so the ligature would not occlude blood flow thru the vertebrals.) That said however, the internal carotid artery runs thru the subarachnoid space, so if flow of the internal carotid was constricted, that could explain why the subarachnoid hemorhhage was so minor. But it doesn't explain why there is so little bleeding in other areas.

Anyway, I agree with you that the head trauma was inflicted while her heart was still beating, but her heart only beat for a few minutes after she was bashed....which is why the PDI accidentally theory is not physiologically possible. IF Patsy did it, it HAD to be a Susan Smith type of thing where at the time her intent was to kill.

Sharon

02-16-2007, 10:58 PM

Sharon, when I first heard of this crime, I presumed that PR had hit JB on the head in a rage, then staged the rest. That was how it was being reported in the press and unfortunately it happens all the time. Case closed. This was also about the same time when it was reported that some MEs thought she had suffered the head trauma for some time before she died. When the autopsy report was published, it became obvious to those of us in medical circles that there is NO WAY it happened like that. I have read all sorts of medical misinformation on these forums as well as seen it reported in the press...I WISH it were true. Sadly, somebody brutally and intentionally murdered this child.

I went through the same thoughts from presuming that she could have been hit in a rage to the logical conclusion that is so hard to accept. I find it a bit of a waste of time now to discuss all the reasons that her parents could have been angry & hit her in rage. For me, her parent/s either delivered an intensional death blow or they had nothing to do with it.

For me now it is an intentional murder.

Talk of this being an accident is right up there with saying the earth is flat.

just my opinion.

bullmoose

02-17-2007, 06:02 AM

I am not interested in a golf club as being the possible murder weapon, but I am interested in the maglite found on the kitchen bench and the baseball bat found on the ground outside the house.

I wasn't aware that particular maglite had a thick rubber head, are you sure of this and can you give a reference please docg? I have not come across any statement as to how big it was either and can only come up with an estimate from one I have seen which I would guess was about 15 by 2.5 inches. Any comments please?

Also docg, I would like to know why you think there would have been a nasty gash if she had been bashed by a metal baseball bat? (And how long is a baseball bat please?)Let me answer the baseball bat length, they can be 28 to about 33 inches long. I too am curious about the maglite found in the kitchen; I have maglites and just wonder what length the found maglite was, also what size batteries did it take and how many? My MP maglite is 19 inches long and takes 6 D batteries, it would have done the job, but they come in many sizes so I am curious. Does anyone know the maglite's dimensions? JMHO

rashomon

02-17-2007, 07:03 AM

Rash, I agree with you completely on this point. I have seen several discussions of world renowned forensic pathologists (henry lee, cyril wecht, etc) and I think it was Cyril Wecht who believes this theory (I could be wrong on this). But if memory serves, he is the one who thinks JB was strangled to death, then bashed in the head after death. He had an explanation for the post mortem hemorrhage-- possible, but a huge stretch imo.

There is some leeway on the exact timing of the events, but most likely she was bashed on the head, then strangled immediately (within seconds or possibly up to 3 minutes). Or she could have been strangled...and during the strangulation was bashed on the head (asphixia in a 45 lb child would take about 4-5 minutes, the bash on the head would take just a second).

It has been argued that the strangulation confounds the evolution of the head wound somewhat (theoretically the constriction of the carotid arteries could have prevented some hemorrhage into the brain, and because the cord was so deeply embedded it could have restricted flow thru the carotids (which is a fairly superficial artery). But if you study cerebral circulation, you will note that there are a lot of redundancies in the vasculature. I.e. if the carotids are occluded, the vertebral arteries will compensate. The vertebrals are very "deep' within the neck, so the ligature would not occlude blood flow thru the vertebrals.) That said however, the internal carotid artery runs thru the subarachnoid space, so if flow of the internal carotid was constricted, that could explain why the subarachnoid hemorhhage was so minor. But it doesn't explain why there is so little bleeding in other areas.

Anyway, I agree with you that the head trauma was inflicted while her heart was still beating, but her heart only beat for a few minutes after she was bashed....which is why the PDI accidentally theory is not physiologically possible. IF Patsy did it, it HAD to be a Susan Smith type of thing where at the time her intent was to kill.
Elvislives, no I would not put it past Patsy to have strangled JB intentionally. But 'intentionally', doesn't have to mean that this was a planned murder.

Any theory as to how JB died has to stand up to medical scrutiny, i.e. it has to be consistent with the forensic evidence. Which is why your input is much apppreciated, EL.

But there still exist so many questions re this issue:

- We don't even know with which object JB was struck, at which speed and from which angle. Not knowing these variables, how do we know how much blood should (or should not) have been in her brain?
According to a poster on another forum, one might not end up with much bleeding in the brain from a skull fracture. It all depends on whether or not blood vessels were torn during the injury and whether they were large blood vessels or just small ones.

- All we know is that it had to have been been blunt force trauma, for a sharp object would most likely have ruptured her scalp.

- Elivislives, could this injury also have been a so-called 'contrecoup' (I don't know if this is the correct terrm) injury where JB's head was smashed against an object (like in vehicle accidents)?

- could 'fresh' hemorrhage simply mean that this was not an old injury?

- why did Dr. Spitz (who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures of JB) state that JB had blood clots?

- do there exist conditions under which blood in a head injury does not show signs of organization? (aside from death soon after the injury or the person having blood clotting disorder). To me, this is the most crucial question here.

Athena

02-17-2007, 11:27 AM

I hope Elvis responds as well but I believe it was a coup injury based on research I have done. If it had been contrecoup (resultinig from fall) - the fracture would not have been comminuted/depressed:

From MedOnline:

Coup Injury (4 types of blows) Only describing the one that describes the autopsy report - linear, comminuted fracture:

The final category of blow would be responsible for the most serious type of fracturing, the depressive and expressive fractures. In these cases, large objects with high velocity that strike a victim’s head would cause comminuted or depressed fractures and severe fracture injury if not worse.

Comminuted fractures: The comminuted fracture is basically as shattering of the bone, much like a cracked eggshell. In fact, these fractures are commonly called “eggshell fractures” for this reason. They are received in the same manner as the depressed fracture For example, repeated blows to a victim’s head with a hammer would produce a shattered skull. These fractures also cause severe injury to the brain due to the broken pieces of bone being pushed into the cranium

Depressed fracture: The depressed skull fracture is regarded as an extremely serious injury. These fractures consist of portions of the bone being pushed into the brain tissue, or in some instances, “punched out”. An assault with a hammer may leave a depressed fracture, with an opening in the skull consistent with the diameter of the hammer. Larger depressive fractures can be obtained by using heavy larger items, such as baseball bats, stones, or similar items [1,3].

Linear fractures: This fracture has been regarded as the most common type of skull fracture (70%). Simply described, a linear fracture is usually a straight line fracture, generally radiating away from the point of impact. This is caused by the “outbending” effect upon the bone at the moment of impact. Once external force is applied to the bone, the exact point of impact will depress, which will cause the surrounding bone to bend outward. In most cases, the fracture will radiate toward weaker portions of the bone. It has also been determined that fractures can be placed into their proper sequence. When bones fractures, it behaves similarly to glass. Fractures in bone will stop traveling once they encounter a pre-existing fracture. As a result, the numerous fractures which may appear on a murder victim’s skull could be placed into their proper sequence of occurrence.

Athena

02-17-2007, 11:32 AM

Could this have been the shape of the weapon? From the autopsy report:

In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull.

Another term that caught my attention. If you know anyone who has died of aneurysm it is usually very quick and described as sudden.

Subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH):
May be natural, due to rupture of a dilated blood vessel (an aneurysm), or traumatic.
SAH is highly irritant to the brain-stem and is usually rapidly fatal

Zoey

02-17-2007, 06:14 PM

thewhitewitch1

02-18-2007, 01:56 AM

I remember a picture someone posted of a pry-bar. I think that is what it was called and I think Shill posted it. That is a rectangular shape for sure.

Apparently so was the Mag-light. There is no evidence that a pry-bar was used...either on JB or to pry open a door in the Ramsey home.

bullmoose

02-18-2007, 03:06 AM

Apparently so was the Mag-light. There is no evidence that a pry-bar was used...either on JB or to pry open a door in the Ramsey home.No, the Maglite, all Maglites that I have or have seen are tubular in shape; my biggest one is 19 inches long and takes 6 D batteries; its the MP model. I have always wondered if they actually matched up the 8 inch fracture on Jonbenet's skull with the Maglite they found in the kitchen. I'm not being argumentative here, tww1, but do you know if they did, or is it just supposition, I don't recall anything that matched the fractures to the the Maglite?JMHO

shill

02-18-2007, 03:55 AM

There is no evidence that a pry-bar was used...either on JB or to pry open a door in the Ramsey home.
That's not true. There was evidence of light pry marks that was written off.

Athena

02-18-2007, 12:14 PM

First off, her breathing had to be rather vigorous at the time of strangulation or she would not have developed petechiae in the lungs (someone here said that she would have to be conscious to develop petechiae--not so, but she would have to be breathing fairly vigorously). So if her breathing was vigorous, hence the petechiae, she could not have been in a near death coma like state with barely a pulse.

Also, when the body is impaired, it does not stop the organization process at all. The organization process (hemostasis) is the body's attempt to save itself. If anything it would have kicked into high gear.

But lets drop the whole hematology topic, it is just too technical. Another angle would be the lack of swelling. I wish I could figure out how to post a picture here. I tried posting one of that child with the head injury similar to JB's, but I couldn't figure it out. Anyway, a kid with a head wound like this swells beyond recognition. Their entire head swells to about twice its size UNLESS of course they are killed via another method first.

Sorry if I am making no sense...I got almost no sleep last night...

No need to post a picture Elvis. Nowhere in the autopsy report does it say "edema" which would indicate swelling.

WHAT IS BRAIN SWELLING?
BRAIN EDEMA?

In response to the trauma, changes occur in the brain which require monitoring to prevent further damage. The brain's size frequently increases after a severe head injury. This is called brain swelling and occurs when there is an increase in the amount of blood to the brain. Later in the illness water may collect in the brain which is called Brain Edema. Both Brain swelling and Brain Edema result in excessive pressure in the brain called Intracranial Pressure ("ICP"). Around-the-clock monitoring during this time is essential in order that Intracranial Pressure can be immediately treated. Treatment of brain swelling can be difficult. Very strong medications are administered and in some cases, removal of small amounts of fluids from the brain or surgery may be beneficial.

http://tbilaw.com/AboutSevere3.html

thewhitewitch1

02-18-2007, 03:39 PM

That's not true. There was evidence of light pry marks that was written off.

There was evidence that a door had been pried open but it was determined that the marks were old.

elvislives

02-19-2007, 06:53 PM

Elvis,

I understand what you are saying I have never doubted that a parent is capable of killing their child under duress or periods of high stress. In Susan's case her boyfriend specifically rejected her because of her children. He made it sound like they could be good together but without him. She had a motive and she wasn't stable. Honestly I have yet to read a case of a mom killing her children that did not have issues. What could have happened between the time they got home and the death of JBR that would make her lose it? I'm definitely open to what you all think but in the vein that it was murder not an accident with coverup.

This is what is bizarre to me about this case. I don't believe the death was accidental but a cold and calculated murder. If someone could establish a motive or even put her in a high stress situation maybe I could go for it. She was even in the best part of her remission from cancer. But by all accounts she had no precursive behavior that would make me think she could do this. I will never say never, LOL, however, I need something more before I could believe she could wrap a cord around her baby's neck and strangle her, bash her in the head that is said that the force was enough to kill a 300lb man and then penetrate her with a paintbrush.

If a RDI I would put my money on John rather than Patsy which is why I find docg's theory as close as any theory of RDI I may be inclined to swallow.

I hear what you're saying, Athena and motive is definitely the big question. But all members who were in the house have to be considered as possilbe perpetrators. Imo the best way to solve the crime is to FIRST establish what happened, then try and figure out who did it and why.
There is a big misconception out there that someone struck JB in a rage, then staged the rest. I agree there was staging, but the strangulation was not staged, as this was the cause of death. This is a crucial point imo.
I believe that the sequence of injuries rules out Burke as the perpetrator (although I suppose this could be argued). But I don't think the sequence of events rules out Patsy or John. However, the sequence of events definitely rules out the accident theory.

elvislives

02-19-2007, 07:14 PM

Elvislives, no I would not put it past Patsy to have strangled JB intentionally. But 'intentionally', doesn't have to mean that this was a planned murder.

Any theory as to how JB died has to stand up to medical scrutiny, i.e. it has to be consistent with the forensic evidence. Which is why your input is much apppreciated, EL.

But there still exist so many questions re this issue:

- We don't even know with which object JB was struck, at which speed and from which angle. Not knowing these variables, how do we know how much blood should (or should not) have been in her brain?
According to a poster on another forum, one might not end up with much bleeding in the brain from a skull fracture. It all depends on whether or not blood vessels were torn during the injury and whether they were large blood vessels or just small ones.

We don't need to know any of these variables in order to know that she should have had massive hemorrhaging. We KNOW that she had an 8 inch fracture and a 1 3/4 x 1/2 inch HOLE in her skull.

Yes that poster on the other forum is correct in that not all skull fractures bleed profusely. The ones that don't bleed are classified as MINOR. JB did not have a minor skull fracture, but a massive LETHAL one. Lethal skull fractures are classified as such because they will cause the victim to DIE of blood loss or cereral edema. There is not one single 8 inch linear/comminuative skull fracture in medical history that did not bleed profusely. There are a few cases where the victim survived (with massive brain damage) but only because the victim recieved immediate medical attention and the intracranial hemorrhaging and edema was controlled.

[QUOTE=rashomon;8817123-All we know is that it had to have been been blunt force trauma, for a sharp object would most likely have ruptured her scalp.

- Elivislives, could this injury also have been a so-called 'contrecoup' (I don't know if this is the correct terrm) injury where JB's head was smashed against an object (like in vehicle accidents)?

A contrecoup injury is one where a brain injury is sustained on the opposite side of impact. She did have a minor contrecoup injury. From the autopsy:

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 ME specifically notes that the left temporal lobe (she was struck on the right) was only minimally damaged. This suggests a single blow--no shaking or multiple bashes.

- could 'fresh' hemorrhage simply mean that this was not an old injury?

Fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization means that the injury was sustained right before death and the blood had not yet begun the coagulation process.

- why did Dr. Spitz (who reviewed 100 autopsy pictures of JB) state that JB had blood clots?

I don't know.

- do there exist conditions under which blood in a head injury does not show signs of organization? (aside from death soon after the injury or the person having blood clotting disorder). To me, this is the most crucial question here.

The only other possibility is drugs. Patients who are heparinized or who are on Coumadin, Plavix or other blood 'thinners' will take a long time to clot. Other than that the only other explanations are coag disorders or death before the hemostatic cascade begins.

elvislives

02-19-2007, 07:17 PM

elvislives

02-19-2007, 07:25 PM

No need to post a picture Elvis. Nowhere in the autopsy report does it say "edema" which would indicate swelling.

WHAT IS BRAIN SWELLING?
BRAIN EDEMA?

In response to the trauma, changes occur in the brain which require monitoring to prevent further damage. The brain's size frequently increases after a severe head injury. This is called brain swelling and occurs when there is an increase in the amount of blood to the brain. Later in the illness water may collect in the brain which is called Brain Edema. Both Brain swelling and Brain Edema result in excessive pressure in the brain called Intracranial Pressure ("ICP"). Around-the-clock monitoring during this time is essential in order that Intracranial Pressure can be immediately treated. Treatment of brain swelling can be difficult. Very strong medications are administered and in some cases, removal of small amounts of fluids from the brain or surgery may be beneficial.

http://tbilaw.com/AboutSevere3.html

Edema is just the medical term for swelling. There was none in her brain. The ME specifically points this out. Plus her brain was 1450 grams--normal for a 45 lb child. The brain tissue would have been herniating out of the fracture if the brain had the opportunity to swell.

rashomon

02-19-2007, 08:27 PM

Fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization means that the injury was sustained right before death and the blood had not yet begun the coagulation process.
Elvislives, here is a link to the discussion on the Crime & Justice website about your input on the case discussion (starting with my #243 post):

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=6212&st=240

The posters there argue that you don't back up your claims re the lack of blood organiaztion with factual proof.
One poster wrote that MRI and PET scans may tell us more about blood organization. Does there exist any link to a source where what you said can can be verified in a way understandable to medical laypeople?

Athena

02-19-2007, 10:06 PM

Elvislives, here is a link to the discussion on the Crime & Justice website about your input on the case discussion (starting with my #243 post):

http://www.crimeandjustice.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=6212&st=240

The posters there argue that you don't back up your claims re the lack of blood organiaztion with factual proof.
One poster wrote that MRI and PET scans may tell us more about blood organization. Does there exist any link to a source where what you said can can be verified in a way understandable to medical laypeople?

I find this a bit amusing. You can do your own research and validate or invalidate what elvis says. Also the same person on that forum that asks for proof posts on this site as well. He/she could have asked that question here. :shrug:

Sprocket

02-19-2007, 10:35 PM

Whiskey, I'm not surprised that you copied my post from another forum without asking first. And when you do copy, you should get it right as to who actually said what, otherwise you are misleading your intended audience.

I was not the individual who actually made this statement:

"Elvislives" doesn't back up statements/theories with proof.

Another poster was. I merely agreed with it.

Another misleading thing you did, was, you didn't include my entire statements where I go on to clarify that Elvislives could actually be employed in the medical field, or make it clear where my words ended and yours began.

Imho, your intention was to purposfully mislead your audience here, and use my words to support your own agenda. It's very revealing, about you.

Louisadelmar

02-19-2007, 11:06 PM

LindaA

02-19-2007, 11:12 PM

Elvislives gives everything needed for us to do further research if we want. So far, everything she has said can be verified if you're willing to do the work. I for one, am very grateful she takes time out of her busy life to answer our questions. Given the behavior of some posters I can't imagine EVER making information available regarding my real life and I'm sure she is too smart to do so as well..

Absolutely. Seems the RDIs are unhappy that someone with knowledge has posted info that refutes their claims about the order of the injuries. I figured it was about time they tried to discredit her.

Sharon

02-19-2007, 11:43 PM

Quote from Sprocket: "Elvislives" doesn't back up statements/theories with proof.

Finally. Somebody calling it like it really is.

My third party spitballing question would be, is this individual a retired ME? (Do they have a license somewheres that can be verified?) Because imho if this poster was a practicing physician, or even a practicing PA, I find it difficult to believe that they would have as much free time as they do posting on forums.

To Roshoman and Sprocket :beer: Finally someone calling a spade a spade. This poster has shown no credetials and everyone here just beleives everything he says no question asked. NEVER ONCE has he provided a link to support ANY of his statements. All he says is I'm a doctor so you should believe everything I say.

Well, EL, Roshoman and Sprocket have proven that you are a fraud. Why else cant you give any references for all the claims you make. You called it Roshoman, he has NO FACTUAL PROOF. Just a claim that anyone could make on the internet that he is a M.D. Well guess what I'm the cheif of the Boulder police so everyone should beleive everything I say.
ANd Sprocket you are spot on---what REAL DOCTOR has all the time in the world to be posting all the time on the internet?? :rolleyes:

Great detective work guys!!!! But did you realise that this he is a she....yes Elvis is a female. Talk about missing the forrest for the trees.

shill

02-20-2007, 01:20 AM

Well, EL, Roshoman and Sprocket have proven that you are a fraud. Why else cant you give any references for all the claims you make. You called it Roshoman, he has NO FACTUAL PROOF. Just a claim that anyone could make on the internet that he is a M.D. Well guess what I'm the cheif of the Boulder police so everyone should beleive everything I say.
ANd Sprocket you are spot on---what REAL DOCTOR has all the time in the world to be posting all the time on the internet?? :rolleyes:I think it is obvious that elviselives knows what they are talking about and at the very least is more knowledgeable about the subject of head wounds then any poster I have seen.

Wanting people to think you are knowledgeable and being knowledgeable are two different things. You and the others seem to want people to think you are knowledgeable.

elvislives

02-20-2007, 01:57 AM

Rashomon, Whiskey and Sprocket: I am not entirely sure what I have done or said to elicit such contempt and disrespect from you. My purpose in posting here was to gain a greater understanding in what transpired in this unsolved crime.

Rash: the reason I have taken the time to discuss things with you is because you initially seemed to be a very intelligent person and I thought we could learn a lot from each other. You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you wish. If you want to believe that the head wound originated 20-60 minutes before death, that is certainly your right and you are in good company.

Whiskey: You as well are entitled to your beliefs. I do understand that your viewpoint has been reported in the media and you can certainly believe what you want. I was only asking you to provide an explanation for your views and was not intending to be condescending in any way.

Sprocket; I am not an ME nor have I ever claimed to be. I am an MD and the reason I chose my particular specialty (emergency medicine) is because I am female and even in med school and residency I knew I would some day have children and wanted the flexibility to work when I wanted and not be tied to a practice where I had the burden of patients for whom I had to be available 24/7. My specialty allows me to go to work as much as I want but also to be available to volunteer in my children's classroom as well as pursue a number of other extracurricular activities, including this board. I am not a paid consultant for this case and therefore am not willing to post my medical license and degrees on this website. Obviously that would not only reveal the state where I practice, where I attended school, but also my personal identity. As I stated I am a mother with children and do not want the attention of some of unstable posters on this board.

To all the reasonable and intelligent posters who post here: whether IDI, RDI or FS I have truly enjoyed discussing this case with you. Many of you have given me a perspective on the case that I would otherwise not enjoy. I will be taking a break from this board, perhaps permanently, but at least for a while. Tho the majority of posters here are of the highest integrity and caliber, there are just too many weirdos for my tastes. One thing I admire about all of you, regardless of your theory, is that you genuinely seem interested in nothing more than justice for a little girl who did not deserve to die. I wish you all the best! Elvis:seeya:

shill

02-20-2007, 02:28 AM

Rashomon, Whiskey and Sprocket: I am not entirely sure what I have done or said to elicit such contempt and disrespect from you.

You burst their bubble!

You did not have to explain yourself to those posters.
You have got to understand that there are people who are interested in discovering what happened that night and who did the crime no matter where it leads.
And then there are those who don't want to accept anything but the Ramseys did it and will spend all their energy to spin anything they can to that conclusion.

It's obvious there are a lot of kooks posting here, but very few non-kooks such as yourself.

Thank you for your professional insight. You gave me a lot of important information and I appreciate it. Tom Mc

P.S. You are a smart women to walk away from this nut house of posters, some nuttier than others.

aussiesheila

02-20-2007, 04:07 AM

"extensive area of scalp hemorrhage" - there was a lot of bleeding directly under her scalp.

The RST claims there was only a small amount (7-8 cc) of blood, therefore the garrote was in place before the head blow. However, that amount was "subdural"--between the dura and arachnoid membranes. The real amount of massive bleeding was under her scalp and labeled "extensive" by Coroner Meyer.rashomon, I know elvis has already told you this, I have read the post myself.

I will repeat:

"extensive area of scalp hemorrhage" does NOT equate to "massive" bleeding

Although the area of the hemorrhage is extensive, the thickness of the hemorrhage is tiny, so the VOLUME of the the hemorrhage is only small.

In other words, even just under the scalp there was NOT any massive bleeding.

And not only do the posters disagree, the famous medical experts consulted on the case disagree too. Just think of what Cyril Wecht said as opposed to the others.No rashomon, I don't think they do. As far as I can tell, the three medical experts consulted on the case agree - the head blow and the strangulation occurred very close in time to one another. Meyer stated this in his autopsy report so he must think this, Wecht thinks the strangulation came slightly ahead of the head blow and Spitz thinks the head blow came moments before the strangling. None of these medical experts thinks that the head blow came more than 5 minutes before the strangling, or if indeed it was even that long.

This is what Wecht said on Rivera Live May 2 2001: (copied from a post by lizzieb who transcribed the dialogue from the show)

Wecht: Let me just finish. The blow to the head definitely occurred when this girl was dead or dying. Seven cc of blood, less than two flat teaspoonsful, with an eight and a half-inch fracture. If that was a beating heart with carotid blood flow going up to the brain you would have a significant amount of hemorrhage.

This is what Spitz said on Discovery News March 16 2000. The narrator is Lyn Cannon: (copied from a post by someone unknown who transcribed the dialogue from the show)

LC: You believe JBR was hit on the head first, and then strangled.

Dr. Werner Spitz: Yes...... There was hemmoraging in the scalp, in the skin, in other words.

LC: Spitz says those hemmorages would not have formed if JB was already dead of strangulation when she suffered the head injury.

Dr. Werner Spitz: She did have a circulation....she did have blood clots, she did have heart beat, she did breathe, for awhile, after the head injury.

aussiesheila

02-20-2007, 05:57 AM

John was trained by Fleet White.

The mummy wrapping as you call it is to precisely adjust the length of the cord. It can be shortened and lengthened by adding or subtracting wrappings and keeps the brush from sliding out when it is pulled sideways.
The ligature and garrote's design were real and really used on the victim as is evident of her hand position, the deep neck indentation, and the vaginal penetration.Hi shill, you seem to be describing the way I envisage the garotte was tightened, ie the by the cord being looped around in 'figures of eight' over and over around the handle. You also sound as though you have been able to construct such a device. I did try, but the first knot I used to tie the cord to the knot (which you cannot see in the photos because it is covered by multiple 'wrappings' and so is hidden), just slid around the handle as I began to turn it. Did you manage to construct a garotte handle with a knot that didn't slip around it? I hope this post is clear enough for you to understand what I am trying to explain, and that you can answer my question.
Thanks, aussiesheila

aussiesheila

02-20-2007, 06:27 AM

I've read his letter and his assorted responses. Since I mentioned Jameson merely as the source I was using for the statement he had contacted a huge number of people and got no response, his 'answer' to her isn't relevant here. I did have another source for the statement he'd contacted over 80 people but last night didn't feel like hunting down which computer it was on. I'd forgotten that even Thomas gave him the brush-off. The link I have doesn't work but I think you'll find the original post (which was in response to a question from you) at FFJ. True to form it goes on and on and on. Here it is.

#17
May 3, 2006, 4:21 pm, Wed May 3 16:21:17 CDT 2006
EasyWriter
Member

rashomon's post:
Easywriter, did you receive a reply from Mary Keenan?

EasyWriter's reply:
?No.

“In your closing line you wrote that in case you got no reply
from her, you would initiate plan B. What exactly did you mean by
plan B?”(ibid)

The plan was to contact various media with the truth about
assorted fallacies being propagated and promoted, including the
aberrations of Lou Smit. This included all major networks with
criticism of specific programs, especially those featuring Looney
Louie. If I count newspapers and magazines, I made over a hundred
contacts with zero interest in the truth. This is an illustration
of just how deep and influencing the garbage was and is after all
the years of lies upon lies.

Long before I wrote that letter to Keenan, I had contacted Steve
Thomas. I agreed with Thomas about Patsy being “good for it”, but
didn’t agree with how he thought it came down. Of course, Steve’s
belief goes along with a staged crime scene. The problem was,
Steve did not understand the staging well enough to prove it.
That’s what I wrote him about in general terms to keep the email
short for better chance of being read.

I knew full well that the attorneys for him and for the
publishers didn’t have a clue as to what was really going on.
First, Steve was hamstrung by the “powers that be in Boulder,
then he was more or less locked into the situation with dumb
attorneys that kept him away from critical information about the
staging. These attorneys would rather loose a case than have
their egos threatened by an outsider. Ergo, Steve’s response was
no surprise:

“Dear Delmar,

Thank you so much for the information. As you can appreciate, I
am not in a position to be discussing the particulars via e-mail.
But your e-mail brought up interesting points. Might you hold
these thoughts for the moment, as we determine if they may be of
use to us? I appreciate your consideration and confidentiality,
Delmar. Let's touch base again ina week or two. Sincerely,
Steve Thomas” (Tue, 17 Apr 2001)

That was the last I heard from him. The suit was settled out of
court and the Ramseys never had to face interrogation and
exposure of the staged crime scene. Status quo.

The tragedy of the death of JonBenet is compounded by the tragedy
that any semblance of truth is buried under voluminous
fabrications instigated and propagated by the very persons who
are responsible for her death and cover up. They did not do it alone. Again
and again, simple and irrefutable evidence is either ignored
completely, or distorted beyond recognition to preserve the
illusion of Ramsey innocence.

Aside from a few passing sound bites, my introduction to the case
came in March of 2000 via a Barbara Walters interview of John and
Patsy Ramsey. I usually don’t watch interviews because they are
usually boring. I usually don’t watch Barbara Walters because she
is even more boring. Nevertheless, for reasons I can’t recall at
the moment, I watched this “no hold barred” farce. This was my
introduction to the dumbest, most inept staging in history
exceeded only by the dumbest, most inept “investigators” in
history.

Going in, I had no conclusions as to guilt or innocence, but
immediately picked up on the orchestration that stacked up to be
nothing more than a Ramsey forum. The next day, I took an online
look and the conclusion of staged crime scene jumped from the
pages of the autopsy report. How has this charade of innocence
been carried out so successfully and for so long? The tv
interview in focus answers the question quite well.

BARBARA WALTERS This is a very brutal murder, and yet some of the
authorities have said that you staged this. Um, that you loosely
tied your daughter's hands. That you put the noose, the garrote,
to make it look as if some terrible person had done this. That
this whole… picture was staged.(end quote)

JOHN RAMSEY Well, that's absurd. This was done by a terrible
person. The garrote...was deeply embedded in JonBenet's throat.
Her hands were tightly bound, I couldn't get the knot untied, I
tried to get it untied, even before I brought her upstairs, The
fundamental issue is no logic has been applied to any of this
case. Why would I for example have staged this horrible scene,
and then disturbed it myself, pulled the tape off her mouth,
carried her upstairs, tried to untie the hands before I brought
her upstairs. If I'd have staged it, I would've wanted the police
to see it as I staged it. It's not logical. Makes no sense.(end
quote)

Notice that BW introduces the description of loosely tied while
John adamantly declares and implies more than once that
JonBenet’s hands were tied tightly. Where did BW get the
description of loosely tied? From the autopsy report? Did she
attempt to confirm of deny the description of loosely tied before
the show? What would have happened if Barbara had confronted John
with the autopsy report AND photos and asked him to either show
the report and photo to be fake, or else explain where he got the
bound tightly stuff, or any binding at all?

Where would this line of questioning led? To the end of the lies?
Of course, BW did not challenge. John’s declaration, directly
contradicting the evidence, was allowed to go out to the national
audience. This incident of deception is just one of millions fed
to a vast audience who know no better because they get the
information from “truth in the media”.

Everybody knows that Lou Smit is an idiot for accepting John word
“as a Christian.” How about all those like BW who accept John’s
word because of “social status.” Is there really any difference
in these mentalities? If the end result is to avoid the evidence
to favor the Ramseys, what difference does motivation make? It’s
the same end result of aiding and abetting felons.

In this “no holds barred” interview, right behind lying John came
lying Patsy.

PATSY RAMSEY: First of all we know from the evidence that this
was a premeditated murder. The way in which she… died. The
garrote that was around her neck.(end quote)

No questions. No challenge; just whatever lies these “socialite
Christians” say are paraded as truth. Naturally, BW had to be
kind to the “guests” lest these audience-drawing guests refuse to
return and adversely affect the ratings and bottom line.

Sickening.

Amazing, so this is a post from EasyWriter, otherwise known as Delmar England, authority extraordinaire?

This is not the first time I have read this stuff about the loose wrist bindings that John Ramsey said were tightly bound being distorted to make it seem that John was lying. The fact is that the coroner stated that there was a loop on the cord that was wrapped loosely around her right wrist. John stated that the knot on the (presumably also loose) left wrist loop was tight.

Two different things - loose loops, tight knots. It seems so clear and simple. Do people deliberately misinterpret evidence just so they can see some other fault in John Ramsey as proof of his guilt?

rashomon

02-20-2007, 07:06 AM

[Athena]I find this a bit amusing. You can do your own research and validate or invalidate what elvis says. Also the same person on that forum that asks for proof posts on this site as well. He/she could have asked that question here.
The TOS of this board demand that the posters back up their claims with a link - therefore it is not my job to verify what a poster claims. The boot is on the other foot.
But still I tried to do some Google search myself. But since hematology has such a wide spectrum, I didn't get any useful results which are understandable to laypeople.

Rashomon, Whiskey and Sprocket: I am not entirely sure what I have done or said to elicit such contempt and disrespect from you. My purpose in posting here was to gain a greater understanding in what transpired in this unsolved crime.

Rash: the reason I have taken the time to discuss things with you is because you initially seemed to be a very intelligent person and I thought we could learn a lot from each other. You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you wish. If you want to believe that the head wound originated 20-60 minutes before death, that is certainly your right and you are in good company.

Elvislives - I neither comtempt nor disrespect you - although I am generally a skeptical person, I do believe you are an MD, and the reason I am asking around on other message bords is if there are other MDs (or people who know MDs and could ask them) who can back up up what you said (getting a second medical opinion, so to speak):

Fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization means that the injury was sustained right before death and the blood had not yet begun the coagulation process.

I've tried to do Google searching but did not get useful results. Therefore I asked you if you could give me a link to a source for your claim.

Do for example people who have been in a coma for some time from a head blow ALWAYS have 'organized bood' in their brain? (leaving out the cases with coagulation disorders). This is what interest me in connection with the JBR case.
Do there exist studies on this which are understandable to medical laypersons?

Elvislives, I don't "want" to believe anything in this case - I want to find out what happened. If I merely wanted to believe something, I would just have shrugged off what you said without bothering to get more info.

rashomon

02-20-2007, 07:19 AM

Amazing, so this is a post from EasyWriter, otherwise known as Delmar England, authority extraordinaire?

This is not the first time I have read this stuff about the loose wrist bindings that John Ramsey said were tightly bound being distorted to make it seem that John was lying. The fact is that the coroner stated that there was a loop on the cord that was wrapped loosely around her right wrist. John stated that the knot on the (presumably also loose) left wrist loop was tight.

Two different things - loose loops, tight knots. It seems so clear and simple. Do people deliberately misinterpret evidence just so they can see some other fault in John Ramsey as proof of his guilt?

John Ramsey said verbatim that JB's hands were "tightly bound", and tightly bound means the loop being tightly around the wrist, not loosely. He also said he couldn't get the knot untied - so the inference one can draw is that he left the 'tightly bound' ligature on her wrist.

Now who do you think was lying: John Ramsey or the coroner?

LindaA

02-20-2007, 07:37 AM

The TOS of this board demand that the posters back up their claims with a link - therefore it is not my job to verify what a poster claims. The boot is on the other foot.
But still I tried to do some Google search myself. But since hematology has such a wide spectrum, I didn't get any useful results which are understandable to laypeople.

Elvislives - I neither comtempt nor disrespect you - although I am generally a skeptical person, I do believe you are an MD, and the reason I am asking around on other message bords is if there are other MDs (or people who know MDs and could ask them) who can back up up what you said (getting a second medical opinion, so to speak):

I've tried to do Google searching but did not get useful results. Therefore I asked you if you could give me a link to a source for your claim.

Do for example people who have been in a coma for some time from a head blow ALWAYS have 'organized bood' in their brain? (leaving out the cases with coagulation disorders). This is what interest me in connection with the JBR case.
Do there exist studies on this which are understandable to medical laypersons?

Elvislives, I don't "want" to believe anything in this case - I want to find out what happened. If I merely wanted to believe something, I would just have shrugged off what you said without bothering to get more info.

No, Rash, you are asking around hoping to get the answer you awantr. Like a kid who goes to her mother asking for candy and when mom says no, goes to her father, and whem he says no, to grandma.

Athena

02-20-2007, 07:48 AM

The TOS of this board demand that the posters back up their claims with a link - therefore it is not my job to verify what a poster claims. The boot is on the other foot.
But still I tried to do some Google search myself. But since hematology has such a wide spectrum, I didn't get any useful results which are understandable to laypeople.

Elvislives - I neither comtempt nor disrespect you - although I am generally a skeptical person, I do believe you are an MD, and the reason I am asking around on other message bords is if there are other MDs (or people who know MDs and could ask them) who can back up up what you said (getting a second medical opinion, so to speak):

You are a hypocrite Rash. Elvis is referring to the autopsy report. That is a link -- she is merely interpreting what has been reported in the autopsy report. As far as searching the medical terms they are easily available.

I have seen no credentials re: Delmar England and no links to support his claims yet being the "so-called" skeptic you are takes whatever he says at face value and attempted to promote his garbage here.

I agree with what LindaA and Shill says above as well. Whatever doesn't fit in with your neat little theory about RDI throws you off balance when you should be searching for truth and information that the evidence supports. Alot of the RDIs IMO are a lynch mob. :confused:

Kor

02-20-2007, 08:11 AM

John Ramsey said verbatim that JB's hands were "tightly bound", and tightly bound means the loop being tightly around the wrist, not loosely. He also said he couldn't get the knot untied - so the inference one can draw is that he left the 'tightly bound' ligature on her wrist.

Now who do you think was lying: John Ramsey or the coroner?

It might be already tighten when JR found her then it got loosely when you said he tried to get it untied, JMO

I believe a reason for cords around JB's wrists being loosely after she was found, was from her body being shrunk after she died. Dead bodies do shrink after while, I am not medical genius on how to explain that, but I have learned that dead bodies does shrink before turn into rigid or rigor, whatever you call it. I don't understand why beat to death about cords around wrists being loosely as if it was staged, it not like we know it was loosely when JB was alive or right after she died. Thats about 12 hours difference. Maybe someone here can explain in medical details about shrinkage bodies.

aussiesheila

02-20-2007, 08:18 AM

I really hope it didnt happen like this.

You seem convinced that pedophiles were involved. I guess it shouldnt be that surprising because (1) some one has to be a pedophile and (2) they often turn out to be people who are rich, highly respected in the community, and or quite educated.

Do you think the parents together or individually knew about pedephiles in their midst that may have been abusing JBROK Sharon, you're new here, so that gives me an excuse to go through it all again even though I know there are people who are heartily sick of me going on about this. Please just move on to the next post if you are one of these people.

Yes, I am absolutely convinced that pedophiles had everything to do with it. To go back to the very beginning, I think Patsy's father was a pedophile and I think he had molested her when she was a little girl. So if I am right about this Patsy was psychologically disturbed as a result, just as I think every child who suffers sexual abuse becomes psychologically disturbed. The evidence that exists for this, I believe, is in one of Patsy's videotaped police interviews where she is questioned about ever having been abused as a child and she switched over into a child-like voice and mannerisms and behaved in a very uneasy manner. I didn't see the tapes but people in the US did and they have described what they saw to me. I think that her father then moved on to JonBenet during Patsy's first encounter with cancer when JonBenet was about 3 years old. The evidence for that is a quote I have read of from Nedra who said that "JonBenet was only a little bit molested". So this indicated to me that Nedra knew about the abuse and did nothing to stop it and IMO Patsy very likely followed suit.

I think that pedophiles have their own underground network and word got around about JonBenet and this is where I would just love to know how the Ramseys got to know the Whites and became best friends with them because I think Mr W was the next one to abuse JonBenet. I would also love to know how Patsy found that pedophile-protecting (IMO) pediatrician who was to attribute JonBenet's bedwetting, vaginal discharges and redness, urinary tract infecions, vague stomach pains to bubble bath and not wiping properly etc, because in doing so IMO, he aided and abetted Patsy's denial of the abuse. I think that the abuse mostly occurred when John was away on his many business trips. Again, I would just love to know how the appearances of JonBenet's symptoms correlated with John Ramsey's absences. But I imagine this is yet just another neglected area of investigation.

While I am certain Patsy knew about the abuse (that I am sure was happening), I am equally certain that John had absolutely no idea and that he is a complete innocent in the whole thing. So ironically I am with the RDIs completely on the issue of Patsy lying. I think she wrote the note and I think she lied at at every twist and turn of the investigation. On the other hand, I think John was telling the absolute truth as he saw it, on every question he was ever asked.

aussiesheila

02-20-2007, 08:30 AM

aussiesheila

02-20-2007, 08:43 AM

We don't even know which object cracked JB's skull and at what angle. and unless we know it, all we can do is speculate a to how much blood "should" or "should not" have been in JB's brain.

In my # 290 post on this thread, I have listed a number of medical opinions from people who seem every bit as informed on the subject as the doctor here.
Getting a "second opinion", so to speak. :)

What was found, according to poster BluesStrat on FFJ:

"extensive area of scalp hemorrhage" - there was a lot of bleeding directly under her scalp.

"a thin film of subdural hemorrhage" - minor bleeding under the dura membrane.

"a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage" - minor bleeding under the arachnoid membrane.

"contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches" - a huge bruise was on the top of her brain.

What the autopsy reveals is that the piece of skull bone that broke loose did not penetrate either brain membrane, which would have caused much more bleeding.

The RST claims there was only a small amount (7-8 cc) of blood, therefore the garrote was in place before the head blow. However, that amount was "subdural"--between the dura and arachnoid membranes. The real amount of massive bleeding was under her scalp and labeled "extensive" by Coroner Meyer.
Earlier tonight I answered this in another post, which no doubt you will come across in due course, so I won't reply to this bit again.

All I can say is that both posters with medical knowledge as well as world-famous experts seem to disagree on crucial points.I think when it comes to correctly interpreting evidence on a dead body, nothing beats a hands on encounter with the body itself. I think, no matter how expert a pathologist is, if he or she only has photographs to examine, they would be at a distinct disadvantage to the one who did the autopsy.

aussiesheila

02-20-2007, 08:53 AM

Thanks for posting the link rashomon. Before I do anything else I'll have to get back to elvis to find out if Wright was the one she contacted.Oh, I see elvis has already answered this in her post 376. Thanks elvis. And oh my goodness, how unscrupulous was that journalist!

I think from memory, Charlie Brennan was initially very anti-Ramsey, but later on changed his position and came to view them as innocent.

aussiesheila

02-20-2007, 09:15 AM

Not to split hairs, but different foods digest at different rates. So just because someone eats one food before another doesn't necessarily mean that it will be ahead of it in the digestive tract.elvis, you're kidding? you mean there's some kind of bypass lane in there somewhere?

No perhaps you mean that in the stomach, one type of food might be liquefied and pass through the stomach/intestine sphincter earlier than something that has to be mechanically broken up into smaller pieces?

But once it's in the intestine wouldn't each bit have to stay at its same place in the queue?

Louisadelmar

02-20-2007, 09:46 AM

[...]. I will be taking a break from this board, perhaps permanently, but at least for a while. Tho the majority of posters here are of the highest integrity and caliber, there are just too many weirdos for my tastes. One thing I admire about all of you, regardless of your theory, is that you genuinely seem interested in nothing more than justice for a little girl who did not deserve to die. I wish you all the best! Elvis:seeya:

Didn't see a PM on your profile so I'm posting this here.

If you get the urge to discuss the case again try this board:

http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums/sanctuary2.html

There aren't as many RDI as one might hope but there are some and the posters know the case and are polite and respectful to each other. Athena posts there as well as several other posters from here. I post there as tipper. They would be thrilled to have your expertise.

LindaA

02-20-2007, 09:51 AM

I"d like to second what Louisa said about the other forum.

I'm so sorry you decided to leave us -- even for a while. I do understand. It gets monotonous and frustrating to post the same facts several times, only to have people treat you as a few here have. I can't believe they actually accuse you of not backing up your statements!! It is our loss.

andU

02-20-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote from Sprocket: "Elvislives" doesn't back up statements/theories with proof.

Finally. Somebody calling it like it really is.

My third party spitballing question would be, is this individual a retired ME? (Do they have a license somewheres that can be verified?) Because imho if this poster was a practicing physician, or even a practicing PA, I find it difficult to believe that they would have as much free time as they do posting on forums.

To Roshoman and Sprocket :beer: Finally someone calling a spade a spade. This poster has shown no credetials and everyone here just beleives everything he says no question asked. NEVER ONCE has he provided a link to support ANY of his statements. All he says is I'm a doctor so you should believe everything I say.

Well, EL, Roshoman and Sprocket have proven that you are a fraud. Why else cant you give any references for all the claims you make. You called it Roshoman, he has NO FACTUAL PROOF. Just a claim that anyone could make on the internet that he is a M.D. Well guess what I'm the cheif of the Boulder police so everyone should beleive everything I say.
ANd Sprocket you are spot on---what REAL DOCTOR has all the time in the world to be posting all the time on the internet?? :rolleyes:

I have done some research on several things that Elvislives posted and found his/her statements to be authentic and reliable. What is your problem?

andU

02-20-2007, 10:12 AM

Elvislives, you can also PM me for the info to join a private (no trollers) board. You would be welcome and respected there, I promise.

andU

02-20-2007, 10:13 AM

What a shame to lose such a valued poster!

LindaA

02-20-2007, 10:29 AM

I believe we have lost King Coyote for much the same reasons.

Louisadelmar

02-20-2007, 10:36 AM

I was thinking that too.

I don't want to waste my time reading nonsense rants whether they are from IDI or RDI.

Zoey

02-20-2007, 10:42 AM

I believe we have lost King Coyote for much the same reasons.

King Coyote took a three week break due to work issues.

Elvislives, I don't know what to say except I can understand totally your feelings. It's like beating a dead horse (no offense Louisa) to try and get some people on this board to understand that there is proof that the Ramsey's did not do this horrific crime. Take Tober for instance and the damn pineapple issue. He just won't let up, so it goes round and round.

You have helped me understand things so much better than anyone else on this board or any other ever has. I hope you reconsider and stay, or perhaps take up one of the offers to go to a private forum or the Starting Over forum, where I am sure everyone would appreciate your vast knowledge.

nuisanceposter

02-20-2007, 10:50 AM

Technically KC said his departure was due to board-unrelated issues.

This board has always had this atmosphere of contention and disagreement that eventually delves randomly into getting personal - it's well-known amongst those who follow the various JBR boards distinctly for that. How many people have left this board because they didn't want to deal with the level of mud-slinging that goes on here? Way too many.

I don't want to read nonsense posts, either, but other than address issues with others, there's nothing I can do about who says what. I figure those of us who are serious about the case and can cite sources and debate details know who each other are.

nuisanceposter

02-20-2007, 10:56 AM

<snip>

It's like beating a dead horse (no offense Louisa) to try and get some people on this board to understand that there is proof that the Ramsey's did not do this horrific crime. <snip>

It's just as hard to get some people to understand that that an opinion like the one I quoted here is just that, an opinion. Not everyone can see evidence that indicates Ramsey involvement for what it is, but we don't need to insult each other about it.

Speaking of gone people, where did sweetcharlotte go? Do you know that one, Zoey?

thewhitewitch1

02-20-2007, 11:07 AM

No, the Maglite, all Maglites that I have or have seen are tubular in shape; my biggest one is 19 inches long and takes 6 D batteries; its the MP model. I have always wondered if they actually matched up the 8 inch fracture on Jonbenet's skull with the Maglite they found in the kitchen. I'm not being argumentative here, tww1, but do you know if they did, or is it just supposition, I don't recall anything that matched the fractures to the the Maglite?JMHO

Actually, I believe one ME did match the head injury with the Maglite and said it fit perfectly. Unfortunately, I can't recall which ME it was or where I read it. Maybe someone else remembers or has read the same thing.

rashomon

02-20-2007, 11:07 AM

No, Rash, you are asking around hoping to get the answer you awantr. Like a kid who goes to her mother asking for candy and when mom says no, goes to her father, and whem he says no, to grandma.

Of course I'm asking around, for what EL said can't just be shrugged off. And if you can point me to any reliable medical source which backs up what EL said, TIA.
Why do you people swallow hook, line and sinker what one MD posted? That's what I would call behaving like a kid. Not to be misunderstood, for EL may very well be right.
You are a hypocrite Rash. Elvis is referring to the autopsy report. That is a link -- she is merely interpreting what has been reported in the autopsy report. As far as searching the medical terms they are easily available.

I have seen no credentials re: Delmar England and no links to support his claims yet being the "so-called" skeptic you are takes whatever he says at face value and attempted to promote his garbage here.

The issue was not Dr. Meyer's report itself, but about the inferences the poster drew from this report: that
Fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization means that the injury was sustained right before death and the blood had not yet begun the coagulation process.
Where can this inference be backed up? For if you type in the medical terms, don't think you will get an answer to that. Try it. I'm not good at doing that Google searching stuff, maybe you come up with something useful and could post it here.

And BTW, most IDIs here have not yet realized that in case it is true what EL said about the fresh hemorrhage, this would also be a severe blow (no pun intended) to their own IDI theory: for which sexual predator would whack JB on the head first and then immediately strangle her to death? Ever thought of that?
Or why would a sexual predator intending to kill JB whack her on the head at all if he was going to strangle her anyway?

Should it be true what EL said, this would in no way affect my as you called it 'neat little theory' - it would only affect the time line of events. It would not even make the accident theory implausible.
I was actually going to present this theory to EL and ask her medical opinion about it, therefore I hope she will stick around here.
I have seen no credentials re: Delmar England and no links to support his claims yet being the "so-called" skeptic you are takes whatever he says at face value and attempted to promote his garbage here.
I don't take whatever DE says at face value. For example, he thinks John Ramsey's part in the staging was that of a mere bystander, but I believe JR was far more involved in it because he had something to hide too.
I know zero about ropes and knots, and when reading DE's analysis of the so-called garrote, where he describes these knots in detail and exposes it all as a staged scene, I had the impression that he knows what he is talking about.
Has anyone ever convincingly refuted what DE said? Not to my knowledge.
If you think what he writes is garbage, feel free to discuss it here.
I agree with what LindaA and Shill says above as well. Whatever doesn't fit in with your neat little theory about RDI throws you off balance when you should be searching for truth and information that the evidence supports. Alot of the RDIs IMO are a lynch mob. :confused:
But this exactly what I'm doing: searching for truth and information that the evidence supports. Which implies searching for reliable medical info which backs up EL's claim. And when I'm actually doing this, you IDIs go through the roof. Why?

Zoey

02-20-2007, 11:09 AM

It's just as hard to get some people to understand that that an opinion like the one I quoted here is just that, an opinion. Not everyone can see evidence that indicates Ramsey involvement for what it is, but we don't need to insult each other about it.

Speaking of gone people, where did sweetcharlotte go? Do you know that one, Zoey?

Sorry, forgot to put just my opinion at the end of my post. That seems to solve all the problems.

And no, I don't know where sweetcharlotte went. Who is she and why would I?

If it is because I know where King Coyote is, look at her last post. She stated she was taking three weeks off for business matters.

nuisanceposter

02-20-2007, 11:17 AM

Actually, I believe one ME did match the head injury with the Maglite and said it fit perfectly. Unfortunately, I can't recall which ME it was or where I read it. Maybe someone else remembers or has read the same thing.

It was Dr Werner Spitz. I have some info about tests he did somewhere, let me find it.

rashomon

02-20-2007, 11:49 AM

Didn't see a PM on your profile so I'm posting this here.

If you get the urge to discuss the case again try this board:

http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums/sanctuary2.html

There aren't as many RDI as one might hope but there are some and the posters know the case and are polite and respectful to each other. Athena posts there as well as several other posters from here. I post there as tipper. They would be thrilled to have your expertise.
Hi Louisa/tipper - I wouldn't have 'recognized' you here on the CL forum (if you are tipper who posted on the forum Websleuths at all, that is).

Posters like Margoo, Mame, Candy - aren't they also members on Webbsleuts, run by that die-hard IDI Jameson who sold the police interviews of the Ramseys to the tabloids?
I browsed through the above mentioned forum - this seems to be a pure IDI forum, with very few RDIs who seem to be a bit intimidated - I have the impression that they don't dare to ask any tough questions over there, for fear of disturbing the 'board spirit'.
Seems to be something like a 'cozier' version of Jameson's forum.

Sprocket

02-20-2007, 11:50 AM

Elvislives, how in the world did I insult you? I'm a skeptic of much of what I read on the internet, especially when I have know idea who the source is, or their credentials. It's clear you did not go check to see what I actually said on another forum. You just relied on what another poster said, who purposfully misled the readers here on what I said, and the qualifiers I added to it. Like I ALSO said, you could very well be in the medical field. But since we don't know who you are, there is no way to verify it as fact.

I agree with Rashomon's statement here:

But this exactly what I'm doing: searching for truth and information that the evidence supports. Which implies searching for reliable medical info which backs up EL's claim. And when I'm actually doing this, you IDIs go through the roof. Why?

andU

02-20-2007, 12:20 PM

Hi Louisa/tipper - I wouldn't have 'recognized' you here on the CL forum (if you are tipper who posted on the forum Websleuths at all, that is).

Posters like Margoo, Mame, Candy - aren't they also members on Webbsleuts, run by that die-hard IDI Jameson who sold the police interviews of the Ramseys to the tabloids?
I browsed through the above mentioned forum - this seems to be a pure IDI forum, with very few RDIs who seem to be a bit intimidated - I have the impression that they don't dare to ask any tough questions over there, for fear of disturbing the 'board spirit'.
Seems to be something like a 'cozier' version of Jameson's forum.

You surely must have been reading somewhere else,Rash. That board is chocked full of RDI diehards. I read there for awhil, but never posted. ....and won't

Louisadelmar

02-20-2007, 01:16 PM

Rashomon,

I was away from the boards when they started the new forum. Apparently the founders of the new forum had a falling-out with Jameson. I don't know how many are still members of Jameson's forum. I'm surprised you don't know this as I first learned of it from reading at FFJ and I know you are active there. Here is the link:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7965

It is titled Susan Bennett Claims She Lost A Forum - Nopey nope

In my previous post I did say "There aren't as many RDI as one might hope" but they are there. If you don't think the RDIs are asking sufficiently tough questions perhaps you should join and try to improve the level of debate.

andU

02-20-2007, 02:06 PM

shill

02-20-2007, 09:49 PM

I've tried to do Google searching but did not get useful results. Therefore I asked you if you could give me a link to a source for your claim.

Elvislives is the link you boob. She is a credible source of information.

And she didn't have to google to verify her conclusions, she verified them with other medical experts with whom she works with. You should know this from reading her posts.

It's not like she's a BoyScout claiming to be an expert on knots.
If you couldn't tell she knew what she was talking about, then you are wasting your time at these sites.

Athena

02-20-2007, 09:52 PM

[QUOTE=rashomon;8818464].
Why do you people swallow hook, line and sinker what one MD posted? That's what I would call behaving like a kid.

The issue was not Dr. Meyer's report itself, but about the inferences the poster drew from this report:

Where can this inference be backed up?
But this exactly what I'm doing: searching for truth and information that the evidence supports. QUOTE]

Roshomon I do not agree with your theory but you are right on this point . This poster just speculated about things and never gave sources. Dr. Meyer said that there was fruit or vegetable matter in her intestines. HE NEVER SAID THAT MEANS SHE ATE IT RIGHT BEFORE SHE DIED OR EVEN THAT IT WAS PINEAPPLE. People here just belevie that because of the inferences this poster drew from the autopsy report. Roshomon just called them on the carpet about it. Also I dont think it matters when she was strangled and when she was hit. It still doesnt prove WHO did it!!!

Did it ever occur to anyone that because she is in the medical field the source is her knowledge? I would venture to guess that anyone on the board that has a career with training could talk right off the top of their head about their field/industry and not have links. :shrug:

shill

02-20-2007, 10:17 PM

John Ramsey said verbatim that JB's hands were "tightly bound", and tightly bound means the loop being tightly around the wrist, not loosely. He also said he couldn't get the knot untied - so the inference one can draw is that he left the 'tightly bound' ligature on her wrist.

Now who do you think was lying: John Ramsey or the coroner?

It's a slipknot! Neither is lying.
I'll spell it out for you since you seem to not understand.

The loops around her wrist can be loosened or tightened with out untying the knot. Had John created this ligature, he would not have struggled to untie the knots, but instead he would have slid open the loops around her wrists. But in his struggle to untie the knot, he inadvertently loosened up the loop

Solving a crime you need to know what the clues are, and you can't do that if you are clueless.

This post is my I'm looking at it and I see how it works opinion.

thewhitewitch1

02-20-2007, 10:46 PM

It's a slipknot! Neither is lying.
I'll spell it out for you since you seem to not understand.

The loops around her wrist can be loosened or tightened with out untying the knot. Had John created this ligature, he would not have struggled to untie the knots, but instead he would have slid open the loops around her wrists. But in his struggle to untie the knot, he inadvertently loosened up the loop

Solving a crime you need to know what the clues are, and you can't do that if you are clueless.

This post is my I'm looking at it and I see how it works opinion.

Again, you are assuming that JR is telling the truth about the "struggle to undo the knots". Do you mean to infer that he didn't even know what a slipknot was? Give me a break. He had the ligature on her right wrist so loose that all he had to do was slide it off. I bet he got the left one off with ease. Why didn't he take the right one off as well?
And ya know, I still don't understand why he "didn't see" the garrote around her neck. That's just beyond belief. He has the hope she is "just sleeping" (with duct tape on her mouth and her hands tied above her head...she's rigid from rigor and her lips are blue) yet the best he can do is take off the tape and untie her hands? Don't ya think removing the garrote would be a bit more helpful?
Yeah, I know you are going to defend him by the typical "how would you feel if"...and "you don't know what you would do in that situation"...but come on. If he had his poop together enough to take off the tape and the wrist bindings, wouldn't you think he would try to remove the thing that is obviously the real cause for concern? I just cannot believe that he didn't see it. IMO

shill

02-20-2007, 11:14 PM

Again, you are assuming that JR is telling the truth about the "struggle to undo the knots". Do you mean to infer that he didn't even know what a slipknot was? Give me a break. He had the ligature on her right wrist so loose that all he had to do was slide it off. I bet he got the left one off with ease. Why didn't he take the right one off as well?
And ya know, I still don't understand why he "didn't see" the garrote around her neck. That's just beyond belief. He has the hope she is "just sleeping" (with duct tape on her mouth and her hands tied above her head...she's rigid from rigor and her lips are blue) yet the best he can do is take off the tape and untie her hands? Don't ya think removing the garrote would be a bit more helpful?
Yeah, I know you are going to defend him by the typical "how would you feel if"...and "you don't know what you would do in that situation"...but come on. If he had his poop together enough to take off the tape and the wrist bindings, wouldn't you think he would try to remove the thing that is obviously the real cause for concern? I just cannot believe that he didn't see it. IMO
You know no one asked or talked about the garrote that we know of, we've had this discussion.
Is there even a mention of it when they put her by the tree? They didn't attempt to take it off then did they? They covered her body with a sweatshirt instead.

He had to free her hands to carry her upstairs. We've had this discussion too.
You ask why he was so focused on untying her hands but you won't accept the answer even though there is testimony and photos that correlate with this scenario.
I'm sorry WW1, but I think it is very obvious that her hands were restrained above her head and I have proved that, and you just stubbornly refuse to believe it.
I think Elvislives has proven that the head blow and strangulation occurred within minutes of each other.
I see a picture of the crime scene that in no way resembles the scene that most RDIs picture, regardless of who created it.
If this crime scene points to the Ramseys, then so be it, but it doesn't look that way.

thewhitewitch1

02-21-2007, 12:03 AM

You know no one asked or talked about the garrote that we know of, we've had this discussion.
Is there even a mention of it when they put her by the tree? They didn't attempt to take it off then did they? They covered her body with a sweatshirt instead.

He had to free her hands to carry her upstairs. We've had this discussion too.
You ask why he was so focused on untying her hands but you won't accept the answer even though there is testimony and photos that correlate with this scenario.
I'm sorry WW1, but I think it is very obvious that her hands were restrained above her head and I have proved that, and you just stubbornly refuse to believe it.
I think Elvislives has proven that the head blow and strangulation occurred within minutes of each other.
I see a picture of the crime scene that in no way resembles the scene that most RDIs picture, regardless of who created it.
If this crime scene points to the Ramseys, then so be it, but it doesn't look that way.

No one attempted to remove the garrote once she was brought upstairs because everyone else could recognize the fact that she was obviously dead, and also to preserve what was left of the "crime scene/evidence" (Linda Arndt).
I know that you have tried to prove that her hands were restrained over her head but it is only your opinion/theory that they were. I will continue to "stubbornly refuse to believe it".
I am not going to argue with Elvislives because she knows much more about medical facts than I do. Regardless, it still does not mean that the Ramseys weren't involved.
The crime scene very much points to the Ramseys but not in the sense that they were "set up". I have too many questions regarding the Ramseys to let go of my belief of their guilt.

shill

02-21-2007, 06:59 AM

The crime scene very much points to the Ramseys but not in the sense that they were "set up". I have too many questions regarding the Ramseys to let go of my belief of their guilt.

As I pointed out, the crime scene as you think it happened points to the Ramseys, but IMO you are not even close to what the real crime scene was.
My point is that you have built a house of cards based on a foundation that the Ramseys did it, and you choose to ignore more realistic interpretations of the crime scene.
It's pointless to debate with you because you (and all RDIs) insist almost everything the R's have said are lies based on the fact that you don't believe the evidence is as it appears.
The only lies being told are the lies you're telling yourselves to sustain your beliefs.
When you find a link to LE or the GJ saying we can prove that the Ramseys are lying, please let us know.

zippo

02-22-2007, 03:24 AM

I just spent the last 2 hours reading this thread from start to finish (plus some internet research in between to clarify things and look things up). And all I can say is WOW!!!

Z

aussiesheila

02-22-2007, 07:40 AM

Let me answer the baseball bat length, they can be 28 to about 33 inches long. I too am curious about the maglite found in the kitchen; I have maglites and just wonder what length the found maglite was, also what size batteries did it take and how many? My MP maglite is 19 inches long and takes 6 D batteries, it would have done the job, but they come in many sizes so I am curious. Does anyone know the maglite's dimensions? JMHOI am prepared to be convinced but for the time being, I can't see a 19 inch Maglite as of adequate length or weight to have done the job.

It seems to me that it would have required a substantial force to create that huge breakage in her skull bone. A baseball bat is designed to hit a baseball with a great force and I'm sure people have worked out what it is when swung by an averagely athletic male. I'm sure it is a lot greater force than the same male could achieve with a Maglite, even the largest one manufactured. This is due to a combination of the extra length of the bat, the weight of the striking end and the shape of the handle which allows the batter to give it that extra flick at the end.

So what I am waffling on about is that I think a swing with a baseball bat as I've described would be adequate to inflict that head wound, but I don't think a Maglite would be anywhere adequate. I think that skull bones are alot harder than people imagine and that while I think a Maglite might be able to cause a hairline fracture of a skull, I just can't see it breaking that huge chunk of bone right out of the skull itself.