Debunking The #1 Case Myth

[watson]

One of the bigest challenges in this case that has several, is getting past the # 1 case myth.....the Ramsey's hit JB in the head accidentally as part of an argument etc. then stupidly reported a fake kidnapping. It 'is' the first thing that pops to mind when hearing of the case, it is the 1st thing that popped out of local LE mouths early on, and the 1st thing the media seized on. Problem is it has never fit the facts, or evidence of the case, unless those facts/evidence are ignored or 'spun' and twisted to fit this pre-conceived notion that....the Ramsey's hit JB in head accidentally as part of argument etc. then stupidly reported it as a fake kidnapping......Consider the facts and the spin......
1.) Fact...The actual cause of death in this case was a deliberate ligature strangulation, not a blow to the head, accidental or otherwise. Spin...Well, they hit her in the head accidentally 1st, then realizing she wasn't quite dead, strangled her after.
2.) Fact...The Ramsey's aren't 'stupid', their both college graduates, 1 of them through extensive Masters degrees, with lots of sophisticated experience and a fortune of several $million. Spin...Panicked people, even if smart, do dumb things, so the Ramsey's must've been panicked.
3.) Fact...The deliberate strangling was done from behind. Spin...Well, if you lay an unconscious victim face down and kneel above her you 'could' strangle her from directly behind.
4.) Fact...the strangling was done with a specially created garotte, most likely a slipknot zip down noose type, a stealth weapon. Spin...Well, for some unknown reason the Ramsey's must've thought a specially made garotte was necessary to stage a kidnap scene, and despite what it seems, it's not 'proved' that the garotte was a zip, slip noose type.
5.) Fact...There was a sexual assault at or near the time of death. Would parents having accidentally smashed their kids head, then having delibertately strangled her, pull her pants down and sexually assault her? Spin...Well, panicked people 'can' also do wierd things, they must've thought it part of staging, or something.
6.) Fact...The police were called early, showing the Ramsey's could not have been working together, because by delaying the call till after they got rid of the body they would've been home free. Spin...look, already told you the Ramsey's were very very stupid people, and panicked, and weird, so they called the police on themselves to be caught at the house with the body.
Now, people can believe what they want, but when a case or problem looks like it can't be solved, I always try to think of it in new ways. With all due respect isn't this parents did accidental head blow then reported fake kidnapping 'theory', not a 'theory' that comes from the facts at all? Isn't it in fact an 'anti theory' that tries to counter, react to, deny the real facts (1-6 above) and change the direction they point in? Why are all the main points (see above) of this theory negative (their not independent facts, but just ways to counter the real facts), where is the 'postive' evidence of the parental accidental head blow theory??? Where was the accident site, where is evidence of how it happened, where is the evidence that the head blow was in any way accidental??? Where is evidence that staging kidnappings involve garrotes? Where is evidence the sex assault was staged. Where is the evidence of past parental violent arguments with the child.....Answer...there isn't any! No independent evidence AT ALL to even suggest the accidental parent head blow theory, all the evidence for it, is just a way to 'explain away' or 'counter' the real evidence, isn't it?
Please consider it.

[thewhitewitch1]

Beyond the DNA, which is questionable, where are your "facts" that the murderer was an intruder? Where is your undisputed evidence?
I am sorry to disagree with you but it is NOT a fact that the head blow did not come first. The head blow was listed along with the strangling as the cause of death in the autopsy.
Fact: "Book smart" (degrees from collages) does not automatically give people immunity from making mistakes under duress It also does not guaranty "street smarts" or common sense.
Fact: The police were called early. So what? Getting rid of "the body" was risky and even if done, would not have necessarily absolved them from the murder. A "proper burial" was important to the R's (the sooner the better IMO) and if indeed an accident occured, there was certainly remorse. Why would they want to "dump" her body and leave it to be eaten by animals, maybe never to be found? Try to think about the Rs views on religion and death when considering this. If they believed that "she was in a better place", then they knew that her "soul" was gone and her body was just a "shell". If you think like that, perhaps you can use that kind of justification to do what was done to her to save your own hide.
The Rs would have no way of knowing how "inept" the BPD would be and that they wouldn't have searched the house thoroughly and have been the ones to find her body.
You can call it "spin" all you want. It's only YOUR opinion. To say that it couldn't have happened this way or that way is not a FACT.

[elvislives]

One of the bigest challenges in this case that has several, is getting past the # 1 case myth.....the Ramsey's hit JB in the head accidentally as part of an argument etc. then stupidly reported a fake kidnapping. It 'is' the first thing that pops to mind when hearing of the case, it is the 1st thing that popped out of local LE mouths early on, and the 1st thing the media seized on. Problem is it has never fit the facts, or evidence of the case, unless those facts/evidence are ignored or 'spun' and twisted to fit this pre-conceived notion that....the Ramsey's hit JB in head accidentally as part of argument etc. then stupidly reported it as a fake kidnapping......Consider the facts and the spin......
1.) Fact...The actual cause of death in this case was a deliberate ligature strangulation, not a blow to the head, accidental or otherwise. Spin...Well, they hit her in the head accidentally 1st, then realizing she wasn't quite dead, strangled her after.



Hey there Watson. I am glad you have readdressed this issue. I have grown weary of the debate and in an attempt to maintain my sanity, I have just let others say that the head blow came 20-60 minutes before her death, which of course is ridiculous.
Incidently I have exchanged a few emails with Ronald Wright MD and as I suspected, his comments were taken out of context.
He said that he was asked that if a child sustained a massive blow which cracked the skull, how long would it take for the heart to stop beating. His reply was the standard 20-60 minutes. He was NOT considering the strangulation at all...he was only asked about the head wound.
I now feel bad for criticizing him...he was just misquoted by a reporter.
I wasn't able to link to his emails in my outlook to this board without revealing my personal identity. No offense to anyone here, but I don't want any of you freaks showing up on my front door...:eek: I am sure there's a way--I'll see if I can figure it out.

[elvislives]

Before I start getting hate mail, I was kidding about you guys being a bunch of freaks.

[Louisadelmar]

Hey there Watson. I am glad you have readdressed this issue. I have grown weary of the debate and in an attempt to maintain my sanity, I have just let others say that the head blow came 20-60 minutes before her death, which of course is ridiculous.
Incidently I have exchanged a few emails with Ronald Wright MD and as I suspected, his comments were taken out of context.
He said that he was asked that if a child sustained a massive blow which cracked the skull, how long would it take for the heart to stop beating. His reply was the standard 20-60 minutes. He was NOT considering the strangulation at all...he was only asked about the head wound.
I now feel bad for criticizing him...he was just misquoted by a reporter.
I wasn't able to link to his emails in my outlook to this board without revealing my personal identity. No offense to anyone here, but I don't want any of you freaks showing up on my front door...:eek: I am sure there's a way--I'll see if I can figure it out.

I don't think you should feel bad about questioning what he said. You've now given a chance for him to clarify what happened.

You should be able to just copy and paste the text of his email to you without revealing any private info.

Added: http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm
[…]
The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.
"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''
He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.
The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''
And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.
"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.
"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''
[…]

[Zoey]

Before I start getting hate mail, I was kidding about you guys being a bunch of freaks.

Actually, it is posts like this that I like to see once in a while. Posts that can make you smile when you've had a hard day!:)

[nuisanceposter]

Before I start getting hate mail, I was kidding about you guys being a bunch of freaks.

Seriously...some days I think only total freaks would even care this much.

[LindaA]

Seriously...some days I think only total freaks would even care this much.
What you said:
:beer:

[Eagle1]

It's not so bad when a person we already know is normal does it. But at another forum, not about JonBenet, someone claiming to be dirt poor, trying to pin her "millionaire" brother's murder on her pharmacist sister-in-law, giving only an incoherent story and resenting questions, called us all buzzards and the like, and I'm sure meant it. Boasted a lot about being a passionate person,as her excuse, and the s.i.l. stoic.

The thread got closed before she could trip herself up any further about a crime of passion. . We'll probably never know what if anything will happen.

[Tober]

1.) Fact...The actual cause of death in this case was a deliberate ligature strangulation, not a blow to the head, accidental or otherwise. Spin...Well, they hit her in the head accidentally 1st, then realizing she wasn't quite dead, strangled her after.

The autopsy report lists JonBenet's cause of death as "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma." Both were primary factors attributing to her death. Though an inference can be made as to which came first, one can't be individuated from the other as to causing her death. They both caused it. One would not have required the other for her to die. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

Who wants to solve this case?
I argue not the RDIs.
They are not interested in the evidence as it appears, they are only interested in arguing the evidence is not how it appears. They believe it is all a lie as is the Ramseys testimony. By disqualifying the evidence and eyewitness testimony, they can conclude what ever they want based on opinion only.
They continue to argue the evidence and testimony couldn't possibly be believable so why pursue it.

Solving crimes is based on following were the evidence and testimony leads. Crimes are not solved by picking a suspect and discrediting evidence and testimony so you can paint a picture of suspicion about them.

[Kor]

One thing I think is very important or challenging, "where exactly in the house JB was strangulated or killed", I believe that reason overcome to who did it. In the basement near wine cellar where the police believed JB died because of urine stains on carpet or floor, among other things, so why would one of parents want to kill her there instead of upstairs? It doesn't fit with accident theory. That private and remote location where JB died made it seems the killer wanted or plotted to kill JB, but why would one of Ramsey wanted to?

[rashomon]

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm
[…]
The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.
"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''
He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.
The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.
"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.
"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''
[…][/I]

Elvislives: Dr.Wright says what he wrote was taken out of context, but even if those pivotal statements were in fact taken out of context, does that automatically make them false?

What for example is false in Dr. Wright's statement that the swelling and bleeding would not have happened if JB was already dead?

I have grown weary of the debate and in an attempt to maintain my sanity, I have just let others say that the head blow came 20-60 minutes before her death, which of course is ridiculous.
Why is that ridiculous? Because some of the blood in her brain showed little signs of organization? What if the intitial head blow immediately sent JonBenet into a near-death coma with almost no pulse and her bodily functions so impaired that the blood could not go through a proper 'organization process' anymore?
Couldn't she have been lying there for some time, more dead than alive, when finally the stager of the scene put the cord around her neck?

[watson]

Whitewitch1...don't be sorry for disagreeing with me. Disagreements make discussions, and through discussions, 'both' sides learn from the other and both can improve their understanding. As usual you are a good arguer for your point of view. I concede (and always have) that... the parents did it together, accidental head blow theory (the 'spin' above) is 'possible'. I don't really expect to change someones mind so they think it's impossible, BUT I hope people will at least concede, see and consider the OTHER possibilities, and in this case there IS simpler, stronger possibility, more in direct line with the evidence.....someone came up behind the victim, threw the loop of a pre made zip down type garrote over her head, quickly choked her out, then bashed her in the head to make sure of death, that the motivating factor was sexual assault, and the killer took up half the fake kidnapping note trying to make sure no police would be around the next day, so he'd have time to get rid of the body. I just try to get people to see THIS possibility, and HOW it is made from following the evidence, instead of getting the evidence to fit other possibilities.
PS I never said I thought an intruder did it, or didn't do it. IMO the evidence points to either 1 and only 1 parent doing it, or to an intruder.
Elvislives......
'Weary'....you? No way. I guess we can get burned out going over the same ground, but then there are so many different ways to do it, it's not really the same ground. Glad you e-mailed Dr. Wright, (the ME contacted early in the case that was being used to back up the head blow came first myth), it really points out as expected that he never said that. How could we have guessed that....because this guy never made a statement and signed his name to it, nor was he asked to. As so often he got a blind phone call, was asked a question, we don't even know what it was, gave his opinion answer, then from recollection this was written by a reporter, read by another reporter or author, who then from his recollection, rewrote and printed it, and it comes to us. It just highlights why we can't use someones printed recollection, of someones written recollection, of someones recollection, of what someone verbally said, as gospel, proof or evidence of ANYTHING. All that counts is the original statement directly from the first person, signed or backed up by that person.
PS Freaks?.....I'm sure you mean 'hobbiests'...Freak is what people who really know me usually call me..hee...hee.

[watson]

The autopsy report lists JonBenet's cause of death as "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma." Both were primary factors attributing to her death. Though an inference can be made as to which came first, one can't be individuated from the other as to causing her death. They both caused it. One would not have required the other for her to die. This post is my opinion.
************************************************** *
I agree that's exactley what the words are for cause of death....'asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma'. Yes, from these words alone it can't be told which came first. But I hope your then not changing it, to say the words mean.... asphyxia by strangulation AND craniocereberal trauma... as in they BOTH caused death EQUALLY. It doesn't say that, and if the ME did find that, he would have used the word 'AND' as in strangulation AND head trauma. Instead he very clearly said the cause as asphyxia, and that head trauma was 'associated' with that cause.

[andU]

Hey there Watson. I am glad you have readdressed this issue. I have grown weary of the debate and in an attempt to maintain my sanity, I have just let others say that the head blow came 20-60 minutes before her death, which of course is ridiculous.
Incidently I have exchanged a few emails with Ronald Wright MD and as I suspected, his comments were taken out of context.
He said that he was asked that if a child sustained a massive blow which cracked the skull, how long would it take for the heart to stop beating. His reply was the standard 20-60 minutes. He was NOT considering the strangulation at all...he was only asked about the head wound.
I now feel bad for criticizing him...he was just misquoted by a reporter.
I wasn't able to link to his emails in my outlook to this board without revealing my personal identity. No offense to anyone here, but I don't want any of you freaks showing up on my front door...:eek: I am sure there's a way--I'll see if I can figure it out.

Elvislives, you might try copying the text of the email into a Word document and then delete what you wish; then copy it again and post it here. It sounds like it would take longer than it actually does. It should work for ya, though.

[andU]

Seriously...some days I think only total freaks would even care this much.


Amen! So, there is one small step for this forum, perhaps one large step in finding a solution?

[Zoey]

************************************************** *
I agree that's exactley what the words are for cause of death....'asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma'. Yes, from these words alone it can't be told which came first. But I hope your then not changing it, to say the words mean.... asphyxia by strangulation AND craniocereberal trauma... as in they BOTH caused death EQUALLY. It doesn't say that, and if the ME did find that, he would have used the word 'AND' as in strangulation AND head trauma. Instead he very clearly said the cause as asphyxia, and that head trauma was 'associated' with that cause.


I am by no means a doctor or a coroner, but IMO, if the head wound had been first and the cause of death, IMO, the autopsy would have read craniocerebral trauma associated with asphyxia by stangulation.

[andU]

************************************************** *
I agree that's exactley what the words are for cause of death....'asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma'. Yes, from these words alone it can't be told which came first. But I hope your then not changing it, to say the words mean.... asphyxia by strangulation AND craniocereberal trauma... as in they BOTH caused death EQUALLY. It doesn't say that, and if the ME did find that, he would have used the word 'AND' as in strangulation AND head trauma. Instead he very clearly said the cause as asphyxia, and that head trauma was 'associated' with that cause.

For what it is worth, I took this to mean that if the strangulation had not caused her death, then the head trauma would have...but the strangulation did happen, causing the actual death. That's not to say that she would have lived if the strangulation hadn't occured. Grabbed me as a "CYA" type of statement.

[rashomon]

For what it is worth, I took this to mean that if the strangulation had not caused her death, then the head trauma would have...but the strangulation did happen, causing the actual death. That's not to say that she would have lived if the strangulation hadn't occured. Grabbed me as a "CYA" type of statement.
My thoughts exactly.

Watson: the fact that the strangulation finally cut of JB's oxygen supply and caused her death does not imply that the strangulation came first.

Fact: JB was still alive when the head blow occurred. Forensic evidence: bleeding and swelling in her brain could not have occurred if she had been dead when the injury was delivered.

Fact : JB was still alive when the cord was put around her neck. Forensic evidence: pinpoint hemorrhages in the eye area.

Possible sequence of events: the head blow was delivered first, sending JB into a deep coma. And when the ligature was finally tied around her neck, this cut off the oxygen supply and caused her death.

[andU]

Gee, how nice that someone agrees with me sometimes! Thanks!

[User615]

I still believe the head blow was a panic reaction to make her be quiet, if in fact she was being molested. Now of course to figure out who did it. This is why I cannot get Burke off my mind. An adult would have been able to control her, and cover her mouth, someone his age would not have been able to. I hate to keep going back to him, but I can't find a better explanation....in my opinion.

[Tober]

I still believe the head blow was a panic reaction to make her be quiet, if in fact she was being molested.

Based on the severity of her head injury, I think it was done in rage, not panic. This post is my opinion.

[elvislives]

I don't think you should feel bad about questioning what he said. You've now given a chance for him to clarify what happened.

You should be able to just copy and paste the text of his email to you without revealing any private info.

Added: http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0716jon.htm
[…]
The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.
"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''
He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.
The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''
And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.
"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.
"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''
[…]

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.

[elvislives]

The autopsy report lists JonBenet's cause of death as "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma." Both were primary factors attributing to her death. Though an inference can be made as to which came first, one can't be individuated from the other as to causing her death. They both caused it. One would not have required the other for her to die. This post is my opinion.

Not true. She died of asphixia. Yes she would have died of the head trauma, but she did not because she was strangled first.
When someone gets a lethal head wound, like JBs, the thing that kills them is the over about a 20-60 minute time period is cerebral hemorrhage.

[elvislives]

Elvislives, you might try copying the text of the email into a Word document and then delete what you wish; then copy it again and post it here. It sounds like it would take longer than it actually does. It should work for ya, though.


Thanks, I'll give that a try when I have some time.

[elvislives]

Who wants to solve this case?


I'm starting to think that no one does. This board is sort of kooky--we spend hours discussing all sorts of minutia, like trying to psychoanalyze why Patsy wore the same outfit 2 days in a row or why JR put a scarf in JBs coffin. Yet we seem to gloss over what imo is one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case---the autopsy. Go figure...

[elvislives]

Elvislives: Dr.Wright says what he wrote was taken out of context, but even if those pivotal statements were in fact taken out of context, does that automatically make them false?

What for example is false in Dr. Wright's statement that the swelling and bleeding would not have happened if JB was already dead?


Why is that ridiculous? Because some of the blood in her brain showed little signs of organization? What if the intitial head blow immediately sent JonBenet into a near-death coma with almost no pulse and her bodily functions so impaired that the blood could not go through a proper 'organization process' anymore?
Couldn't she have been lying there for some time, more dead than alive, when finally the stager of the scene put the cord around her neck?

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...

[elvislives]

Elvislives......
'Weary'....you? No way. I guess we can get burned out going over the same ground, but then there are so many different ways to do it, it's not really the same ground. Glad you e-mailed Dr. Wright, (the ME contacted early in the case that was being used to back up the head blow came first myth), it really points out as expected that he never said that. How could we have guessed that....because this guy never made a statement and signed his name to it, nor was he asked to. As so often he got a blind phone call, was asked a question, we don't even know what it was, gave his opinion answer, then from recollection this was written by a reporter, read by another reporter or author, who then from his recollection, rewrote and printed it, and it comes to us. It just highlights why we can't use someones printed recollection, of someones written recollection, of someones recollection, of what someone verbally said, as gospel, proof or evidence of ANYTHING. All that counts is the original statement directly from the first person, signed or backed up by that person.
PS Freaks?.....I'm sure you mean 'hobbiests'...Freak is what people who really know me usually call me..hee...hee.

I'm just barely hanging on by a thread, Watson. You hobbiests are wearing me out...;)

[Zoey]

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...

I find this amazing, considering I am just a normal kind of person, ie, not a doctor or anything, but this makes perfect sense to me. I get exactly what you are trying to say here. Thanks.

[elvislives]

My thoughts exactly.

Watson: the fact that the strangulation finally cut of JB's oxygen supply and caused her death does not imply that the strangulation came first.

Fact: JB was still alive when the head blow occurred. Forensic evidence: bleeding and swelling in her brain could not have occurred if she had been dead when the injury was delivered.

Fact : JB was still alive when the cord was put around her neck. Forensic evidence: pinpoint hemorrhages in the eye area.

Possible sequence of events: the head blow was delivered first, sending JB into a deep coma. And when the ligature was finally tied around her neck, this cut off the oxygen supply and caused her death.

Rashomon, I know you are very set with your theory and I probably won't change your mind. But hear me out here and just consider this: (and no I'm not going to try to convince you that an idi, as I know that is in vain).
But IF the Rs did it, imo it was a first degree premeditated murder. When I say premeditated I am not suggesting that Patsy went to the hardware store and bought duct tape and cord weeks in advance...that is just silly. But as I'm sure you know, one can premeditate a murder just seconds in advance (Susan Smith for example).
Just sit with this theory for a minute: Patsy goes into a rage...and at that moment she WANTS to kill JB. So she bashes her on the head violently, then grabs a cord and strangles her to death. The rest is staged.
That is an rdi theory that would fit with the autopsy evidence. Thoughts?

[bullmoose]

I'm starting to think that no one does. This board is sort of kooky--we spend hours discussing all sorts of minutia, like trying to psychoanalyze why Patsy wore the same outfit 2 days in a row or why JR put a scarf in JBs coffin. Yet we seem to gloss over what imo is one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case---the autopsy. Go figure...
Maybe the reason you don't see much discussion on this board about the sequence of events in Jonbenet's death is that its been argued to tears by the RDI and IDI crowds; the RDI bunch insists the blow came first, because their theory of Patsy hitting Jonbenet, then strangling her in a cover-up; Whereas the IDI's by and large think she was strangled, then clobbered to make sure she was dead by an intruder/s? If we had more medically trained posters like yourself, maybe the issue would be somehow settled, but I doubt it.

[andU]

Elvislives, I tried to make your suggestion work for me so that I could say, "ok, that is possible".... but it won't be still within me. It isn't impossible, but my heart cannot accept it as truth. What was the motive? Nah, don't try to sell me on the bedwetting thing, I can't fathom that. In order for me to believe either parent did this, there's got to be more convincing evidence. I just cannot wrap around this threory as what actually happened.

[LindaA]

I find this amazing, considering I am just a normal kind of person, ie, not a doctor or anything, but this makes perfect sense to me. I get exactly what you are trying to say here. Thanks.

It makes perfect sense to me, too. Crystal slear.

[elvislives]

Elvislives, I tried to make your suggestion work for me so that I could say, "ok, that is possible".... but it won't be still within me. It isn't impossible, but my heart cannot accept it as truth. What was the motive? Nah, don't try to sell me on the bedwetting thing, I can't fathom that. In order for me to believe either parent did this, there's got to be more convincing evidence. I just cannot wrap around this threory as what actually happened.

Andu, I am not suggesting that is what happened, I'm just trying to find a RDI theory that is consistent with the physical evidence. The Patsy bashed her on the head 'accidentally' then staged the rest theory just doesnt jive with the physical evidence imo. Docg had a theory that fit with the physical evidence (a JDI theory) but other than that I haven't heard many RDI theories that square with the autopsy.

[andU]

Ok, I understand your point. Thanks!

[rashomon]

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...
I apologize for sounding nitpicking here, but I don't want to drop the hematology topic despite it being so technical:
Question: does there exist a stage where a person is not yet dead but the bodily functions are already too impaired to develop hemostasis? A stage where the (still alive) body is just not able to kick into high gear anymore in an attempt to save itself?

For these are key issues in this case, which is why I think it would be good to get "a second opinion" from other doctors, so to speak.
For I ask myself why no other doc has ever come forward and directed the public's attention to the fact that e. g. JB's entire head should have been swollen to twice its size with a head wound like that? A blue ribbon panel of medical experts were consulted on the case and none of them ever mentioned this?

And why did Dr. Wright say that there was in fact swelling in JB's brain? Just curious, EL: you said you wrote to Dr. Wright - can his email be found on the net? Did you get it from a hospital website?
Re the petechiae in her lungs: is this in coroner Dr. Meyer's autopsy report?

[Louisadelmar]

[..]
Re the petechiae in her lungs: is this in coroner Dr. Meyer's autopsy report?

Lungs: The 200 gm right lung and175 gm left lung have a normal lobar configuration. An occasional scattered subpleural petechial hemorrhage is seen on the surface of each lung. The cut sections of the lungs disclose an intact alveolar architecture with a small amount of watery fluid exuding from the cut surfaces with mildpressure. The intrapulmonary bronchi and vasculature are unremarkable. No evidence of consolidation is seen.
[…]
Heart: The 100 gm heart has a normal external configuration. There are scattered subepicardial petechial hemorrhages over the anterior surface of

Page 6

the heart.

[rashomon]

Rashomon, I know you are very set with your theory and I probably won't change your mind. But hear me out here and just consider this: (and no I'm not going to try to convince you that an idi, as I know that is in vain).
But IF the Rs did it, imo it was a first degree premeditated murder. When I say premeditated I am not suggesting that Patsy went to the hardware store and bought duct tape and cord weeks in advance...that is just silly. But as I'm sure you know, one can premeditate a murder just seconds in advance (Susan Smith for example).
Just sit with this theory for a minute: Patsy goes into a rage...and at that moment she WANTS to kill JB. So she bashes her on the head violently, then grabs a cord and strangles her to death. The rest is staged.
That is an rdi theory that would fit with the autopsy evidence. Thoughts?
I agree with you that a first-degree murder needn't have been planned long beforehand, but can be premeditated very shortly in advance. The Jeffrey MacDonald case is a perfect example: MacDonald had killed his wife and older child in a rage (second-degree murder), then wanted to save his hide and decided to kill his younger child too (who had been sleeping through it all) to support his concocted intruder story. The killing of the younger child was a first-degree murder, for it was a premeditated act by which the perp wanted to profit from his crime.

But when a person attacks someone in a rage, even if the attacker is so furious at this moment that he wants to kill the other person, this is still NO first-degree murder, but a second-degree murder, for the state of rage serves as a mitigating circumstance.
Example: Jim and Joe get into a quarrel, during which Jim grabs a piece of wood, shouting "I'll kill you!" at Joe and bashes Joe's head in: second degree murder, and a clever defense attorney may even convince the jury that it was 'only' manslaughter.

For the key elements which have to be present in a first degree-murder are that the perp in some way or other, decides to commit the crime because (s)he wants to profit from it.
Monetary profit, silencing a witness, tampering with someone's car brakes because the perp plans to get rid of that person for good - just some random examples of first-degree murder.
The planning and calculating element has to be there.
And rage attacks (however vicious and deadly) don't fall into this category.

[rashomon]

Lungs: The 200 gm right lung and175 gm left lung have a normal lobar configuration. An occasional scattered subpleural petechial hemorrhage is seen on the surface of each lung. The cut sections of the lungs disclose an intact alveolar architecture with a small amount of watery fluid exuding from the cut surfaces with mildpressure. The intrapulmonary bronchi and vasculature are unremarkable. No evidence of consolidation is seen.
[…]
Heart: The 100 gm heart has a normal external configuration. There are scattered subepicardial petechial hemorrhages over the anterior surface of

Page 6

the heart.
Thanks for posting the info, Louisadelmar.

Elvislives: so there was only "an occasional scattered subpleural petechial hemmorhage" seen on the surface of each lung.
You wrote:
First off, her breathing had to be rather vigorous at the time of strangulation or she would not have developed petechiae in the lungs
But does an occasional scattered subpleural petechial hemmorhage really indicate that her breathing had to be rather vigorous at the time of strangulation? Couldn't the victim have been in a near-death coma whe this happened?

[elvislives]

I apologize for sounding nitpicking here, but I don't want to drop the hematology topic despite it being so technical:
Question: does there exist a stage where a person is not yet dead but the bodily functions are already too impaired to develop hemostasis? A stage where the (still alive) body is just not able to kick into high gear anymore in an attempt to save itself?

For these are key issues in this case, which is why I think it would be good to get "a second opinion" from other doctors, so to speak.
For I ask myself why no other doc has ever come forward and directed the public's attention to the fact that e. g. JB's entire head should have been swollen to twice its size with a head wound like that? A blue ribbon panel of medical experts were consulted on the case and none of them ever mentioned this?

And why did Dr. Wright say that there was in fact swelling in JB's brain? Just curious, EL: you said you wrote to Dr. Wright - can his email be found on the net? Did you get it from a hospital website?
Re the petechiae in her lungs: is this in coroner Dr. Meyer's autopsy report?

You don't sound nitpicky at all. I was just getting the feeling that everytime I posted on this topic, people were rolling their eyes and comtemplating suicide.

I'll tell you what, I am a zombie right now--operating off very little sleep over the past 2 days. When I am more coherent I will do my best to answer your questions, which btw are excellent.

I found Ronald Wrights contact info on his website...I'll find it for you, I have it somewhere. But when I originally emailed him, he never responded. I called his office and got his pol address (physicians on line) and he was very gracious and generous with his time. He basically said he never said any of the quotes attributed to him in that article....except that a child with a massive skull fracture would take about 20-60 minutes to die without medical intervention. More later, after I get some rest.

[elvislives]

I agree with you that a first-degree murder needn't have been planned long beforehand, but can be premeditated very shortly in advance. The Jeffrey MacDonald case is a perfect example: MacDonald had killed his wife and older child in a rage (second-degree murder), then wanted to save his hide and decided to kill his younger child too (who had been sleeping through it all) to support his concocted intruder story. The killing of the younger child was a first-degree murder, for it was a premeditated act by which the perp wanted to profit from his crime.

But when a person attacks someone in a rage, even if the attacker is so furious at this moment that he wants to kill the other person, this is still NO first-degree murder, but a second-degree murder, for the state of rage serves as a mitigating circumstance.
Example: Jim and Joe get into a quarrel, during which Jim grabs a piece of wood, shouting "I'll kill you!" at Joe and bashes Joe's head in: second degree murder, and a clever defense attorney may even convince the jury that it was 'only' manslaughter.

For the key elements which have to be present in a first degree-murder are that the perp in some way or other, decides to commit the crime because (s)he wants to profit from it.
Monetary profit, silencing a witness, tampering with someone's car brakes because the perp plans to get rid of that person for good - just some random examples of first-degree murder.
The planning and calculating element has to be there.
And rage attacks (however vicious and deadly) don't fall into this category.

I am sure you are right from a legal perspective. I know about the 'heat of passion' defense, I just have a hard time allowing that as a mitigating factor when children are attacked.
I am probably not in the right frame of mind to be discussing this. We've been dealing with an ugly child abuse case lately and in spite of all the 'explanations' by CPS (child protective services) that the mother is 'stressed' finacially and otherwise, that she is doing her best yada yada yada. I still find myself wanting to strangle this woman when her son has 3rd degree burns on his hand because she held his hand on a hot burner to "get thru to him". I am sure if she ends up killing him, she will be convicted at most of manslaughter or 2nd degree, but if I sat on the jury, I'd want her to fry.

[elvislives]

Elvislives: so there was only "an occasional scattered subpleural petechial hemmorhage" seen on the surface of each lung.

But does an occasional scattered subpleural petechial hemmorhage really indicate that her breathing had to be rather vigorous at the time of strangulation? Couldn't the victim have been in a near-death coma whe this happened?

The pleural petechiae described is typical of strangulation with fairly vigorous breathing. I'll see if I can find you an autopsy report of someone who died just of strangulation....no other wounds. This is usually how the lungs look at autopsy. I'll look for it later, I'm going to bed...

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8806877]
For these are key issues in this case, which is why I think it would be good to get "a second opinion" from other doctors, so to speak.
For I ask myself why no other doc has ever come forward and directed the public's attention to the fact that e. g. JB's entire head should have been swollen to twice its size with a head wound like that? A blue ribbon panel of medical experts were consulted on the case and none of them ever mentioned this?

QUOTE]

One other thing, Rash. Before someone on this board showed me Ronald Wright's 'quotes' every other doctor I saw quoted said they thought the 2 injuries happened within minutes of each other. Many are convinced the strangulation was first. I never read Cyril Wechts book and disagree with his theory but I think he believes the strangulation was first, followed immediately by the head wound. I did see Henry Lee interviewed and he said there is no way to determine-based on the autopsy-which injury was sustained first...he said the only conclusion that could be drawn was that they occurred very close together.
Every other md I have ever discussed this with agrees. The only one who didnt was Wright. But I do love to discuss this with other mds...This and every other true crime gets hotly debated where I work. I know you post on other boards. By any chance is there a hematologist on the board? That would be great.

[watson]

My thoughts exactly.

Watson: the fact that the strangulation finally cut of JB's oxygen supply and caused her death does not imply that the strangulation came first.

Fact: JB was still alive when the head blow occurred. Forensic evidence: bleeding and swelling in her brain could not have occurred if she had been dead when the injury was delivered.

Fact : JB was still alive when the cord was put around her neck. Forensic evidence: pinpoint hemorrhages in the eye area.

Possible sequence of events: the head blow was delivered first, sending JB into a deep coma. And when the ligature was finally tied around her neck, this cut off the oxygen supply and caused her death.
************************************************** ****
Hello Rash,
I know we've been over this ground before but I don't mind going over it briefly again. As you say the autopsy report does not specifically say which came first the srangulation or the blow to the head. Therefore there are 2 possiblities either.....she was hit in the head first and then stangled when she was near dead, as you and others so stubbornly argue.....or she was strangled first and then hit in the head when she was nearly dead, as many of us point out the evidence indicates.
Is your way possible?.....yes but, if she was hit in the head 1st and then strangled 20-60minutes later would her brain only have swelled 15%, would the head hemorrhage be 'disorganized', would there only be 2 teaspoons of bleeding in the brain....in the realm of all things possible, is that possible, yes, but how 'likely' is it? In the 20-60 minutes why had not the hemorrhage even organized yet? Why hadn't the brain swolen 50% or more and be full of blood as expected?
Is it possible to strangle an unconscious victim from behind by laying them face down on the floor and kneeling over them like you say? Yeah, but why would anyone want to? How likely is that? Is it possible for petechia to occur in the lungs, eyelids and elsewhere when a person is not breathing vigorously is unconscious and near death like you say....well we came as close a science allows to proving it not possible, but couldn't quite close the door on it all the way, so I guess it remains 'barely possible', but it's a 'reach' isn't it?
Now what of the other possibility....she was strangled first then hit in the head....is that possible, you bet, and there's no 'buts' about it. If she was strangled 1st it explains why a garotte was used (to strangle a very conscious and resisting victim), it explains why she was strangled from directly behind (so she could be taken by surprise), it explains all the petechia caused by a very conscious, vigorous victim trying to breath (just like 95% of literature on petechia says), and it explains why the head hemorrhage had 'no evidence of organization' and the head wound only bled 2 teaspoons into the brain (because the victims heart was nearly stopped from the strangulation).
Possibility #2 (strangled first and then hit in the head) isn't just 'possible' like #1, but 'likely', it fits the evidence way better, explains everything, leaves no loose ends, and doesn't have to rely on 'reaches', and barely possible but very unlikely things like possibility #1.
I guess that was the point of my original post...if you have 2 possibilities, where 1 possibility fits perfect, and had no problems, and the other possibility is 'possible' but just barely, can't explain all the evidence without relying on spinning it into fantasical (but possible) scenario's why not go with the one that fits, is more likely, and simpler, unless something "proves' it wrong?

[rashomon]

************************************************** ****
Hello Rash,
I know we've been over this ground before but I don't mind going over it briefly again. As you say the autopsy report does not specifically say which came first the srangulation or the blow to the head. Therefore there are 2 possiblities either.....she was hit in the head first and then stangled when she was near dead, as you and others so stubbornly argue.....or she was strangled first and then hit in the head when she was nearly dead, as many of us point out the evidence indicates.
Is your way possible?.....yes but, if she was hit in the head 1st and then strangled 20-60minutes later would her brain only have swelled 15%, would the head hemorrhage be 'disorganized', would there only be 2 teaspoons of bleeding in the brain....in the realm of all things possible, is that possible, yes, but how 'likely' is it? In the 20-60 minutes why had not the hemorrhage even organized yet? Why hadn't the brain swolen 50% or more and be full of blood as expected?
Is it possible to strangle an unconscious victim from behind by laying them face down on the floor and kneeling over them like you say? Yeah, but why would anyone want to? How likely is that? Is it possible for petechia to occur in the lungs, eyelids and elsewhere when a person is not breathing vigorously is unconscious and near death like you say....well we came as close a science allows to proving it not possible, but couldn't quite close the door on it all the way, so I guess it remains 'barely possible', but it's a 'reach' isn't it?
Now what of the other possibility....she was strangled first then hit in the head....is that possible, you bet, and there's no 'buts' about it. If she was strangled 1st it explains why a garotte was used (to strangle a very conscious and resisting victim), it explains why she was strangled from directly behind (so she could be taken by surprise), it explains all the petechia caused by a very conscious, vigorous victim trying to breath (just like 95% of literature on petechia says), and it explains why the head hemorrhage had 'no evidence of organization' and the head wound only bled 2 teaspoons into the brain (because the victims heart was nearly stopped from the strangulation).
Possibility #2 (strangled first and then hit in the head) isn't just 'possible' like #1, but 'likely', it fits the evidence way better, explains everything, leaves no loose ends, and doesn't have to rely on 'reaches', and barely possible but very unlikely things like possibility #1.
I guess that was the point of my original post...if you have 2 possibilities, where 1 possibility fits perfect, and had no problems, and the other possibility is 'possible' but just barely, can't explain all the evidence without relying on spinning it into fantasical (but possible) scenario's why not go with the one that fits, is more likely, and simpler, unless something "proves' it wrong?

Watson,

the problem with this topic is:

a) neither you not I are medical experts and

b) even medical experts seemt to disagree when it comes to the forensic evidence in the JB case.

Take Cyril Wecht for example: he maintains that JB got killed in some kinky 'erotic asphyxiation' game with her father John.
Wecht claims that there was only 7-8 cc of blood in JB's brain. But he deliberately left outthat part of the autopsy so little blood in JB's brain
for in addition to the 7-8 cc of subdural hemorrhage, there was also a film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere. That's what Cyril Wecht obviously left out when claiming there was so little blood in JB's brain. And that's what Steve Thomas meant when he wrote that JB's brain had 'extensively hemorrhaged', the blood having spread over the whole right half of her brain.
There also was an extensive linear area of purple contusion underlying the linear skull fracture from the front to the back of the head.

So there was bleeding, swelling and contusion of the brain, and forensic pathologist Dr. Spitz (among several others) stating there is no question that the head blow came first.

For if if the JB was strangled to death first, would there have been bleeding in her brain? I don't think so. Have you forgotten this in your 'possibility #2' scenario?
Is it possible to strangle an unconscious victim from behind by laying them face down on the floor and kneeling over them like you say? Yeah, but why would anyone want to? How likely is that?
Very likely if the person who put the cord around JB's neck was a parent who could not bear having to see her face.
The parent probably thought JB was already dead and tied the cord aroundher neck for staging purposes imo.

Important questions in that context:

1) does there exist a stage where a person is not yet dead but the bodily functions are already too impaired to develop hemostasis? A stage where the (still alive) body is just not able to kick into high gear anymore in an attempt to save itself?

2) does a person always have to breathe vigorously for petechiae to develop?
Dr. Meyer spoke only of 'occasional scattered' subpleural petechial henmorrhage, so maybe JB wasn't breathing vigorously?

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

What does 'no evidence of consolidation' mean? Does this also refer to hemostasis?

4) is it true in every case that the head of a child who sustains an injury of the type JB received swells to double its size in case death does not occur right away?

I'll ask these questions on other JBR forums too. Elvislives asked me if there are hematologists posting there. All I know of is a nurse on FFJ who worked in cardiac surgery and seems to have solid knowledge in hematology, but I'll ask on WS first, which has so many posters.

Elvislives: thanks for replying to my post despite your being so exhausted from sleep deprivation. Do they still have those grueling 24-hour-shift in the ER rooms? I remember this from the Jeffrey MacDonad case (MacD was an ER doc). I could never understand why they let docs work those long shifts at all. Why don't they split those shifts up between several doctors? But maybe times have changed since then. I hope you could get a good night's sleep!

[Louisadelmar]

[...]
1) does there exist a stage where a person is not yet dead but the bodily functions are already too impaired to develop hemostasis? A stage where the (still alive) body is just not able to kick into high gear anymore in an attempt to save itself?

[...]
3)

What does 'no evidence of consolidation' mean? Does this also refer to hemostasis?

4) is it true in every case that the head of a child who sustains an injury of the type JB received swells to double its size in case death does not occur right away?

I'll ask these questions on other JBR forums too. Elvislives asked me if there are hematologists posting there. All I know of is a nurse on FFJ who worked in cardiac surgery and seems to have solid knowledge in hematology, but I'll ask on WS first, which has so many posters.

[...]

http://www.stylesandscribbles.com/portfolio/writing/instructional/DB_online-course_hemostasis.pdf

[elvislives]

I apologize for sounding nitpicking here, but I don't want to drop the hematology topic despite it being so technical:
Question: does there exist a stage where a person is not yet dead but the bodily functions are already too impaired to develop hemostasis? A stage where the (still alive) body is just not able to kick into high gear anymore in an attempt to save itself?


The short answer is no. But let me elaborate. First off I am presuming that JB did not have any of the rare coagulation disorders (hemophilia is the one that most here are probably familiar with). So I am assuming she a normal healthy child with no blood disorders.
Hemostasis is a really complex and fascinating topic. One of the problems with hemostasis is that it often goes into effect when it isn't needed with detrimental effects. For example, non-ambulatory patients, or even those who are sedentary (couch potatos) often develop something called DVT (deep vein thrombosis). What happens here is that because the patient is inactive, their circulation tends to 'slow down' and they can develop clots (meaning that due to slow circulation, the blood begins to clot within their veins). The danger of course is that these clots can then travel to the lungs causing a pulmonary embolism which can be fatal.
Some doctors even recommend that their patients take aspirin to 'thin' the blood before a transcontinental flight to avoid this.
This is also why patients with heart disease take aspirin or plavix (an antiplatelet) and are recommended to exercise (among other reasons).
So if JB were in a near death state and her heart rate was slow and her blood pressure was slow, the hemostasis process would excellerate---not only because the body is trying to save itself and heal the vessel injuries--but also because the blood is not circulating at the normal rate, which again would cause coagulation. So in cases like this, even tho a patient may be near death, the hemostasis process speeds up.
Hopefully this makes sense..

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8806877]?

For these are key issues in this case, which is why I think it would be good to get "a second opinion" from other doctors, so to speak.
For I ask myself why no other doc has ever come forward and directed the public's attention to the fact that e. g. JB's entire head should have been swollen to twice its size with a head wound like that? A blue ribbon panel of medical experts were consulted on the case and none of them ever mentioned this?

QUOTE]

FWIW, I have discussed this with many mds, rns, hemotologists pathologists, medical techs etc. The prevailing theory is that either the strangulation came first OR the head wound was immediately followed by the strangulation. I keep hearing on this board that Werner Spitz (I think thats his name) is an advocate of the head wound coming 20-60 minutes before death. Does anyone know where his comments can be found? I would really like to understand his rationale.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=rashomon;8807102]
What does 'no evidence of consolidation' mean? Does this also refer to hemostasis?

QUOTE]

'No evidence of consolidation" is referring to the pulmonary bronchi and vasculature. Sometimes these structures will 'grow together'. Usually this is seen in TB (Tuberculosis) patients, but is observed with other disorders as well. I am not sure why this ME mentioned this. Usually they just say it was unremarkable.

[elvislives]

I'll ask these questions on other JBR forums too. Elvislives asked me if there are hematologists posting there. All I know of is a nurse on FFJ who worked in cardiac surgery and seems to have solid knowledge in hematology, but I'll ask on WS first, which has so many posters.

Elvislives: thanks for replying to my post despite your being so exhausted from sleep deprivation. Do they still have those grueling 24-hour-shift in the ER rooms? I remember this from the Jeffrey MacDonad case (MacD was an ER doc). I could never understand why they let docs work those long shifts at all. Why don't they split those shifts up between several doctors? But maybe times have changed since then. I hope you could get a good night's sleep!

Hey Rash, will you invite any of the rns, mds or any other people with med training to come to this board? I have worn out all the discussions with my coworkers---they've moved onto more current cases. So if you can get any of these people to join us here, by all means do so.

Regarding the 24 hour shifts, those are rarely done anymore (except for residents, med students etc). However, I do take call (meaning that I can get paged and have to show within 30 min ready to work). Also thru-out Jan and Feb I've been taking call for a co-worker who took call for me during the holidays. So if things get busy, they call me in whether I have just worked the past 12 hours or not.
Military may be different...I didn't follow the Jeff Mcdonald case, but I thought he was a military doc. I could be wrong, tho, because as I type this I recall he worked here in California, maybe Long Beach St Marys or Long Beach Memorial. But in civilian hospitals 24 hr shifts are no longer in effect.

[LindaA]

Elvislives, at the time of the murder of his wife and children MacDonald was a Green Beret Army doc in North Carolina. Later, when he was between trials he worked in California and made quite a name for himself there. People had a hard time believing he could have murdered his family. Ironically, the most common idea of a motive was that he went to bed and found his little daughter had wet his side of the bed.

[rashomon]

Elvislives, at the time of the murder of his wife and children MacDonald was a Green Beret Army doc in North Carolina. Later, when he was between trials he worked in California and made quite a name for himself there. People had a hard time believing he could have murdered his family. Ironically, the most common idea of a motive was that he went to bed and found his little daughter had wet his side of the bed.
Jeffrey MacDonald is right where he belongs: serving three consecutive life terms in prison for the murder of his pregnant wife and two little children.
The forensic evidence against him was overwhelming, and his intruder story a concoction.
Overworked and sleep-deprived, something triggered an argument with his wife during which he attacked her viciously and also one of his daughters.
Realizing that things had gone beyond repair, he wanted to save his hide and cold-bloodedly murdered his youngest child too (who had slept through it all) to support his fabricated intruder story (he claimed that Manson type hippies had attacked him and his family).
It was actually the similarities between the MacDonald and the Ramsey case which got me interested in the JBR case: a rage attack followed by a cover-up. Rage attacks don't need a specific 'motive' - all it often takes is some kind of 'trigger'.

[rashomon]

elvislives
FWIW, I have discussed this with many mds, rns, hemotologists pathologists, medical techs etc. The prevailing theory is that either the strangulation came first OR the head wound was immediately followed by the strangulation. I keep hearing on this board that Werner Spitz (I think thats his name) is an advocate of the head wound coming 20-60 minutes before death. Does anyone know where his comments can be found? I would really like to understand his rationale.

Elvislives, I have opened a thread on Forums for Justice ("Time span between head blow and strangulation").
Here is the link:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=137641#post137641

In this thread there is another (very interesting!) link to the topic of 'blood organization'.

Interesting to note that the #3 poster said the autopsy report does mention some clots.
#4 poster said that many head trauma patients show very little swelling on the outside of the head.

Another poster also mentioned Dr.Tom Henry, who also said there was clotting of the blood.

Dr. Kirschner (who is mentioned in the same article as Dr. Wright) was also of the opinion that the head blow came first.

I'll try to find the source for Dr. Werner Spitz's statement. Dr. Spitz's theory is that JB was manually strangled first (by the twisting of her collar for example), then bashed on the head when she was already unconscious, and after some time elapsed the garrote scene was staged.

[LindaA]

Jeffrey MacDonald is right where he belongs: serving three consecutive life terms in prison for the murder of his pregnant wife and two little children.
The forensic evidence against him was overwhelming, and his intruder story a concoction.
Overworked and sleep-deprived, something triggered an argument with his wife during which he attacked her viciously and also one of his daughters.
Realizing that things had gone beyond repair, he wanted to save his hide and cold-bloodedly murdered his youngest child too (who had slept through it all) to support his fabricated intruder story (he claimed that Manson type hippies had attacked him and his family).
It was actually the similarities between the MacDonald and the Ramsey case which got me interested in the JBR case: a rage attack followed by a cover-up. Rage attacks don't need a specific 'motive' - all it often takes is some kind of 'trigger'.

Was there something in my post that triggered this tirade? Did you think I was defending him? Wasn'tmuch of a cover up in the MacDonald case, IMO.

[LindaA]

Elvislives, I have opened a thread on Forums for Justice ("Time span between head blow and strangulation").
Here is the link:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=137641#post137641

In this thread there is another (very interesting!) link to the topic of 'blood organization'.

Interesting to note that the #3 poster said the autopsy report does mention some clots.
#4 poster said that many head trauma patients show very little swelling on the outside of the head.

Another poster also mentioned Dr.Tom Henry, who also said there was clotting of the blood.

Dr. Kirschner (who is mentioned in the same article as Dr. Wright) was also of the opinion that the head blow came first.

I'll try to find the source for Dr. Werner Spitz's statement. Dr. Spitz's theory is that JB was manually strangled first (by the twisting of her collar for example), then bashed on the head when she was already unconscious, and after some time elapsed the garrote scene was staged.


Hrd for me to understand how someone could be strangled to that extent by the twisting of a knit garment, which is, by nature stretchy.

[bullmoose]

Was there something in my post that triggered this tirade? Did you think I was defending him? Wasn'tmuch of a cover up in the MacDonald case, IMO. LindaA: When I first came to this forum, last year, I remember that somehow the Macdonald case came up; I distinctly recall being hugely attacked by a poster[I don't remember who] that railed on and on simply because I expressed my reservations about comparing this case to that one. Also, I expressed my own doubt about that case being beyond dispute as it was referred to by the poster; my own research on that case left me far from convinced of Jeffery MacDonalds guilt. I don't think it was rashoman, but her posts sound very much like those I remember. In both cases here rashoman puts forth a urinary mishap as triggering a murderous homicidal rage that immediately dispels, leaving a cold calculating monster to set up the staging to cover the despicable crime. I just do not buy it, if Patsy Ramsey said it was no big deal, I will accept her word over Rashoman.
And yes, I do believe MacDonald's story, having spent time on Army bases; it does not seem at all unbelievable to me, especially for the time and place it happened.

[rashomon]

Was there something in my post that triggered this tirade? Did you think I was defending him? Wasn'tmuch of a cover up in the MacDonald case, IMO.
I didn't mean it as a tirade, but when you wrote (emphasis mine)
Ironically, the most common idea of a motive was that he went to bed and found his little daughter had wet his side of the bed.
I thought you were of the opinion that this would not 'qualify' for a motive.
Why did you use the word "ironically"?

[rashomon]

LindaA: When I first came to this forum, last year, I remember that somehow the Macdonald case came up; I distinctly recall being hugely attacked by a poster[I don't remember who] that railed on and on simply because I expressed my reservations about comparing this case to that one. Also, I expressed my own doubt about that case being beyond dispute as it was referred to by the poster; my own research on that case left me far from convinced of Jeffery MacDonalds guilt. I don't think it was rashoman, but her posts sound very much like those I remember. In both cases here rashoman puts forth a urinary mishap as triggering a murderous homicidal rage that immediately dispels, leaving a cold calculating monster to set up the staging to cover the despicable crime. I just do not buy it, if Patsy Ramsey said it was no big deal, I will accept her word over Rashoman.
And yes, I do believe MacDonald's story, having spent time on Army bases; it does not seem at all unbelievable to me, especially for the time and place it happened.
I doubt that you have done any in-depth research on the MacDonald case. Have you studied the documented record? Read the grand jury and trial trascripts? For as opposed to the Ramsey case, all the MacD case info is on the internet. It took the jury less than seven hours to convict him of triple murder. The forensic evidence against him was overwhelming, and his intruder story was one of the most asinine stories ever concocted by a perp trying to cover up his crime.

[LindaA]

I didn't mean it as a tirade, but when you wrote (emphasis mine)

I thought you were of the opinion that this would not 'qualify' for a motive.
Why did you use the word "ironically"?

I used it because of the ironic similarity to the Ramsey case.

[LindaA]

I doubt that you have done any in-depth research on the MacDonald case. Have you studied the documented record? Read the grand jury and trial trascripts? For as opposed to the Ramsey case, all the MacD case info is on the internet. It took the jury less than seven hours to convict him of triple murder. The forensic evidence against him was overwhelming, and his intruder story was one of the most asinine stories ever concocted by a perp trying to cover up his crime.

Personally, I believe MacDonald is guilty. But the interesting facet of the case is that there is just enough doubt about the woman in the floppy hat and her party to make me wonder. I have not read the trail transcripts, nor do I iintend to -- I understand they are hundreds of pages in length. I did read McGinnis's book, which convincerd me of MacDonald's guilt. The one thing that did above all was the suitcase sitting pristine inthe middle of the bloodbath that was his and Colette's bedroom. I felt at the time that he had taken it out with the idea of running away, then thought better of it. However, I read a more recent book that seems to give more credence to the band of hippies story based on forensic evidence that could not be analyzed at the time or the crime.

However, my sole purpose in posting was to answer Elvislives's about whether he was from NC or California. If I wanted to argue his guilt I would be posting on the MacDonald board.

[elvislives]

************************************************** ****
Hello Rash,
I know we've been over this ground before but I don't mind going over it briefly again. As you say the autopsy report does not specifically say which came first the srangulation or the blow to the head. Therefore there are 2 possiblities either.....she was hit in the head first and then stangled when she was near dead, as you and others so stubbornly argue.....or she was strangled first and then hit in the head when she was nearly dead, as many of us point out the evidence indicates.
Is your way possible?.....yes but, if she was hit in the head 1st and then strangled 20-60minutes later would her brain only have swelled 15%, would the head hemorrhage be 'disorganized', would there only be 2 teaspoons of bleeding in the brain....in the realm of all things possible, is that possible, yes, but how 'likely' is it? In the 20-60 minutes why had not the hemorrhage even organized yet? Why hadn't the brain swolen 50% or more and be full of blood as expected?
Is it possible to strangle an unconscious victim from behind by laying them face down on the floor and kneeling over them like you say? Yeah, but why would anyone want to? How likely is that? Is it possible for petechia to occur in the lungs, eyelids and elsewhere when a person is not breathing vigorously is unconscious and near death like you say....well we came as close a science allows to proving it not possible, but couldn't quite close the door on it all the way, so I guess it remains 'barely possible', but it's a 'reach' isn't it?
Now what of the other possibility....she was strangled first then hit in the head....is that possible, you bet, and there's no 'buts' about it. If she was strangled 1st it explains why a garotte was used (to strangle a very conscious and resisting victim), it explains why she was strangled from directly behind (so she could be taken by surprise), it explains all the petechia caused by a very conscious, vigorous victim trying to breath (just like 95% of literature on petechia says), and it explains why the head hemorrhage had 'no evidence of organization' and the head wound only bled 2 teaspoons into the brain (because the victims heart was nearly stopped from the strangulation).
Possibility #2 (strangled first and then hit in the head) isn't just 'possible' like #1, but 'likely', it fits the evidence way better, explains everything, leaves no loose ends, and doesn't have to rely on 'reaches', and barely possible but very unlikely things like possibility #1.
I guess that was the point of my original post...if you have 2 possibilities, where 1 possibility fits perfect, and had no problems, and the other possibility is 'possible' but just barely, can't explain all the evidence without relying on spinning it into fantasical (but possible) scenario's why not go with the one that fits, is more likely, and simpler, unless something "proves' it wrong?

Well put, Watson

[bullmoose]

I doubt that you have done any in-depth research on the MacDonald case. Have you studied the documented record? Read the grand jury and trial trascripts? For as opposed to the Ramsey case, all the MacD case info is on the internet. It took the jury less than seven hours to convict him of triple murder. The forensic evidence against him was overwhelming, and his intruder story was one of the most asinine stories ever concocted by a perp trying to cover up his crime.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:

[elvislives]

Elvislives, I have opened a thread on Forums for Justice ("Time span between head blow and strangulation").
Here is the link:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=137641#post137641

In this thread there is another (very interesting!) link to the topic of 'blood organization'.

Interesting to note that the #3 poster said the autopsy report does mention some clots.
#4 poster said that many head trauma patients show very little swelling on the outside of the head.

Another poster also mentioned Dr.Tom Henry, who also said there was clotting of the blood.

Dr. Kirschner (who is mentioned in the same article as Dr. Wright) was also of the opinion that the head blow came first.

I'll try to find the source for Dr. Werner Spitz's statement. Dr. Spitz's theory is that JB was manually strangled first (by the twisting of her collar for example), then bashed on the head when she was already unconscious, and after some time elapsed the garrote scene was staged.

Rash,

I read thru the threads on the other forum and have a few comments (btw:thanks for posting, I think the more ideas the better--I wish more people on this forum would post on this topic. Many here are very intelligent and have the aptitude to discuss and add their input. Hint Hint):

1. One poster commented that I was using the term 'organization' to be synonymous with 'clot'. I certainly understand the difference, but tend to use the term clot since this is primarily a lay board. I have avoided the technical terms such as platelet plug, fibrin bridge, platelet adherence, etc so people would understand what I was talking about. From here on, when I use a term inapropriately for simplification, I'll try to remember to put quotes around it.

2. A few posters commented that they saw a head trauma pt in the hospital and didnt observe swelling. Another called an rn friend who said 'yep, my patients dont have swollen heads'!?!.You cannot compare a patient who survived to a patient who died. JB had a lethal head wound and had no medical attention!!
When a pt with a massive head wound comes into the ER, our primary goals are to stop the bleeding and relieve the intracranial pressure. If we don't, they will die. In the pts who we are able to save, they are saved because their bleeding is stopped and the intracranial pressure is relieved, often by a shunt (a tube like thing to drain fluid). If the pressure is not relieved, they end up in the morgue and not on that nurses floor looking fresh as a daisy with a normal sized head. So again, you cant compare JB's head injury to any pt who survived or had immediate medical attention. OF COURSE those pts would not have swollen heads, if their heads swelled they would die of cerebral edema. Nor can you can compare JB's head injury to a pt with a hairline fracture. THAT is why when I found the case similar to JB, I used a child, JBs age, with a similar sized wound. Anything else is comparing apples to oranges.
This is the danger of asking an 'expert's' opinion with just a little bit of info and in my opinion is why there is so much medical misinformation in this case.

3. Some of you people are amazing at finding quotes and things on the web. I am not so much intererested that a doctor exists who says she could have survived for X minutes. I am truly interested in WHY they believed she survived X minutes with an explanation that squares with the autopsy report.
I am involved in a 'discussion' with some idi's on the pineapple thread that is similar. There was A doctor, probably even a handful who say that JB could have eaten the pineapple the day before. My hunch is that an md got a call with a question from a reporter to the effect of 'is there any way possible someone could eat pineapple, then 24 hours later it could still be in their proximal small intestine?' The md replies 'yes". But the person asking the question was not medically trained, so they just accepted the doctor's answer as gospel.
If I were asking any of these docs who said its possible for the pineapple to digest so slowly, I would want to know why---the answer would be that some people have unusually slow metabolisms caused by disease or drugs, or digestive disorder. True, but JB did not! Anyway that's why you can't just accept an md's opinion at face value, you need to dig deeper and have the explanation. Sorry for the rant, I'm getting attacked from all sides on the pineapple thread.

[elvislives]

LindaA: When I first came to this forum, last year, I remember that somehow the Macdonald case came up; I distinctly recall being hugely attacked by a poster[I don't remember who] that railed on and on simply because I expressed my reservations about comparing this case to that one. Also, I expressed my own doubt about that case being beyond dispute as it was referred to by the poster; my own research on that case left me far from convinced of Jeffery MacDonalds guilt. I don't think it was rashoman, but her posts sound very much like those I remember. In both cases here rashoman puts forth a urinary mishap as triggering a murderous homicidal rage that immediately dispels, leaving a cold calculating monster to set up the staging to cover the despicable crime. I just do not buy it, if Patsy Ramsey said it was no big deal, I will accept her word over Rashoman.
And yes, I do believe MacDonald's story, having spent time on Army bases; it does not seem at all unbelievable to me, especially for the time and place it happened.

Count your blessings, bullmoose. I get attacked from both idis and rdis. I'm an equal opportunity attackee. Thank god for my crying towels...

[Zoey]

Count your blessings, bullmoose. I get attacked from both idis and rdis. I'm an equal opportunity attackee. Thank god for my crying towels...


Elvislives: Just to let you know, not matter one iota whether I am an IDI, RDI, PDI, BDI, NDI or whatever, I find your posts very interesting and informative. I may not understand everything you say, but have the ability to google for myself to see if I can figure out what you are saying. For me, you do a great job. Thank you.:beer:

[elvislives]

Jeffrey MacDonald is right where he belongs: serving three consecutive life terms in prison for the murder of his pregnant wife and two little children.
The forensic evidence against him was overwhelming, and his intruder story a concoction.
Overworked and sleep-deprived, something triggered an argument with his wife during which he attacked her viciously and also one of his daughters.
Realizing that things had gone beyond repair, he wanted to save his hide and cold-bloodedly murdered his youngest child too (who had slept through it all) to support his fabricated intruder story (he claimed that Manson type hippies had attacked him and his family).
It was actually the similarities between the MacDonald and the Ramsey case which got me interested in the JBR case: a rage attack followed by a cover-up. Rage attacks don't need a specific 'motive' - all it often takes is some kind of 'trigger'.

Just curious: what was Jeffery McDonald convicted of? First degree, second or manslaughter? I presume it was different for the different crimes? What I am getting at is...did the fact that he was in a 'rage' reduce his sentence? I am totally opposed to that as a mitigating factor. I don't think anyone should get a reduced sentence just because they were in a rage at the time they murdered someone, especially innocent children. And I am in no way saying that JM is guilty, I know almost nothing about the case.

Also, does anyone know what Susan Smith's sentence was? I know she was up for the death penalty and the jury did not apply it (which btw I agree with). But was she convicted of first degree murder? I realize she didn't have rage as an "excuse" but Im just curious.

And before someone sends me a nasty pm, yes I do realize I could google this and find the answer. Just asking here because many on this board are very informed about some of these cases...

[elvislives]

Elvislives: Just to let you know, not matter one iota whether I am an IDI, RDI, PDI, BDI, NDI or whatever, I find your posts very interesting and informative. I may not understand everything you say, but have the ability to google for myself to see if I can figure out what you are saying. For me, you do a great job. Thank you.:beer:

Thanks, Zoey. And if I ever say something you dont understand, feel free to ask me to clarify.

[Louisadelmar]

From the autopsy:

REMAINDER OF EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:The unembalmed, well developed nourished caucasian female body measures 47 inches in length and weighs an estimated 45 pounds. The scalp is covered by long blonde hair which is fixed in two ponytails, one on top of the head secured by a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band, and one in the lower back of the head secured by a blue elastic band. No scalp trauma is identified. The external auditory canals are patent and free of blood.The eyes are green and the pupils

Page 5

equally dilated.
[...]

On removal of the skull cap there is found to be a thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral hemisphere.The 1450 gm brain has a normal overall architecture. Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen.
No inflammation is identified.There is a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere. On the right cerebral hemisphere underlying the previously mentioned linear skull fracture is an extensive linear area of purple contusion extending from the right frontal area, posteriorly along the lateral aspect of the parietal region and into the occipital area. This area of contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches. At the tip of the right temporal lobe is a one-quarter by one-quarter inch similar appearing purple contusion. Only very minimal contusion is present at the tip of the left temporal lobe. This area of contusion measures only one-half inch in maximum dimension. The cerebral vasculature contains no evidence of atherosclerosis. Multiple coronal sections of the cerebral hemispheres, brain stem and cerebellum disclose no additional abnormalities. The areas of previously described contusion are characterized by purple linear streak-like discolorations of the gray matter perpendicular to the surface of the cerebral cortex. These extend approximately 5 mm into the

Page 8

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

Unless I am reading this incorrectly, it sounds like there was neither external nor internal swelling.

[LindaA]

Just curious: what was Jeffery McDonald convicted of? First degree, second or manslaughter? I presume it was different for the different crimes? What I am getting at is...did the fact that he was in a 'rage' reduce his sentence? I am totally opposed to that as a mitigating factor. I don't think anyone should get a reduced sentence just because they were in a rage at the time they murdered someone, especially innocent children. And I am in no way saying that JM is guilty, I know almost nothing about the case.

Also, does anyone know what Susan Smith's sentence was? I know she was up for the death penalty and the jury did not apply it (which btw I agree with). But was she convicted of first degree murder? I realize she didn't have rage as an "excuse" but Im just curious.

And before someone sends me a nasty pm, yes I do realize I could google this and find the answer. Just asking here because many on this board are very informed about some of these cases...

I'm sure Rash will correct me if I'm wrong, but as nearly as I can remember MacDonald got 2nd degree for his wife and one child, but 1st degree for the other child.

[Louisadelmar]

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/strangulation_article.pdf
`Page 1 of 16
How to Improve Your
Investigation and Prosecution of Strangulation Cases
[…]
Strangulation is defined as a form of asphyxia (lack of oxygen) characterized by closure of the blood vessels and/or air passages of the neck as a result of external pressure on the neck.1 The three forms of strangulation are hanging, ligature, and manual. Almost all attempted or actual homicides by strangulation involve either ligature or manual strangulation. Ten percent of violent deaths in the U.S. each year are due to strangulation, six females to every male. Ligature strangulation is strangulation with a cord-like object (also referred to as garroting), and may include anything from a telephone cord to articles of clothing
[…]
A rudimentary knowledge of neck anatomy is critical in order to understand adequately the clinical features of strangled victim. The hyoid bone a small horseshoe-shaped bone in the neck helps to support the tongue. The larynx, made up of cartilage, not bone, consists of two parts: the thyroid cartilage (so-called because it is next to the thyroid gland) and the tracheal rings. Carotid arteries are the major vessels that transport oxygenated blood from the heart and lungs to the brain. These are the arteries at the side of the neck that persons administering CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) check for pulses. Jugular veins are the major vessels that transport deoxygenated blood from the brain back to the heart. The general clinical sequence of a victim who is being strangled is one of severe pain, followed by unconsciousness, followed by brain death. The victim will lose conscious-ness by any one or all of the following: blocking of the carotid arteries (depriving the brain of oxygen), blocking of the jugular veins (preventing deoxygenated blood from exiting the brain), and closing off the airway, causing the victim to be unable to breathe. Only eleven pounds of pressure placed on both carotid arteries for ten seconds is necessary to cause unconsciousness.4 How-ever, if pressure is released immediately, consciousness will be regained within ten seconds. To completely close off the trachea, three times as much pressure (33 lbs.) is required. Brain death will occur in 4 to 5 minutes, if strangulation persists.
[…]
Objective signs noted in strangulation victims include involuntary urination and defecation. Miscarriages have been anecdotally reported occurring hours to days later.
Visible injuries to the neck include scratches, abrasions, and scrapes. These may be from the victim’s own fingernails as a defensive maneuver, but commonly are a combination of lesions caused by both the victim and the assailant’s fingernails. Lesion location varies depending on whether the victim or assailant used one or two hands, and whether the assailant strangled the victim from the front or back. Three types of fingernail markings may occur, singly or in combination: impression, scratch, or claw marks. Impression marks occur when the fingernails cut into the skin; they are shaped like commas or semi-circles. Scratch marks are superficial and long, and may be narrow or as wide as the fingernail itself. Claw marks occur when the skin is undermined; they tend to be more
vicious and dramatic appearing.7 Because most victims are women, the scratches caused by their longer nails frequently are more severe than the scratches caused by assailant’s. Claw marks may be grouped, parallel markings vertically down the front of the neck, but often are scattered in a random fashion.
Redness (erythema) on the neck may be fleeting, but may demonstrate a detectable pattern.8 These marks may or may not darken to become a bruise. Bruises (ecchymoses or purpura) may not appear for hours or even days. Fingertip bruises are circular and oval, and often faint. A single bruise on the neck is most frequently caused by the assailant’s thumb.9 However, bruises frequently may run together, clustering at the sides of the neck, as well as along the jaw lines, and may extend onto the chin, and even the collar bones (clavicles).

[Louisadelmar]

Just curious: what was Jeffery McDonald convicted of? First degree, second or manslaughter? I presume it was different for the different crimes? What I am getting at is...did the fact that he was in a 'rage' reduce his sentence? I am totally opposed to that as a mitigating factor. I don't think anyone should get a reduced sentence just because they were in a rage at the time they murdered someone, especially innocent children. And I am in no way saying that JM is guilty, I know almost nothing about the case.

Also, does anyone know what Susan Smith's sentence was? I know she was up for the death penalty and the jury did not apply it (which btw I agree with). But was she convicted of first degree murder? I realize she didn't have rage as an "excuse" but Im just curious.

And before someone sends me a nasty pm, yes I do realize I could google this and find the answer. Just asking here because many on this board are very informed about some of these cases...

1 count 1st degree, 2 counts 2nd degree.

Susan Smith got life (assuming it was upheld)

[Zoey]

1 count 1st degree, 2 counts 2nd degree.

Susan Smith got life (assuming it was upheld)


Susan Smith got life with chance of parole after 30 years. She is up for parole in 2025.

[docg]

I used to think John strangled her "accidently" via "gentle strangulation" during a sexual act. And then added the ligature to obliterate any possible finger and hand prints. But that makes it VERY difficult to explain the head blow. It's also important to realize that JonBenet's hair was entwined in both knots of the "garotte," making it highly unlikely for this to have been the means used in the initial attack. Since the thing had to have been knotted right on top of the victim. A living, struggling victim with her hair literally being pulled out of her head, would have made the tying of those knots impossible. So she had to have been unconscious or dead when the "garotte" was constructed.

What I now think happened, is that this must have been a premeditated act, decided upon at some point that night. I think John must have been abusing her, she must have said something to indicate she was about to "tell" on him, so he must have made up his mind that she had to go. This conversation could have occured in the kitchen, over some pineapple, sure, why not?

So, what's the kindest way to kill someone you love? Seems to me that you'd want to knock your victim out 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 as you struck her. And, if the staging of a kidnapping was part of your plan (it was), you wouldn't want there to be lots of blood. I think John struck her from behind with the maglite, chosen specifically because of its hard rubber head, unlikely to puncture the scalp. He would then have proceeded to finish the job by strangling her, either manually, and then with the "garotte," to cover any prints -- or possibly just with the "garotte" alone.

I think the plan was to get her out of the house before the police were called. Which is why he'd have written the note. Oh, and he probably was planning on dumping not only the body, but the maglite as well. He wouldn't have wanted to leave the "murder weapon" lying around in the house if he were trying to create the impression she'd been killed only after being kidnapped. Which may be why the maglite was so thoroughly wiped down, not only the outside, but the batteries as well -- so it couldn't be traced back to him.

Patsy spoiled his plan, as well we know. :-)

[Louisadelmar]

Meant to include this from the strangulation article above.

Finally, in strangulation by ligature, the
hyoid bone and/or thyroid cartilage are often fractured, in hanging, these are usually intact.
Ligature marks are a clue that the hyoid bone may be broken. As a general rule, on a post
mortem exam, if a hyoid bone is fractured the death will be a homicide from strangulation until
proven otherwise.13 However, because the two halves of the hyoid do not fuse until age 30, the
hyoid may not break in younger victims who die as the result of strangulation.14

[bullmoose]

I doubt that you have done any in-depth research on the MacDonald case. Have you studied the documented record? Read the grand jury and trial trascripts? For as opposed to the Ramsey case, all the MacD case info is on the internet. It took the jury less than seven hours to convict him of triple murder. The forensic evidence against him was overwhelming, and his intruder story was one of the most asinine stories ever concocted by a perp trying to cover up his crime.You do not know how much or little research I have done on the MacDonald case. I sort of doubt that you are older than me, Rashoman; I also sort of doubt that you ever spent any time on USArmy bases in the US in the sixties. Unless you are my age or greater and have spent time on bases, then I doubt that you really know anything about the case beyond what you have read. This is not a forum for that case, so I am not going to debate it here with you. Might I suggest that you take a little dose of humility before that big, swollen head of yours pops from all of your great knowledge of murder cases.:lol:

[shill]

I used to think John strangled her "accidently" via "gentle strangulation" during a sexual act. And then added the ligature to obliterate any possible finger and hand prints. But that makes it VERY difficult to explain the head blow. It's also important to realize that JonBenet's hair was entwined in both knots of the "garotte," making it highly unlikely for this to have been the means used in the initial attack. Since the thing had to have been knotted right on top of the victim. A living, struggling victim with her hair literally being pulled out of her head, would have made the tying of those knots impossible. So she had to have been unconscious or dead when the "garotte" was constructed.

What I now think happened, is that this must have been a premeditated act, decided upon at some point that night. I think John must have been abusing her, she must have said something to indicate she was about to "tell" on him, so he must have made up his mind that she had to go. This conversation could have occured in the kitchen, over some pineapple, sure, why not?

So, what's the kindest way to kill someone you love? Seems to me that you'd want to knock your victim out 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 as you struck her. And, if the staging of a kidnapping was part of your plan (it was), you wouldn't want there to be lots of blood. I think John struck her from behind with the maglite, chosen specifically because of its hard rubber head, unlikely to puncture the scalp. He would then have proceeded to finish the job by strangling her, either manually, and then with the "garotte," to cover any prints -- or possibly just with the "garotte" alone.

I think the plan was to get her out of the house before the police were called. Which is why he'd have written the note. Oh, and he probably was planning on dumping not only the body, but the maglite as well. He wouldn't have wanted to leave the "murder weapon" lying around in the house if he were trying to create the impression she'd been killed only after being kidnapped. Which may be why the maglite was so thoroughly wiped down, not only the outside, but the batteries as well -- so it couldn't be traced back to him.

Patsy spoiled his plan, as well we know. :-)Couldn't this scenario play out for Fleet White too. JB makes a 911 call on the 23rd when FW attempts to fondle her, he catches her and hangs up the phone realizing how close he came to being caught. At the Whites Christmas party FW confronts JB to keep quite and she says she's going to tell and he needs to silence her.
This post is my outside of the box opinion.

[rashomon]

You do not know how much or little research I have done on the MacDonald case. I sort of doubt that you are older than me, Rashoman; I also sort of doubt that you ever spent any time on USArmy bases in the US in the sixties. Unless you are my age or greater and have spent time on bases, then I doubt that you really know anything about the case beyond what you have read. This is not a forum for that case, so I am not going to debate it here with you. Might I suggest that you take a little dose of humility before that big, swollen head of yours pops from all of your great knowledge of murder cases.:lol:

JFYI: I have been researching this case for over twenty years, Bullmoose. I needn't have spent time on bases, for people who have posted on these forums who have been there have provided every possible info.

Lol all you want, you won't change the fact that McD is guilty. He lied, but the forensicevidence didn't lie. The recent DNA results only confirmed that there were never intruders in that house. Case closed. Discusion closed as well on my part, since you rightly remarked that this is no MacDonald forum.

[rashomon]

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:
The only poster name I'm using is Rashomon.

[rashomon]

Elvislives: Just to let you know, not matter one iota whether I am an IDI, RDI, PDI, BDI, NDI or whatever, I find your posts very interesting and informative. I may not understand everything you say, but have the ability to google for myself to see if I can figure out what you are saying. For me, you do a great job. Thank you.:beer:
Just curious, Zoey: what is an NDI? "Nobody Did It"? ;)

[bullmoose]

JFYI: I have been researching this case for over twenty years, Bullmoose. I needn't have spent time on bases, for people who have posted on these forums who have been there have provided every possible info.

Lol all you want, you won't change the fact that McD is guilty. He lied, but the forensicevidence didn't lie. The recent DNA results only confirmed that there were never intruders in that house. Case closed. Discusion closed as well on my part, since you rightly remarked that this is no MacDonald forum.10---9---8---7---6---5---4---3---2---1---Lift-off,we have lift-off---SSSSSSSSS----POP!!!!! OH Heck, she popped her cork!!:lol:

[Louisadelmar]

Just as a refresher here is a picture of her skull:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetskull1-x.jpg

http://www.bestfreeforums.com/forums/posting-vp473-sanctuary2.html#473

" No scalp trauma is identified [...] No inflammation is identified."

[Zoey]

Just curious, Zoey: what is an NDI? "Nobody Did It"? ;)

Good job, Rash. All these initials confuse me sometimes, so I thought I would throw my own in!!

[Louisadelmar]

If there had been swelling of the brain as suggested by "The Punisher" at the link to FFJ, wouldn't her brain have pushed out through both the crack and the hole (lifting the displaced piece of bone), and wouldn't this have been mentioned in the autopsy report?

[rashomon]

If there had been swelling of the brain as suggested by "The Punisher" at the link to FFJ, wouldn't her brain have pushed out through both the crack and the hole (lifting the displaced piece of bone), and wouldn't this have been mentioned in the autopsy report?

What would interest me,: how fast does brain swelling occur in a head trauma of the type JonBenet suffered? Why did some medical experts state that it takes a while for the brain to swell, while Elvislives says the brain would have swelled in seconds?

Another question: could this head trauma have been a 'contrecoup' (I'm not sure if it is called that way) type of injury, where she was yanked around and her head smashed against a hard surface?

[elvislives]

From the autopsy:

REMAINDER OF EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:The unembalmed, well developed nourished caucasian female body measures 47 inches in length and weighs an estimated 45 pounds. The scalp is covered by long blonde hair which is fixed in two ponytails, one on top of the head secured by a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band, and one in the lower back of the head secured by a blue elastic band. No scalp trauma is identified. The external auditory canals are patent and free of blood.The eyes are green and the pupils

Page 5

equally dilated.
[...]

On removal of the skull cap there is found to be a thin film of subdural hemorrhage measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral hemisphere.The 1450 gm brain has a normal overall architecture. Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen.
No inflammation is identified.There is a thin film of subarachnoid hemorrhage overlying the entire right cerebral hemisphere. On the right cerebral hemisphere underlying the previously mentioned linear skull fracture is an extensive linear area of purple contusion extending from the right frontal area, posteriorly along the lateral aspect of the parietal region and into the occipital area. This area of contusion measures 8 inches in length with a width of up to 1.75 inches. At the tip of the right temporal lobe is a one-quarter by one-quarter inch similar appearing purple contusion. Only very minimal contusion is present at the tip of the left temporal lobe. This area of contusion measures only one-half inch in maximum dimension. The cerebral vasculature contains no evidence of atherosclerosis. Multiple coronal sections of the cerebral hemispheres, brain stem and cerebellum disclose no additional abnormalities. The areas of previously described contusion are characterized by purple linear streak-like discolorations of the gray matter perpendicular to the surface of the cerebral cortex. These extend approximately 5 mm into the

Page 8

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

Unless I am reading this incorrectly, it sounds like there was neither external nor internal swelling.

There was definitely no external swelling. That is obvious when you look at the autopsy photos. Her head looks normal--like she is sleeping--not even any swelling in her eyelids.

[elvislives]

Susan Smith got life with chance of parole after 30 years. She is up for parole in 2025.

Was she convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER (which imo she is guilty of) or did she get convicted of a lesser charge?

[elvislives]

If there had been swelling of the brain as suggested by "The Punisher" at the link to FFJ, wouldn't her brain have pushed out through both the crack and the hole (lifting the displaced piece of bone), and wouldn't this have been mentioned in the autopsy report?

Absolutely. In cases where the brain is swelling and is being compressed within the skull...as a last resort to save a patient (if the shunt is not working fast enough) mds will remove a portion of a patient's skull to alleviate the pressure and hopefully prevent them of dying from cerebral edema. When you do this the brain will 'ooze' thru the opening.
If JBs skull had any significant swelling her brain would start to emerge thru the crack.

[elvislives]

What would interest me,: how fast does brain swelling occur in a head trauma of the type JonBenet suffered? Why did some medical experts state that it takes a while for the brain to swell, while Elvislives says the brain would have swelled in seconds?

Another question: could this head trauma have been a 'contrecoup' (I'm not sure if it is called that way) type of injury, where she was yanked around and her head smashed against a hard surface?

Hey Rash,
If I gave the impression that swelling is immediate, I apologize...this is not exactly the case. Hemorrhage is immediate. Swelling can take some time. It begins immediately but takes a while to be visibly noticable.
The reason it takes a patient who suffered horrific head trauma 20-60 minutes to die (provided they have no medical attn and have no other lethal injuries that kill them first)is because that is generally how long it takes for the brain to swell sufficiently to bring about brain death.

[elvislives]

Just some clarification on subarachnoid hemorrhage. The subarachnoid space is very small and is usually filled with CSF (cerebral spinal fluid). Picture an orange within a small balloon and the balloon is filled with fluid that surrounds the orange.
If blood seeps into the subarachnoid space, it will spread thru-out the entire hemisphere of the brain very quickly, depending on how the patient is situated. Kind of like dropping a few drops of liquid food coloring into a cup of water. It is hard to estimate VOLUME of blood in subarachnoid bleeding due to it mixing with the CSF. That is why they usually describe subarachnoid bleeding in terms of AREA. The AREA of the hemorrhage may be large, but that does not indicate a large amount of blood VOLUME. Make sense??

[Louisadelmar]

Absolutely. In cases where the brain is swelling and is being compressed within the skull...as a last resort to save a patient (if the shunt is not working fast enough) mds will remove a portion of a patient's skull to alleviate the pressure and hopefully prevent them of dying from cerebral edema. When you do this the brain will 'ooze' thru the opening.
If JBs skull had any significant swelling her brain would start to emerge thru the crack.

I thought so. I recall reading sometime (5? 10? 15? years) ago that this 'new' treatment was being done if the situation was grave enough. The mental image of the brain pushing up through this skull hole apparently stuck with me.

[Zoey]

Was she convicted of FIRST DEGREE MURDER (which imo she is guilty of) or did she get convicted of a lesser charge?

I read 10-15 different sites yesterday to provide you with a good answer. Everything I read said she was convicted or murder, period. I couldn't find anything that said first, second or third. I know they had wanted to plea down to involuntary manslaughter, but the judge would not even hear that plea. It did not elaborate on what they wanted to plea down from. Sorry.:shrug:

[Louisadelmar]

This is all I've been able to find so far directly from Spitz. The time estimate came (as near as I can find) from Thomas' book so we don't know what Spitz may have actually said.

Part 1

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03172000spitzondiscovery.htm


Discovery News


transcript by listener on 3/18/2000
Narrator Lyn Cannon
Guest Forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz
From handwriting analysis to the autopsy, the lastest twist in what the evidence may reveal about this gruesome crime.
Six year old JonBenet Ramsey is back in the news this week. The girl's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, are out with a new book that proclaimed their innocence, and offers a psychological profile about who they think killed their daughter. The case has stumped authorities for 3 yrs. One of the most basic questions that has gone unanswered,--- what weapons were used in the murder?
THE WEAPON:
LC: From the day the body was found, investigators knew that Jon Benet Ramsey, suffered a severe blow to the head, as well as strangulatiion with a cord. But which came first? Determining that could tell a great deal about the motive and the killer. Investigators speculate strangulation first could mean a sex crime. If the blow came first, it might point to a kidnapper or a crime of rage. 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. And there's always then another question: was Jon Benet sexually assaulted, and when? Experts disagree, but Spitz's review tells him that Jon Benet had no history of sexual abuse. But a splinter found during the autopsy tells him she was sexually assaulted at the time of her death, perhaps with the artist's paintbrush tied to the cord around her neck.
Dr.WS: I believe that this..?.pressure occurred at the time that she died, or just before, or during.
LC: But Spitz thinks the sexual assault was an attempt to disguise the crime scene, to make it look like a sex crime.

[Louisadelmar]

Part 2

Dr.WS: I believe that the injury to the head was first, knocked her out. I think everything else here was staging.
LC: Spitz maintains the blow to the head was the central element of the murder, and he carefully studied JB's fatal scull fracture.
Dr.WS: ...? it was perfectly rectangular. That piece of bone that was knocked out, remained attached on a hinge,and was bendable.
LC: The size and shape of the fracture was so distinctive, Spitz decided to conduct his own tests, reenacting the injury.
Dr.WS: You could do it on syrofoam, you could do it on cardboard, you could do it on bone. I did it on all three.
LC: Published reports this week, speculate a baseball bat, found outside the house, might be the murder weapon. Spitz's tests lead him to a weapon inside the house.
Dr.WS: I would certainly believe that the flashlight is the instrument of death.
LC: What makes you so sure that it's compatible. How do you know?
Dr.WS: Because it fits right into the ....?.. It doesn't fit into the defect where it leaves some area to play with. It fits perfectly.
LC: Not any flashlight, but a specific type police reportedly found in the Ramsey home.
Dr.WS: The flashlight was raised above the head of the perpetrater and,a hand down,...with this portion , this wide, breaking the bone.
LC: So who did it? Here...forensic pathology comes up short. The autopsy tells Spitz only what was done, not by whom.

LC: There are other pieces of physical evidence from the JBR crime scene, fiber, DNA, that famous ransom note. Where that trail of physical evidence leads in a moment.
THE EVIDENCE:
LC: In the JBR case, even experienced investigaters disagree on what the forensic evidence means. This week, a retired detective who consulted on the case, argued that an intruder committed the murder. Other investigaters watch the parents. With no eye witnesses, finding the true killer hinges on the physical evidence. Much of the forensic testing of the case was done in the labs of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, just west of Denver. Technicians here used sophistocated document analysis; microscopic hair and fiber comparisons; DNA testing; each, has it's place in the Ramsey case which began with a concrete and tantilizing clue, a ransom note.
John D?: It's a viable connection between someone involved with the crime, and the crime itself.
LC: When Patsy Ramsey first called police on Dec. 26th 1996, she reportedly mentioned the ransom note she found on the stairs. Was it from a would be kidnapper, or a killer trying to disguise the nature of the crime? Forensic document analysis involves a lot of science, and a little art. First, technicians can identify the type of ink used with what's called a video spectral comparitor, under light invisible to the naked eye.
lady ?: For example, that a Parker pen under what is called an infrared luminescence will stay dark. However, the Penpal pen will luminous.
LC: In the Ramsey case, it's believed technicians were able to match the ink of the ransom note, to a pen from the Ramsey home. Who wrote the note? Document examiners look for a variety of characteristics.
Paige Doherty:..?.. would include, has features as the high relationship of letter; the formatting of the writing on the paper; proportions of letters; spacing between words and letters; the actual formations with the letters themselves.
LC: If enough characteristics match, the writer can be identified, but in this case, that never happened. Why?
John Osborne?: The writing is written in what appears to be a somewhat grotesque and laborious fashion.
LC: Because the Ramsey case is still open, investigators could not discuss the note, but we talked with John Osborne, an expert document examiner in New York.
JO: What can be said is that , at the beginning of the note, particularly the first page, contains evidence which suggests that it was disguised.
LC: At the beginning of the note, the letters betray a tremor in the hand of the writer, leading some experts to speculate the author was intentionally writing with the wrong hand. We showed Osborne printing samples from Patsy Ramsey, who some investigators believe may be the writer. He says there are many differences. For examples: her *u(s)* don't match the u(s) in the ransom note.
JO: The final finishing downward stroke on the right hand side of the u , such as in the word Boulder, as compared with the examples of the letter u from the ransom note which are completed in just simply an upward direction, without that finishing downward stroke.
LC: And he says, it's the type of detail even someone bent on disguising his or her handwriting, might not think of. It's one of several differences, he said, preclude him from identifyig Patsy Ramsey as the writer. In fact, document experts have been unable to positively identify anyone as the writer, which means a huge piece of evidence is of limited value for now.
JO: There may be a point at which the ransom note becomes very, very important, if another suspect or ..? is developed.
LC: Until then investigators ponder other evidence from the crime scene like hairs, and fibers. Microscopic analysis can reveal whether a fiber is natural or synthetic, because of differences in texture, and the way it absorbs dye. Technicians compare a fiber from the crime scene, one that's been linked to a suspect, using a comparison microscope.
Yavonne Woods?: ....?...microscope, can provide an occular?; bridge; so when you look through a set of binoculars, you can constitute 1/2 of the field of view so, when examing the fibers, using an actual side by side comparison.
LC: In the Ramsey case, it's been reported that the fibers found on the duct tape that covered JB's mouth, are consistant with fibers from her mother's clothing, but when John Ramsey found his daughter's body in a basement room., according to police documents, he said, he removed the tape from Jon Benet's mouth. In the process, he could have unwittingly contaminated the tape with fibers from Patsy's clothing. Again, what had first seemed like decisive evidence may be of little use. As for DNA testing, Osborne considered the most precise forensic science. In the Ramsey case, it only creates more mystery. It has been widely recorded that foreign DNA was found in JB's underwear. News reports published this week, say it was a man. But so far, tests have not matched any member of the Ramsey family, or anyone else police investigated. Another frustrating example, that how in this case, the promise of forensic evidence may not always deliver easy answers.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=docg;8807554]IIt's also important to realize that JonBenet's hair was entwined in both knots of the "garotte," making it highly unlikely for this to have been the means used in the initial attack. Since the thing had to have been knotted right on top of the victim. A living, struggling victim with her hair literally being pulled out of her head, would have made the tying of those knots impossible. So she had to have been unconscious or dead when the "garotte" was constructed.

QUOTE]

Can you elaborate on this, docg? I've heard this before, but dont quite understand why JB's hair being caught in the knot would mean anything, one way or the other. Someone before (maybe you) said her hair being in the knot proves that it wasn't used as a sex asphixia thing. I don''t get it...can you clarify?

[elvislives]

Thanks for posting that, Louisadelmar. I'm out of time tonight but I'll read thru it later.

Watson: where'd you go?? How come no one else is chiming in here on this fascinating topic?
This imo is the most interesting and confounding part of this case. I don't want this thread to die!!

[shill]

Thanks for posting that, Louisadelmar.
I liked the part about the handwriting in the RN that said, "At the beginning of the note, the letters betray a tremor in the hand of the writer, leading some experts to speculate the author was intentionally writing with the wrong hand".

Patsy is ambidextrous and her handwriting should be smooth with both hands.

What is also interesting to note about your post is that the cause of death was from the blow but that the garrote was already in play.
I theorized before that she was being strangled and at some point she got the chance to scream out, leading the perp to lash out with a blow to the head to silence her, thus changing his game plan.

[Louisadelmar]

Thanks for posting that, Louisadelmar. I'm out of time tonight but I'll read thru it later.

Watson: where'd you go?? How come no one else is chiming in here on this fascinating topic?
This imo is the most interesting and confounding part of this case. I don't want this thread to die!!

I think BPD worked so hard to make the head blow come first, with a span of time between it and the strangling, because that is the only timeline that would fit having a parent be the killer.

[thewhitewitch1]

Thanks for posting that, Louisadelmar.
I liked the part about the handwriting in the RN that said, "At the beginning of the note, the letters betray a tremor in the hand of the writer, leading some experts to speculate the author was intentionally writing with the wrong hand".

Patsy is ambidextrous and her handwriting should be smooth with both hands.

What is also interesting to note about your post is that the cause of death was from the blow but that the garrote was already in play.
I theorized before that she was being strangled and at some point she got the chance to scream out, leading the perp to lash out with a blow to the head to silence her, thus changing his game plan.


Is there any reason why someone writing with a "tremor" in their hand couldn't just be anxious and panicked?

[Tober]

I've heard this before, but dont quite understand why JB's hair being caught in the knot would mean anything, one way or the other. Someone before (maybe you) said her hair being in the knot proves that it wasn't used as a sex asphixia thing. I don''t get it...can you clarify?

Your question was for docg, but I'll give my opinion: It can be inferred, based on JonBenet's hair being entwined in the knots of the "fake garrote" (it didn't function as a true garrote), that she was unconscious while it was applied, and therefore, was part of the staging. This post is my opinion.

[Zoey]

Your question was for docg, but I'll give my opinion: It can be inferred, based on JonBenet's hair being entwined in the knots of the "fake garrote" (it didn't function as a true garrote), that she was unconscious while it was applied, and therefore, was part of the staging. This post is my opinion.


Not necessarily so. IMO, if someone was cruel enough to place a garrote around her neck, they were cruel enough to twist her hair in it. Perhaps this is when she screamed. The pain of having her hair caught in those knots. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

Your question was for docg, but I'll give my opinion: It can be inferred, based on JonBenet's hair being entwined in the knots of the "fake garrote" (it didn't function as a true garrote), that she was unconscious while it was applied, and therefore, was part of the staging.
For a "fake garrote that didn't function" it looks pretty real the way it cuts into her neck and remained that way when she was found. And the coroner was fooled by the "fake" because he listed it as a cause of her death.

This post is my opinion. (not really, because this post is a fake)

[bullmoose]

Your question was for docg, but I'll give my opinion: It can be inferred, based on JonBenet's hair being entwined in the knots of the "fake garrote" (it didn't function as a true garrote), that she was unconscious while it was applied, and therefore, was part of the staging. This post is my opinion.It is clearly inheritantly inferred by the fact that what you infer to be a fake garrote is actually a real one, insofar that it was so deeply imbedded into her neck that only the second loop was visible at the skin level. This infers that the term fake garrote is only appropriate when inferred to by 'fake inferrers', either inferrers so ignorant of the facts of the case that they wander around in a blissful fog' muttering to themselves the mantra 'Patsydidit, Patsydid it, Patsy did it!'; or to inferers that want it so bad to be the Ramseys that they can infer no other inference without popping a gasket. But this is a false inference[it doesn't really function as a true inference,lacking as it is in reality. This is JMHO, I infer nothing as indiputable.:biggrin:

[shill]

Is there any reason why someone writing with a "tremor" in their hand couldn't just be anxious and panicked?
Yes they could be anxious and panicked, but then the whole note would reflect that.
Is there any reason why someone writing with a "tremor" in their hand stopped being anxious and panicked in the middle of writing the note?
I would imagine they would get worse as they wrote realizing everything they were going to have to do to perpetuate this RN lie.

[Tober]

For a "fake garrote that didn't function" it looks pretty real the way it cuts into her neck and remained that way when she was found. And the coroner was fooled by the "fake" because he listed it as a cause of her death.

This post is my opinion. (not really, because this post is a fake)

I said it didn't function as a "true" garrote, meaning it didn't function in the typical manner in which a garrote is designed to function. The ligature was simply tied-off around JonBenet's neck with the paint brush handle added for effect. This post is my opinion.

[shill]

I said it didn't function as a "true" garrote, meaning it didn't function in the typical manner in which a garrote is designed to function. The ligature was simply tied-off around JonBenet's neck with the paint brush handle added for effect. This post is my opinion.

It was a noose that tightens when you pull on the handle. Call it what you want, it's still quite effective for strangling someone as seen in the autopsy photos.
This post is my neck in a noose opinion.

[andU]

Tober,
She died of aspyxiation (sp?) associated with.... the thing around her neck worked, have ya read the coroner's report and viewed the photos?

[rashomon]

Lousadelmar: thanks so much for posting exerpts from the autopsy report and also for digging up the pivotal interview with Dr. Werner Spitz in your #93 and #94 posts on this thread!

Excerpts:
Guest Forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz

LC: From the day the body was found, investigators knew that Jon Benet Ramsey, suffered a severe blow to the head, as well as strangulation with a cord. But which came first? Determining that could tell a great deal about the motive and the killer. Investigators speculate strangulation first could mean a sex crime. If the blow came first, it might point to a kidnapper or a crime of rage. Dr.Werner 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. And there's always then another question: was Jon Benet sexually assaulted, and when? Experts disagree, but Spitz's review tells him that Jon Benet had no history of sexual abuse. But a splinter found during the autopsy tells him she was sexually assaulted at the time of her death, perhaps with the artist's paintbrush tied to the cord around her neck.
Dr.WS: I believe that this..?.pressure occurred at the time that she died, or just before, or during.
LC: But Spitz thinks the sexual assault was an attempt to disguise the crime scene, to make it look like a sex crime.
...
Dr.WS: I believe that the injury to the head was first, knocked her out. I think everything else here was staging.
So there is no doubt in Dr. Spitz' mind that the head injury occurred first.
Interesting also that Spitz states that JB did have blood clots. He probably knows far more than the autopsy report says, since he reviewed more than 100 autopsy photos which were never released to the public.

[Louisadelmar]

Unfortunately Spitz seems to be focused on whether or not she was dead when strangled and not how much time could have elapsed between the two injuries. It would seem to me that the time must have been fairly minimal which would not allow for an explosive situation in her bedroom/bath and then Patsy moving her downstairs (where the urine stain suggests she was strangled), then Patsy searching for and finding rope and making the noose.

Added: I did think it was interesting he did not believe there was prior abuse

LC: Jon Benet eyes did show this pattern of hemmoraging, indicating, Spitz says, that her heart was still beating when the noose was applied. And there's always then another question: was Jon Benet sexually assaulted, and when? Experts disagree, but Spitz's review tells him that Jon Benet had no history of sexual abuse. But a splinter found during the autopsy tells him she was sexually assaulted at the time of her death, perhaps with the artist's paintbrush tied to the cord around her neck.

[rashomon]

It is clearly inheritantly inferred by the fact that what you infer to be a fake garrote is actually a real one, insofar that it was so deeply imbedded into her neck that only the second loop was visible at the skin level.
Bullmoose: not every ligature which is deeply embedded in the neck is a 'garrote'. The deep embedding btw could also have been caused by post-mortem swelling of the surrounding skin.

Dr. Meyer called the knot around JB's neck 'a double knot', and obviously a ligature tied with a fixed double knot around the neck could not have been used as any 'breath control' device in erotic asphyxiation. In JB's case, the perp probably simply crossed two ends of a ligature, pulled tight and then tied a knot. This has nothing to do with applying a garrote.
And the fact that JB's hair was entwined in the knot itself (for this was what Tober stressd in his/her post) points to the stager of the scene tying this knot at the back of JB's neck while the child was unconcscious.
And dont forget that B's hair was found in the wrappings of the garrote too - forensic evidence which also meshes with the scenario described above.

Here is what Tober wrote:
[Tober to Elvislives]
Your question was for docg, but I'll give my opinion: It can be inferred, based on JonBenet's hair being entwined in the knots of the "fake garrote" (it didn't function as a true garrote), that she was unconscious while it was applied, and therefore, was part of the staging. This post is my opinion.

[Louisadelmar]

Was the hair in the knot still attached to her head or had it been pulled out?

[Louisadelmar]

http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote4.jpg

http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote2.jpg

[nuisanceposter]

Your question was for docg, but I'll give my opinion: It can be inferred, based on JonBenet's hair being entwined in the knots of the "fake garrote" (it didn't function as a true garrote), that she was unconscious while it was applied, and therefore, was part of the staging. This post is my opinion.

It can also be inferred, from the total and complete lack of defensive wounds and/or any sign of a struggle whatsoever in applying and tightening this ligature on JonBenet's neck, that she was unconscious when it was applied and tightened. Also indicating her absolute lack of resistance is the relatively undamaged quality of the interior of her neck, the unmarred and unbitten interior of her mouth and tongue, and the way the ligature lies in equidistant circumference around her neck.

She didn't fight the person who tied the ligature around her neck, and she didn't try to claw the cord off her neck. Her long johns and underwear were urine-stained from post-mortem bladder release in the front and in the crotch. There was a paint chip on her face and abrasions on her chin, and a bruise area on her shoulder that looks like she was held down while the ligature was tightened. IMO, she was completely unconscious from the head wound and lying face-down on the floor when she was strangled to death.

[andU]

It can also be inferred, from the total and complete lack of defensive wounds and/or any sign of a struggle whatsoever in applying and tightening this ligature on JonBenet's neck, that she was unconscious when it was applied and tightened. Also indicating her absolute lack of resistance is the relatively undamaged quality of the interior of her neck, the unmarred and unbitten interior of her mouth and tongue, and the way the ligature lies in equidistant circumference around her neck.

She didn't fight the person who tied the ligature around her neck, and she didn't try to claw the cord off her neck. Her long johns and underwear were urine-stained from post-mortem bladder release in the front and in the crotch. There was a paint chip on her face and abrasions on her chin, and a bruise area on her shoulder that looks like she was held down while the ligature was tightened. IMO, she was completely unconscious from the head wound and lying face-down on the floor when she was strangled to death.

If all of what you state is proven to be true, it can also be inferred that there could very well have been two perps, one holding her down, unless you infer that she was held down with the perp's foot. But, wait! Wasn't there mentioned 'somewhere' something about a foot print on her throat?

[nuisanceposter]

Why couldn't the killer have placed one hand on her back and pulled the cord ever tighter with the other?

I have never heard there was a footprint on JonBenet's throat. Good lord, I hope that's not true. That poor little girl.

[Zoey]

Why couldn't the killer have placed one hand on her back and pulled the cord ever tighter with the other?

I have never heard there was a footprint on JonBenet's throat. Good lord, I hope that's not true. That poor little girl.


I am surprised you missed it on Websleuths. There is a whole thread whereas someone claims the mark on her neck looks like a 5. Someone then posted that their son had a pair of boots that have a 5 on the bottom of them. He had had them for a number of years, so the poster knew they were around in 1996. I found it by doing a google on marks on JonBenet's neck. Sorry, I don't keep links to Webslueths in my bookmarks.

[rashomon]

Was the hair in the knot still attached to her head or had it been pulled out?
I don't know if there exists a crime scene photo on the net where one can can see the back of JB's neck with the ligature still on her.
All I could find were these pictures on the ACandyRose site.
I have no idea how reliable a "Lou Smit presentation" is (the caption under the photos says it they are from his presentation), but here we can see the ligature around her neck and plenty of her hair under it.
[Attention - graphic photos!]:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfacemarks.jpg

Picture from the back of JB's neck with the ligature removed:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetneckback.jpg

(In that picture btw one can also clearly see that JB's hair was freshly dyed).

Interesting to not: the ligature was perfectly circumferential, which again points to it being applied to an inert victim.

[Zoey]

I don't think that there exists a crime scene photo on the net where one can can see the back of JB's neck with the ligature still on her.

I have no idea how reliable a "Lou Smit presentation" is (the caption under the photos says it they are from his presentaiton), but here we can see the ligature around her neck and plenty of her hair under it.
[Attention:graphic photos!]:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfacemarks.jpg

Picture from the back of JB's neck with the ligature removed:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetneckback.jpg

(In that picture btw one can also clearly see that JB's hair was freshly dyed).

Interesting to not: the ligature was perfectly circumferential, which again points to it being applied to an inert victim.

I'm sorry, am I missing something? I can't tell at at all that her hair was dyed. Not saying you are not correct in your assumption, I am just asking. How can you tell in a crime scene photo that her hair was freshly dyed? Freshly as in that day? Freshly as in a week or two before?

[Zoey]

Bullmoose: not every ligature which is deeply embedded in the neck is a 'garrote'. The deep embedding btw could also have been caused by post-mortem swelling of the surrounding skin.

Dr. Meyer called the knot around JB's neck 'a double knot', and obviously a ligature tied with a fixed double knot around the neck could not have been used as any 'breath control' device in erotic asphyxiation. In JB's case, the perp probably simply crossed two ends of a ligature, pulled tight and then tied a knot. This has nothing to do with applying a garrote.
And the fact that JB's hair was entwined in the knot itself (for this was what Tober stressd in his/her post) points to the stager of the scene tying this knot at the back of JB's neck while the child was unconcscious.
And dont forget that B's hair was found in the wrappings of the garrote too - forensic evidence which also meshes with the scenario described above.

Here is what Tober wrote:

Rashomon, is this a typo? B's hair was found.....
You do mean JB's right? I wanted to make sure I had not missed something and you were saying Burke's hair had been found in the wrappings, because I have never, ever read that.

TIA for clearing this up for me.

[elvislives]

I think BPD worked so hard to make the head blow come first, with a span of time between it and the strangling, because that is the only timeline that would fit having a parent be the killer.

This imo is the reason this case was never brought to trial. They were married to the PDI accidentally theory early on and that was the prevailing public opinion. That theory can be turned upside-down by the autopsy report and imo would raise reasonable doubt.

[elvislives]

Your question was for docg, but I'll give my opinion: It can be inferred, based on JonBenet's hair being entwined in the knots of the "fake garrote" (it didn't function as a true garrote), that she was unconscious while it was applied, and therefore, was part of the staging. This post is my opinion.

Thanks for replying, Tober, but I'm still missing something here.
Why would the fact that JB's hair is entwined in the rope make it a fake garrotte?
I dont know much about garrotes, but suppose someone was going to strangle someone with a 'real' garrote and they entangled the victims hair. Would that make it fake...just because her hair was tangled in it? I'm just not understanding this rationale. What am I missing??

[elvislives]

Unfortunately Spitz seems to be focused on whether or not she was dead when strangled and not how much time could have elapsed between the two injuries. It would seem to me that the time must have been fairly minimal which would not allow for an explosive [/I]

EXACTLY! I am willing to concede that she was alive when bashed on the head....I just don't think she lived for very long. I would be surprised if she even lived for 5 minutes after that head wound was inflicted based on the lack of any significant hemorrhage, swelling, or wound organization.

[elvislives]

And the fact that JB's hair was entwined in the knot itself (for this was what Tober stressd in his/her post) points to the stager of the scene tying this knot at the back of JB's neck while the child was unconcscious. [/B]And dont forget that B's hair was found in the wrappings of the garrote too - forensic evidence which also meshes with the scenario described above.

Here is what Tober wrote:

Sorry, but can someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old? I am missing something here.
How does her hair being entwined prove anything? Are you saying that someone who was going to intentionally strangle her to death would be considerate enough not to pull her hair?
I am misunderstanding something here.

[nuisanceposter]

When he says "fake", he means it was staging, which came after the head wound. Many RDI believe the Rs may not have realized JB was still alive when the cord was tied around her neck, and thought they were tying the cord on a dead child. That makes it a "fake"strangulation.

You have to account for the fact that JonBenet offered no struggle at all to having the cord tied around her neck and tightened until she strangled to death. There are no defense wounds on her hands, arms, feet, shins, anywhere. There is no skin under her nails indicating she struggled with her killer or that she tried to claw the cord off. The insides of her cheeks and her tongue were unblemished, when usually a strangulation victim ends up biting their tongue and cheeks while struggling to breathe. There was very little damage to the interior structures of her neck, such as the hyoid bone and the thyroid and cricoid cartileges. No bruising or hemmorhaging of the strap muscles of the neck, all of which indicate she was not conscious to struggle for her life. Then there's the urine staining the front and crotch of her clothes, indicating she was strangled face-down. How are you going to strangle a healthy 6 year old child to death face-down with no resistance and no struggle whatsoever unless she was already unconscious from the head wound?

[nuisanceposter]

Sorry, but can someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old? I am missing something here.
How does her hair being entwined prove anything? Are you saying that someone who was going to intentionally strangle her to death would be considerate enough not to pull her hair?
I am misunderstanding something here.

Right...the supposition here is that someone who meant to construct a garotte to torture JonBenet with would have made sure that her hair was not wrapped up in the ligature, as it would hinder the use of it. Perhaps they would even have constructed it before they put it on her, to make it easier and quicker to apply and enact. But no...the garotte was "built" on JonBenet's neck, as evidenced by the hair from her head that's caught in it. Many people do not believe a child would have sat still and allowed someone to tie a cord around her neck and strangle her with it, with her hair caught in it and making it even more painful, without her struggling to free herself and get away while it was happening.

She didn't struggle at all - not when the cord was tied around her neck, not when it was pulled tight, and not when she drew her last breath and died.

[Louisadelmar]

Sorry, but can someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old? I am missing something here.
How does her hair being entwined prove anything? Are you saying that someone who was going to intentionally strangle her to death would be considerate enough not to pull her hair?
I am misunderstanding something here.

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.

[elvislives]

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.

[elvislives]

Elvislives, I have opened a thread on Forums for Justice ("Time span between head blow and strangulation").
Here is the link:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=137641#post137641

In this thread there is another (very interesting!) link to the topic of 'blood organization'.

Interesting to note that the #3 poster said the autopsy report does mention some clots.
#4 poster said that many head trauma patients show very little swelling on the outside of the head.

Another poster also mentioned Dr.Tom Henry, who also said there was clotting of the blood.

Dr. Kirschner (who is mentioned in the same article as Dr. Wright) was also of the opinion that the head blow came first.

I'll try to find the source for Dr. Werner Spitz's statement. Dr. Spitz's theory is that JB was manually strangled first (by the twisting of her collar for example), then bashed on the head when she was already unconscious, and after some time elapsed the garrote scene was staged.


I can't find any mention of clots in the autopsy report. Can anyone help? TIA

[rashomon]

What about the FACT that there was no injury to her scalp or the outside of her head?? This implies that the killer put a pillow or a blanket over her head before wacking her in the head. Otherwide her head would have bled all over the place.
A poster with medical knowledge (Elvislives) wrote that since children have softer skulls than adults, injuries of the type JB suffered don't necessarily produce scalp wounds too.

[Louisadelmar]

I can't find any mention of clots in the autopsy report. Can anyone help? TIA

I think poster #3 at FFJ was wrong. There is nothing about clots in the autopsy.

Do the 'clear halos' around the cortical neurons and glial cells mean anything? Would these halos change depending on the time between injury and death?

Thanks.


. Skull and Brain: Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 X 4 inches. This grossly appears to be a fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization.

Brain: Sections from the areas of contusion disclose disrupted blood vessels of the cortex with surrounding hemorrhage. There is no evidence of inflammatory infiltrate or organization of the hemorrhage. Subarachnoid hemorrhage is also identified. Cortical neurons are surrounded by clear halos, as are glial cells.

[rashomon]

I can't find any mention of clots in the autopsy report. Can anyone help? TIA
Maybe Dr. Spitz who has seen 100 unpublished autopsy photos knows more about it than the written autopsy report says? For example, the autopsy report may not specifically have mentioned the clotted blood, but merely the fresh hemorrhage?

A poster on FFJ also wrote that the 'fresh hemorrhage' doesn't necessarily mean that JB died within a minute or two of the head injury, but that it may just mean the bleeding continued after the initial injury.

[elvislives]

Right...the supposition here is that someone who meant to construct a garotte to torture JonBenet with would have made sure that her hair was not wrapped up in the ligature, as it would hinder the use of it. Perhaps they would even have constructed it before they put it on her, to make it easier and quicker to apply and enact. But no...the garotte was "built" on JonBenet's neck, as evidenced by the hair from her head that's caught in it. Many people do not believe a child would have sat still and allowed someone to tie a cord around her neck and strangle her with it, with her hair caught in it and making it even more painful, without her struggling to free herself and get away while it was happening.

She didn't struggle at all - not when the cord was tied around her neck, not when it was pulled tight, and not when she drew her last breath and died.


Okay I'm slow but I think I get it now. Thanks for the explanation.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=nuisanceposter;8808512]When he says "fake", he means it was staging, which came after the head wound. Many RDI believe the Rs may not have realized JB was still alive when the cord was tied around her neck, and thought they were tying the cord on a dead child. That makes it a "fake"strangulation.

QUOTE]

I have a VERY hard time with this theory. JB would have been warm, breathing, with a pulse and had no external evidence of the massive head injury. I don't believe for a second that anyone thought this child was dead when they strangled her. jmo

[elvislives]

A poster with medical knowledge (Elvislives) wrote that since children have softer skulls than adults, injuries of the type JB suffered don't necessarily produce scalp wounds too.

That is true. I have heard people say that the fact that her scalp did not bleed is proof that an intruder did it because they obviously put something over her head to buffer the blow. This is a common misconception. It is not at all uncommon for children to have fractured skulls without external evidence.

The other common misconception is that there was a lot of blood in the brain. Relative to the enormity of the skull fracture there was relatively little blood.

I am extremely bothered by this because imo if the Rs did it, it was no accident.

I wish I could share with you all some of the autopsy photos available at the hospital where I work. Head trauma like JBs is extremely bloody--massive hemorrhage and swelling of the brain. There are also lots of cases (usually children) where skulls are fractured without external damage.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=Louisadelmar;8808784]I think poster #3 at FFJ was wrong. There is nothing about clots in the autopsy.

Do the 'clear halos' around the cortical neurons and glial cells mean anything? Would these halos change depending on the time between injury and death?

Thanks.

[I]

Thanks, Louisa. Regarding the halos, they are not significant. This ME mentions a lot of things in his report that are normal. Most autopsies will just say that a particular structure was 'unremarkable'(meaning no abnormalities or injuries) but this report describes a number of things that are totally normal--I think he was trying to be extremely thorough since he knew the whole world would be dissecting his report. jmo

[shill]

Lousadelmar: thanks so much for posting exerpts from the autopsy report and also for digging up the pivotal interview with Dr. Werner Spitz in your #93 and #94 posts on this thread!


So there is no doubt in Dr. Spitz' mind that the head injury occurred first.


Your taking that out of context.
He clearly states the strangulation with the garrote came first.
He states the head blow was the first cause of her death.

[elvislives]

Maybe Dr. Spitz who has seen 100 unpublished autopsy photos knows more about it than the written autopsy report says? For example, the autopsy report may not specifically have mentioned the clotted blood, but merely the fresh hemorrhage?

A poster on FFJ also wrote that the 'fresh hemorrhage' doesn't necessarily mean that JB died within a minute or two of the head injury, but that it may just mean the bleeding continued after the initial injury.

Autopsy reports of people with head injury ALWAYS specify whether there was clot organization. This is a very significant part of the autopsy for head trauma pts.

And 'fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization' means there was NO evidence of organization. Even when wounds continue bleeding (as most do unless they are very minor) the platelets are still aggregating and adhering to one another (organizing). This is easily identified microscopically but was not observed in this case.

[shill]

When he says "fake", he means it was staging, which came after the head wound. Many RDI believe the Rs may not have realized JB was still alive when the cord was tied around her neck, and thought they were tying the cord on a dead child. That makes it a "fake"strangulation.

You have to account for the fact that JonBenet offered no struggle at all to having the cord tied around her neck and tightened until she strangled to death. There are no defense wounds on her hands, arms, feet, shins, anywhere. There is no skin under her nails indicating she struggled with her killer or that she tried to claw the cord off. The insides of her cheeks and her tongue were unblemished, when usually a strangulation victim ends up biting their tongue and cheeks while struggling to breathe. There was very little damage to the interior structures of her neck, such as the hyoid bone and the thyroid and cricoid cartileges. No bruising or hemmorhaging of the strap muscles of the neck, all of which indicate she was not conscious to struggle for her life. Then there's the urine staining the front and crotch of her clothes, indicating she was strangled face-down. How are you going to strangle a healthy 6 year old child to death face-down with no resistance and no struggle whatsoever unless she was already unconscious from the head wound?Her hands were restrained and her pants were pulled down around her ankles. That makes it hard for her to kick and claw.

But if you believe it's all staging and lies, then anything is possible I guess.

[Louisadelmar]

Your taking that out of context.
He clearly states the strangulation with the garrote came first.
He states the head blow was the first cause of her death.

No I think he thinks she was hit on the head first but he muddies it all up with that talk about her not being dead when she was strangled.


How would her autopsy differ if she was strangled and then bashed on the head. What did that article say? 10 seconds to unconsciousness? Somewhere Smit mentions fingernail marks on her throat. I'll see if I can find it.

[Tober]

Delmar England's Garrote Analysis might help you understand what we're saying: http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis2.htm and http://www.acandyrose.com/05262001delmaranalysis3.htm

[Sprocket]

Somewhere Smit mentions fingernail marks on her throat. I'll see if I can find it.

But does the autopsy report identify these as fingernail marks?

[Sprocket]

double post

[Louisadelmar]

But does the autopsy report identify these as fingernail marks?

No, but I wouldn't expect it to. The coroner wouldn't do more than describe the marks. Not what caused them. However I don't see any relevant description of marks in the autopsy that aren't classified as petechiae. That's why I'm curious to go back and find exactly what Smit said.

[thewhitewitch1]

Her hands were restrained and her pants were pulled down around her ankles. That makes it hard for her to kick and claw.

But if you believe it's all staging and lies, then anything is possible I guess.


I would like to know where you get your information. Nowhere have I ever read that her pants were pulled down around her ankles. JR never said that, Linda Arndt never said it...no one who saw her body those first few minutes said it. Is this just your opinion or are you somehow privy to inside information? If so, please prove it and let us know your source.

[Kor]

I am extremely bothered by this because imo if the Rs did it, it was no accident.



I think it just strange for JB to be brought to the basement just to get strangled and molested if one of Ramsey did it. I am still unsure if her head blow came before strangled or after, but her being brought to the basement doesn't fit to either of Ramsey. I am not convinced that it was an accident or one of Ramsey did it since there's urine stain on floor outside of wine cellar among with some other evidences suggesting where JB was killed. I believe the similarity of these evidences would make a huge difference comparing to if they found them in JB's room or elsewhere upstairs. Makes no sense to me for either of Ramsey to conceal the killing of JB in the basement of the house they lived in.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Interpreting-the-Evidence
Where JB was killed;
Hallway Outside Wine Cellar Room. There was a urine stain on the floor immediately outside that room, and a few feet away was the paint tote containing the remaining piece of the paintbrush used for a garrote; small bits of paintbrush handle also were found at the same location, suggesting this is where the garrotte was made. Jameson asserts "most investigators" believe this is the area in which she was killed.

[Louisadelmar]

I think if Spitz looked at 100 autopsy photographs, it is probably fair to assume Smit did as well.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/28/lkl.00.html
SMIT: Never recorded history where a family member -- a mother or a father has garroted their child. Child strangulation is very rare. Usually when a person is involved in the death of their child, the child is hit on the head or pushed into something, to take -- to take a piece of rope, fashion a garrote, put it on the child's neck, she is definitely struggling at the time that this is put on the neck, there are fingernail marks in her neck, which suggest very strongly, that she was awake, when this happened.

http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/122001/coverstory.html
Then, perhaps to satisfy his own bloodlust or simply silence her, the intruder stunned JonBenet on her face to incapacitate her and then strangled her. While struggling to breathe, JonBenet clawed at the rope, which explains the deep fingernail marks on her neck. Before she could get free, the intruder struck her across the head with an aluminum baseball bat which police found on the north side of the house. The killer then left the house through the basement window, perhaps using the suitcase as a step-up to the window well.

From Jameson's site:
Lou Smit [...] But the most significant part of this particular photograph is that there's half-moon abrasions directly above the ligature.

General article on Smit's theory. Mentions fingernail marks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14395331/site/newsweek/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX

Years ago there was a theory on WS by Cutter that she’d been strangled by a curly telephone cord. He had pictures that appeared to show crescent marks, Unfortunately it must have been before 2003 because I can’t find them through google which suggests they are among the lost.

[thewhitewitch1]

I think if Spitz looked at 100 autopsy photographs, it is probably fair to assume Smit did as well.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0105/28/lkl.00.html
SMIT: Never recorded history where a family member -- a mother or a father has garroted their child. Child strangulation is very rare. Usually when a person is involved in the death of their child, the child is hit on the head or pushed into something, to take -- to take a piece of rope, fashion a garrote, put it on the child's neck, she is definitely struggling at the time that this is put on the neck, there are fingernail marks in her neck, which suggest very strongly, that she was awake, when this happened.

http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/122001/coverstory.html
Then, perhaps to satisfy his own bloodlust or simply silence her, the intruder stunned JonBenet on her face to incapacitate her and then strangled her. While struggling to breathe, JonBenet clawed at the rope, which explains the deep fingernail marks on her neck. Before she could get free, the intruder struck her across the head with an aluminum baseball bat which police found on the north side of the house. The killer then left the house through the basement window, perhaps using the suitcase as a step-up to the window well.

From Jameson's site:
Lou Smit [...] But the most significant part of this particular photograph is that there's half-moon abrasions directly above the ligature.

General article on Smit's theory. Mentions fingernail marks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14395331/site/newsweek/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX

Years ago there was a theory on WS by Cutter that she’d been strangled by a curly telephone cord. He had pictures that appeared to show crescent marks, Unfortunately it must have been before 2003 because I can’t find them through google which suggests they are among the lost.


Lou Smit will read something into anything that will support his intruder theory. I do not believe something just because he says so.
Who else has said that they were fingernail marks?

[Louisadelmar]

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.

[thewhitewitch1]

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.

Shouldn't it have been noted in the autopsy then? :shrug:

[shill]

I think it just strange for JB to be brought to the basement just to get strangled and molested if one of Ramsey did it. I am still unsure if her head blow came before strangled or after, but her being brought to the basement doesn't fit to either of Ramsey. I am not convinced that it was an accident or one of Ramsey did it since there's urine stain on floor outside of wine cellar among with some other evidences suggesting where JB was killed. I believe the similarity of these evidences would make a huge difference comparing to if they found them in JB's room or elsewhere upstairs. Makes no sense to me for either of Ramsey to conceal the killing of JB in the basement of the house they lived in.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Interpreting-the-Evidence
Where JB was killed;
Hallway Outside Wine Cellar Room. There was a urine stain on the floor immediately outside that room, and a few feet away was the paint tote containing the remaining piece of the paintbrush used for a garrote; small bits of paintbrush handle also were found at the same location, suggesting this is where the garrotte was made. Jameson asserts "most investigators" believe this is the area in which she was killed.
Doesn't fit with the RDI theory so it must be staged. The R's probably dipped into her toilet for some urine and poured it on the basement floor.

[nuisanceposter]

Shouldn't it have been noted in the autopsy then? :shrug:

Exactly. It should have. Meyer did not find any skin or any blood under JonBenet's nails - all he found some degraded DNA. If JonBenet's blood or skin, or anyone else's, had been found under JonBenet's nails, this case would be quite a bit different.

Lou Smit is outright WRONG when he says there was blood under her nails and she fought her attacker. Nothing about the state of her body, including her nails, indicates that she was awake and struggling while being strangled.

This is my number one problem with Lou Smit, and why I believe that he was brought in only to find an intruder, and will make claims to support that theory whether they're based on fact or not.

Find someone official, directly involved in the investigation, who had access to the actual autopsy report and autopsy slides and photos who says JonBenet had blood and/or skin under her nails and I may rethink my stance that Smit is lying about evidence to fit his theory. It's not in the autopsy, it's not in ST or PMPT, it's never been tested - there was no blood under her nails. Only Smit has ever said there was.

[rashomon]

Your taking that out of context.
He clearly states the strangulation with the garrote came first.
He states the head blow was the first cause of her death.
I have not taken anything out of context, for Dr. Spitz did NOT state that the strangulation with the garrote came first.
Dr. Spitz verbatim (see # 94 post on this thread):

Dr.WS: "I believe that the injury to the head was first, knocked her out. I think everything else here was staging."

[rashomon]

I think if Spitz looked at 100 autopsy photographs, it is probably fair to assume Smit did as well.

But unlike Dr. Spitz, Smit is no medical expert, therefore looking at photos of JB's hemorrhaged brain probably would not have told him much.
Jmpo, but I doubt if Smit ever looked at much. Without ever having read the file, he came forward on the third day, telling the BPD. "I don't think it was the Ramseys", and that was it. All the way through, he acted more like their defense lawyer than like an independent investigator.

[Louisadelmar]

But unlike Dr. Spitz, Smit is no medical expert, therefore looking at photos of JB's hemorrhaged brain probably would not have told him much.
Jmpo, but I doubt if Smit ever looked at much. Without ever having read the file, he came forward on the third day, telling the BPD. "I don't think it was the Ramseys", and that was it. All the way through, he acted more like their defense lawyer than like an independent investigator.

What makes you believe he never looked at the file?

http://www.jameson245.com/doc2usa.htm
The Elite - Court TV - November 7th, 2002

[…]NARRATOR - During his 32 year career, Smit investigated more than 200 murders. He solved over 90 per cent of them. He never lost a case in court. He'd worked for the Colorado Springs Police Department, DA's office and coroner. His last job was running homicide investigations for the El Paso County Sheriff's Office.
Under Smit, the sheriff's office cleared up all its unsolved murders and even solved older cases that had been closed.
LOU SMIT (looking at photo album, talking about arrest in Dawn Church case) - Boy that was something, the day we caught him, we must have had fifty cars all lined up there.... .
NARRATOR - The decision to involve Smit in the Ramsey case was widely approved.
JOHN ANDERSON - That was a brilliant decision. In crime scene investigation, Lou's the very best. He's been there. He's been there in the field. He's seen those. He just didn't read about them, he'd actually been there over and over and over. Lou Smit, is the very best violent crimes homicide detective that I know.
NARRATOR - By the time Smit joined the investigation, the couple were being hounded everywhere they went.
One of their lawyers, worried by Smit's appointment, telephoned Colorado's former chief public defender, Greg Walta, to ask about him.
GREG WALTA - "He knew I'd tried cases against Smit. I told him that if the Ramsey's were guilty, they'd better look out because Smit would nail them and if they were guilty not to let them talk to Smit. He'd get under their skin and he'd get information that would kill them. On the other hand, I told him that if they were innocent, go ahead and cooperate, because this guy has integrity. He'll follow that evidence wherever it goes, and if it leads away from the Ramsey's, he would follow it.
NARRATOR - Smit, driving his family's camper van, arrived in Boulder three months after the killing. His task - to investigate the murder for the DA's office and to pass on his findings to the police leading the investigation. He didn't think it would take long.
LOU SMIT driving van - "It seemed as though the parents were probably involved in it. From what I'd seen in the newspapers and heard on television was that there'd been snow all around the house, there were no footprints in the snow, how could anyone get into the house? The ransom note was supposedly written inside the house. I thought this would be a fairly easy case. I thought it would be a slam dunk.
NARRATOR - At first, the police welcomed Smit's arrival. One detective referred to his "terrific reputation". And indeed, his first discoveries would be dramatic.
[…]

[Louisadelmar]

I can't find a quote of Smit saying she had "blood under her fingernails." Could someone point me in the right direction or, better yet, give me a link? Thanks.

[LindaA]

I would like to know where you get your information. Nowhere have I ever read that her pants were pulled down around her ankles. JR never said that, Linda Arndt never said it...no one who saw her body those first few minutes said it. Is this just your opinion or are you somehow privy to inside information? If so, please prove it and let us know your source.

I don't think Shiull was referring to the time when her body was found. One can infer that if something had been inserted into her vagina, her pants would have to have been pulled down at some time during the commission of the crime. This post is my opinion.

[cami]

Hey there Watson. I am glad you have readdressed this issue. I have grown weary of the debate and in an attempt to maintain my sanity, I have just let others say that the head blow came 20-60 minutes before her death, which of course is ridiculous.
Incidently I have exchanged a few emails with Ronald Wright MD and as I suspected, his comments were taken out of context.
He said that he was asked that if a child sustained a massive blow which cracked the skull, how long would it take for the heart to stop beating. His reply was the standard 20-60 minutes. He was NOT considering the strangulation at all...he was only asked about the head wound.
I now feel bad for criticizing him...he was just misquoted by a reporter.
I wasn't able to link to his emails in my outlook to this board without revealing my personal identity. No offense to anyone here, but I don't want any of you freaks showing up on my front door...:eek: I am sure there's a way--I'll see if I can figure it out.

LOL right back at ya....I wouldn't want you showing up at my door either.

[thewhitewitch1]

I don't think Shiull was referring to the time when her body was found. One can infer that if something had been inserted into her vagina, her pants would have to have been pulled down at some time during the commission of the crime. This post is my opinion.

Duh to me. You're probably right, of course. I must have misread or misinterpruted his statement. Sorry.

[Sprocket]

NARRATOR - The decision to involve Smit in the Ramsey case was widely approved.
JOHN ANDERSON - That was a brilliant decision. In crime scene investigation, Lou's the very best. He's been there. He's been there in the field. He's seen those

Can anyone say with any certainty they know the types of cases Smit was involved in solving? Did Smit have the investigate experience to adequately evaluate cases that involved staging?

When the FBI CASKU unit arrived on the scene, they immediately recognized the ransom note for what it was, staging to direct police away from closely scruitinizing the Ramseys.

Didn't Smit at one time say, something to the effect of (and I'm paraphrasing here), Things are usually what they appear to be on the surface. This comment tells me, my opinion, that Smit didn't have the experience to evaluate cases with staging. But the FBI CASKU does. They've seen it all.

[bullmoose]

Can anyone say with any certainty they know the types of cases Smit was involved in solving? Did Smit have the investigate experience to adequately evaluate cases that involved staging?

When the FBI CASKU unit arrived on the scene, they immediately recognized the ransom note for what it was, staging to direct police away from closely scruitinizing the Ramseys.

Didn't Smit at one time say, something to the effect of (and I'm paraphrasing here), Things are usually what they appear to be on the surface. This comment tells me, my opinion, that Smit didn't have the experience to evaluate cases with staging. But the FBI CASKU does. They've seen it all.When did the FBI CASKU unit arrive on the scene, Sprocket?Link, please, I 've been under the impression all this time that the FBI installed taps and traps on the phone lines, but were in fact waved off the case by Eller, who said something to the effect We can handle it.

[rashomon]

What makes you believe he never looked at the file?
ST mentions in his book that Smit had been around for only about seventy-two hours, not anywhere near enough to devour the case material, when he told the investigators "I don't think it was the Ramseys". Smit never budged from that position.

[rashomon]

No I think he thinks she was hit on the head first but he muddies it all up with that talk about her not being dead when she was strangled..
Dr. Spitz does not muddy anything up, but is clear as a bell. He states that the head injury came first, but that the child was not yet dead when the cord was tied around her neck.
How would her autopsy differ if she was strangled and then bashed on the head.
If she had been strangled to death first and the head blow came afterward, no brain hemorrhage nor brain swelling could have occurred.

[Louisadelmar]

Dr. Spitz does not muddy anything up, but is clear as a bell. He states that the head injury came first, but that the child was not yet dead when the cord was tied around her neck.

If she had been strangled to death first, no brain hemorrhage nor brain swelling could have occurred.

I didn't say strangled to death. What if she was strangled to unconsciousness and THEN bashed on the head?

[Louisadelmar]

I wish this autopsy was online.


http://www.cincypost.com/news/1999/rebhol111799.html
[…]
In 1963, investigators said Ms. Rebholz had been seized by the throat, strangled to unconsciousness and her skull crushed by repeated blows from a section of a wooden fence post.
An autopsy concluded the death was the result of severe blows to the head. Time of death was between 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. Friends at an American Legion Hall dance said Ms. Rebholz had left the dance alone at 9:30 p.m. to walk to Wehrung's home. It takes from five to eight minutes to walk from the Legion hall to the Wehrung house.

http://www.cincypost.com/2001/nov/28/murder112801.html
Coroner: Cheerleader was brutally beaten
By Kimball Perry, Post staff reporter
Patricia Rebholz was strangled unconscious, dragged away by her feet and then beaten so brutally that pieces of her skull were embedded in her brain.
Former Hamilton County Coroner Frank Cleveland presented that gruesome scenario in testimony via videotape Wednesday during the murder trial of Michael Wehrung.
Despite the brutal nature of the beating, Cleveland testified, Miss Rebholz had no defensive wounds on her body.
''In my opinion, the initial assault on Patricia Rebholz involved the manual strangulation ... that reduced her incapable of voicing any sounds,'' Cleveland testified.[…]

[bullmoose]

ST mentions in his book that Smit had been around for only about seventy-two hours, not anywhere near enough to devour the case material, when he told the investigators "I don't think it was the Ramseys". Smit never budged from that position.I don't know what page that was on, but it does make sense that he has never budged from that position, since he has never seen any evidence pointing to them since.:biggrin:

[Louisadelmar]

I don't know what page that was on, but it does make sense that he has never budged from that position, since he has never seen any evidence pointing to them since.:biggrin:

P. 169. It was more than 3 days after coming on the case. Thomas says "soon" after coming on the case he went for coffee with Smit. Smit said "Murders are usually what they seem. Rarely are they perfectly planned." Three days after that Smit says he doesn't think it was the Ramseys. So what's soon? 3 days? A week? 2 days? 2 weeks?

[Louisadelmar]

Missed the window :-(


Schiller says Smit was hired March 17 (p.322) but suggests later it was mid-April when Smit began questioning the Ramseys guilt (P. 362)

[bullmoose]

P. 169. It was more than 3 days after coming on the case. Thomas says "soon" after coming on the case he went for coffee with Smit. Smit said "Murders are usually what they seem. Rarely are they perfectly planned." Three days after that Smit says he doesn't think it was the Ramseys. So what's soon? 3 days? A week? 2 days? 2 weeks?Thanks,for the info; I have to add my two cents worth, that is, just because there were thousands of pages, as Thomas says of case files
why would it be out of order to express his opinion on the case based on what he was finding out about the case.? Maybe this is an unfair comparison, but how many days after Jonbenet's murder was it that Eller told the Boulder mayor, Durgin, that it was the Ramseys that done the murder?Did Eller ever budge from that position? Why is it okay for the BPD to come to a snap decision on the case, but not okay for an investigator whose murder investigative experience was unmatched by the entire BPD to express his opinion of the same case? Seems a little bit unbalanced to me. Of course this is JMHO.:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

Missed the window :-(


Schiller says Smit was hired March 17 (p.322) but suggests later it was mid-April when Smit began questioning the Ramseys guilt (P. 362)Thanks; in light of this update on Smit's time on the case, I would have to say that blows the three day myth of Steve Thomas' Twisterpiece clean out of the water.:biggrin:

[Zoey]

Elvislives doesn't know what he's talking about. Do you really think someone could bash you on the head and crack your skull and your head wouldn't even bleed? That is ridiculous. And since when do children have soft heads? If there head was soft it wouldn't crack. Obviously a pillow or blanket was put over her head before she was struck. Nothing else makes sense.


Whiskey, with all due respect, have you even read the autopsy report? Elvislives is not saying anything that the autopsy report does not already say. The head wound bled a very minimal amount on the inside. That is why no one knew, until the autopsy was performed, that she had even been bashed in the head.

[bullmoose]

Elvislives doesn't know what he's talking about. Do you really think someone could bash you on the head and crack your skull and your head wouldn't even bleed? That is ridiculous. And since when do children have soft heads? If there head was soft it wouldn't crack. Obviously a pillow or blanket was put over her head before she was struck. Nothing else makes sense.I don't want to pop your bubble, whiskey, but there is a term out of the 1800's, called 'sandbagging'. this was done to prospective sailors that were being shanghaied or kidnapped. The reason sandbagging was used as opposed to clubs is it left no visible mark and was less likely to kill. I think what elvislives says or means is that young children's skulls are softer and more flexible, less likely to fracture than an adult's skull. As we age, our skulls fracture easier.To me, the fracture that Jonbenet suffered indicates an extremely violent blow. JMHO

[Zoey]

You are missig my point. I KNOW the head wound didnt bleed very much-of course I read the autopsy report. What I am saying is that an intruder placed a blanket over her head before hitting her-THAT is why her skin did not bleed. Do you know she had an 8 inch crack in her skull and no bleeding on the outside of her head?If a parent just bashed her over the head it WOULD have made the skin on her head bleed--what parent would put a blanket over their childs head before hitting them in a rage?. Elvislive and all other RDI refuse to admit this because then they have to agree that an intruder killed her. So they make things up to support there theory.


Wow...such anger towards Elvislives. May I ask why? I think she has helped a lot of us understand a lot about the head wound and strangulation theory on this case. I for one know that without her knoweldge I would still be lost on what a lot meant.

I mentioned way back on one of these threads that I wondered if the blanket was used to "soften" the blow, so I understand your point exactly.

And the way I have come to understand it, from doing research on my own, not all head wounds bleed out.

[shill]

I have not taken anything out of context, for Dr. Spitz did NOT state that the strangulation with the garrote came first.
Dr. Spitz verbatim (see # 94 post on this thread):

Dr.WS: "I believe that the injury to the head was first, knocked her out. I think everything else here was staging."

Sorry about that one, I totally got that one wrong. My bad.

[shill]

Elvislives doesn't know what he's talking about. Do you really think someone could bash you on the head and crack your skull and your head wouldn't even bleed? That is ridiculous. And since when do children have soft heads? If there head was soft it wouldn't crack. Obviously a pillow or blanket was put over her head before she was struck. Nothing else makes sense.
I believe the only time the skull bone is soft is when you’re a child to allow for some growth. I'd have to do some homework to tell you when the bone starts to harden.

But you have a point. I would think that an impression of some type would be left in the skin from the weapon or maybe fibers imbedded from a blanket used to protect the skin.
I have always thought that it was done with a Wonder Bar pry bar that is flat and smooth and I have shown how it matches the strange mark on JB's neck.

[Louisadelmar]

Their bones are softer. That's why they get greenstick fractures and the like. Their bones tend to bend more.

Don't know when they harden. Maybe when they stop growing?

[thewhitewitch1]

You are missig my point. I KNOW the head wound didnt bleed very much-of course I read the autopsy report. What I am saying is that an intruder placed a blanket over her head before hitting her-THAT is why her skin did not bleed. Do you know she had an 8 inch crack in her skull and no bleeding on the outside of her head?If a parent just bashed her over the head it WOULD have made the skin on her head bleed--what parent would put a blanket over their childs head before hitting them in a rage?. Elvislive and all other RDI refuse to admit this because then they have to agree that an intruder killed her. So they make things up to support there theory.

That's your "proof" that an intruder killed her?? The maglite flashlight had a rubber end and would not necessarily have made her head bleed.
We don't "make up things to support our theory"...but I think you just made something up to support yours.

[thewhitewitch1]

Thats another way they could have done it, put a andbag on her head then hit her so she didnt have any visible mark on her skin. Parents wouldnt do that


So your intruder carried a sandbag into the home with him? Why would an intruder care if there was a visible wound on her head anyway? I think the wound not bleeding was just a fluke and not planned in any way.
How do you know what parents would or would not do? Many parents have done things to their children that you or I could/would never imagine ourselves doing. Saying a parent "wouldn't do" something is ridiculous. Parents can and do murder their children.

[shill]

That's your "proof" that an intruder killed her?? The maglite flashlight had a rubber end and would not necessarily have made her head bleed.
We don't "make up things to support our theory"...but I think you just made something up to support yours.

Maglite doesn't make a rubber coated flashlight.

[elvislives]

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.

Hey Louisadelmar, I Tivoed a number of JBR crime shows and also saw those marks. They were described as "crescent shaped marks' and when I froze the screen they did look like finger nail marks. However I am not aware that any of JBs own tissue was found under her nails.
But defense wounds are not always found in strangulation cases. Don't ask me why, because I cannot imagine anyone, child or adult, not fighting back or at least trying pull off the ligature when they are being strangled. But for whatever reason, defense wounds are not always found on victims of strangulaltion.

[bullmoose]

So your intruder carried a sandbag into the home with him? Why would an intruder care if there was a visible wound on her head anyway? I think the wound not bleeding was just a fluke and not planned in any way.
How do you know what parents would or would not do? Many parents have done things to their children that you or I could/would never imagine ourselves doing. Saying a parent "wouldn't do" something is ridiculous. Parents can and do murder their children.When I mentioned sandbagging, that is not what I meant. The sandbag used to incapacitate sailors was like a sap, and was swung onto the base of the neck to render the victim unconcious. In Jonbenet's case, I think the flashlight could be the culprit, or a flat Wonder Bar, but I'm not certain what it was, but a lot of force was necessary to cause that fracture.

[elvislives]

No I think he thinks she was hit on the head first but he muddies it all up with that talk about her not being dead when she was strangled.


How would her autopsy differ if she was strangled and then bashed on the head.Somewhere Smit mentions fingernail marks on her throat. I'll see if I can find it.

LDM- That's a great question. The reality is that JB could have been bashed on the head, then immediately strangled OR she could have been strangled then bashed on the head OR she could have been strangled and bashed simultaneously AND the autopsy might look exactly the same.
That is why there is such disagreement among pathologists. I tend to agree with Henry Lee that the sequence of events cannot be determined, but one thing is sure-both injuries happened within a few minutes of each other.

[elvislives]

Elvislives doesn't know what he's talking about. Do you really think someone could bash you on the head and crack your skull and your head wouldn't even bleed? That is ridiculous. And since when do children have soft heads? If there head was soft it wouldn't crack. Obviously a pillow or blanket was put over her head before she was struck. Nothing else makes sense.

Have you ever seen a newborn baby from a vaginal birth with a long labor? The baby comes out with a cone head that returns to normal after a couple of days. The reason the baby's head is able to conform to the birth canal is because their skulls are 'soft'.
As a child ages, the skull becomes 'harder'.

This is why children will often fall, have no visible signs of trauma on the scalp, then start having head aches or nausea...the parents will bring them to the doctor AND Xray will show that they have a fractured skull (usually just a hairline fracture). But again, it is not at all unusual for a child to have a fractured skull without damage to the scalp.

[elvislives]

You are missig my point. I KNOW the head wound didnt bleed very much-of course I read the autopsy report. What I am saying is that an intruder placed a blanket over her head before hitting her-THAT is why her skin did not bleed. Do you know she had an 8 inch crack in her skull and no bleeding on the outside of her head?If a parent just bashed her over the head it WOULD have made the skin on her head bleed--what parent would put a blanket over their childs head before hitting them in a rage?. Elvislive and all other RDI refuse to admit this because then they have to agree that an intruder killed her. So they make things up to support there theory.

It is entirely possible that the perpetrator put something over JB's head or something over the weapon to buffer the blow. It is also entirely possible that she was hit directly with the weapon and it did not mar her skull--that is the nature of children's skulls in reaction to blunt force trauma.

I have an assignment for you: go down to your local medical school library. You will find all kinds of books with case reports and autopsies that show that children have sustained skull fracures without external damage.
RDIs who believe that JB's head wound was inflicted 20-60 minutes before she died can do the same. These are the two most common medical misconceptions of this case imo.

[Kor]

Doesn't fit with the RDI theory so it must be staged. The R's probably dipped into her toilet for some urine and poured it on the basement floor.

Lol, while RDIs may believe so, but there’s a flaw on that staging theory, would forensic investigators find JB’s urine on basement floor diluted from toilet water? And did they find a bowl, glass, or any container stained with JB’s urine and toilet water that may explain the staging.

From what I understand, JB died in the basement while the killer used the garrote, paintbrush stick, and the cord, then her bladder released urine through her clothing to the floor. As JB’s blanket was also brought to the basement by the killer to hide JB or to lessen her noises which may explain the crack on her skull if she got awake, does it looked like an accident? I don’t think so. However, I believe the area where JB died base on the evidences and scene does not fit to either of Ramsey or their profiles. While JB was a bed wetter, her bed was probably stained with some her urine but nothing suspicion about it except on the floor in the basement was obviously not her sleeping spot. Seem too peculiar for either of Ramsey using the basement if for an accident, molesting, assaulting & killing JB, and then staging. Which why I believe the killer was someone who were acquaintance to the Ramsey, their house, even to JB with hate or prejudice, as I can see Linda the housekeeper or someone in her circle, such as her husband or children could have done it easily since the killer seemed to be somewhat crafty and comfy being in the house during the time of crime which made more sense to the reasons of using the basement instead of JB’s room or elsewhere upstairs. Well, I don’t think I ever read any RDIs came up with a good explanation about that area where JB died, as why either of Ramsey would want to use the basement before ending the life of JB. :shrug:
This post is my opinion.

[Louisadelmar]

Hey Louisadelmar, I Tivoed a number of JBR crime shows and also saw those marks. They were described as "crescent shaped marks' and when I froze the screen they did look like finger nail marks. However I am not aware that any of JBs own tissue was found under her nails.
But defense wounds are not always found in strangulation cases. Don't ask me why, because I cannot imagine anyone, child or adult, not fighting back or at least trying pull off the ligature when they are being strangled. But for whatever reason, defense wounds are not always found on victims of strangulaltion.

I'll add your name to the list of fingernail mark seers. :-)

As far as defensive wounds, one of the things that caught my eye in the article I posted a couple pages back was that finger nail marks could be just impressions and not necessarily the dragging gouges most of us would assume. It was new information for me.

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/strangulation_article.pdf
Three types of fingernail markings may occur, singly or in combination: impression, scratch, or claw marks. Impression marks occur when the fingernails cut into the skin; they are shaped like commas or semi-circles.

[SnarkyCow]

Thats another way they could have done it, put a andbag on her head then hit her so she didnt have any visible mark on her skin. Parents wouldnt do that

In my opinion you cannot make a blanket statement like "Parents wouldn't do that." (Of course you can make that statement, it is your right to have an opinion :) ) but I disagree - There is no telling what a person will do when they are enraged and there is no proof that the parents couldn't, wouldn't or didn't inflict the head-wound.

It has been discussed on other threads that no one really knows what went on behind closed doors at the Ramsey home - the only people that know are the people who lived there. I've said it before (but don't want to dig for it because I'm not sure where it is) that there is a possibility that the Ramseys' lives were very much like their home: that is to say pretty, clean & decorated where people could see & messy, disorganized & dirty where people couldn't see. Patsy seemed to be a stickler for presentation.

We are all entitled to our opinions (thank goodness), but I don't think "The parents wouldn't do that" is enough of a defense. There are many cases of rage, temporary insanity, crimes of passion, etc. where rational-seeming people loose their sh*t & do unspeakable things - I've seen this first hand and although I cannot prove anything in the Ramsey case I think it is worth considering and not all that far-fetched.

Respectfully yours,

SnarkyCow

[Athena]

ST mentions in his book that Smit had been around for only about seventy-two hours, not anywhere near enough to devour the case material, when he told the investigators "I don't think it was the Ramseys". Smit never budged from that position.

And how long was ST on the case before he believed it to be the Ramseys? According to PMPT even his own father thought he rushed to judgement.

Honestly I believe both ST and Smit were so embedded in their belief that it didn't matter what else was presented or said. Having said that Smit had alot more experience than ST ever could. I don't agree with all that Smit has presented but I surely much less of what ST put forth in his book. In any event too much ego involved here. JMO

[Athena]

It is entirely possible that the perpetrator put something over JB's head or something over the weapon to buffer the blow. It is also entirely possible that she was hit directly with the weapon and it did not mar her skull--that is the nature of children's skulls in reaction to blunt force trauma.

I have an assignment for you: go down to your local medical school library. You will find all kinds of books with case reports and autopsies that show that children have sustained skull fracures without external damage.
RDIs who believe that JB's head wound was inflicted 20-60 minutes before she died can do the same. These are the two most common medical misconceptions of this case imo.

Oh gosh elvis. I had posted a lengthy article at CTV from research I had done and now the board has been archived with no access. I too agree that the head bashing and strangulation occurred within a couple of minutes of each other no matter which was first or last. I certainly do not believe that more than a couple of minutes lapsed nevermind 20-60 minutes. Because I believe that it also leads me to believe more than not that it was no accident with coverup. The reason I tend to lean toward the strangulation coming first is because of the lack of time needed to rummage through the paint tote, find the paintbrush, break it, and wrap the cord around the brush. I also think she may have screamed which caused the head blow in anger from the perp while she was being strangled. JMO

[Louisadelmar]

Oh gosh elvis. I had posted a lengthy article at CTV from research I had done and now the board has been archived with no access. I too agree that the head bashing and strangulation occurred within a couple of minutes of each other no matter which was first or last. I certainly do not believe that more than a couple of minutes lapsed nevermind 20-60 minutes. Because I believe that it also leads me to believe more than not that it was no accident with coverup. The reason I tend to lean toward the strangulation coming first is because of the lack of time needed to rummage through the paint tote, find the paintbrush, break it, and wrap the cord around the brush. I also think she may have screamed which caused the head blow in anger from the perp. JMO

I have also wondered if the scream brought about the head blow. When I'm in my 'It-really-was-a-kidnapping-gone-bad' mode I think perhaps it caused him to panic and everything stemmed from there.

[Athena]

I have also wondered if the scream brought about the head blow. When I'm in my 'It-really-was-a-kidnapping-gone-bad' mode I think perhaps it caused him to panic and everything stemmed from there.

Honestly Louisa -- I've always thought that the original plan was to kidnap JBR and the plan was thwarted possibly by the perp panicking after JBR screamed. I do believe that Melody Stanton heard that scream and later decided she just did not want to get involved. I also believe that the sexual assault also occurred out of anger or as a "gotcha" after she was dead or just out of sheer frustration because the perp could not carry out his original plan; to use your quote "a kidnapping gone bad". I also believe the ransom amount of $118,000 had some significance and was deliberately used as the amount because of JR's bonus thus the odd amount.

[Louisadelmar]

Honestly Louisa -- I've always thought that the original plan was to kidnap JBR and the plan was thwarted possibly by the perp panicking after JBR screamed. I do believe that Melody Stanton heard that scream and later decided she just did not want to get involved. I also believe that the sexual assault also occurred out of anger or as a "gotcha" after she was dead or just out of sheer frustration because the perp could not carry out his original plan; to use your quote "a kidnapping gone bad". I also believe the ransom amount of $118,000 had some significance and was deliberately used as the amount because of JR's bonus thus the odd amount.

I sometimes think this case has been overanalyzed and over-thought. Just as some Seattle detectives dismissed Gary Ridgeway as a Green River suspect because they felt he wasn't intelligent enough, I think some posters read too much into what we do know and try and design a theory that fits. What if this was some ne'er-do-well who learned about the Ramseys from a friend or family member. From his movie watching he fancied that he could come up with a good plan make some money out of this knowledge.

But then I wonder, if he struck her 'accidently' because she'd seen his face or made a run for it, would he then have the presence of mind to quickly finish her off with the garrote? OR did he hit her to just knock her out and she started to convulse and he finished her off with the garrote?

Whatever. At least now, thanks to Evislives, I'm comfortable in being firm about the head blow and strangulation being close together in time.

[Louisadelmar]

Rashomon

Why do you feel even die-hard IDIs have come to admit that the head blow came first? With Elvislives saying she may have also have seen fingernail marks on JBR's neck I think the question is still very much up in the air.

[Athena]

I'll add your name to the list of fingernail mark seers. :-)

As far as defensive wounds, one of the things that caught my eye in the article I posted a couple pages back was that finger nail marks could be just impressions and not necessarily the dragging gouges most of us would assume. It was new information for me.

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/strangulation_article.pdf
Three types of fingernail markings may occur, singly or in combination: impression, scratch, or claw marks. Impression marks occur when the fingernails cut into the skin; they are shaped like commas or semi-circles.

I know I have watched something possibly on Greta during the Karr fiasco where it was said that the foreign DNA was mixed in with JBRs blood under her fingernails and that though the DNA was possibly degraded there were similar markers to the DNA found in her underwear. Although it may not be enough to positively ID anyone it would be a source of exclusion but with some work it was possible it could go further. The DNA in the underwear has 10 markers and could be used to narrow down the possible donors. Also what about the DNA that was found NOT on JBR's body and clothing -- I believe I read that in Beckner's depo. This seems to be DNA that is being held close to the vest as what they found doesn't appear to have been released.

One thing I believe is that any discussion of DNA prior to 2001 is useless as DNA testing methods has improved immensely and even minute traces of DNA now can be beneficial to crime-solving especially since 9/11. When attempting to ID bodies/body parts from 9/11 as few as 4 markers were used to positively make IDs.

I have a job cut out for me because I'm hoping I can find a transcript or article relating to what I know I heard.

[Zoey]

I know I have watched something possibly on Greta during the Karr fiasco where it was said that the foreign DNA was mixed in with JBRs blood under her fingernails and that though the DNA was possibly degraded there were similar markers to the DNA found in her underwear. Although it may not be enough to positively ID anyone it would be a source of exclusion but with some work it was possible it could go further. The DNA in the underwear has 10 markers and could be used to narrow down the possible donors. Also what about the DNA that was found NOT on JBR's body and clothing -- I believe I read that in Beckner's depo. This seems to be DNA that is being held close to the vest as what they found doesn't appear to have been released.

One thing I believe is that any discussion of DNA prior to 2001 is useless as DNA testing methods has improved immensely and even minute traces of DNA now can be beneficial to crime-solving especially since 9/11. When attempting to ID bodies/body parts from 9/11 as few as 4 markers were used to positively make IDs.

I have a job cut out for me because I'm hoping I can find a transcript or article relating to what I know I heard.

By Pam Regensberg, Camera Staff Writer
December 6, 2002

[I]A court document released this week shows that Boulder police discovered a previously undisclosed DNA sample at the scene of JonBenet Ramsey's slaying.

That fact was revealed in a 192-page transcript of Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner's deposition in a civil case involving JonBenet's parents.

In the document, Beckner said the DNA sample was discovered sometime after September 1998, when Boulder County grand jury convened to investigate the 1996 slaying.

It is unclear where the DNA was discovered, but Beckner said it did not come from the slain 6-year-old girl's body or clothing, where a previously disclosed DNA was found. He said he couldn't say how many people were compared to the sample.

During the deposition, Beckner was hesitant to answer questions about evidence. He frequently turned to his attorney and asked if he could respond.

Beckner could not be reached for comment Thursday night.

The deposition was taken in Boulder on November 2001 by Atlanta attorney L. Lin Wood, who represents John and Patsy Ramsey in a multimillion-dollar libel suit brought by Robert Christian Wolf — a former Boulder journalist identified as a suspect in couple's book, "The Death of Innocence."

Former prosecutor Michael Kane, who ran the 13-month grand jury investigation that ended without an indictment, declined to discuss the case.

"I don't want to be commenting on this case — it's a past lifetime for me," Kane said from his Pennsylvania home.

He said that even if he did remember that piece of evidence, he wouldn't talk about it.

"It's been 21/2 years since my involvement, and my recollection is sliding," he said.

Unmatched DNA found beneath JonBenet's fingernails and inside her underwear has long stumped detectives. That genetic material does not match that of the girl's family members or her parents, whom police have said are under suspicion in their daughter's death.

Last month, the Rocky Mountain News reported that investigators think DNA recovered from the girl's panties could have been left there when the clothing was manufactured.

JonBenet was found beaten and strangled in the basement of her parents 15th Street home on Dec. 26, 1996. Her parents, despite police suspicion, have maintained their innocence.

[thewhitewitch1]

When I mentioned sandbagging, that is not what I meant. The sandbag used to incapacitate sailors was like a sap, and was swung onto the base of the neck to render the victim unconcious. In Jonbenet's case, I think the flashlight could be the culprit, or a flat Wonder Bar, but I'm not certain what it was, but a lot of force was necessary to cause that fracture.


I know that but apparently Whiskey didn't and I was quoting him. :biggrin:

[thewhitewitch1]

Oh gosh elvis. I had posted a lengthy article at CTV from research I had done and now the board has been archived with no access. I too agree that the head bashing and strangulation occurred within a couple of minutes of each other no matter which was first or last. I certainly do not believe that more than a couple of minutes lapsed nevermind 20-60 minutes. Because I believe that it also leads me to believe more than not that it was no accident with coverup. The reason I tend to lean toward the strangulation coming first is because of the lack of time needed to rummage through the paint tote, find the paintbrush, break it, and wrap the cord around the brush. I also think she may have screamed which caused the head blow in anger from the perp while she was being strangled. JMO

Can a person scream while they are being strangled? It does not seem possible.

[shill]

Can a person scream while they are being strangled? It does not seem possible.
Apparently it's not possible to scream according to former poster Ames personal insight. But there might have been a point where the killer relaxed his pull on the garrote to give JB a moment to breath and she took advantage of that moment to SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!!
This startled and alarmed him into an impulse reaction of striking her on the head to quiet her.
The blow became a death blow that was not part of the plan.

[bullmoose]

Apparently it's not possible to scream according to former poster Ames personal insight. But there might have been a point where the killer relaxed his pull on the garrote to give JB a moment to breath and she took advantage of that moment to SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!!
This startled and alarmed him into an impulse reaction of striking her on the head to quiet her.
The blow became a death blow that was not part of the plan.
Your scenario makes good sense- it seems to fit the facts as we know them.:beer:

[rashomon]

Rashomon

Why do you feel even die-hard IDIs have come to admit that the head blow came first? With Elvislives saying she may have also have seen fingernail marks on JBR's neck I think the question is still very much up in the air.
Sorry, I didn't put it clearly enough: I meant that even die-hard IDIs have to admit that JB could not have died from strangulation first.
For in case the head blow was delivered after JB was already dead from strangulation, there would have been no swelling in her brain, nor hemorrhage. At least that's what I inferred from the medical discussion here.
And now even IDIs seem to have changed their theories in that direction, e. g. "when the intruder tried to strangle her, she resisted and he bashed her head in".

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:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=134004&highlight=organization#post134004

The furrow around JB's neck was perfectly circumferential, which points to it being applied to an inert body. None of JB's own skin was found under her fingernails, which points to her not having clawed at the cord and scratched her skin.
So if there were fingernail marks at all, they are probably from the person who put the cord around her neck.

[Athena]

Sorry, I didn't put it clearly enough: I meant that even die-hard IDIs have to admit that JB could not have died from strangulation first.
For in case the head blow was delivered after JB was already dead from strangulation, there would have been no swelling in her brain, nor hemorrhage. At least that's what I inferred from the medical discussion here.
And now even IDIs seem to have changed their theories in that direction, e. g. "when the intruder tried to strangle her, she resisted and he bashed her head in".

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:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=134004&highlight=organization#post134004

The furrow around JB's neck was perfectly circumferential, which points to it being applied to an inert body. None of JB's own skin was found under her fingernails, which points to her not having clawed at the cord and scratched her skin.
So if there were fingernail marks at all, they are probably from the person who put the cord around her neck.

Well Rashomon I can assure you that this head-bashing scenario after a scream/resistance has been discussed by many IDI's including myself for years. Also where does it say that there was none of JBR's skin found under her fingernails. Most of the articles just discuss the foreign DNA mixed in with her DNA - so what accounts for her DNA that was found?

Also how coincidental is it that the foreign DNA was mixed in with JBR's blood in her underwear? Yet people believe it could have been caused by the manufacturer of the underwear in that exact spot? What about the DNA found that was NOT on her body or found on her clothing; DNAX mentioned in Beckner's depo that cannot be divulged?

Any discussion of DNA (imo) prior to 2001 is a moot issue as technological changes and testing methods have changed and isolation of DNA has become more exact with less DNA markers required to at least exclude potential suspects and in some case depending upon which markers are present can actually afford a positive ID. JMO

[Athena]

Can a person scream while they are being strangled? It does not seem possible.

Oh come on TWW. Yes it is possible. What you forget is the purpose of the "garrotte" or stick with cord wrapped around it; is used to tighten and loosen pressure and in a moment of hesitation it is absolutely possible.

[Athena]

LDM- That's a great question. The reality is that JB could have been bashed on the head, then immediately strangled OR she could have been strangled then bashed on the head OR she could have been strangled and bashed simultaneously AND the autopsy might look exactly the same.
That is why there is such disagreement among pathologists. I tend to agree with Henry Lee that the sequence of events cannot be determined, but one thing is sure-both injuries happened within a few minutes of each other.

Brain contusions are especially difficult to analyze. The general rule is that trauma will be most severe on the opposite side of impact. This is because the brain floats around inside the head, but there may be what are called contrecoups where the pathway to brain trauma has to be reconstructed. Death results rapidly whenever a skull fracture is involved.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect12.htm

One teaspoon = 5 cc = 5 ml

http://parenting.ivillage.com/tp/tphealth/0,,hfbs,00.html

subdural hemorrhage
measuring approximately 7-8 cc over the surface of the right
cerebral hemisphere and extending to the base of the cerebral
hemisphere

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


Subdural hematomas are usually the result of a serious head injury. When they occur in this way, it is called an "acute" subdural hematoma. Acute subdural hematomas are among the deadliest of all head injuries. The bleeding fills the brain area very rapidly, leaving little room for the brain, and are associated with brain injury.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000713.htm

[thewhitewitch1]

Oh come on TWW. Yes it is possible. What you forget is the purpose of the "garrotte" or stick with cord wrapped around it; is used to tighten and loosen pressure and in a moment of hesitation it is absolutely possible.


I have to disagree. In order to scream (and for the magnitude of such a scream to have reached the ears of a neighbor), she'd have had to have been able to draw a deep breath to fill her lungs. I do not believe the killer ever loosened the cord (not a "sex thing") enough for her to have done that. If he had, at best she would have been gasping for air. That stands to reason.
In your scenerio, where does this alledged stun gun come into play? Do you think your intruder would be dumb enough to allow her the chance to scream and wake someone up? That doesn't make any sense to me. :shrug:

[Athena]

I have to disagree. In order to scream (and for the magnitude of such a scream to have reached the ears of a neighbor), she'd have had to have been able to draw a deep breath to fill her lungs. I do not believe the killer ever loosened the cord (not a "sex thing") enough for her to have done that. If he had, at best she would have been gasping for air. That stands to reason.
In your scenerio, where does this alledged stun gun come into play? Do you think your intruder would be dumb enough to allow her the chance to scream and wake someone up? That doesn't make any sense to me. :shrug:

It could have also been JBR just realizing what the perp was doing even before he started to strangle her. I do believe she screamed. I've always said there was too much being made of a possible stun gun however it could easily be fit in as well by her coming to as he was preparing the garrotte and she screamed. A stun gun would only have incapacitated her for about 10 minutes if that long given her age and weight. The point it is definitely possible that the scream caused the perp to bash her in her head no matter what scenario you choose.

As far as being dumb -- you give him/her far too much credit. The perp was not very intelligent as far as I'm concerned especially considering the ransom note. As I've posted before a person with 6th grade education could have written that note; just another reason why I fail to believe the Ramseys were involved. JMO

[rashomon]

It could have also been JBR just realizing what the perp was doing even before he started to strangle her. I do believe she screamed. I've always said there was too much being made of a possible stun gun however it could easily be fit in as well by her coming to as he was preparing the garrotte and she screamed. A stun gun would only have incapacitated her for about 10 minutes if that long given her age and weight. The point it is definitely possible that the scream caused the perp to bash her in her head no matter what scenario you choose.

As far as being dumb -- you give him/her far too much credit. The perp was not very intelligent as far as I'm concerned especially considering the ransom note. As I've posted before a person with 6th grade education could have written that note; just another reason why I fail to believe the Ramseys were involved. JMO
There was no point for a sexual assailant to leave a ransom note if he had to leave behind the victim in her own home. This rules out an intruder imo.

I don't think "the perp" (Patsy imo) and her accomplice in the staging (John) were dumb, but people (no matter how intelligent they are) who are no professional criminals themselves usually do a very poor job when staging a scene, like criminal profiler Gregg McCrary pointed out.
They don't know how real ransom notes look like, they don't know how effective ligatures look like, they don't know how a real garrote functions, they don't know that a sexual assailant doesn't bother to wrap his victim in a blanket, they (unless they are familiar with true crime cases or crime fiction) don't have the slightest idea about how much an autopsy can reveal (which is why they forgot to build the pineapple into their "story"), nor are they aware of the transfer theory of Locard, which is why they left behind incriminating fiber evidence.

[LindaA]

So your intruder carried a sandbag into the home with him? Why would an intruder care if there was a visible wound on her head anyway? I think the wound not bleeding was just a fluke and not planned in any way.
How do you know what parents would or would not do? Many parents have done things to their children that you or I could/would never imagine ourselves doing. Saying a parent "wouldn't do" something is ridiculous. Parents can and do murder their children.
I tihnk he meant that if PR were in such a rage she would hardly have thought to get a bag/blanket whatever before hitting JBR. I don't think he meant that it was unimaginable that she could be that cruel.

[LindaA]

And how long was ST on the case before he believed it to be the Ramseys? According to PMPT even his own father thought he rushed to judgement.

Honestly I believe both ST and Smit were so embedded in their belief that it didn't matter what else was presented or said. Having said that Smit had alot more experience than ST ever could. I don't agree with all that Smit has presented but I surely much less of what ST put forth in his book. In any event too much ego involved here. JMO

And I believe Linda Arndt decided JR was guilty as she looked at him over JBR's body.

[bullmoose]

There was no point for a sexual assailant to leave a ransom note if he had to leave behind the victim in her own home. This rules out an intruder imo.

I don't think "the perp" (Patsy imo) and her accomplice in the staging (John) were dumb, but people (no matter how intelligent they are) who are no professional criminals themselves usually do a very poor job when staging a scene, like criminal profiler Gregg McCrary pointed out.
They don't know how real ransom notes look like, they don't know how effective ligatures look like, they don't know how a real garrote functions, they don't know that a sexual assailant doesn't bother to wrap his victim in a blanket, they (unless they are familiar with true crime cases or crime fiction) don't have the slightest idea about how much an autopsy can reveal (which is why they forgot to build the pineapple into their "story"), nor are they aware of the transfer theory of Locard, which is why they left behind incriminating fiber evidence.I simply have to disagree with your line of thinking on this, Rashoman;To say there was no point to leave a note is circular reasoning, you are going around in circles. To leave a note behind IMO was an obvious[and successful] attempt to throw all the suspicion on the Ramseys; this not only doesn't rule out an intruder, but points strongly to someone trying to ruin the Ramseys. IMO this was not primarily a sexual attack, it was a carefully premeditated murder. The perp/s[no, not Patsy and/or John] wrote that note straight out of the Dirty Harry movie and others, IMO it was so long because the real perp knew that 'ransom' notes aren't that long, but it never was a real 'ransom' note at all, it was a clver piece of misdirection[the BPD sure bit on it]. The scene was contrived and staged, I agree, but by whom? IMHO, not by the Ramseys.

[elvislives]

Sorry, I didn't put it clearly enough: I meant that even die-hard IDIs have to admit that JB could not have died from strangulation first.
For in case the head blow was delivered after JB was already dead from strangulation, there would have been no swelling in her brain, nor hemorrhage. At least that's what I inferred from the medical discussion here.
And now even IDIs seem to have changed their theories in that direction, e. g. "when the intruder tried to strangle her, she resisted and he bashed her head in".

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:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=134004&highlight=organization#post134004

The furrow around JB's neck was perfectly circumferential, which points to it being applied to an inert body. None of JB's own skin was found under her fingernails, which points to her not having clawed at the cord and scratched her skin.
So if there were fingernail marks at all, they are probably from the person who put the cord around her neck.

This study can't be compared to JB for a variety of reasons. First off, the patients in the attached study are surgical patients. Surgical patients are always given systemic heparin (a blood "thinner") which 'breaks up' and 'dissolves clot'. Coagulated blood-especially in the brain-can be extremely dangerous during surgery. Also these are patients with hemorrhagic stroke or intracranial aneurysm which cannot in any way be compared to trauma patients. All trauma patients were excluded from this study for that very reason. They were also adults. Its an apples to oranges comparison.

It reminds me of a study link sent to me by an idi regarding the pineapple issue. That study showed that some patients can take 12-24 hours for food to travel from their stomachs to their small intestines. The only problem with using that study to compare to JB was that the patients studied had various digestive disorders and were adults. Again, an apples to oranges comparison.

If you want to use clinical studies to draw conclusions, you must use patients in the same age range with similar injuries. The reason clinical studies have strict inclusion and exclusion criteria is to eliminate the variables--and if you cross disease states or age or gender boundaries, you will find all kinds of variables.

[elvislives]

Well Rashomon I can assure you that this head-bashing scenario after a scream/resistance has been discussed by many IDI's including myself for years. Also where does it say that there was none of JBR's skin found under her fingernails. Most of the articles just discuss the foreign DNA mixed in with her DNA - so what accounts for her DNA that was found?

Also how coincidental is it that the foreign DNA was mixed in with JBR's blood in her underwear? Yet people believe it could have been caused by the manufacturer of the underwear in that exact spot? What about the DNA found that was NOT on her body or found on her clothing; DNAX mentioned in Beckner's depo that cannot be divulged?

Any discussion of DNA (imo) prior to 2001 is a moot issue as technological changes and testing methods have changed and isolation of DNA has become more exact with less DNA markers required to at least exclude potential suspects and in some case depending upon which markers are present can actually afford a positive ID. JMO

Excellent point

[rashomon]

And I believe Linda Arndt decided JR was guilty as she looked at him over JBR's body.
Linsda Arndt seems to have been quite a flip-flopper on that. For why did she later show up at the BPD, a bunch of flowers in her hand, happily telling her colleagues that they were "from Patsy and John"?
Steve Thomas' dry remark: "detectives normally don't receive flowers from suspects".

[bullmoose]

Linsda Arndt seems to have been quite a flip-flopper on that. For why did she later show up at the BPD, a bunch of flowers in her hand, happily telling her colleagues that they were "from Patsy and John"?
Steve Thomas' dry remark: "detectives normally don't receive flowers from suspects".Of course, detectives normally don't consort with tabloid reporters like Shapiro; maybe Steve Thomas was jealous at not getting his own boquet of flowers.:biggrin:

[rashomon]

Of course, detectives normally don't consort with tabloid reporters like Shapiro; maybe Steve Thomas was jealous at not getting his own boquet of flowers

DA Hunter divulged far more crucial info to Shapiro than Thomas.

[rashomon]

I simply have to disagree with your line of thinking on this, Rashoman;To say there was no point to leave a note is circular reasoning, you are going around in circles. To leave a note behind IMO was an obvious[and successful] attempt to throw all the suspicion on the Ramseys; this not only doesn't rule out an intruder, but points strongly to someone trying to ruin the Ramseys. IMO this was not primarily a sexual attack, it was a carefully premeditated murder. The perp/s[no, not Patsy and/or John] wrote that note straight out of the Dirty Harry movie and others, IMO it was so long because the real perp knew that 'ransom' notes aren't that long, but it never was a real 'ransom' note at all, it was a clver piece of misdirection[the BPD sure bit on it]. The scene was contrived and staged, I agree, but by whom? IMHO, not by the Ramseys.
So you think that the perp took the trouble to practise Patsy Ramsey's handwriting for weeks because he wanted to pin the crime on her?
And that he put on Patsy's jacket because he wanted to leave her fibers in incriminating locations?
Pretty sophisticated criminal, I must say. :D

[Athena]

So you think that the perp took the trouble to practise Patsy Ramsey's handwriting for weeks because he wanted to pin the crime on her?
And that he put on Patsy's jacket because he wanted to leave her fibers in incriminating locations?
Pretty sophisticated criminal, I must say. :D

This line of thinking would only occur from someone who believes that Patsy's handwriting was the only sample that could not be excluded. There were many others as well who matched more closely than Patsy's ever would; all with possible motive. I've posted the names and sources elsewhere on this board. JMO

[Athena]

DA Hunter divulged far more crucial info to Shapiro than Thomas.

Source??? What Hunter did was try to set up the BPD through Shapiro; not give away info even he did not have. Even Beckner admitted if he had known Thomas would have been fired; lucky for Thomas he resigned first under false pretense knowing his antics were being found out and they were closing in on him. JMO

[rashomon]

Also where does it say that there was none of JBR's skin found under her fingernails. Most of the articles just discuss the foreign DNA mixed in with her DNA - so what accounts for her DNA that was found?

Athena: I suppose we all have our own DNA under our fingernails, we don't need to have scratched our skin for our DNA to be found there.
I'm convinced that if JB's skin debris had been found under her nails, this would have been made public.
Also how coincidental is it that the foreign DNA was mixed in with JBR's blood in her underwear? Yet people believe it could have been caused by the manufacturer of the underwear in that exact spot?
It was the blood spots which were examined, and suppose foreign DNA had been in the underwear before (spread through a sneeze for example - see Dr. H. Lee's theory), of course this DNA would show up in these blood spots which had gotten on the underwear.
What about the DNA found that was NOT on her body or found on her clothing; DNAX mentioned in Beckner's depo that cannot be divulged?
Would you provide some more info on that. TIA.

[rashomon]

What Hunter did was try to set up the BPD through Shapiro
which is why he should have been removed from office, for this is clearly prosecutorial misconduct.

[bullmoose]

Source??? What Hunter did was try to set up the BPD through Shapiro; not give away info even he did not have. Even Beckner admitted if he had known Thomas would have been fired; lucky for Thomas he resigned first under false pretense knowing his antics were being found out and they were closing in on him. JMOYes, it is true that Synthroid Stevie managed to Twist free of the trouble he was in the BPD on that cleverest of ruses: his thyroid wouldn't let him continue his brave crusade against the evil Ramseys; lucky for the world that 'unknown sources' mailed him hundreds of pages of his notes that he turned in when he resigned; allowing him to triumph with his 'Twisterpiece' so that the world could know what really happened--according to the Synthroid Supercop.JMHO:biggrin:

[bullmoose]

which is why he should have been removed from office, for this is clearly prosecutorial misconduct.I'm just curious, under what Colorado Code do you base your opinion on?:biggrin:

[Athena]

which is why he should have been removed from office, for this is clearly prosecutorial misconduct.

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. JMO

[Athena]

Athena: I suppose we all have our own DNA under our fingernails, we don't need to have scratched our skin for our DNA to be found there.
I'm convinced that if JB's skin debris had been found under her nails, this would have been made public.

It was the blood spots which were examined, and suppose foreign DNA had been in the underwear before (spread through a sneeze for example - see Dr. H. Lee's theory), of course this DNA would show up in these blood spots which had gotten on the underwear.

Would you provide some more info on that. TIA.

I believe Lee made those comments at least a couple of years before the DNA was isolated and before technological advances were made.

Re: the DNA/X it was from Beckner's depo but I haven't been able to figure out what they are referring to. After you open the document just do a find for "DNAX":

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/11262001Depo-MarkBeckner.htm

[shill]

And now even IDIs seem to have changed their theories in that direction, e. g. "when the intruder tried to strangle her, she resisted and he bashed her head in".
I've been saying this all along.

The furrow around JB's neck was perfectly circumferential, which points to it being applied to an inert body. None of JB's own skin was found under her fingernails, which points to her not having clawed at the cord and scratched her skin.

I don't know why this is true, I'm sure you have an explanation.

But I still believe her hands where secured behind a chair back or around a pipe and her pants were around her ankles so she was pretty much immobile.
If she is immobile, unable to move or struggle, would the "furrow around JB's neck be perfectly circumferential"?

[Athena]

I tihnk he meant that if PR were in such a rage she would hardly have thought to get a bag/blanket whatever before hitting JBR. I don't think he meant that it was unimaginable that she could be that cruel.

Ya know. I understand that parents kill their children. Unfortunately it happens way too often. However, I do not see this as an "accidental" head blow caused by rage. It just doesn't make sense that Patsy would pick up an object and strike her baby in the head with the force that she was hit with. The physics involved with this head blow was not getting angry and causing JBR to fall and hit her head; she was deliberately hit in the head with such force, by all accounts, that could have killed a 300lb man. Because I don't believe the head blow was an accident the coverup just doesn't make sense to me; therefore a parental crime just doesn't fit the evidence.

What could have caused Patsy to get so angry that she would deliberately hit her baby in the head with an object? And where was the object? If she had to walk away from JBR to get an object to hit her in the head with (since it wouldn't have been pre-meditated) wouldn't the rage have subsided a bit?? Would JR really have protected Patsy to this extent after recently losing a daughter that he had not come to terms with yet? I can't speak for others but it would be a cold day in hell before I would protect my husband if he killed one of our children never mind go even further and help to cover it up.; and I love my husband! An accident can be explained and is not murder even when it results in death

Got into a little ramble here -- it just doesn't make sense to me.

[shill]

I don't think "the perp" (Patsy imo) and her accomplice in the staging (John) were dumb, but people (no matter how intelligent they are) who are no professional criminals themselves usually do a very poor job when staging a scene, like criminal profiler Gregg McCrary pointed out.
They don't know how real ransom notes look like, they don't know how effective ligatures look like, they don't know how a real garrote functions, they don't know that a sexual assailant doesn't bother to wrap his victim in a blanket, they (unless they are familiar with true crime cases or crime fiction) don't have the slightest idea about how much an autopsy can reveal (which is why they forgot to build the pineapple into their "story"), nor are they aware of the transfer theory of Locard, which is why they left behind incriminating fiber evidence.
Who are these professional criminals?
I don't think there is one person in the United States that makes a living from kidnapping people in the U.S.. At one time it was a problem, but after the Limburg kidnapping law and enforcement changed, it's a one shot deal now.
It is prevalent in other countries with weak LE though.
Maybe you should write a book on how to professionally kidnap someone and get away with it.

So is there a college that criminals go to to learn the right and wrong way of committing a crime.
I would think the "True Crime" buffs here know way more about MO then criminals do.

[aussiesheila]

This is all I've been able to find so far directly from Spitz. The time estimate came (as near as I can find) from Thomas' book so we don't know what Spitz may have actually said.

Part 1

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/03172000spitzondiscovery.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.Thanks for the link Louisa.

When oh when is it going to dawn on people that the head blow and the strangulation occurred simeltaneously? I have been posting this for about 2 years now yet people go on and on about one or the other having to have come first. (Please excuse my little gripe, I'm only HALF serious, you know).

I believe that in a panicked response to her hideous scream one of the pedophiles that I think was there molesting her, pulled the neck ligature that he had been operating as a breath control device so tightly that he strangled her. At that same moment I think that another of the pedophiles, also as a way of shutting her up, picked up a baseball bat and bashed her over the head.

This explanation allows for both experts, Spitz and the former detective and each of their respective followers to be correct in their opinions.

If she was completely dead from prior strangulation, there would have been no hemmoraging as Werner Spitz says. On the other hand, if she had been bashed over the head first and NOT simeltaneously had her carotid arteries completely constricted by the neck ligature strangling her, the hemmoraging which although it did occur just as the former detective says it did, it would have been far, far more massive.

Doesn't it take 4 to 5 minutes to die of strangulation? And as elvis has told us, 45 or so minutes to die of uncontrolled swelling of the brain? So if the fatal tightening of the ligature began at the moment the head was struck (or seconds earlier, as I imagine the basher would have neede to take a few moments to look around, locate the bat and pick it up before delivering the fatal blow), then this would explain the development of the features observed on the corpse.

[aussiesheila]

You have to account for the fact that JonBenet offered no struggle at all to having the cord tied around her neck and tightened until she strangled to death. There are no defense wounds on her hands, arms, feet, shins, anywhere. There is no skin under her nails indicating she struggled with her killer or that she tried to claw the cord off.I account for the fact that JonBenet offered no struggle at all to having the cord tied around her neck by hypothesizing that her hands were restrained by the wrist ligature at the time the cord was placed around her neck.

The insides of her cheeks and her tongue were unblemished, when usually a strangulation victim ends up biting their tongue and cheeks while struggling to breathe. There was very little damage to the interior structures of her neck, such as the hyoid bone and the thyroid and cricoid cartileges. No bruising or hemmorhaging of the strap muscles of the neck, all of which indicate she was not conscious to struggle for her life.If she had been struck over the head at the very same moment the fatal strangling was begun she would have done none of these things.

Then there's the urine staining the front and crotch of her clothes, indicating she was strangled face-down. How are you going to strangle a healthy 6 year old child to death face-down with no resistance and no struggle whatsoever unless she was already unconscious from the head wound?But the urine stains were all the way down the insides of her thighs as well as in the crotch. If she had been lying face down at the time of the strangling the stains would only have been in the crotch area. It is more likely that she emptied her bladder while kneeling on the floor, given the pattern of the staining IMO.

[docg]

The important thing to remember is that JonBenet was struck by a powerful blow to the head that did NOT lacerate the scalp. That's not the sort of blow that would result from an accident. If she'd been struck such a blow by accident there'd have been blood all over the place.

She was struck by someone who knew what he was doing. The rubber tipped maglite is by far the most likely instrument. And it's shape apparently matched the indentation in her skull. That object was chosen by her attacker deliberately in order to minimize the chance that blood would be spilled.

Why would an intruder care if she bled or not? That's the question you need to ask.

[rashomon]

The important thing to remember is that JonBenet was struck by a powerful blow to the head that did NOT lacerate the scalp. That's not the sort of blow that would result from an accident. If she'd been struck such a blow by accident there'd have been blood all over the place.

No necessarily. As has been pointed out here numerous times by poster Elvislives who is a doctor, due to the fact that children have softer skulls than adults, chldren with a cracked skull often show no outward sign of an injury.

[rashomon]

If she was completely dead from prior strangulation, there would have been no hemmoraging as Werner Spitz says. On the other hand, if she had been bashed over the head first and NOT simeltaneously had her carotid arteries completely constricted by the neck ligature strangling her, the hemmoraging which although it did occur just as the former detective says it did, it would have been far, far more massive.


Dr. Spitz mentions blood clots.

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.
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.
Maybe an enraged parent first grabbed JB by the neck and than yanked her against the bathtub.

[rashomon]

Who are these professional criminals?
I don't think there is one person in the United States that makes a living from kidnapping people in the U.S.. At one time it was a problem, but after the Limburg kidnapping law and enforcement changed, it's a one shot deal now.
It is prevalent in other countries with weak LE though.
Maybe you should write a book on how to professionally kidnap someone and get away with it.

So is there a college that criminals go to to learn the right and wrong way of committing a crime.
I would think the "True Crime" buffs here know way more about MO then criminals do.
The 'professional criminals' were Gregg McCrary's words, not mine, so in case you are interested, you could contact him for further info.
And there are enough people who make a living from crimes. Not from kidnapping, but as hired killers for example. I suppose there e. g. have been quite a few mafia-type killings which have been succesfully staged as accidents.
Of course true crime buffs know about the mistakes which are made in staging, for they have studied these cases in detail. And truecrime buffs know that laypeople when trying to stage a scene hardly ever get away with it: Jeffrey MacDonald, Darlie Routier, the Ramseys - just some infamous examples of totally bungled staging.

[Louisadelmar]

Dr. Spitz mentions blood clots.


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.
Maybe an enraged parent first grabbed JB by the neck and than yanked her against the bathtub.

And left no finger bruises?

[docg]

No necessarily. As has been pointed out here numerous times by poster Elvislives who is a doctor, due to the fact that children have softer skulls than adults, chldren with a cracked skull often show no outward sign of an injury.

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.

[watson]

What I now think happened, is that this must have been a premeditated act, decided upon at some point that night. I think John must have been abusing her, she must have said something to indicate she was about to "tell" on him, so he must have made up his mind that she had to go. This conversation could have occured in the kitchen, over some pineapple, sure, why not?

So, what's the kindest way to kill someone you love? Seems to me that you'd want to knock your victim out 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 as you struck her. And, if the staging of a kidnapping was part of your plan (it was), you wouldn't want there to be lots of blood. I think John struck her from behind with the maglite, chosen specifically because of its hard rubber head, unlikely to puncture the scalp. He would then have proceeded to finish the job by strangling her, either manually, and then with the "garotte," to cover any prints -- or possibly just with the "garotte" alone.

I think the plan was to get her out of the house before the police were called. Which is why he'd have written the note. Oh, and he probably was planning on dumping not only the body, but the maglite as well. He wouldn't have wanted to leave the "murder weapon" lying around in the house if he were trying to create the impression she'd been killed only after being kidnapped. Which may be why the maglite was so thoroughly wiped down, not only the outside, but the batteries as well -- so it couldn't be traced back to him.

Patsy spoiled his plan, as well we know. :-)
************************************************** ***
Docg
You print a very likely possible solution to this case, that 'does' follow the evidence. 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. Isn't this way kinder and more gentle way to knock her out 1st, rather than a crashing, violent, potentially painful blow to a conscious, living head, just so you could then asphixate her 2nd? IMO she was fainted out 1st by the garotte (that's 'why' the garotte was used at all) then hit in the head when the killer (John if you like) 'knew' she wouldn't feel it. The head blow was a 'coup de gras' , a final violent shot to make sure of death, the victim would not feel. IMO the flashlight was used because it's what he had handy in the dark basement. Otherwise your theory is a right on possible solution. Consider if you will.
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 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.

[LindaA]

Linsda Arndt seems to have been quite a flip-flopper on that. For why did she later show up at the BPD, a bunch of flowers in her hand, happily telling her colleagues that they were "from Patsy and John"?
Steve Thomas' dry remark: "detectives normally don't receive flowers from suspects".
I've never heard that befoere, but I posted a thread about Arndt's commnets re: PR and a conversation they had while waiting for Burke to be interviewed just a couple of days after the murder. The tone of the entire thread, which someone else has posted here is one of sympathy towards PR on the part of LA. She remembered PR saying to her something like , "Promise me you will find out who did this to JB." LA sounded convinced of PR's innocence at that time and during the time since the murder. Go figure.

[shill]

She was struck by someone who knew what he was doing. The rubber tipped maglite is by far the most likely instrument. And it's shape apparently matched the indentation in her skull. That object was chosen by her attacker deliberately in order to minimize the chance that blood would be spilled.



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.

[shill]

The 'professional criminals' were Gregg McCrary's words, not mine, so in case you are interested, you could contact him for further info.
And there are enough people who make a living from crimes. Not from kidnapping, but as hired killers for example. I suppose there e. g. have been quite a few mafia-type killings which have been succesfully staged as accidents.

Of course true crime buffs know about the mistakes which are made in staging, for they have studied these cases in detail. And truecrime buffs know that laypeople when trying to stage a scene hardly ever get away with it: Jeffrey MacDonald, Darlie Routier, the Ramseys - just some infamous examples of totally bungled staging.
I don't know who Gregg McCary is, but how convenient is it you act like that is his opinion and not your opinion?

And "true crime buffs know that laypeople when trying to stage a scene hardly ever get away with it: Jeffrey MacDonald, Darlie Routier, the Ramseys - just some infamous examples of totally bungled staging".
Funny, you think the Ramseys did it, and yet they're getting away with it. I guess true crime buffs no squat!

My point is, you're just talking out your *ss as usual.

[aussiesheila]

Exactly. It should have. Meyer did not find any skin or any blood under JonBenet's nails - all he found some degraded DNA. If JonBenet's blood or skin, or anyone else's, had been found under JonBenet's nails, this case would be quite a bit different.

Lou Smit is outright WRONG when he says there was blood under her nails and she fought her attacker. Nothing about the state of her body, including her nails, indicates that she was awake and struggling while being strangled.

This is my number one problem with Lou Smit, and why I believe that he was brought in only to find an intruder, and will make claims to support that theory whether they're based on fact or not.

Find someone official, directly involved in the investigation, who had access to the actual autopsy report and autopsy slides and photos who says JonBenet had blood and/or skin under her nails and I may rethink my stance that Smit is lying about evidence to fit his theory. It's not in the autopsy, it's not in ST or PMPT, it's never been tested - there was no blood under her nails. Only Smit has ever said there was.Meyer did not find anything under JonBenet's fingernails. He clipped them, put the clippings in paper bags and sent them off to the lab for trained technicians to identify what was under them. So of course Meyer did not find any skin or any blood under JonBenet's nails and he didn't find the DNA either, the technicians would have.

You acknowledge that some degraded DNA was found, so where do you think it came from? DNA doesn't just float around outside of cells. The technicians most likely found skin as well and extracted the DNA from that. Using microscopic analysis the technicians could also easily have detected any minute traces of blood adhering to the skin that would have been too little for Meyer to have seen with the naked eye.

But if they didn't find blood, why is this such a big deal? It seems like JonBenet must have scratched someone, even if the scratch was only deep enough to have scraped off superficial skin cells. The DNA extracted was foreign DNA, how do you explain this within your RDI scenario?

[aussiesheila]

But no...the garotte was "built" on JonBenet's neck, as evidenced by the hair from her head that's caught in it. Many people do not believe a child would have sat still and allowed someone to tie a cord around her neck and strangle her with it, with her hair caught in it and making it even more painful, without her struggling to free herself and get away while it was happening.For the life of me I cannot see why the hair being caught in the neck ligature knot precludes it from having been put around her neck while still alive.

She didn't struggle at all - not when the cord was tied around her neck, not when it was pulled tight, and not when she drew her last breath and died.No-one has proven yet that her hands were not restrained first, thus preventing her from struggling to pull the neck ligature off with her hands.

[aussiesheila]

Possible sequence of events: the head blow was delivered first, sending JB into a deep coma. And when the ligature was finally tied around her neck, this cut off the oxygen supply and caused her death.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.

[aussiesheila]

Elvislives: so there was only "an occasional scattered subpleural petechial hemmorhage" seen on the surface of each lung.
You wrote:

But does an occasional scattered subpleural petechial hemmorhage really indicate that her breathing had to be rather vigorous at the time of strangulation?
yes it does rashomon

Couldn't the victim have been in a near-death coma whe this happened?rashomon, a person in a near death coma is incapable of breathing vigorously

[nuisanceposter]

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.

There just isn't any evidence to support your pedo ring theory, imo. 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?

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. 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?

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?

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? When did you switch up from her standing on the chair when strangled to death to kneeling? 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.

[elvislives]

Oh gosh elvis. I had posted a lengthy article at CTV from research I had done and now the board has been archived with no access. I too agree that the head bashing and strangulation occurred within a couple of minutes of each other no matter which was first or last. I certainly do not believe that more than a couple of minutes lapsed nevermind 20-60 minutes. Because I believe that it also leads me to believe more than not that it was no accident with coverup. The reason I tend to lean toward the strangulation coming first is because of the lack of time needed to rummage through the paint tote, find the paintbrush, break it, and wrap the cord around the brush. I also think she may have screamed which caused the head blow in anger from the perp while she was being strangled. JMO

Athena, I have to agree with you. I think this is why no charges were ever filed against the Ramseys. The BPD had already put the theory out there that PR killed her in a rage, then staged the rest. It's impossible to reconcile that theory with the autopsy. This is also the reason I am so interested in this case. It is definitely not as it first appeared, at least to me.

[elvislives]

Lots of great discussion on these 2 threads started by Watson (who btw has a bad habit of starting threads then disappearing...;) ).
Anyway I'm out of time right now, but will come back later and address the 'soft head' issue with children. I think there is some misunderstanding---probably thanks to me since I called their skulls 'soft'. I'll try and clarify later when I have some time.

[Louisadelmar]

[...] 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.

I would be interested in knowing if the urine stain is just in the immediate crotch and downward or does some of it go up towards the waist. If she was standing when she urinated it would all run down but if she was laying face down it would pool and wick in both directions.

[andU]

I would be interested in knowing if the urine stain is just in the immediate crotch and downward or does some of it go up towards the waist. If she was standing when she urinated it would all run down but if she was laying face down it would pool and wick in both directions.

Great question! Does anyone know? Of course we have no photos of her from the waist down, so we (again) have only our theories to go by. But, I believe that anterior describes areas away from the body (so that may indicate that she was lying down?). Sounds like it pooled and ran not on the inside of her thighs, but on the outside part of her. Was she doubled up?

[andU]

Sorry, missed the edit... maybe anterior means top of her legs and front of her croutch? ... if so, she would be lying on her belly, right?

[nuisanceposter]

if so, she would be lying on her belly, right?

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 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.

No defense wounds, no signs of a struggle, knot tied in the back, abrasions on her face including chin, urine in the front and crotch = she was unconscious when strangled, and she was strangled face down...IMO.

[aussiesheila]

I said it didn't function as a "true" garrote, meaning it didn't function in the typical manner in which a garrote is designed to function. The ligature was simply tied-off around JonBenet's neck with the paint brush handle added for effect.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.

[rashomon]

I don't know who Gregg McCary is, but how convenient is it you act like that is his opinion and not your opinion?Gregg McCrary is a world-renowned criminal profiler. I refered to his opinioon on this issue because you seem to think I'm pulling things out of thin air.

Funny, you think the Ramseys did it, and yet they're getting away with it. I guess true crime buffs no squat!
I wrote "hardly ever" get away with it, not "never get away with it", so what's your point?
My point is, you're just talking out your *ss as usual.
My point is, you're resorting to your usual insults when running out of arguments.