Question For Board

[watson]

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

Originally Posted by watson

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

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

[shill]

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

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by shill

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

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

[Ames]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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

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


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

[shill]

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

[nuisanceposter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

excerpt continued:

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

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

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

[Ames]

Originally Posted by shill

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

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

[Ames]

Originally Posted by lsu

excerpt continued:

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Ames

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

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

[LadyFisher]

Originally Posted by lsu

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

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

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

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

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

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by LadyFisher

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

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

Originally Posted by LadyFisher

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

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

[watson]

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

[Athena]

Originally Posted by watson

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

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

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by Ames

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

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

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by watson

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

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

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

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

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

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

Originally Posted by watson

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

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

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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

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

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

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

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

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

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

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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

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

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

[shill]

Originally Posted by Ames

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

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

[shill]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

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

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

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by elvislives

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

There was no lack of bleeding in JB's brain, and the head wound was also fully developed, so some time must have elapsed between the striking of the head blow and the strangulation.
Cyril Wecht deliberately left out that part of the autopsy report where the massive hemorrhage was mentioned.
He did this to support his (idiotic imo) "JB died from strangulation in some kinky erotic ashhyxiation game with her father John" theory.

Other things to consider:

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

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

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

[nuisanceposter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[watson]

Originally Posted by elvislives

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

*******************************************
That very well could be the answer elvislives, but this thread will be around for awhile so if anyone does come up with a scientist, ME, or pathologist that agrees with the head blow came first theory first advanced by policemen Thomas and still advanced by others today, they can put it here,and we can all check it out.
Otherwise medical and scientific opinion of experts does concur that strangling was first and head blow second as I originally thought was a solid case fact.

[watson]

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

[shill]

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

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

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

[shill]

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

[watson]

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

[shill]

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

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by shill

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

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

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by shill

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

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

[Ames]

Originally Posted by shill

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

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

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

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

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

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by watson

Just to remind everyone although the ananlysis of the knots and string were never released, the knot does in photographs look like a slip knot (as do the others), AND NO ONE, not a single person at the FBI, police, team Ramsey, or anyone else has ever denied that the neck knot and others are slip knots (as they seems to be).

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

Last, what really gives this whole thing away and way tips the circumstancial evidence (besides the medical and scientific evidence already being there) toward strangling first, is the 'form' of the garotte....it's a long string with a loop at one end and a pull handle at the other 17 1/2 inches away from the loop. If the victim was already unconscious when strangled (like you say), and the knot at the back of her neck making the loop was a static unmoving knot, what on earth was the pull handle for 17 1/2" away? How do you explain it???

But those multiple loops of cord around a stick make that pull handle pretty ineffective. Try it out yourself.

[rashomon]

[quote=elvislives;8789370]

Originally Posted by watson

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

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

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

Docg's theory does NOT mesh with the physical evidence.