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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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... I am sure there's a way--I'll see if I can figure it out.

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

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by elvislives

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... 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/...ey/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]

Originally Posted by elvislives

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]

Originally Posted by elvislives

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]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

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

What you said:

[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]

Originally Posted by watson

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/...ey/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]

Originally Posted by Tober

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]

Originally Posted by elvislives

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... 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]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

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]

Originally Posted by watson

************************************************** *
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]

Originally Posted by watson

************************************************** *
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]

Originally Posted by andU

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]

Originally Posted by User615

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.

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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/...ey/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.

Originally Posted by Tober

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.

Originally Posted by andU

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.

Originally Posted by shill

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...

Originally Posted by rashomon

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...

Originally Posted by watson

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]

Originally Posted by elvislives

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.

Originally Posted by rashomon

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]

Originally Posted by elvislives

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]

Originally Posted by Zoey

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by elvislives

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]

Originally Posted by rashomon

[..]
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]

Originally Posted by elvislives

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]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

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