Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 61

Thread: Arms in rigor 2

  1. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    But JR said her arms were tied "behind her head"? Which brought me to the original question: did he mean the ligature was "behind" her head"?
    KK, I've added a blue line to my illustration to show how JonBenet's wrists could have been said to be tied "behind her head" and still have her body be lying on the floor on her back in the rigor mortis position.

    I am not an expert on rigor mortis, but if JonBenet's wrists were tied in that position, perhaps the natural contraction of the arm muscles/ligaments gave JonBenet's body that position.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  2. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    The position of JB's arms in the photo also support Det. Arndt's description. She stated that she immediately knew JB was dead the second she saw JR carrying her upright (like a mannikin) in front of him, his hands were holding her around the waist (Touch DNA transfer right there) and her arms were "up over her head with no support". She was so obviously in rigor mortis that any one would see that, even someone who had never seen a body in rigor before.

    I suppose that although the position of her arms in REALITY is not ambiguous, the various descriptions (over her head, in front of her, behind her head, etc) are dependent on the various ways the observer described them.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  3. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Now I'm back to wondering about what Mr. Walsh said about JR "cutting her down." Maybe he meant her arms?
    I have no problem believing that Walsh was COMPLETELY WRONG regarding the “hanging.”
    I'm not sure if he is mistaken because he is confusing the Ramsey case with some other case, or if he was aware that there was ligature involved and she died of asphyxiation, put 2 and 2 together and came up with 100. (True in a mix of decimal and binary only.)
    His statements on the case read like an Aphrodite Jones documentary, and as you know, that is not a compliment.

    KING: Have you ever shown an interest the in the JonBenet Ramsey case?
    WALSH: You know, we were asked to do that case a year afterward to try to help the Boulder police, you know, get a couple tips on it. But I think everybody knows that the case was compromised by bad police work in the beginning. I'm not the first one to say that and I'm a great supporter of law enforcement.
    I mean, you are a detective and you go to a kidnapping of a high -- prominent family in a very wealthy area, and then, you know, police work 101, you clear the house and you clear the crime scene. She allowed the father and his friend to search the house. So he cuts down JonBenet, who is hanging down there. He compromised the crime scene, whether he had anything to do with it or he had nothing to do with it, he cut down his daughter in the crime scene with the DNA.
    KING: So there's nothing you can do to help in a situation...
    WALSH: You know, we've talked about it a couple of times because there were 200 people in that house at Christmas parties the day before. And I've found over the years it's never your trusted maid. It's a crack-addicted boyfriend that gets the key and comes in and robs your house. You know, it always someone affiliated in that area. I always hope that we would, you know, get a tip on that case, that someone would come forward. But I truly think because of the police work, that this case will never be solved.

    Larry King Live, March 4, 2002

    KING: We're back with John Walsh. We're going to discuss some other cases of interest. We want to get to some phone calls too. Our first call is from Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Hello.
    CALLER: Hello. My question is for your guest, Larry. I wonder, there's three parts to the question. I wanted to know if he has any comments about the JonBenet case in Colorado, and the second part to that question is, if that case will ever be solved? And the third part to that question is, doesn't he think it's really weird the way those parents acted from the beginning of that case, when they were doing everything possible to protect themselves rather than to find out what were -- who were the real killers of his daughter?
    KING: OK, we got it. John?
    WALSH: I've been to Dubai, hunting fugitives -- terrorists out there.
    I don't think that that case will ever, will ever be solved, because now it's been taken over by the state, you know, the attorney general of the state of Colorado, because so many incredible mistakes were made at the crime scene at the beginning.
    KING: From the get-go.
    WALSH: From the get-go. And then they empanelled a grand jury and brought DAs from every county around Colorado, and they all came to the same conclusion. They said whether the Ramseys had something to do with it or not, there was such poor police work was done in the beginning, this case will probably never be solved.
    Parents have the right to get lawyers. They have the right to get -- you know, to have people represent them if they think the cops are doing a bad job. I always wanted to do that case on "America's Most Wanted." And Mr. Ramsey said, I'd like to do it. Mrs. Ramsey said no. I said, I'll treat you fairer than anybody else in the world. Let me do a whole hour on "America's Most Wanted." But they're going to start over and take a re-look at the case. That's what I say you have to do. You have to throw everything out and start again.
    KING: Are you open on it?
    WALSH: I am open-minded about it, because they only ever focused on the parents. A good investigation is a parallel investigation. Sweat the parents, but don't rule out the sexual offender that may be living within a mile of there.

    Larry King Live, June 24, 2003

    John Walsh: Well, the, the governor empanelled a grand jury in that case, and they brought the DA's from every county in Colorado, and they came to one conclusion, it was the worst police work they ever saw.
    The collection of evidence was so poorly done, the interviewing of the parents, they never interviewed any sex offenders in the neighborhood. They had 200 people at a party the day before. It's always the caterer, or the caterer's bartender, or the boyfriend of your maid whose a crack addicted pedophile or whatever. Those cases are never solved because they're blown in the beginning. The information, the evidence is compromised, the interviewing tactics are horrible, and that's what happens in so many cases.

    Kimberly Guilfoyle: Is that ever going to get solved?
    John Walsh: I don't think so. I think, I really don't believe the Ramseys had anything to do with it. I believe that they got their nightmare turned into a double nightmare because they probably will never find out who killed JonBenet Ramsey.
    Kimberly Guilfoyle: And many people still associate them....
    John Walsh: It's terrible, because that's what the media does. The police there only ever focused in on the family. You have to do a parallel search, everybody knows that. You can't rule out the fact that it could have been a Joseph Duncan, a sexual predator, who’s roaming through little Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, to get a victim, you have to eliminate the parents, Reve and I had to go through the polygraphs, everybody has to do that, eliminate the family members, that wasn't done. That case was compromised and blown from the first minute.

    The LineUp, April 30, 2006

    COOPER: When you look at the details of the JonBenet Ramsey case, though, is this thing ever going to get solved?
    WALSH: You know, it's not like on TV. You know, the guy who was this main suspect in Adam's murder was never charged. The police work was very shoddy. They lost a piece of bloody carpet in Adam's case of the main suspect. That carpet would have been able to prove with DNA now who killed Adam, if the guy, that was the main suspect, died in prison.
    I think the JonBenet Ramsey case is the same thing, that John Ramsey will never see justice. Very poor police work. Everybody admits that. Evidence lost. Nobody looked at, but the Ramseys. I think it's another American tragedy that probably will never be solved and I personally believe that somebody came into that house, and so do a lot of other detectives, and killed JonBenet Ramsey and that killer's still at large.
    COOPER: And so -- I mean, the details of it, the ransom note that was taken from the kitchen, written in the kitchen, you know, with the dollar signs that just happened to be the same amount that John Ramsey got as a bonus that year. I mean, there are so many details which sort of raise more questions than they answer.
    WALSH: Yes, possibly coincidences. But you know, they never looked at anybody else but the family. And there was a Christmas party with 200 people there the day before. And the FBI always says, is it the maid? Maybe it's not the maid, it's the maid's crack addicted boyfriend that's on work release that has access to the house.
    Maybe it's the caterer, maybe it's somebody that knew. And there's so many details that haven't been released in that case. And a grand jury held in the state of Colorado came up with the same conclusion. And this was different D.A.'s from different counties that said the police work was so bad, that case will probably never be solved.

    COOPER: And that's the problem, I guess, with a lot of these sort of "cold cases," that as the years go by, evidence gets lost.
    WALSH: Oh, absolutely. Evidence disappears, witnesses change addresses, witnesses die. And you know, but I truly -- my belief that justice delayed is not always justice denied. We've caught guys on "America's Most Wanted" that have been out there for 20 years. So I always say, don't give up. Unfortunately, as the case goes on, the chances of solving it are diminished greatly

    Anderson Cooper 360, October 13, 2006

  4. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Walsh is a good man, but he is NOT a forensic specialist and did not see the body or the crime photos, nor did he take any eyewitness testimony. JN was not hung or suspended in any way and was not cut down. The livor pattern was well-established and it would be VERY obvious that she had been suspended. She was not.

    One of the VERY frustrating things with this case is that there are some things we KNOW and some things we do NOT know. Of the things we know, some are facts that are not open to interpretation. The process of livor mortis and rigor mortis fall in this category. And it is very frustrating when they are ignored, though Walsh may be unaware of them, but that makes it all the more wrong that he opines about things that he clearly has no knowledge of.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  5. #29

    Default

    Almost every damn thing he said is about 9 miles from right.
    In doing those interviews IMO he joined the media circus and helped to propagate all the wrong information. Those interview answers he gave are no better than anything read in the Globe and National Enquirer.
    I feel for him because of what happened to his son, but I think in this case he really should have kept his mouth shut.

  6. #30

    Default

    Thanks, everyone.

    I didn't mean, was it possible the child's entire body was hanging, just to be clear. I was wondering if her ARMS could have been suspended in some way.

    See, as you mentioned, Cherokee, I wondered if the cord tied behind the neck and to both wrists could have caused her arms to rest in that position until rigor set it. But it doesn't seem natural if she was flat on her back--gravity would come into play and I imagine her arms would fall to the floor beside her head. That's like the drawing in question?

    Anyway, thanks for the quotes, cynic. I know it's off topic, but this is my fav quote from the whole shebang:

    Walsh: "I always wanted to do that case on 'America's Most Wanted.' And Mr. Ramsey said, I'd like to do it. Mrs. Ramsey said no."

    I bet she did. At least, that's what they told Walsh, anyway.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  7. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    Walsh is a good man, but he is NOT a forensic specialist and did not see the body or the crime photos, nor did he take any eyewitness testimony. JN was not hung or suspended in any way and was not cut down. The livor pattern was well-established and it would be VERY obvious that she had been suspended. She was not.

    One of the VERY frustrating things with this case is that there are some things we KNOW and some things we do NOT know. Of the things we know, some are facts that are not open to interpretation. The process of livor mortis and rigor mortis fall in this category. And it is very frustrating when they are ignored, though Walsh may be unaware of them, but that makes it all the more wrong that he opines about things that he clearly has no knowledge of.
    I understand and agree. I'm just trying to figure out the discrepancy in the position of the arms/hands in rigor to the child lying on her back. There just has to be something there other than what we know. Whatever it is, I'm clueless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karen View Post
    Almost every damn thing he said is about 9 miles from right.
    In doing those interviews IMO he joined the media circus and helped to propagate all the wrong information. Those interview answers he gave are no better than anything read in the Globe and National Enquirer.
    I feel for him because of what happened to his son, but I think in this case he really should have kept his mouth shut.
    It appears to me Walsh spent some time talking to Team Ramsey. Putting all the blame on the BPD repeatedly, not to mention misstating the facts of evidence so completely, I smell "lots of detectives" Lou Smit, Ollie, and Agustin: a crack-addicted maid/caterer/boyfriend? Who wrote and talked just like Patsy! Yeah, brilliant deduction, there, Walsh. Sorry, you got this one MAJOR WRONG.

    Obviously Walsh easily related to the parents because he lost his own child violently. What Walsh either missed or just conveniently forgot was the Ramseys never took a polygraph for LE, refused to be interviewed by the BPD for four months, obstructed and derailed the investigation at every turn, and lied repeatedly every time they finally did talk to Boulder LE.

    The only reason my mind went back to Walsh's "cut her down" statement is because so far, we have no explanation as to HOW the child's hands got into the rigor position in that photo.

    That particular photo wasn't released for many years, in fact. We only have the "cropped" version now. I initially paid more attention to the paper bags on the hands because Smit testified under oath in his deposition in the Wolf lawsuit the paper bag with the "rope" in it was the source for the fibers in the body bag, bed, etc., and were evidence of an INTRUDER. He also conveniently forgot that HE, HIMSELF, TOLD JOHN RAMSEY IN THE '98 DA INTERVIEWS THE ROPE WAS IN A PAPER BAG THAT BELONGED TO LE. Carnes uses that, among OTHER disinformation Smit shared in his deposition with Wood, to pronounce upon her DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BEFORE TRIAL THAT HER OPINION--as opposed to Team Ramsey's BS spin it was a TRIAL VERDICT--that an intruder was more likely the perp than the Ramseys. But I digress....

    When it finally registered for me that the hands were not in the position we'd always been led to believe they were, I understood why the picture was so narrowly cropped--Team Ramsey hiding the facts of evidence to mislead the public--AGAIN...IMO.

    Anyway, this is what angers me about DAs Hunter and Lacy giving ONLY PRIVATE CITIZEN AND RAMSEY SHILL LOU SMIT access to those crime scene photos to use as propaganda, deceiving the public to this day about what they actually indicate in this "unsolved" murder case.

    Oh my. I went and got started....

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  8. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    I don't think her arms were in any other position. I think she was laid down on that carpet and her arms were probably like this: flat on the ground, raised up so her shoulders were parallel to her chin, bent at the elbows so her hands were parallel to her ears, palms up. In the drawing we all have seen, her arms are depicted as STRAIGHT out extending over her head. This is incorrect. My description fits in with the photo of her on the carpet. Rigor can easily have pulled her arms in a bit so they are in front of her rather than next to her, as they had been when she was placed there.
    I do not think the crime photo was cropped for any nefarious reason. ALL the crime photos were cropped. I don't think anyone was trying to hide the original position of her arms because I do not think there was anything remarkable about them as far as hiding evidence, etc.
    I think too much is being made over the position of her arms. Forensics tells us she was not hung or suspended in any way. Even the ligature furrow is specifically noted as being "circumferential" with little deviation - this means she was NOT suspended or hung. It was wrapped around her throat while she lay on her stomach and tightened till she died, just the way it looks. I try not to pay much attention to anyone whose source of info is Smit, Tracy, etc. And certainly not to anyone who has not seen the body, crime scene, or autopsy photos.
    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  9. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    I'm only speculating here but if Patsy did this via corporal cleansing, perhaps she had to restrain JonBenet by tying her hands to keep her hands from flailing around.

  10. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee View Post
    I don't think her arms were in any other position. I think she was laid down on that carpet and her arms were probably like this: flat on the ground, raised up so her shoulders were parallel to her chin, bent at the elbows so her hands were parallel to her ears, palms up. In the drawing we all have seen, her arms are depicted as STRAIGHT out extending over her head. This is incorrect. My description fits in with the photo of her on the carpet. Rigor can easily have pulled her arms in a bit so they are in front of her rather than next to her, as they had been when she was placed there.
    I do not think the crime photo was cropped for any nefarious reason. ALL the crime photos were cropped. I don't think anyone was trying to hide the original position of her arms because I do not think there was anything remarkable about them as far as hiding evidence, etc.
    I think too much is being made over the position of her arms. Forensics tells us she was not hung or suspended in any way. Even the ligature furrow is specifically noted as being "circumferential" with little deviation - this means she was NOT suspended or hung. It was wrapped around her throat while she lay on her stomach and tightened till she died, just the way it looks. I try not to pay much attention to anyone whose source of info is Smit, Tracy, etc. And certainly not to anyone who has not seen the body, crime scene, or autopsy photos.
    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
    I'm pretty sure I've never said or implied she was hanged--as in suspended by the neck.

    As far as making too much of the position of her arms in the photo in question, I'm just a curious person.

    And I still have questions with your assessment, as I've never seen one case of anyone whose arms tightened in rigor to lift them against gravity, as you believe happened here. Obviously you have, so perhaps you can direct me to those cases or a source or online site, and thanks in advance.

    My biggest issue is, if you notice, the carpet at the child's BACK in the photo: her arms are not in any way extended to the sides that I can see. They look squarely bent and raised in FRONT of her head, with her hands in FRONT of her face.

    At least, that's how it appears to me. Maybe I'm just not perceiving the photo correctly.

    But then, it's cropped tightly, so...my bad, I guess.

    And for the record, as I don't want to be starting rumors: I never said Walsh DID talk to Smit, Ollie, or Agustin. I was speculating. I have no personal knowledge or any source to determine exactly with whom in the Ramsey camp Walsh spoke. I'd guess he had to speak with the Ramsey's lawyers or the Ramseys themselves, but I only mentioned the terrible threesome because Walsh mentioned "lot of detectives" believe an intruder committed these crimes. I find that highly unlikely outside of Team Ramsey. But again, that's just a guess.
    Last edited by koldkase; January 7, 2013, 1:23 pm at Mon Jan 7 13:23:17 UTC 2013.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  11. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    I'm only speculating here but if Patsy did this via corporal cleansing, perhaps she had to restrain JonBenet by tying her hands to keep her hands from flailing around.
    It's an interesting thought. Wouldn't there be bruising from the ligature on the wrists?

    Also, the loops around them were so loose, they were slipped over her hands, so I think the general thought is the wrist ligatures were strictly for staging, I'm remembering, now that you've brought this up.

    The only reason I ventured a question about the arms being "tied and suspended" is because if she were lying on her back while livor mortis was setting and rigor was
    setting" her muscles in the position of her arms/hands raised in FRONT of her face and "over" her head in that way, I can't account for how that was possible. Gravity is a force in this question for me.

    But then, I'm not that smart, so maybe I'm just asking dumb questions.
    Last edited by koldkase; January 7, 2013, 1:17 pm at Mon Jan 7 13:17:28 UTC 2013.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  12. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    It's an interesting thought. Wouldn't there be bruising from the ligature on the wrists?

    Also, the loops around them were so loose, they were slipped over her hands, so I think the general thought is the wrist ligatures were strictly for staging, I'm remembering, now that you've brought this up.

    The only reason I ventured a question about the arms being "tied and suspended" is because if she were lying on her back while livor mortis was setting and rigor was
    setting" her muscles in the position of her arms/hands raised in FRONT of her face and "over" her head in that way, I can't account for how that was possible. Gravity is a force in this question for me.

    But then, I'm not that smart, so maybe I'm just asking dumb questions.
    There are no dumb questions- and no dumb posters here either. Try to imagine it this way....JB lying on her back in the wine cellar with her arms the way I described- flat on the floor, bent at the elbows, palms up, forearms parallel to her head. Livor mortis begins to form with 10-20 minutes, and as the body remains still, the blood pools in the areas of the body closest to the ground- her back, buttocks, back of legs, and head, which was cocked to the right. The extremities (like ARMS) are not as heavy and there is less pressure against the floor so livor is not always noticeable as much there. (except in the case of a sitting or upright (as in hanging) body in which case the blood will pool in the legs and hands and lower arms).
    As livor is becoming fixed, rigor mortis has already begun. Remember that once livor is fixed (which means the blood is no longer liquid, but has begun to gel) there will be no further movement of the blood and no further livor pattern forming. Rigor mortis will cause the muscles to contract ONLY, and not relax because the calcium ions are starved of glucose and no longer able to move in and out of the cell walls. The muscles ratchet tighter and tighter, pulling her FOREARMS closer to her face and up from the floor, into the position we see as she lies on the rug in that photo.
    As for the legs- we have NO photo of JB's legs as they actually appeared, and it is unlikely that they would have been pulled up into a flexed-knee position that would be very obvious, but the muscles have contracted there, too, so I doubt her legs were perfectly straight, however to the untrained observer they may have appeared that way. The legs are the last muscle group to reach full rigor, with the thigh muscles being the largest muscle group.
    I feel it is very possible, and likely, that JB's arms were pulled into that position by rigor. And yes, rigor can pull bodies (especially arms and legs) into positions that seem to defy gravity- in fact the first thing Det. Arndt mentioned was her arms being "held up with no support". This does defy gravity.
    BUT- There are other position they could have been in and ended up that way- that is if they were folded on her chest, or even covering her face.
    If JR went to the basement early that morning (or even during his 10 AM "disappearance" that day) her arms may NOT have been in full rigor at that point and may have still been next to her. But by the time she was brought up a few hours later, they would have been. This is especially true if he based his description on seeing her MUCH earlier- before or around the time of the 911 call, when it would have only been 5-6 hours since she died.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.



Similar Threads

  1. Arms in rigor: Warning! Autopsy photos!
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: December 19, 2010, 7:22 pm, Sun Dec 19 19:22:42 UTC 2010

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •