Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 61

Thread: Arms in rigor 2

  1. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OpenMind4U View Post
    Agree, JB has died while laying on her stomach. However, IMO, whoever placed this rope around her neck, did it from the front while JB was laying down, face-up. By the way, AR was wrong, the rope's knot wasn't on the back of her neck....according to an autopsy photo, the knot was on the right side of her neck (on the same line as round abrasion - see pic in post #42). Strange, but this 'right' side plays some kind of role: the ugly round ambrasion is on her right side, the head has been turned to the right side; the head injury is on the right side; the free hanging gold chain is on the right side as well......
    That is interesting about these injuries and locations being all on the right side. Something to ponder, and good catch.

    Another thing you've reminded me about--and anyone tired of me chewing this bone to bits, please feel free to scroll now --but the head/face being turned to the right is another thing that doesn't "fit" in this photo, which I can't understand:



    I understand it may just be the limitation of two-dimensional photographs. Maybe this one isn't even cropped, for all I know; maybe it was taken to document the bruise on the side of the face.

    At any rate, without a longer, more inclusive shot of the position of the body, arms, and head, looking at the carpet behind/beneath the shirt at the back, the position of the arm, bagged hand, and shoulder we can see, what confuses me is that it appears the left arm and hand would be in a parallel position, consistent with a "boxing" stance, for lack of a better idea in how to desribe it.

    So how is the face/head turned to the right?

    If it was turned to the right and the arms were in front, wouldn't this photo have the face "towards" the camera?

    See what I mean?

    If the left arm were out to the side, how is that when the left side of the body, shoulder, etc., appear to be against the floor, as if lying on its side naturally, not with an extended arm, etc? So for whatever reason we attribute the position of the arms parallel to each other, raised in front of the head, the face still appears to be forward, not turned to the right side.

    Since she drooled down the right side of her face, we know she had to be lying with her face and head in a position so that gravity (again!) caused the drool to flow to the right. But if her face wasn't "turned" to the right, then the only other explanation I can come up with is she was in fact lying on her right side when that happened.

    But if the head blow was from above and slightly to the right, and she ended up lying on her right side, arms raised in the position in this photo, drooling before the duct tape was placed on her mouth, that's something that would be important information. It's certainly not what I've been thinking were the facts of the position of the body in the basement room all along.

    And then there is the livor mortis. Now I wonder if I've been misinterpreting that, as well. It doesn't set in seconds after death. Plus, I need to go back and read the autopsy again to check the language, as well as photos.

    There may be some very simple answer for this, but I'm still confused. Maybe I'm not explaining well what bothers me, as it may not be confusing to others.

    Anyway, thanks for reminding me of that issue with this photo.

    "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.

  2. #50

    Default

    Oh yeah, and ANOTHER thing...does it look like her hair is in TWO pony tails in this photo?

    I know we can see the hair ornament in the "top" ponytail in one of the photos on the rug, but look at the loose, flowing hair at the back of her head in the photo with the bagged hands. It doesn't look like her hair is in a ponytail at the back to me. Anyone else confused by this? Or is it just me?

    "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.

  3. #51

    Default

    Looking at autopsy photos: WARNING! GRAPHIC!

    OM4U: you can see the child's hair was caught in the ligature and pulled to her left in front, in the close-up here: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...86&postcount=5

    So I think we can conclude the knot and ligature moved in that direction, as well. If it were tied on the back of the neck, facedown, then it moved left to right to end up on the right rear side of her neck. Turning her over--if you can imagine this--that would move the cord from her right to her left in front, as the hair indicates, would it not?

    That would indicate to me the knot was tied in the back and moved as it was tightened?

    If it had been tied in front or on the right side, the hair wouldn't have been pulled in that direction to her left without the knot moving with it, ending up on the opposite side of where it did or in the middle of her neck in front--anterior neck, I think it's called?

    In fact, I think we get a good idea of how much the cord moved as it was tightened by looking the way the hair is caught into it and how far it was drawn under the cord to her left in the autopsy photo?

    That may be clear as mud, but I hope you get the idea.

    "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.

  4. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post


    I believe the ligature around the child's neck in fact strangled her. I don't believe the "sex game" theory is supported by the evidence, even though I have great respect for Dr. Wecht.
    KK, do you think the strangulation was intentionally done to end JonBenet's life or intentionally done as a part of the staging with the offender thinking JonBenet was already dead, or do you see some other intent? TIA

    I don't believe the evidence supports a sex game gone bad either but maybe there is evidence Wecht saw that wasn't available to the public?????

  5. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Looking at autopsy photos: WARNING! GRAPHIC!

    OM4U: you can see the child's hair was caught in the ligature and pulled to her left in front, in the close-up here: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...86&postcount=5

    So I think we can conclude the knot and ligature moved in that direction, as well. If it were tied on the back of the neck, facedown, then it moved left to right to end up on the right rear side of her neck. Turning her over--if you can imagine this--that would move the cord from her right to her left in front, as the hair indicates, would it not?

    That would indicate to me the knot was tied in the back and moved as it was tightened?

    If it had been tied in front or on the right side, the hair wouldn't have been pulled in that direction to her left without the knot moving with it, ending up on the opposite side of where it did or in the middle of her neck in front--anterior neck, I think it's called?

    In fact, I think we get a good idea of how much the cord moved as it was tightened by looking the way the hair is caught into it and how far it was drawn under the cord to her left in the autopsy photo?

    That may be clear as mud, but I hope you get the idea.
    KK, yes, I saw the hair 'movement'. And it makes sense to me if JB would laid down FACING up. Especially, with the chain cought into the rope, BELLOW the rope. Here what I imagined happens (again, just intuition and common sence which has no proof what so ever!). Please be with me for awhile and try to see this picture.

    While JB was laying down on her back, someone who was sitting next to her RIGHT side (above her!), was placed the rope around her neck into slipknot, tiding the knot. To which direction? To the killer's RIGHT side, leaving the round abrasion on JB's cheeck! By pulling rope to the killer's right side, JB's hair were moving with the rope in the same direction: from left to right (when facing JB). Therefore, the gold chain was cought in the way you see it: the 'free' chain was hanging at the place where knot originated and the rest of the chain was 'cought' while rest of the rope was moving. Again, to not confuse anyone: WHEN FACING JB, the rope was tiding into slipknot from left to right. Then, turning JB to her stomach to add this ugly 'garotte' and do the final pull... IMO, the killer was right-handed and the round abrasion has direct connection with the final strangulation.

    I should mention thousand times that everything stated above is JMO. I could be thousand times wrong but this how I 'see' it with my 'internal, not objective, JBR-murder-obsessive' eye....

    By the way, I'm strong believer that this particular strangulation (rope with the gold chain) has eventially killed JB....however, prior to that, I believe something else was on JB's neck (partial strangulation?) which left well-defined 'V' line bellow. And if it's true then it wouldn't surprized me if her hands were ORIGINALLY bonded in different location (leaving or not leaving the marks).

    Therefore, the picture of her right hand with ring with questionable bruises could be the 'running ink' or could be the original marks from prior bondings.

    As it has been pointed to us by DA/LE many times: 'It's not what it seems!' plus the partial AR plus the 'secret' evidences = SPECULATION....unfortunately.

    I thank you all for letting me to express my opinion (speculation). You're the BEST voices for JBR!!!!!!
    Last edited by OpenMind4U; January 8, 2013, 4:31 pm at Tue Jan 8 16:31:35 UTC 2013. Reason: spelling:)

  6. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    In a World With Too Much Crime
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    This picture has been brought up with the same question before.

    I see the "mark" you see. But we don't see that in any other photo or defined in the medical examiner's autopsy report.

    The photo you are using in fact is a scan of a page from a tabloid, I'm thinking I remember.

    So some argue what we're seeing is in fact "ink bleed" from the other side of the paper.

    I think that's very possible because, if you look closer, you can see the "mark" extends above the hand into the "measurement" comparison ruler? Also, the cord was found tied over the sleeve of the top the child was wearing, so thinking it through: how did it get there if it were tight enough on her wrist below the sleeve to leave a bruise? Someone would have to have slipped it back over the sleeve later. If it slipped back up the arm by itself through some other inadvertent physical action, I don't think it would be on top of the sleeve, but under it?

    I've also never seen any case insider source claim there were bruises on the wrists or hands, so there's that, too.

    Of course, like the "raised" position of the arms/hands, it's an open argument I have no definitive answer for.

    I don't personally think she fought anyone that night, as there are no "defensive" bruises anywhere on her body. Since the ligature on the wrists was very loosely tied with more than a foot of length in between, I don't see how it could have served any purpose for restriction of movement on a living child, especially one fighting for her life. Had she pulled fairly hard, the wrist loops would have come off without much effort, I think.

    I believe the evidence supports the theory that she was already unconscious or dead when the wrist ligature was tied. JMO, of course.
    I know there have been many theories as to what that mark is and the one I can agree with the most is it was from her bracelet which the coroner removed from that hand.

    KK, I see the what you are describing as 'bleed' and the mark onto the ruler, but I don't think the marks are the same on the ruler as on the wrist.

    It's probably too late to get justice for JonBenét. Maybe it always was. But knowing where things went wrong is the first step to not going there again. **-- Alan Prendergast-Dec 21, 2006--**

    ______________________
    Bring all our Missing Home www.usearchut.org
    Prayers for our military who are protecting our freedom.

  7. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Thanks, Deedee.

    Do you know of any resource for this I could look up? I'll have time later to do some research on my own, but thought I'd ask in case you do, off the top of your head?
    I always just do a Google search. But one site I know I have used at times is "how things work". Just Google that. I have used it for anything from rigor mortis to researching the bioplastic residue on the Shroud of Turin.

    OT- for an amazing perspective on this very controversial relic, read the book "The DNA of GOD". Written by a scientist and former atheist, he was one of the few allowed by the Vatican to conduct physical testing on the Shroud. You don't need a scientific background to read it- it is in layman's terms.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  8. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moab View Post
    I know there have been many theories as to what that mark is and the one I can agree with the most is it was from her bracelet which the coroner removed from that hand.

    KK, I see the what you are describing as 'bleed' and the mark onto the ruler, but I don't think the marks are the same on the ruler as on the wrist.

    BBM

    I believe the same thing, Moab. The reddish marks surrounding JonBenet's wrist fit the bracelet exactly.

  9. #57

    Default

    Thanks, OpenMine4U, for detailing your thoughts. Everyone has a theory, and few have the same one. Not to mention, many of us have had several through the years. No one can say who is right or wrong without a trial. We're all guessing at a lot in this case too often, but without a trial, it's all we can do.

    Moab and Cherokee: Interesting idea. I hadn't thought about the bracelet.

    Thanks, Deedee. I'll give it google.

    "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.

  10. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    1,000 miles from nowhere
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Interesting comments about the bracelet.

    What are your opinions on why the bracelet isn't on her wrist yet her necklace and ring are still in place.

    Iirc, somewhere I read that JonBenet went to bed with the new bracelet on and that it had been a gift from Aunt Pam.

  11. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    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.
    Hey KK

    Two pictures need to be reconciled with respect to JonBenet’s arm/hand position.
    Although you didn’t include it in the discussion so far, but did in other threads, the picture from Henry Lee’s book depicting a radically different position should be included here.
    Both pictures were presumably taken within a reasonably close time frame.
    The only explanation that fits, IMO, is that the coroner broke rigor, perhaps in order for the photographer to get a better shot of the marks on JonBenet’s neck that seemed to intrigue him.
    He makes a special note of the marks in his report.
    I arrived at the scene approximately 8 PM on 12/26 and entered the house where the decedent's body was located at approximately 8:20PM. I initially viewed the body in the living room of the house. The decedent was laying on her back on the floor, covered by a blanket and a Colorado Avalanche sweatshirt. On removing these two items from the top of the body the decedent was found to be lying on her back with her arms extended up over her head. The head was turned to the right. A brief examination of the body disclosed a ligature around the neck and a ligature around the right wrist. Also noted was a small area of abrasion or contusion below the right ear on the lateral aspect of the right cheek. A prominent dried abrasion was present on the lower left neck. After examining the body, I left the residence at approximately 8:30PM.

    It is not unheard of for a Coroner or Medical Examiner to break rigor in order to better photograph evidence, here is one example.
    The next pictures are the area, the fence, the bushes then come the Hard ones, they are close ups of Emma's face....1 or 2 is of some redness on the cheeks with LINER patterns inside the redness, one is of her mouth, Jaw stuck in full rigor, next is one of mouth open after DB (Coroner’s investigator, Denise Bertone) had to break rigor to get it open
    http://katfishponders.blogspot.ca/20...l-day-two.html

    It is not clear which of the pictures depicts the body, specifically the arms, in rigor: the picture with the arms to the sides, or the picture with the arms in front.
    It’s also not clear whether the arms in the one picture are in the “pugilist” position or whether we are seeing the arm with rigor broken and loosely draped across the neck as I attempt to show in the picture below. (I believe it is loosely draped across the neck, but, of course, I could be wrong.)



    The pictures below show the extreme difference in arm position between the two crime scene photos.
    (Incidentally, it’s also quite clear from the Henry Lee picture that the arm position in the artist’s depiction is far too high.)



    Is the pugilist position feasible?

    Last edited by cynic; January 13, 2013, 4:15 am at Sun Jan 13 4:15:25 UTC 2013.

  12. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    I've said all along that the artist's depiction was not accurate. The artist never even saw the body- the drawing was made from description, and obviously subject to the interpretation of the artist, i.e. what he "saw" in his mind's eye as he heard/read the description.
    By the way, look closely and you will see the white/black/red hairtie that secured the topknot ponytail at the top of JB's head. It is hard to notice at first, because the pattern of the rug she is lying on is so busy.
    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
  •