Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 30
  1. #1

    Default Tying Up Loose Ends

    From the beginning, I was struck by degree of ignorance evidenced
    in the neck and wrists ties. It’s hard to imagine a person
    attempting to stage a crime scene in a area where said person
    didn’t have the foggiest notion of what he\she was doing. It
    shows mental chaos and desperation driven by fear of discovery of
    the truth about the skull fracture. Granted, it would have been
    much simpler to have just called 911 and reported an accident.
    Simpler or not, this did not happen, and whether we know or not
    know why Patsy and John chose a different route, the evidence
    remains as is; and it is the evidence that tells the true story.

    In an ever increasing urbanized world, there are but a few of us
    left of a dying breed who grew up in the rural on farms and
    ranches where knots, ropes, hitches, lassos and snares were a
    daily part of life. Even so, if a person is capable of tying a
    shoelace, said person has the knowledge to see that the person
    doing the tying found at the crime scene was totally lost in
    regard to cords, ropes and knots.

    “Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the
    shirt is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which
    measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail
    of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double
    loop knot.” (From autopsy report)

    Why no mention of a cord around the other wrist? It fell off and
    is 15.5 inches away and around nothing. We not only have “tied
    loosely....overlying the sleeve” raising questions, we have as
    fact the loop around the left wrist fell off. What kind of tie is
    so poorly done that it simply falls off? What does this say of
    the lack of knowledge and ineptness of the person who did this
    wrist tying? This person created a “sophisticated strangling
    tool?”

    What I’m getting at is that even though there might be some
    factors about the cord around the neck that confuse the
    uninformed, if you have the capability of tying a shoelace, a
    cord around a package, or a cord around a wrist, you know the
    person who tied the cord around JonBenet’s wrists did not show
    such knowledge. What does this tell except a desperate and
    amateurish attempt to set up a kidnaped, bound and gagged scene
    to divert attention away from the truth? (Even if viewed alone
    without recourse to all the other evidence, try fitting the
    incompetence shown in the wrist ties to an intruder.)

    Suppose we take a look at this part of the crime scene and let
    the evidence reveal with certainty in some areas and high
    probability in others what happened. This will also help to
    provide a better understanding of just how all wrong the staging
    is.

    The wrists were “tied” at approximately fifteen inches apart.
    This show gross ignorance of binding. Properly, i.e.,
    effectively, would be to put the wrists together, wrap a cord
    around both wrists, bring the ends up between the wrists and tie
    tightly around the cord between the wrists, thereby, compressing
    it to create a very efficient handcuff effect. For an extra
    measure, finish the knot underneath so the victim will have much
    more difficulty in getting to the knot to try to undo it.

    The person who created the wrist tying scene is sorely lacking in
    even the most basic of tie and knot knowledge. Have you ever
    tied a shoelace? Are you familiar with the option of making a
    second throw like the first and tying a hard knot, or creating a
    quick release bow? Have you ever tied a string around a package
    or box? In tying a string around a package or box, after the
    initial throw, i.e., one end of the cord over and under the
    other, did you ever ask someone to hold their finger on the first
    throw so it wouldn’t loosen while you were making the second
    throw to complete the knot. Pretty simple, isn’t it?

    To understand what is to follow, a visual will be of much help.
    There is a visual of the wrist tie that didn’t fall off located
    at http://zyberzoom.com/JonBenet.html (scroll down)

    As you look at the photo, mentally backtrack to see the route the
    cord took to eventually end at what you see. Clear? If not, let’s
    duplicate as closely as we can.

    A long flat shoelace will suffice for the cord. Any object
    positioned horizontally in front of you will suffice to put the
    cord around.

    Run the shoelace under the object, then bring the end back toward
    you from over the top of the object. At this point, the divided
    cord has parallel sections. Let’s call the top section A and the
    lower section B.

    Bring B up on the left of A creating a crossing of the two. Now
    run B over and under A. At this point, you have what would be the
    first throw in tying a shoelace. If you pull A and B opposite
    directions, the throw will move toward and tighten on the object.

    This didn’t happen. After B is taken over and under, B is not
    pulled opposite of A, but is brought back toward the person doing
    the tying. As it comes back, it crosses itself on the outside,
    i.e. the left. B is then run under A, then brought back over the
    top with the end going through the space (loop) created by the
    action. As B is brought back to the left, the end B is run under
    itself on the left creating what you see in the photo.

    This is it. It is simply two turns of B around A with a finish to
    hold the construction in some measure.

    When you tie a shoelace, you pull the ends in opposite directions
    making the force go toward and tighten the shoe on the foot. When
    you tie a package, again the opposite pulling action has the same
    effect of compressing upon the object. However, in the above
    illustration of A and B, the fundamental force is not upon the
    object, but the cord upon itself!

    This is as wrong as wrong can get and creates some huge problems.
    If you pull the ends opposite direction held in parallel with the
    object, there will be some slipping toward the object, but at the
    same time, the two turns of B are slipping together while it is
    simultaneously compressing upon A with an anti slipping effect.
    If the ends are pulled in parallel with the object, it will tend
    to slip some toward the object, but will not necessarily reach it
    before B is compressed upon A to stop any more slip movement.

    It gets worse. Imagine not pulling the ends parallel with the
    wrist. Imagine pulling while looking into a “V” as the cord is
    pulled away from the wrist in the same action that compresses B
    upon A. This is in between parallel pulling and pulling directly
    toward self. In this “V” action pulling, it will start to slip a
    little, but with the soft cord and this action, B quickly
    compresses upon A to halt any further slip movement toward the
    wrist.

    When this happens, you’re finished. There is no quick release.
    Undoing this will require a sharp pointed object to try to work
    under the final outcord section of B. It is very difficult and
    very time consuming even if succeeding at all.

    Remember, one wrist tie fell off. How is this to be explained?
    When the person doing the tying finished the construction as
    described above, the person pulled both ends with the intent to
    tighten the cord on the wrist. However, due to the construction,
    the pulling served to tighten B around A and end any slipping
    that may have started. The knot was hard and fast, and the loop
    was a long way from being tight around the wrist. What to do?
    Undoing was all but impossible. Start over? The person chose to
    leave as is, that is, with the tie very very loose, which is why
    it fell off.

    In all probability, this was the first tie made (if we can call
    it a tie). How do I reach this conclusion? Look at the photo.
    Notice that when in finishing B comes under and over A, then
    under itself. Further notice there is a gap between A and B as B
    come around A. B was not pulled even enough to bring it all the
    way down on A. High probability: when the first pulling was
    tried, it was a disaster. The person did not try again. B was
    simply run through and left without any attempt to pull and
    tighten on the wrist.

    In an earlier post, I asked the RST to explain the why of the
    “garrote handle”, to explain what would happen and why if the
    handle were pulled. Not surprisingly, I didn’t get an answer. I
    add another question: By what rationale do you label as
    “professional” a person who cannot even tie a cord around a wrist
    efficient enough to keep it from falling off???

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Yes, trying this with the shoe lace does let you see how loose these wrist loops were, EW.

    Death of Innocence, HB Page 22.
    John Ramsey talks about finding JonBenét with her hands above her head tied together with a shoestring-like cord. ... ... ...

    I can't stand the sight of her hands tied and have to do something to get them loose. I start untying her. but I can't get the tight knot undone. Everything begins to blur and I'm slipping out of my mind and losing control.

    I'm wondering when the cord came off her other wrist (?). Ramsey talks about not being able to untie the tight knot, and the autopsy talks about one wrist only

    I've always wondered why her arms were above her head, EW?

    So many questions unanswered. John Walsh makes a statement on TV about John cutting her down, and never follows through with this statement (?).
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  3. #3

    Default

    True EW. It's not difficult to see why the cord around JonBenet's neck causes confusion, the pictures of her are enough to make anyone gasp in horror, however, the picture of the cords on her wrists just do not seem to fit. My thoughts have been that this was just to use up the remaining amount of cord, sort of a "what do I do with the rest of this " thing. This part of the crime scene was generally just skipped over. (Hmmm, I wonder why that would be) You have demonstrated that the ligature was someone's misconception of a strangling devise, and the "tier" (is that a word?) also had no perception of what would sufficiently restrain. John & Lou were able to perpetuate the story of a professional applying the cord to JonBenet’s neck because of the horrible photos of this little girl, but I do not recall them coming up with any such scenario for why cords that were easily slipped off her wrists were applied. Some professional this person was, eh?

    Little

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    That shattered skull picture - how did they get that picture Easywriter?

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JC
    That shattered skull picture - how did they get that picture Easywriter?
    I really don't know. I have come across in different places what appears to be the same object photographed at different angles, but with no information on source.

  6. #6

    Default

    Little:

    “True EW. It's not difficult to see why the cord around
    JonBenet's neck causes confusion, the pictures of her are enough
    to make anyone gasp in horror, however, the picture of the cords
    on her wrists just do not seem to fit.”

    They do fit in that they are consistent with other evidence. It
    is misconception and decision to ignore that creates the misfits
    in mind, but not in the evidence. Although, the general structure
    of the wrist ties and the cord around the neck are somewhat
    different, BOTH show the same basic flaw in that the tie
    compresses the cord upon itself prohibiting the needed slip
    action to compress the cord upon the object.

    “My thoughts have been that this was just to use up the remaining
    amount of cord, sort of a "what do I do with the rest of this "
    thing.”

    I think the wrist ties were a deliberate part of the kidnaped,
    bound and gagged scene. I think the extra cord was used up by the
    many absurd turns around a useless and unused handle.

    “This part of the crime scene was generally just skipped over.”

    Yes, it was, and is. Horrible mistake with resultant seven year
    plus horrible disaster.

    “(Hmmm, I wonder why that would be)”

    Easy answer: Defective detectives.

    “You have demonstrated that the ligature was someone's
    misconception of a strangling devise, and the "tier" (is that a
    word?) also had no perception of what would sufficiently
    restrain. John & Lou were able to perpetuate the story of a
    professional applying the cord to JonBenet’s neck because of the
    horrible photos of this little girl, but I do not recall them
    coming up with any such scenario for why cords that were easily
    slipped off her wrists were applied. Some professional this
    person was, eh?”

    “but I do not recall them coming up with any such scenario for
    why cords that were easily slipped off her wrists were applied.”

    No, we do not hear of “professional wrist ties.” I know of no
    intruder theory that attempts to explain the wrist tying fiasco.
    This would be rather awkward to say the least. Imagine claiming a
    “professional” made and used a “complex garrote”, but did not
    know enough to make a simple tie around a wrist, which means very
    unprofessional. It would be kind of difficult to reconcile this
    contradiction, wouldn’t you say; which is the reason the RST
    simply pretends the faulty wrist ties don’t exist.

    I believe we can logically assume that the perpetrator was
    responsible for both the wrist ties and the cord around the neck,
    but the former is ignored as stated above. Why? Again, easy
    answer: this evidence is too clear, too black and white, too
    obvious and irrefutable to spin. It is what it is with no room
    for a song and dance around the truth it reveals, hence, it’s
    avoided.

    Let’ pick this up at the root and walk it through to see it
    clearly. I believe we can assume that the intent was to bind the
    wrists, i.e., to restrain. One may say, “I didn’t know that
    proper wrist binding is wrists close together.” One may say, “ I
    didn’t know that a loose tie over the sleeve is not the right way
    to do it.” However, if one is aware of the intent to bind the
    wrists and one of the ties simply falls off, one does not have to
    know a thing about cords and ropes to know that the attempt to
    bind failed.

    What is the simple conclusion logically drawn from this highly
    visible and irrefutable evidence? The person attempting to bind
    the wrists did not have sufficient knowledge to accomplish the
    objective. The person is so ignorant of the materials and physics
    involved that said person could not even perform the elementary
    task of tying a cord around a wrist in a manner to make it stay
    put. Professional? This person would have to improve a couple of
    notches to deserve the label, rank amateur. It’s that horrible.

    What burns me on this is not just the silly intruder theorists
    evading evidence and prattling on and on in cascading
    contradictions, it’s the law enforcement personnel who were and
    are getting paid to detect, to examine the evidence, to evaluate
    and follow it to where it leads. In the Ramsey case, they take
    taxpayer money and produce nothing. In view of the highly visible
    evidence, it’s inexcusable. Actually, it’s worse than that since
    much money has been and is still being spent on searching for a
    mythical intruder only because they didn’t read the evidence that
    rules out intruder.

    A must-read document in the investigation of the death of
    JonBenet is the autopsy report. It reads in pertinent part:

    “Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the
    shirt is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which
    measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail
    of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double
    loop knot.”

    Dr. Meyer was very careful in reporting what he found. This
    includes reporting his actions such as marking the cord around
    the neck, then cutting it. I believe we can assume that he
    reported what he found in regard to the so called wrist ties.
    What he reported was a wrist tie done so poorly that it fell off.

    Red flag, wailing siren, flashing neon lights, all saying,
    “Critical evidence. Look closely. What does it tell?” This
    evidence, identifying an important characteristic of the
    perpetrator, evidence so crucial it DETERMINES THE DIRECTION OF
    THE INVESTIGATION is simply ignored by one and all of the alleged
    detectives.

    Dr. Meyer sent this evidence along with other to the BPD. I
    presume it was and is stored in the evidence room. Any detective
    on the case even marginally worthy of the title, would have by
    the autopsy report been directed to the evidence room to closely
    examine ALL the tying in the crime scene. The wrist tie falling
    off already told the detective of the perpetrator’s incompetence.
    Had he examined the cord that came from around the neck, he would
    have seen the same incompetence and concluded the perpetrator was
    grossly inept as revealed by a binding that doesn’t bind and a
    “strangulation tool” that will not constrict the loop to
    strangle.

    Who now will argue that an intruder entered the premises,
    kidnaped JonBenet, decided to tie her wrists although he didn’t
    know how to do it; decided to make a device to strangle although
    he had no know how to construct such a device? No, the intruder
    theorists, ignore the evidence and what it tells and ramble on
    and on about a “professional garrote.”

    The wrist tie that fell off, this one piece of evidence tells the
    truth. Each of the other items also tells the truth and correlate
    with the faulty wrist tie evidence without contradiction. Over
    and over again is evidence of perpetrator ignorance in the area
    of cords and knots. All this evidence shows not the effect which
    the perpetrator attempted to portray, but repeated failure to do
    so. A set up with a face value of death by strangulation,
    defeated by a device that doesn’t work, leaves no other logical
    conclusion except staging with intent to hide the truth of the
    head trauma as the primary that prompted the desperation move.

    Don’t you find it mind boggling and disturbing that this seven
    year plus farce would have never started if an evidentiary
    faulty wrist tie had been understood?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JC
    That shattered skull picture - how did they get that picture Easywriter?
    JC: Theres a note at the bottom of the web site page with states: Please email comments or questions to - sue@zyberzoom.com You could always drop her a line.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  8. #8
    RiverRat's Avatar
    RiverRat is offline FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Left is Patsy Ramsey)
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NoneYa Beessness
    Posts
    7,824

    Default Jc

    Quote Originally Posted by JC
    That shattered skull picture - how did they get that picture Easywriter?
    All of those pictures of JonBenet were released with permission from her parents via Lou Smit. Of course.

    RR

  9. #9

    Default Ligatures

    The photos make it look like they are so loose that they were really not intended to control the child or bind her. Just to make it *look* that way possibly. I believe that is why investigators stated that the crime scene was staged to look a different way than what really happened.

  10. #10

    Default

    I agree with your knot analysis, EasyWriter. You've done a terrific job on that. But I don't think the real point is whether or not the person who tied these knots knew what he was doing. Team Ramsey could always claim the intruder didn't need to be a pro -- just someone who hated John or lusted after JonBenet. I think the real point you've made is that these knots would have been ineffectual. The "garotte" cord, as you say, couldn't have slowly tightened around her neck. And the wrist constraints were so loosely tied, the victim could easily have wriggled out of them. Unless she were already dead or unconscious, in which case there'd be no need to bother tying her up. The same goes for the duct tape. That piece of tape is too small to resist any jaw movements on the part of the victim. If it had been applied while she was alive, it would have been off in seconds. So, yes, it's awfully hard to see this as anything other than staging. And why would an intruder want to stage it?

    But there's another question lurking in the background that's a lot tougher to answer. What was the purpose of the "garotte" staging? To cover up the head blow? I don't think so. There'd be no way to cover THAT up. The crack in her skull is huge.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default The head injury

    DocG: But there's another question lurking in the background that's a lot tougher to answer. What was the purpose of the "garotte" staging? To cover up the head blow? I don't think so. There'd be no way to cover THAT up. The crack in her skull is huge.
    DocG: The perpetrator was unaware of the extent of the injury to JonBenét's head. There was no blood visible from this injury, until the autopsy was done and her scalp peeled back. This is why one should accept the blow to her head came first, whether by a hand held object or personal contact by JonBenét being thrown with FORCE against a solid structure like a wall, sink or toilet (?) With JonBenét being dragged out of her bed which she hated.

    Her hair was in an unusual arrangement with pony bands. I have read two to three (?). JonBenét's body was washed down. I see Patsy Ramsey doing this, not an intruder. An intruder doesn't have the time to sit around and do all this tidying up after a "couldn't-care-less" attack on anyone. Patsy Ramsey may have been so angry at the mess she found JonBenét in, and clobbered her in the shower with a hand held shower head. Those are very heavy. This would account for the body wash-down as well as the head injury. jmo of course!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DocG

    But there's another question lurking in the background that's a lot tougher to answer. What was the purpose of the "garotte" staging? To cover up the head blow? I don't think so. There'd be no way to cover THAT up. The crack in her skull is huge.
    It was already covered due to no scalp laceration. Think pre-autopsy and no thought of autopsy. A face value scene of death by strangulation could be rather convincing to most. It wasn't to me only because I'm familiar with ropes and knots and the scene read phony from the git go.



Posting Permissions

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