Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 30
  1. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Oh, ok, like it is an object and not really her head ... ?

  2. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JC
    Oh, ok, like it is an object and not really her head ... ?
    The reason I said object was because at the time, I couldn't recall with certainty what I remembered was authentic or a replication. (I have seem replication in a place or two.) Prompted by your question, I looked and found the photo in two locations. It appears to be an authentic autopsy photo. In one of the pictures, you can see what looks like part of the coroner's measuring instrument.

  3. #15

    Default Elle and EasyWriter

    If you think they were so naive as to have "no thought of an autopsy" then why weren't they naive enough to think they could get away with calling it an accident? "She tripped and hit her head against (whatever)." A "face value scene of" accidental death, no?

    Why are you both so sure she wasn't manually strangled? Are you familiar with the Althusser case?

  4. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    You know something, Doc, I think the Ramseys were quite stunned when they weren't called before the Grand Jury. I think they were also amazed they have gotten away with this crime, so far!

    Not making the 911 call does throw a spanner in the works, and does throw more suspicion on discovery of sexual abuse. The Ramseys were in such a hurry to have this funeral over and done with, whereas many another couple would have been more anxious for the body to have been further examined.
    JonBenét may well have been manually strangled, but not before the head injury. I would agree to it coming after the head blow because she was probably taken for dead after such a massive injury. I don't want to use the term "killer" here, because this wasn't premeditated murder, but if it was JonBenét's mother, or her father, they witnessed the cause of the massive head injury and must have known immediately this was fatal. On seeing their daughter stir and come to life, I feel she could have been finished off with strangulation, because JonBenét knew who had caused it, but not with the useless garrote found round her neck.

    It would have taken all of two minutes for one single piece of cord to have been placed around her neck, tied in a simple knot, and a pencil or Patsy's Korean brush which was broken, could have been inserted under the cord and twisted, instead of the useless contraption John Ramsey and Lou Smit have the nerve to call complex.

    Delmar has already delved very deeply into the whys and wherefores of the loose wrist ties not being classified as "complex" like the garrote. He brings up a good point, doesn't he? Did the new investigator, Tom Bennet delve as deeply as Delmar has? I sincerely hope so! It's not too late Mr. Bennet. if you have overlooked it.

    No, Doc I haven't heard of the Althusser case, but I have a feeling you're going to tell me.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  5. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    I did email Sue and she says it is indeed a picture of her skull.

  6. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Originally, the skull image which we saw looked like an x-ray (I thought it was an x-ray). jameson said it was a black and white photo, but I'm not certain she's correct. It does look like an x-ray.

    When Tracey II showed in the UK at first, they actually showed the autopsy photo of her skull in full colour. I has been making screen captures of the documentary and I didn't know whether to do one of the skull or not - out of respect for the victim and family I suppose. However, the damage done to her skull had been a significant argument presented by Lou Smit because he questioned whether people could really believe that her parents had inflicted such a brutal blow. It was relevant to the "message" of the documentary. I asked online what other posters thought and was urged to do so by Toth and others. So I did, but I posted it on my website via a link with a warning. I think mine may have been the first 'online' colour image. Shortly afterwards, a better quality version was posted but I don't recall by whom. My "screen captures" were done by still-framing the video and taking a photo with a digital camera. They weren't as good quality as proper screen captures.

    jameson explained that what we were seeing was the "skull cap". In an autopsy, the scalp is peeled back and the top of the skull is removed completely. I think there had been some thought that the blue towel thing was covering her face, but it wasn't.

    The damage to her little skull was horrific. I will never understand how anyone could hurt a child.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  7. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    827

    Default althusser

    I did some reading concerning this guy. He manually strangled his wife and there was little or no outward sign that she had been strangled. There were internal findings though that are consistent with manual strangulation - her windpipe was crushed. According to JBR's autopsy, her cricothyroid cartilage was not crushed and her hyoid bone was not broken. There are no internal indications of manual strangulation.

  8. #20

    Default

    Jayelles:
    “However, the damage done to her skull had been a significant
    argument presented by Lou Smit because he questioned whether
    people could really believe that her parents had inflicted such a
    brutal blow. It was relevant to the "message" of the
    documentary.”

    Indeed, the message of every documentary I’ve seen or read,
    presents a cascade of fallacies creating an impression light
    years removed from the truth. It happens by refusal to follow the
    evidence while lip service claims the contrary.

    “No parent could have done this.” “Why would she\he have done
    this?’ “brutal blow”, “premeditated murder”, etc. The first
    concept starts with a non evidentiary conclusion while the second
    is an out of sequence interjection irrelevant to the pursuit of
    evidence and truth. The third is an assumption without
    evidentiary support and disregard of possible alternative. The
    fourth is a direct contradiction of ALL the evidence.

    It is always a matter of cause and effect. If there is a
    “manmade” effect, i.e. evidence, it tells in some cases exactly
    what action was taken, and in others a probability as estimated
    from the known facts. This is what it is and stays what it is
    regardless of whether the actor is known and regardless of
    whether we know the thinking behind the action. Truth and
    evidence are always consistent.

    The evidence clearly shows not intent to cause death by
    strangulation; only to make is look like death by strangulation.
    This was prompted by the belief that she was already dead due to
    the head trauma. One does not try to cause the death of someone
    already believed dead. I do not have to know the cause of all the
    abrasions, nor cause or causes of the damage done or not done to
    the throat. Whatever the causes, whether known or unknown, they
    cannot and will not contradict what is established as fact.

    A most bizarre element of the case is that the staging is so
    inept, the ineptness acts as its own salvation in the minds of
    most observers. It’s a literal “I see it but don’t believe it”
    situation. To wit, who could be so inept that he\she can’t even
    make a simple tie around a wrist? That is what is seen, yet
    doesn’t register as evidence.

    Purely by chance, I was born into and grew up in a circumstance
    in which I became very knowledgeable about ropes, knots, lassos,
    handles, and that sort of thing. Although this extensive
    knowledge via experience is beneficial, it is not at all
    necessary to follow the evidence and reach the same conclusion of
    staged crime scene. It can be done with very little knowledge of
    ropes and such stuff IF the person believes the evidence,
    believes what he\she sees.

    The focal point of a recent post is the “wrist tie” that fell
    off. If we take as a given, and I see no reason not to, the
    intent was to bind the wrist, obviously the person failed to
    achieve the objective. The significance of this is monumental.

    The RST has evaded this evidentiary truth for over seven years
    because the truth revealed here cannot be reconciled with the
    idea of intruder with expertise in the cord\knot area. The “wrist
    tie” that fell off is not a “maybe”, “could be”, “unknown”, or
    “missing.” It is physical evidence of a crime related action
    pointing out the inability of the perpetrator to perform this
    elementary task. It makes no difference if you know who did it,
    or how and why the person did it, the evidence in this one scene
    presents a critical identifying characteristic of the
    perpetrator.

    That identifying characteristic is not going to show up in one
    part of the crime scene and it’s opposite in another part. One
    does not go from amateur (not knowledgeable, inefficient, flawed)
    to professional (knowledgeable, efficient, no flaws) during the
    commission of a crime. Yet, this is what Lou Smit and the RST
    would have you believe. The truth about the faulty wrist tie is
    not only ignored by the RST, but ignored by the opposition as
    well as they directly or indirectly give psychological
    credibility to claims contrary to the truth revealed by the inept
    attempt to bind the wrists. Has anyone asked any of the RST to
    explain the wrist tying fiasco? (The same flaw that resulted in
    the wrist tie falling off is repeated again in the “garrote
    scene.”)

    The evidence says tied around the neck; not a noose made and
    slipped over the neck. Expert? Tied means completion of task,
    what is the handle for; and why so far away and the many turns of
    cord. Even is the construction was free slip as opposed to bind,
    pulling the handle would move the cord back of the neck away
    from the neck contradicting the idea of circumferential
    strangulation.

    Everything about the “garrote scene” is a flawed as the failing
    wrist ties. Here’s correspondence with the mutual verification of
    the actual evidence. Any LE investigator, surely aware of the
    wrist tie falling off, has a primary clue to perpetrator
    identity. Did anyone do a follow up on this evidence? An
    investigator could have gone to the evidence room, looked at the
    apparatus and easily seen the cord compressed upon itself
    precluding slip action, therefore, contradicting, the absurd
    stories of “sophisticated strangling device” used by an
    “intruder” with much “expertise.” If this has been done, I would
    not be writing this post, nor would Fox News be required to
    defend a frivolous, NOR would John Ramsey be running for public
    office.

    Of course, there remains the theoretically possibility of an
    intruder without cord\knot expertise. However, this is not the
    claim of the RST. This is not the story they have been telling
    and selling for over seven years. They rest their case heavily on
    the notion of “professional” with expert knowledge of the
    material and use. Over and over again, they state this claim of
    “professional” while claiming it excludes the Ramseys. When this
    pretense is exposed as nonsensical fallacy, the first thing
    revealed is their penchant for making up a theory to suit in
    disregard of the actual evidence. So much for the credibility of
    their “expert detective”, Lou Smit.

    With the “expert” nonsense down the drain, where do they go from
    here? Will they claim that an intruder decided to kidnap
    JonBenet, decided to bind her wrists although he didn’t know how,
    and also decided to set up a scene with a face value of death by
    strangulation; a staged crime scene to divert attention away from
    the head trauma. What value could a long gone intruder gain from
    the staging, or gain even if caught? Will they also claim an
    expertise in hypnotism and use of same to compel John to say:

    J. RAMSEY: She was strangled.

    KING: That's the cause of death, strangulation?

    J. RAMSEY: That's the cause of death. (LKL MARCH 27, 2000)

    J. RAMSEY: And this garrote will be a clue. This was not an
    amateur device. This was a professional strangling tool. Somebody
    knows who did that.

    Wasn’t it nice of John to go along with the set up provided by an
    amateur intruder? That’s a lot of correspondence for random
    coincidence, wouldn’t you say?

    I believe you can readily see that trying to sell the idea of
    intruder\amateur as perpetrator is not going to work out well for
    the Ramsey. Still, they do reach. If you come across anyone who
    wants to try to sell the idea of an intruder with little to no
    knowledge of cords and knots, and an intruder who also manages to
    get John and Patsy to go along with the staged crime scene by
    pretending it’s authentic, please let me know. It’s a story I
    would dearly love to hear, especially in court.

  9. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    [QUOTE=Elle_1]You know something, Doc, I think the Ramseys were quite stunned when they weren't called before the Grand Jury. I think they were also amazed they have gotten away with this crime, so far!QUOTE]

    A suspect arrested in the 2nd Cass County, Texas, Butts triple homicide a county over, one whose pubic hairs with crabs were found on and around an 11 year old girl, whose palm print was on a bathtub where a baby was drowned, was never called before the grand jury.

    I don't know if the Ramseys were amazed or if this suspect was amazed - I do know I am.
    Last edited by JC; July 16, 2004, 12:32 pm at Fri Jul 16 12:32:21 UTC 2004.

  10. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Easywriter

    "Truth and evidence are always consistent."

    And imho, Easywriter, evidence is in the physical realm, truth the spiritual.

  11. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JC
    "Truth and evidence are always consistent."

    And imho, Easywriter, evidence is in the physical realm, truth the spiritual.
    It appears you speak of a dual reality in self conflict. Granted,
    it is a popular notion, but a dichotomy I do not accept. I will
    go no further on the forum, but will be glad to discuss it in
    private if you like.

  12. #24

    Default Althusser

    Quote Originally Posted by Texan
    I did some reading concerning this guy. He manually strangled his wife and there was little or no outward sign that she had been strangled. There were internal findings though that are consistent with manual strangulation - her windpipe was crushed. According to JBR's autopsy, her cricothyroid cartilage was not crushed and her hyoid bone was not broken. There are no internal indications of manual strangulation.
    Thanks for looking into this, Texan. I brought up this case because many seem to think there'd be obvious signs of manual strangulation on the victim's neck. Yet the police initially didn't believe Althusser when he confessed to "accidently" strangling his wife -- because they saw no such signs. That led me to wonder whether JonBenet might have been strangled in a similar manner. As you say, there was a significant difference in that Althusser's wife had her windpipe crushed and JonBenet didn't. On the other hand, the coroner DID conclude that the cause of death was strangulation and NOT the head blow. And Dr. Wecht concurred. So there must have been SOME internal signs of that. And there was also the fact that the head wound produced so little blood. I dunno. As with so much else in this case it seems we have a bit of a dilemma here. The "evidence" for cause of death is either on the side of some form of strangulation -- OR -- our old friend "inconclusive."

    P.S. I seem to have driven EasyWriter out of the forum. He's been unwilling to respond to my posts and has just now announced he's not going to be writing any more. Sorry about that. I've always found his ideas about this case interesting and his posts extremely intelligent, highly informed and perceptive. But at some point he will need to learn the difference between evidence and the interpretation of evidence. NO evidence speaks for itself.



Posting Permissions

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