Physics Never Lie II

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by EasyWriter, Mar 6, 2006.

  1. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Recently, on some other forums, there has been considerable
    posting allegedly about the “garrote†and knots. I say allegedly
    because what had been presented by Loony Louie and\or
    by others as an evaluation of the “garrote scene†and “wrist
    ties†often bears little or no resemblance in form or function to
    the actual evidence. To wit:

    "Just the way that the ligature on her hands was constructed,
    again is a fantasy in the mind of this killer. This wasn't just
    tied on her wrist, with little granny knots on both sides, and a
    rope tied to her. The way that this was constructed was to make
    two loops with a tether about 15 inches in between. The loops
    were then placed over the hands of JonBenet, with a slipknot, and
    tightened to give the appearance of bondage." (Smit)

    This is a typical RST lie. Fabrication is the source of all
    their “evidence†of an intruder. First, there were no ligatures
    on her “hands.†There was only one ligature reported by Dr.
    Meyer, and that tied loosely around the right wrist. It is
    logically assumed that the larger loop fell of during moving the
    body before Dr. Meyer’s examination. There were no loops made and
    “placed over the hands.†The loops were TIED around the wrists.
    There was no tightening via “slip knots.†Indeed, it was
    precisely the slip knots that compressed upon the cord and
    precluded tightening.

    This is not just vintage Smit. It is representative of all the
    offerings of lies and distortions twisted and turned every which
    way. This they claim to be “evidence†while it is nothing more
    than fallacies to get away from the evidence in order to avoid
    the truth of Ramsey guilt. Just as bad is the claim of Ramsey
    guilt coupled with nonsense about ankle ties, posing the body,
    and that sort of blather. Since there is no such evidence, the
    claim cannot be evidence against anyone, but does benefit the
    Ramseys by drawing attention away from the actual evidence that
    has Ramsey written all over it.

    Examples of this type of idiotic prattle would and has filled
    volumes. A recent example on another forum is a drawing of a cord
    passed through a small fixed loop. This is claimed to be a
    duplication of the cord and knot around JonBenet’s neck. The
    claim is a BLATANT LIE. There is no small fixed loop in the
    scene. A small fixed loop with cord through allows free movement
    to reduce the diameter of the loop around the neck. It doesn’t
    exist in the crime scene. What does exist is what I have
    described before: a double loop knot compressing upon the main
    cord and locking it from further movement. Ergo, all the
    “evidence†derived from experiments with fixed small loop are
    totally irrelevant to evidence and to the case; not to mention
    the other fallacies within the “report.â€

    Deliberate fallacies, or just ignorance of the subject matter and
    too stupid to realize their ignorance? Either way, you may
    discount all of this as inane gibberish, i.e., “evidence†of
    “Ramsey innocence.†Furthermore, even with a free moving cord
    through a small fixed look, it is literally impossible to effect
    circumferential strangulation by pulling the silly mummy wrapped
    handle, or by any other means with this nonsense get up. So, the
    lie is a total waste as well.

    With the advent of cheap tape and velcro, the art\science of
    tying has pretty much gone by the wayside. If I were to request a
    1'X 1' X 1' box be “square tied†as tightly as possible, very few
    would know what I’m talking about, let alone know how to do it.
    This ignorance is neither a crime, nor a negative reflection upon
    any person. It’s simply a consequence of environment and
    circumstance. I have no problem with it. My disgust and contempt
    is directed toward those who rather than admit their ignorance
    and seek knowledge rattle on and on in pretense of knowledge.
    They pretend to know about cords and knots. They pretend their
    ignorance is “evidence “ of an “intruder.†They parley this
    pretense into the pretense of Ramsey innocence. They parade
    themselves as fools in the manner of Loony Louie.

    Why do they keep on and on with this nonsense? For the same
    reason I keep on and on (and will keep on and on) exposing it as
    nonsense. We both know the “garrote scene†and “wrist ties†are
    critical and pivotal PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. They know they must
    believe and must portray the crime scene as authentic in order to
    claim intruder and Ramsey innocence. Every time out, they
    succeed only in adding to the proof of what they intend to
    disprove. Indeed, a fixed small loop indicates a more knowledge
    of the subject matter than what was found at the crime scene;
    hence, goes to the incompetence of the perpetrator. Not even the
    loop falsely portrayed in “Ramsey defense†cannot effect
    circumferential strangulation; hence, reveals that the embedding
    did not come from a violent strangulation. Over and over again,
    they offer evidence of Ramsey guilt in every futile (lying)
    attempt to prove their innocence.

    I do not claim to know every detail of the crime. What I do know
    is that the evidence I do know of will never be contradicted by
    any future evidence discovered. What I do know is that it was a
    staged crime scene; not only staged, but so poorly done, I have
    difficulty imagining anyone so blind as to not see it. Actually,
    they do see it. They just don’t want to admit it. This is
    precisely why none accepted my invitation to meet me online and
    answer questions about the alleged evidence of an alleged
    intruder. It is not my conclusion that bothers them. It’s their
    own which would be revealed in an interrogation.

    Suffice it to say, anything you hear or read that contradicts my
    various analysis of the “garrote scene†and “wrist tiesâ€, you can
    discard as false; not false because I say so, but false because
    the evidence says so. If in doubt, request a demonstration. I’m
    ready. How about the RST?

    If ANYONE has any comments or questions, I will be happy to
    respond on forum, or off forum as you prefer. delmar@strato.net
     
  2. Elle

    Elle Member

    More power to you, Delmar, to get your message across!

    :deal:
     
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    OK, I'm trying to catch up with you, EW. I'm going to look at the pictures again and see if I can make out the double loop knot of which you speak.

    I can tell you that I have assumed the garrote was what asphyxiated JonBenet for years because Dr. Wecht believes this, not to mention Thomas' description in his book of the knot at the neck as the type of knot that was used to close the noose. I think he called it a slip knot, but it's been so long and I have accepted it as fact for so long, I may be wrong.

    But I suspect that many like myself have believed this because we aren't trained in knots and the noose obviously is deeply furrowed into the neck in the pictures we see, with bruising so brutal you can see the pattern of the weave in the cord in the bruise. It seems logical, even a sure bet, to the layperson like me.

    But you have explained your conclusions about the knots well, and I can see your point. I'm going to try to do your experiments and see if I can really understand how that knot at the neck is constructed.

    Do you have any idea about the bruising under the cord on the neck? Is that post-mortem bruising? I know there is a difference in the color of bruising after death. I'm still looking for information on that to compare to the autopsy pictures.

    Thanks again for taking the time to explain this, EW. Don't get too frustrated with us. I've looked at a thousand knots in dozens of books through the years, even read how they are tied, but I don't practice it so it's still Greek to me. Yes, it's an art, one I've sometimes considered learning with my grandson. I briefly practiced macrame 30 years ago, for about a year, and loved that, but can't remember anything about it now. Use it or lose it, as they say.
     
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Oh, by the way, in case anyone is reading this thread and is interested or can't remember this info, the cord used on JonBenet was Stansport nylon utility cord. I can't remember the exact size off the top of my head. Maybe someone else does or if interested, will look it up. It's in the Wecht book, I know. It's also easy to find online in pictures at hardware and sporting business sites. Just google.
     
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I'm probably about to put my foot in my big mouth here, but I randomly found a good picture of one of the wrist knots here:

    https://portfolio.du.edu/pc/port.detail?id=10987

    This was clear to me and I enlarged it with my magnifying thingie on my computer. Looks like a simple hitch knot to me. Which is basically what the knot tied to the paintbrush handle is, with more wraps, as far as I can tell. I've looked at these for years, but like I said, I am not good with them. However, I did remember that after varying possibilities, including the Prusik knot, over the years I had come to believe the basic knot used on the garrote was the hitch. It also is a common knot used in sailing, I believe, and one I actually saw used quite a bit on a sailboat at a lake here one day.

    Anyway, I got some cord I'd bought last year in a sewing section of Walmarts that is similiar, but not an exact match, to the cord used on JB and made the same knot in the picture of the wrist tie. It's not hard. And I may have done something incorrectly, but going by the picture, which is easy to duplicate and looks like it would allow the cord to move to loosen and tighten the loop, I made the same knot with my cord tied around a tv channel changer for a "wrist." It moved quite easily to enlarge and reduce the loop around the "wrist," with a sliding action. I even pulled at the same time on both feeds of the cord, feeding into the knot from each side, to see if that would lock the cord and knot together, and while that did cause the knot to get very tight, I still could work it loose again and make the wrist loop larger or smaller.

    I haven't found the other end of the cord yet, nor autopsy pics of the cord around the neck that I'm satisfied with, but I'll keep looking. What I have found does not show the neck after the cord was removed, so I can't judge the bruising colors. I know the pics are online that I'm looking for, as I had them bookmarked on my old computer but don't have them on this one yet.

    What I did figure out is that the bruising in various places on the neck should be an indication of whether the neck cord bruising was post mortem, unless all the bruising is post mortem. I don't see how it all can be post mortem, as there are clear indicators and Dr. Myers determined the death was due to asphyiation by strangulation. So if the bruising is different colors from the lower bruises on the neck and that under the cord, then maybe that would indicate post mortem bruising...? Maybe? (I should have this in my books. Of course, I can't find it. I can always find what I'm not looking for when I don't need it, but when I need it, I find the other thing I was looking for last month and couldn't find.... :curses: )
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2006
  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, I can't find a picture tonight that I can figure out how the neck knot is tied. The one at the swamp is the autopsy pic after the cord was removed from the neck, and I can't seem to figure out how it was tied because I can't see the actual knot loops and configuration, even with my magnifier. I could only figure out the wrist tie knot I tied because of the one clear picture of it still on the wrist, against the shirt, and it's easy to see its loop configuration. But that double loop tied by a knot on the other end of the wrist cord, the end that somehow was loose by the time Meyers saw it, can't figure out how that one is tied, either, from the only picture I know of that we have seen, with the blue background. Maybe there's another one of that?

    So that's all I can do tonight. Maybe I can find the pic of the noose still on the neck tomorrow.

    I did take the hitch I tied on the cord I have, similar size and weave, but cotton. and put it around my foot and pulled on it. I also pulled on it around my wrist. I got better resistence on my foot, of course, but with both, the knot did slip and hold very tightly, decreasing the circumference of the neck loop as much as I could stand. I had to use my nails to get the hitch back up the cord to loosen the loop and get out of it. Maybe this wasn't the same knot used on the neck loop, but I have to say, I see no problem with using the hitch to create a garrote effect in this way.

    One thing I will say is that the knot, as I pulled, tended to move from right to left around my foot or wrist. That's because I had the hitch tied on the right and the end of the cord I was pulling was the part the knot was tied around. If I'd flipped it and had the knot on the other side, it would have pulled the other way. I did notice that the knot shown on the back of JB's neck in one autopsy picture, not clear for the knot, but still tied with her hair in it, was pulled over to her right posterior of her neck. Maybe that's why, if this was how the knot was made. When I pulled, I saw that to keep from running the knot from one side to the other, I had to push the knot down the cord closer to the foot before I started pulllng. That way, it didn't move too far before it burrowed into the skin and settled there, the friction holding it in place as I pulled tighter. Otherwise, I think it might work the knot all the way around to the other side of my foot as I pulled.

    Also, the cord did twist a bit as it tightened. Since I wasn't working my way upward, like on a neck, but was basically pulling perpendicular to the horizontal direction of my foot, I had no upward roll, but I can see where that would happen if I used it on my leg, for instance, and pulled hard to tighten the noose. That seems consistent with the pictures I've seen of the cord on JB's neck, rolled up with the necklace and causing a lot of abrasive marks.

    I'm sorry if I'm doing this wrong, EW. Like I said, I'm not experienced at this, and without a clear picture to work from, I can't use word descriptions like in the autopsy to make a knot. I am also not sure that Dr. Myers is using expert knot description, but maybe he is. I just don't know.

    But perhaps you can see the problems of someone like me with these knots and noose. I was thinking that all these years, I have basically just trusted what has been said in the books I've read, by those who I had to trust knew their business. Even with your description, this is the best I can come up with. People have done these experiments on the forums through the years, as well, and so we haven't been willfully ignorant, just unable to do more with what we have to work with.

    Perhaps you can direct me to a better picture of the neck noose?
     
  7. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

     
  8. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    From Steve Thomas' book (p. 41): [autopsy of JB by coroner Dr. Meyer]

    "A single loop of white cord was around the right wrist, tied on top of the sleeve but so loosely the doctor easily slid it free. There were 15 1/2 inches between that loop and a loop on the other end, which once apparently had bound the other wrist."

    I'm a layperson, but isn't tying a loop on top of the sleeve a very stupid thing to do in such a situation?
    For theoretically, the person only needs to tug at the sleeve with the other hand (fifteen and a half inches allowing free movement), and the sleeve can be removed from under the ligature, making room for the hand to free itself.

    All this proves to me that the cord was tied on a person who was not conscious, i. e. who needn't have been restrained to keep her from moving or running away. But what's the point in tying up a dead person? None at all, unless the perp wanted to dump her in deep water, but then he would have tied up the whole body differently (after wrapping it in a bag for example).

    I think the person who tied the ligature around JB's hands was nervous and panicky, rushed for time, and hastily trying to put some kind of ligature around a dead (or almost dead) child's wrists and neck solely for staging purposes. The staging was poorly done, probably due both to the upset state of mind the person was in and her lack of knowledge in tying ligatures which would work as such.
     
  9. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    My pal is right: sometimes clumsy staging can be accounted for by the mere fact that people who do it are going by what they think a crime looks like.
     
  10. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    This reminds me of what Steve Thomas wrote in his book 'JonBenet' (p. 142):

    "We saw nothing that pointed to anyone outside the home being involved. Locked house. Dead child. Two parents. Hello?"

    Interesting phenomenon, isn't it, that some people fill in the blanks of a crime scene picture to construct something akin to a Fata Morgana. A Fata Morgana existent only in their own minds but which they have the nerve to present as fact.
    I had always thought that the photo of the wrist ligature (or the garrote) could provide a common ground for discussion because unlike a 'mystery street Santa' (recent tabloid scenario) or mysterious 'members of a foreign faction' wandering through the Ramsey home at night, feeding JB pineapple, torturing and killing her and having the nerve to write a lenghty ransom note without any fear of being detected - these ligatures were part of the actual crime scene. Everyone can look at them, and everyone can read that the bigger loop hadn't been on JB's wrist at all when the coroner Dr. John Meyer first saw the body.
    And as for the smaller loop, it was tied so loosely around the right wrist that the doctor could easily slid it free without undoing the loop. I suppose he tugged at the sleeve which was between the loop and the wrist, and slid the wrist free without destroying the loop.
    So even the smaller loop obviously was not 'tightly around the wrist'.

    But instead of taking this crucial fact into account, - (wrist ties not functioning as such!), this poster created additional loops (ankle loops, lol) for a scenario in which JB was 'hogtied', and poor John Ramsey allegedly untied these ligatures because he was just so shocked, but of course did not tell the investigators what he had done because he did not want to have JB 'disgraced'. I'm not making this up, it's all on websleuths, and this poster is regarded as an 'expert' by quite a few people there.
    But now at last some other posters have started asking questions as to e. g. what exactly a 'slip knot' is. Thanks EW for providing this basic info, and I suppose quite a few posters from websleuths have indeed looked it up here.
    A theory which doesn't take into account basic facts is not worth the paper it is written on. Maybe this dawns at least on some people over there.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2006
  11. Little

    Little Member

    Thank you EW for having the patience to teach, and for your dedication to the truth.

    Little
     
  12. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    You have pinpointed the real problem. For them to present fact,
    they must first know what a fact is. The primary problem the RST
    has is not, “What the evidence isâ€, but “What IS evidence. Since
    ALL the evidence points toward Ramsey guilt, holding the opposite
    conclusion of Ramsey innocence requires a mental reversal of
    reality. It requires evading the actual evidence and claiming as
    evidence that which is not. In an effort to illustrate this
    truth, I have had and do have a standing invitation to one and
    all to meet me online and answers some questions about alleged
    evidence of an alleged intruder. Since no one has, I took the
    liberty of analyzing the Ramsey v Fox News lawsuit which listed
    the alleged evidence of an intruder.
    http://www.acandyrose.com/ramsey-v-fox.htm When you look at the
    questions, you will see why no member of the RST steps forward to
    try to answer them.

    “I had always thought that the photo of the wrist ligature (or
    the garrote) could provide a common ground for discussion because
    unlike a 'mystery street Santa' (recent tabloid scenario) or
    mysterious 'members of a foreign faction' wandering through the
    Ramsey home at night, feeding JB pineapple, torturing and killing
    her and having the nerve to write a lenghty ransom note without
    any fear of being detected - these ligatures were part of the
    actual crime scene. Everyone can look at them, and everyone can
    read that the bigger loop hadn't been on JB's wrist at all when
    the coroner Dr. John Meyer first saw the body.
    And as for the smaller loop, it was tied so loosely around the
    right wrist that the doctor could easily slid it free without
    undoing the loop. I suppose he tugged at the sleeve which was
    between the loop and the wrist, and slid the wrist free without
    destroying the loop. So even the smaller loop obviously was not
    'tightly around the wrist'.†(Ibid)

    “I had always thought that the photo of the wrist ligature (or
    the garrote) could provide a common ground for discussion
    because... these ligatures were part of the actual crime scene.â€

    This is precisely the point I have been trying go get across
    since 2000. This is real physical evidence. It has the mental and
    physical mark of the perpetrator. It tells the truth that cannot
    be refuted. This IS the “smoking gun.†Sadly, not many have
    grasped the significance of the wrist ligatures and the cord
    around the neck. Physical evidence does not lie. The problem is
    that so many look right at the evidence and “see†something else.
    Its importance and the misconceptions is the reason I keep coming
    back to it. Since those misconceptions still abound, particularly
    on some other forums, let’s take another look, a very detailed
    look with photo references.

    Please open these three photos and hold them so you can easily
    switch back and forth between them as you read what is to follow.

    http://zyberzoom.com/JonBenet.html

    This is a photo of the wrist ligature before it was removed.
    Label it A.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote5.jpg

    This a photo of the wrists ligatures removed by Dr. Meyer and
    gravity (I presume). Label it B.

    http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote4.jpg

    This is a photo of he cord around JonBenet’s neck.

    Label it C.

    First, let it be understood that what “John said†is not
    evidence. John said he tried to loosen the wrists ties and they
    were too tight. Some persons on other forums have imagined all
    sorts of scenarios from John’s claim. As the evidence shows, one
    ligature evidently fell off and the other was so loose it was
    removed without untying or cutting. Keep in mind that every
    Ramsey lie is trying to sell the bogus kidnaping. Saying the
    wrist ligature was too tight was simply an impulsive response
    implying an experienced perpetrator. I also suspect the tape fell
    off, not pulled off by John. As I said before, this has to be the
    poorest crime staging job in all of criminal history.

    You will read in other places the claim of locating the type of
    cord found at the crime scene. I have checked out all of these
    claims I have come across. They invariable falsely identify a
    round utility cord as match or similar. The cord at the crime
    scene was not round. The photo reveals this. I have been unable
    to find a match, but suspect is it speciality cord used in
    tailoring. For sure, it did not come from a hardware store, or a
    camping supply purveyor.

    Using some kind of cord, there has been numerous reports of
    duplicating construction with the noose slipping to reduce the
    size of the wrist ligature. A fallacy again. The “slip knot†they
    are so fond of is an anathema to movement to reduce the size of a
    wrist tie or noose. When the knot slips, it slips to compress the
    main cord. When pulled tightly that’s the end of slipping and the
    end of reducing the size of the loop.

    Please look at photo B. Focus upon the largest loop on the left
    of the screen. Notice that at the junction how the cord is
    compressed by the wrap around. It is easy to see the flange
    created by the compression. You may rest assured that when this
    tie was made, it could not and did not allow slip to reduce the
    size of the loop for the wrist. I have no doubt the actual
    evidence in the storage room will verify this conclusion.

    Now look at the small loop on the right. Do you see the half bow?
    Now go to (A) http://zyberzoom.com/JonBenet.html and scroll down
    to the photo of the cord still around the wrist and over the
    sleeve. Do you see any half bow? Isn’t this the tie Dr. Meyer
    reported removing? Isn’t the photo of the small loop removed a
    picture of the same tie? Why the difference?

    Look once more at photo A. Do you observe the cord going around
    twice side by side, but no half bow. Look again at photo B and
    the small loop there. Do you notice the cord around only once and
    with a half bow? From two times around and no half bow while
    still on the wrist to one time around with a half bow when
    removed from the wrist. What does this tell you? It tells that
    the small wrist ligature was altered in removing, or thereafter.
    Anticipated question: Why would Dr. Meyer or helper want to do
    this? They didn’t. It just happened inadvertently.

    Recall that Dr. Meyer reported that it was tied “loosely†over
    the sleeve. You can’t tell how loosely from a two dimensional
    photo, but Dr. Meyer’s report plus the photos reveals the
    situation. It was not only loose in context of being around the
    sleeve, the “tie†itself was loose, so loose that in removing and
    handling, one of the turns around was moved as doubled and under
    the other turn around to create the half bow. Now don’t you have
    to laugh a bit out of all that has been made of the half bow as
    “evidence†of ankle binding, “posing the bodyâ€, and that sort of
    silliness? :)

    I believe we can logically assume the large loop that fell off
    was intended to be pulled down to the wrist. The photo tells us
    that it didn’t happen. The photo of the small loop tells us the
    person did not try on the second loop what was tried on the first
    that knot locked and would not move to the wrist. The second
    wrist ligature was simply run very loosely and left that way with
    no pulling to try to get it tight to the wrist. This person knew
    what happened before and did not try it a second time.

    We know from all this that the person didn’t have the foggiest
    notion of how to properly bind wrists. There is no indication of
    even minimal knowledge of how to create a loop to put over the
    wrist to be pulled tightly. This ignorance is also evidenced in
    the cord around the throat. The sequence of events is revealed by
    the physics of the scene. Large loop failed, second loop changed;
    no hair in wrist ligatures. The wrist ligatures, such as they
    were, happened first. The lesson learned by the perp is that
    she\he did not know how to make a noose with a design to tighten
    around the throat. The alternative was to TIE tightly around the
    neck; hence, the hair entwined in the knot and carried over to
    the handle which was attached last; though the perp had no idea
    as to how it would work. It didn’t.

    Go to photo C of the cord around the neck. I incorporate by
    reference all I have said before about this. Ligatures that don’t
    bind and a “garrote†with no garroting action adds up to one
    grossly inept attempt to stage a crime scene.

    All of you who have been around for a while know how hard and how
    often that the RST pushed the idea of “professionalâ€,
    “sophisticated and complex garrote.†The “Ramsey-exoneratingâ€
    argument was that none of the Ramseys had such expertise. Now
    that the staged crime scene has been exposed by the many fatal
    flaws, they are obliged to reverse their “defense.†I saw a post
    a few days ago that “reasoned†that since John was in the Navy,
    he knew how to tie knots, therefore, the flaws exonerated him. I
    won’t waste time pointing out all the fallacies in this approach
    except to ask if Patsy was in the Navy as well. :)
     
  13. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Thanks so much for your very informative post, EW!
    A question - you wrote:

    "Look once more at photo A. Do you observe the cord going around
    twice side by side, but no half bow. Look again at photo B and
    the small loop there. Do you notice the cord around only once and
    with a half bow? From two times around and no half bow while
    still on the wrist to one time around with a half bow when
    removed from the wrist. What does this tell you? It tells that
    the small wrist ligature was altered in removing, or thereafter.
    Anticipated question: Why would Dr. Meyer or helper want to do
    this? They didn’t. It just happened inadvertently."

    You said that the wrist ligature in photo A (while it was still tied on top of her sleeve) went two times around. While I can see two strands of the cord in the photo, only one seems to be actually tied around the sleeve, the other piece of cord to the left seems to be trailing off in an upward direction.
    Could this be the piece of the cord which connected the loop from the right wrist to the loop on the left wrist, i. e. that piece of cord which was 15 1/2 inches long?
    And in terms of the half-bow: there is a bit of cord in the bottom right-hand corner of the picture (below the sleeve) but that part of the photo is very dark - could this piece of cord be a part of the half-bow? But then, if it were a half-bow, one end of the cord would have to find its way back into the knot, and this can't be seen in the picture.
    Ah, my head is spinnning because I realize that expressing such things in a foreign language is quite difficult! Also visualizing how those cords go round is quite a challenge for me too because I'm not a very visual person.
    But this is absolutely pivotal evidence - a silent witness which imo speaks of staging: I suppose no kidnapper would loosely tie a ligature on top of a sleeve, nor would he leave 15 1/2 inches space between the left and the right wrist ligature.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2006
  14. Elle

    Elle Member

    Excuse me for interrupting here, Rashomon, but i'm actually very amazed with your prowess with the English language, when your native language is German.
    I am enjoying the exchange between you and Delmar. It is good for me to go over discussions on the knots again.
     
  15. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member


    The two strands of cord are what I’m talking about. The two times
    around refers to the cord around itself, not two times around the
    wrist. Sorry for not making that clear.

    “Could this be the piece of the cord which connected the loop
    from the right wrist to the loop on the left wrist, i. e. that
    piece of cord which was 15 1/2 inches long?†(Ibid)

    This section of cord trails from the wrist to the other loop. The
    “wrist tie†over the sleeve was made from the short lead not from
    the one going to the large loop. Some loops are there; binding is
    not.

    “And in terms of the half-bow: there is a bit of cord in the
    bottom right-hand corner of the picture (below the sleeve) but
    that part of the photo is very dark - could this piece of cord be
    a part of the half-bow? But then, if it were a half-bow, one end
    of the cord would have to find its way back into the knot, and
    this can't be seen in the picture.†(Ibid)

    You can’t see it because it doesn’t. The end does not come back
    to the knot. The middle does in a folded position. It is actually
    knot altered as the cord around is transformed into a half bow.
    Go back to the photo of the cord still around the wrist over
    clothing. Note the two times around itself as mentioned before.
    Visualize taking your fingertips and lifting one of these where
    the cord comes around. If you lift it, you lift double. Now lift
    the other go around and put the double under it and pull it
    through a bit. This is the half bow. Two times around and no
    half bow to one time around with a half bow is what the evidence
    shows. Keep in mind, this “tie†was SO LOOSE, this evidently
    happened in removing and\or handling after removal.

    “Ah, my head is spinnning because I realize that expressing such
    things in a foreign language is quite difficult! Also visualizing
    how those cords go round is quite a challenge for me too because
    I'm not a very visual person.†(Ibid)

    There is nothing wrong with the way you are expressing it. The
    difficulty lies in the subject matter. Often what it takes me a
    half hour to describe in writing, I could show you in less than a
    minute, and with a lot more clarity. I am aware that not everyone
    has a lot of experience with cords and knots. This is why I go
    into so much detail in describing along with explaining cause and
    effect. How long does it take you to tie a shoelace with a double
    bow? How long does it take to describe it and explain it to
    someone without any, or minimal knowledge, of shoes and laces?
    You can show them in seconds, but verbal explanation is another
    matter.

    “But this is absolutely pivotal evidence - a silent witness which
    imo speaks of staging: I suppose no kidnapper would loosely tie a
    ligature on top of a sleeve, nor would he leave 15 1/2 inches
    space between the left and the right wrist ligature.†(Ibid)

    The space is just one of many marks of amateur. The mark of
    staging exist throughout, not just the ligatures. However,
    ligatures that don’t bind are certainly damming evidence. An
    effective tying of wrists is wrists together with wrap around a
    few times finished with the ends over and under followed by
    pulled tightly to create a tight handcuff effect. Also, finish at
    the bottom so the victim cannot get at it with teeth. If for some
    reason, wrists are wanted tied apart, simple adjustable loops
    pulled down to the wrist and locked with a double throw hard knot
    will do the job quite well. 30 seconds is more than sufficient
    time to do this. The person who staged the crime scene spent a
    whole lot more time and accomplished nothing except to fool a few
    fools.

    The RST looks straight at the evidence and simply refuses to see
    it. Over and over again, they deny what the evidence tells. The
    photos show a fumbling attempt to stage a binding that failed
    miserably. The photos and\or Dr. Meyer’s report clearly reveals
    that AT NO TIME WERE JONBENET’S WRISTS BOUND. How can you bind a
    wrist with a loop a multiple of the diameter of the wrist; plus,
    the other loose tie over clothing anchored to nothing except the
    non functional larger loop? All the talk about binding for
    posing, sexual bondage, John loosening the ties, etc, contradicts
    the evidence. It’s simply nonsense.

    Fatal, or near fatal, skull fractures was followed by gathering
    up materials at hand with attempt to stage a kidnaping, sexual
    assault and murder by strangulation. The stager was totally
    without knowhow and totally lost about materials and
    construction. This is the reason for the inept mess you see in
    the photos. This is it. This is how simple it is as the evidence
    shows. Just think of all the money and time spent, all the books
    written, all the TV programs and all the legal hoopla generated
    by ignoring this simple and irrefutable evidence. Unreal, huh?
     
  16. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Thanks for clearing this up, EasyWriter: 'two trimes around' meaning the cord around itself, and not two times around the wrist. I now see what you mean.

    Go back to the photo of the cord still around the wrist over
    clothing. Note the two times around itself as mentioned before.
    Visualize taking your fingertips and lifting one of these where
    the cord comes around
    .

    I suppose you mean by "one of these" "one of these loops" around the cord?
    I want to try your experiment exactly as you described it, and avoid any misinterpretation on my part.

    Note the two times around itself as mentioned before.
    Visualize taking your fingertips and lifting one of these where
    the cord comes around. If you lift it, you lift double.


    What do you exactly mean by "lift double"? What is it that I "lift double"?

    But then, if it were a half-bow, one end
    of the cord would have to find its way back into the knot, and
    this can't be seen in the picture.” (Ibid)


    "You can’t see it because it doesn’t."

    That was my point exactly: one can't see it in the picture, but not because of poor lighting, but because it isn't there: the end of the cord does not find its way back to the knot - therefore no half-bow was in the picture before coroner Dr. Meyer removed the ligature.
     
  17. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member



    Yes.

    “What do you exactly mean by "lift double"? What is it that I
    "lift double"?†(Ibid)

    If a length of cord is lying on the floor and you pick it up in
    the middle, the cord will double by the lift. In this instance,
    the cord is not lying out on the floor, but the cord going around
    itself creates a length cord. If you pick it up where it goes
    around, you pick it up away from the end; hence, the cord will be
    double by the lifting. This is what goes under the other turn to
    create the half bow.


    “That was my point exactly: one can't see it in the picture, but
    not because of poor lighting, but because it isn't there: the end
    of the cord does not find its way back to the knot - therefore no
    half-bow was in the picture before coroner Dr. Meyer removed the
    ligature.†(Ibid)

    Correct.
     
  18. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Easywriter, thanks for explaining it so thoroughly. I have not gotten around to actually tying that knot from the picture as I had planned to because I'm afraid my family will ask some strange questions when they see me sitting in front of a true crime board with a cord in my hands. LOL! I'll have to wait for a moment when none of them is around. :)
    The other day our dog got hold of one of my daughter's sneakers and gnawed and chewed at it. When I wanted to throw the shoe away, the shoelace caught my eye; it looked very similar to the cord used on JB.
    A poster on another forum mentioned this too: that the flat cord resembles a shoelace with frayed ends.
    You mentioned that those flat cords are not widely used - could they have been long shoelaces (but probably not, because both ends were frayed)?.

    I got a good laugh on another forum yesterday: some posters seem to have at least realized that a 15 1/2 inch space between two wrist ligatures doesn't make sense. But instead of acknowledging this fact and altering her
    theory, what did one of them write now: "JonBenet was probably tied to a hook in the ceiling". ROFL! I just don't get it what makes these people tick.
    The 'Keep it Simple' principle doesn't seem to be very popular on many forums.
     
  19. EasyWriter

    EasyWriter FFJ Senior Member

    Your “probably not†is correct. The degree and type of fraying
    indicates a synthetic; most likely nylon. The fraying is stopped
    by burning the ends when cut. However, a flat shoelace suffices
    to duplicate since it looks more like the original than a round
    cord.


    “I got a good laugh on another forum yesterday: some posters seem
    to have at least realized that a 15 1/2 inch space between two
    wrist ligatures doesn't make sense. But instead of acknowledging
    this fact and altering her
    theory, what did one of them write now: "JonBenet was probably
    tied to a hook in the ceiling". ROFL! I just don't get it what
    makes these people tick.
    The 'Keep it Simple' principle doesn't seem to be very popular on
    many forums.â€

    Frustration combined with desperation in tandem with lack of
    knowhow translates to simply a staging mess. This is the
    simplicity they presume to deny and replace with one absurd
    scenario after another.
     
  20. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    EW, I just looked at the cord around the neck with a layperson's eye. That knot: does it have a function at all when it comes to garroting? Could that knot (pure speculation based on no factual knowledge on my part) have been tied using two ends of a cord (like a shoelace)?
    Does garroting a person need any knot around that person's neck at all? I always thought that in a garrote, the stick on which the cord is fastened is turned round and round until the person is strangled.
    Could that knot be another indicator of staging?
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice