Without fanfare or fabrication, let’s take a no-frills look. This is not a rope expert case. It is not a DNA case. It is not a case that requires any special talent. It is simply a case with resolution requiring only identifying simple and highly visible evidence and following it where it logically leads. If you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you have more than enough mental ability to know the truth. Whether you choose to do so or not is another matter. In general, the RST contention is that an intruder wrote and left a ransom note and kidnaped JonBenet. The story goes that she was bound, gagged, sexually assaulted, and viciously strangled to death by an intruder. We know the claim. We’ve heard the story for over nine years. What does the evidence tell us in a few minutes? “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.†(Autopsy report) There is a photo of what Dr. Meyer describes after it was removed from the body. http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote5.jpg There is one large loop connected to a smaller loop via a cord 15.5 inches long. The smaller loop does not look the same as the photo of it before it was removed. Evidently, it was tied so loosely that it distorted in removing and handling. Does anybody doubt the accuracy of Dr. Meyer’s report? Does anybody doubt the authenticity of the photo? Does anybody doubt that a loosely tied ligature on one wrist and a same cord large loop 15.5 inches away and around nothing does not add up to bound? Can anyone refute that the EVIDENCE IS that JonBenet WAS NOT restrained by ligatures. Given the existence of the cord and loops in this circumstance that failed to bind, the EVIDENCE IS there was an attempt to make it APPEAR that JonBenet was restrained by these cords. Given the abysmal failure of this attempt, the EVIDENCE IS the perpetrator is profiled as a person lacking even the most rudimentary skills related to cords and knots. Ironically, it is the gross ineptness itself that helps to sell the absurdity. The attempt is such a poorly done mess, it’s hard to believe that anybody with so little knowhow would even try such a thing. Nevertheless, the evidence of the inept try is laid out for all to see. The coroner reported only one ligature and that on the right wrist. The other loop, the very large one, presumably fell off during the movement of the body before Dr. Meyer’s autopsy. Given the make up of the non binding “ligatures†and tendency to be easily dislodged, the EVIDENCE IS, these “ligatures†of non restraint were connected to JonBenet’s body AFTER she was already dead, or at least, unconscious. The attempt to give an appearance of restraint, an appearance contrary to the actual, IS EVIDENCE of a staged crime scene, a very poorly staged crime scene. Evidence of a staged crime scene IS EVIDENCE of a person intending to gain or protect by the staging designed to divert attention away from what actually did happen to JonBenet. Since a long-gone intruder would not stand to gain or protect by the staging, the EVIDENCE IS that the perpetrator, expected to be present during the investigation of the death of JonBenet. THE EVIDENCE rules out intruder. That’s pretty much it. How long did it take? This is what the non binding “ligatures†tell swiftly and clearly. You don’t have to know the how and why of the large loop. All you need to know is that it exists and did not serve to bind. Why do you suppose it is that you never hear LE or the media talking about an “intruder\kidnaper†so cord\knot inept he can’t even crudely bind a couple of wrists? Too bad the “investigators†didn’t bother to investigate this simple evidence, isn’t it. Oh, what a difference that would have made. Are you getting the picture of this unconscionable incompetence? Suppose you are investigating the alleged crime of kidnaping and alleged victim bound and gagged. You come across clear and irrefutable evidence that the victim was not bound. This evidence alone reveals that the allegations are incorrect, at least in part. What is the significance of this? Are there more false claims? If cords and loops are present, but no binding exists in an alleged kidnap\binding scene, what DOES EXIST? How can this not raise a huge red flag and demand close scrutiny? That is a question I have been asking for a very long time. For over six years, I have shook my head in disbelief at the most flawed staged crime scene in history and the most inept “investigators†possible. In past and present, they (LE) were and are hell bent on looking everywhere except the evidence. They are not alone. Envision the vast coverage of the case; the books, newspaper articles, tabloids, tv shows, movies, tv interviews, police interviews, lawsuits and court cases, the whole works. In over nine years, and literally thousands of instances, how many of these brought in and addressed the evidence of “ties that do not bind?†I cannot recall a single one. Can you? Amazing isn’t it, this virtual army of LE investigators and media types claiming independent thinking and that their theories are based on the evidence. In reality, the lot has done nothing but sheepishly follow Looney Louie and his outlandish fabrications. The idiot rattles on and on about an intruder, a sadistic pedophile, an “expert†with cords and knots that he used in a sexual bondage and “garroting†JonBenet. One fool after another, both in LE and the media, swallowed this garbage in part or whole and not once looked at the actual evidence and the profile of an inept bungler as the perpetrator. Good grief, what justification can there possibly be for simply ignoring and disregarding the non binding “ligature†evidence? It is a direct link between the victim and the perpetrator. It tells of mental and physical characteristics of the perpetrator. It is a road map into the mind and actions of the perpetrator as illustrated above. There can be no more important evidence, yet for over nine years, LE and the vast media simply ignore this crucial evidence? I just can’t fathom this level of stupidity and incompetence. These people are getting paid for this? If this isn’t accepting remuneration under false pretense, I don’t know what is. What is the significance of failing to investigate and failing to understand the non binding “ligature†evidence? The dual MONUMENTAL significance is not only the failure to limit the investigation to non intruder area as the evidence dictated, it enabled the only viable suspects to become the de facto director of the “investigation.†Talk about opening the floodgate into the fantasy world of illusion, confusion and self delusion!!!! Adds a new dimension to the fox guarding the hen house thing doesn’t it? Just a few minutes examining the actual evidence rules out intruder. The evidence says loud and clear, pursuing the idea of intruder is virtually and absolutely certain to be a waste of time, money and effort - unless you intend to throw up a smoke screen to shield the guilty. Rock level dumb or intent to protect the guilty are the only explanations for the ghost chase of a non existent intruder. Do you imagine that it is mere coincidence that after over nine years, and millions of dollars, they (LE) have not only failed to apprehend “the intruderâ€, they are no closer to identifying one than the day they started. There is virtually NO chance of this changing. Further significance of ignoring this evidence is financial ruin for some, financial gain via extortion by others; not to mention millions of taxpayer dollars spent by LE for “investigation†of items totally contrary to the actual evidence. That’s not the end of it. The significance has no end. The failure to investigate and understand the non binding “ligature†evidence set the “investigation†in the opposite direction of truth. It’s still going that way. This direction of “no investigation†has created a deep hole of financial expenditure without justification with responsibility and reputations placed on the same block. The hole is too deep to climb out of and too devastating to admit. Their only salvation is to make the lie bigger and hope it’s enough to keep the farce of an investigation going. What you will never see is any of these persons address and refute what the non binding “ligatures†evidence tells. Rest assured, resistance to embarrassing and career-ending truths will be adamantly denied to the max; mostly by ignoring with occasional self-serving lies told at a safe distance away from challenge. In other words, the same thing they have been doing for over nine Ramsey-serving years while compounding the error. A short while into reading the autopsy report, the staged crime scene was so clear by the evidence that I knew that all further enquiry and more evidence discovered would only serve to clarify and confirm. It would be a foolish waste of time to address all the fallacies, or even a large part of them. However, there is one very popular myth that has and continues to strongly influence thinking, therefore, influencing the direction of the investigation. “A deep ligature furrow encircles the entire neck.†(Autopsy report) In all sorts of presentations, up to and including the international level, the deep ligature furrow has been cited over and over and over again as “proof†of a vicious and deliberate homicidal strangulation. It lends psychological credence to the notion of a cruel and sadistic pedophile intruder. This sets the profile, which in turn, sets the direction of investigation. The problem is that once again the evidence is ignored and the wrong profile is set by fallacy as happened in the wrist “ligature†situation previously discussed. The key term, indicating key evidence, is “encircles.†The deep encircling ligature is, indeed, evidence, important evidence. The thing is, it is not evidence of a vicious and deliberate strangulation. It is EVIDENCE OF THE EXACT OPPOSITE. Is there any “expert†or layperson who does not know that pulling a closed circle from a given point cannot and does not exert circumferential pressure? Is there “expert†or layperson who does not know the pressure will be elongated and graduated with maximum pressure 180 degree from the point of the pull and literally no pressure at the point of the pull? The notion that the circumferential furrow was created by pulling the attached handle is a ludicrous contradiction of fact and physics. It didn’t happen. The encircling deep furrow was not created by the cord moving to the flesh, but the other way around. Dr. Meyer was so dedicated to accuracy, he did not call the large loop a ligature because when he saw it, it was not around anything. In preserving the integrity of the evidence, he marked and cut the cord to remove it from JonBenet’s neck. He could not preserve it otherwise because it was not an adjustable loop that he could loosen and remove over her head. In other words, the diameter and size of the loop around the neck was fixed and locked. It was precisely this fixed condition that set the circumstance for encircling embedding and consequent furrow by post mortem swelling, sometimes called bloat. This is the physics that tell the truth of a passive ligature and reactive flesh. This and the fact that the loop size was fixed clearly refutes the notion of embedding and furrow due to the strangling force applied by a “vicious murderer.†This non working “garrote†parallels the non working “ligatures†confirming the ignorance and ineptness of the perpetrator. The issue is not a question of subjective simple or complex. The issue is non definitive and misleading labels and the objective fact of non working constructions revealing the amateurish incompetence of the perpetrator. Thus does the profile once again emphatically point not to a “sophisticated expert†in knots and cord, but to one lacking the skills even to carry out an elementary wrists binding. The cord TIED around the neck instead of an adjustable noose and non functioning mummy wrapped handle is more evidence of the gross ignorance and ineptness of the perpetrator. Emerging from it all is the profile of a person who intended to gain\or protect by staging the crime scene. However, the person is so woefully without knowledge of cords\knots and ligatures, the bungled mess serves only to dismiss the notion of intruder and place focus upon self: the very thing the perpetrator sought to avoid by the staging. The central purpose of this writing is to show that when focus is upon the actual and simple evidence, you can quickly and easily get at the basic truths. Without any special expertise, fifteen minutes is more than enough time to know there was no intruder.
Oh, but don't you realize, EW, that this is no ordinary cord. No, this is a special or, dare I say, high-tech cord. It was made by that evil (Evil, I tells ya!) Santa/Satan Bill McReynolds, along with several Disney characters, in his workshop. Oh, yes indeedy! The combination of this high-tech magical cord, in addition to the hypno-drugs given to her by Fleet and Priscilla White at their house, put JonBenet under the illusion that she was bound by pick-axe carrying hunter ninjas. It's so obvious! -Tea
Imagine Santa McReynolds who had had heart surgery squeezing himself through that small window, heehee! I also strongly suspect Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer being Santa's accomplice. No doubt it was Rudolph who left that animal hair at the crime scene. I suppose if Loonie Louie was offered that explanation he would heartily agree - he has always jumped at anything pointing to an 'outside intruder', hasn't he.
As per usual, Delmar, this is a remarkable post. I know over the years you have written many, and you still amaze me with your expertise. Thank you for all the time and effort which went into this, and I sincerely hope that this post as well as all the others you have written will be well read by Tom Bennett, the investigator who has returned to take up his old position before Jim Kolar came along, and then decided to leave.
Delmar wrote: You know, I've read so much of this, so many times, and it took your pointing out this fact....again...for the impact of that to sink in. The term garrote being used over and over is one of those things that just drives me nuts (ok, nuttier). The term makes a difference to the casual case follower, and IMO, the misuse of that term was carefully scripted to cause the maximum damage Smit & Co. could muster. The terms matter. The same way abrasions have been permitted to become "possible marks from a stun gun". The choice of words in this case are no coincidence. Thank you Delmar. Little
Bottom line it, folks. Killers strive for efficiency. Inefficiency leaves survivors. Practiced killers use the most effective and least time consuming item(s) as their weapon. The rope was inefficient. The knots were novice. The child was not a survivor (head wound). The whole scenario was a time waster, as it took some protracted effort to get all of this rope and paintbrush thing up and running. Oh, and did I mention that true political dissident subgroups will not molest a child on the way through, in order to avoid negative press for their cause (focusing on their act rather than their message)? Obviously this whole thing was a setup trying to get the eyes averted (base words for our "advertise" term-Pats was here...) from the main player in this child's death. Like a prairie bird who feigns a broken wing while trying to lure the predatory animal away from the nest, a number of distractors which made no sense and had no continuity of thought processes are present in this case. This is my reference to the inconsistencies, things with opposing processes present such as the political group that wants media support and yet molests...whaaa? You expect me to believe this hyperbole? ...but I'm preaching to the choir here.
Thanks, Elle, but little to no expertise is required. To know the truth, the requirement is to look over, past and around the Ramsey-serving mountain of lies and propaganda. That is not so easy to do for the general observer who get’s his\her information only from the main media. BTW, Elle, I will be contacting Tom Bennett along with several others. I really don’t expect Mr. Bennett, or Looney Lacy to do anything. I just want it on record that they have certain facts in hand and chose not to pursue. Speaking of my list, does anyone have the email address for Tracy. Also, I have the Boulder DA office email address, but not a personal one for Bennett, or Lacy. Does anyone have these? Thanks
EW, again, you ignore the actual evidence and insert your own interpretation. First, I agree absolutely with most of what you say: no intruder; staging. But you again completely ignore the actual facts about the bruising under the ligature. It was not caused by post mortem swelling. Post mortem swelling is something any rookie ME would identify immediately. It's a different color. The bruises present under the cord around the neck were in fact created when JonBenet was strangled with the cord. That's a fact. Period. As to the pulling of the cord causing an elongated loop, with no contact at the nape of the neck where the cord was tied, this does not mean that as the loop tightened smaller and smaller, it wouldn't enclose around the neck to the point of strangling the child. Neck tissue is soft and pliable, as well the cord. Not to mention, I believe the autopsy states there was a slight upward marking at the knot of the ligature where it had been pulled, but I'll have to look that up again and don't have time this minute, so if I'm wrong, I apologize. Also, Meyers cut and removed the ligature because THAT'S STANDARD PROTOCOL. How could he know what he was dealing with? Do you honestly think he'd risk damaging the knot by trying to loosen or undo it, not to mention cause ACTUAL POST MORTEM BRUISING TO THE NECK while digging under it to try to loosen the knot, when all he had to do was cut it and risk nothing? Yes, it was tight and fixed. As I have stated many times, if you construct the knot of the wrist ligature from the picture, as I did several times, once around my thigh, it grabs when tightened enough so that the encircled flesh pushes against it. It moves to that point, but once the pressure of flesh pushes against it, it simply grabs and holds. That's how the ligature worked, if that same knot was used on it, which I do not know because I cannot tell from pictures how the neck knot was actually tied. I simply cannot understand why you also repeat that the BPD did not investigate the knots and the ligature. Even if you continue to berate the man they brought in, Van Tassel, as incompetent because he did not go public with his findings, to state that the BPD didn't even try is completely inaccurate. So sorry if it bothers you, Little, that some of us believe the ligature was used to strangle JonBenet. Everything and everyone professionally aligned with this case has stated the same, and the evidence we can see for ourselves in the autopsy supports it. Even if you don't agree, we who believe that are hardly just being obtuse.
This is from the documentary news of 2004, Delmar,but I'm sure it's still the same. Jayelles may confirm it. Contact: Michael Tracey, (303) 492-0445 Michael.Tracey@Colorado.Edu
yes kk I believe you are right about the petechial hemmorhages around the ligature. I think the rope was tight enough to cause these hemmorhages and it had to be before death or they wouldn't have occured. Also the ones on her eyelids and even some mentioned on her lung, if I remember correctly, all point to strangulation to some degree before she died. I have been told by EW that they can be caused by other means than strangulation but I haven't been able to figure out exactly what he thinks happened to cause them. They are evidence that can't be ignored.
Actually, I was speaking of the bruising under the ligature and it's coloration, proving when applied and tightened, JonBenet was still alive. Sorry I wasn't clear, but I've mentioned this a number of times, so wasn't thorough here. But you brought up other evidence from the autopsy and autopsy pictures that cannot be ignored. Besides the eye and inner organ petechia, the petechial hemorrhages at the garrote line are not some inexplicable or coincidental occurance. Yes, other things can cause asphyxia and petechial hemorrhaging, but the placement of these is significant: they occur around the garrote line, as well as in the eyes, caused by the pressure from the ligature tightened peri-mortem, restricting blood flow out of the blood vessels, so intense that the capilaries ruptured and leaked. Some drugs which increase blood pressure can cause petechia, but there were no such drugs in JB's blood. Some other conditions can cause the petechia found in the eyes--extreme vomiting, for instance; but I don't see how this explains the petechia around the garrote if the garrote was placed there post mortem. But I'm open for a reasonable explanation of the petechia that doesn't include garroting. Just as I'm awaiting some explanation as to how the bruising under the garrote was caused before death, but the garrote didn't cause the death. Especially since the ME listed the COD as strangulation FIRST, with the head blow as a contributing factor, not the sole cause. I still have not seen those explanations, however.
Does anyone know if rope expert Van Tassel testified at the Grand Jury hearing? If not, what do you think was the reason? If memory serves, Easywriter said that some strangling could have occurred while the rope was being fastened around JB's neck. So this would not contradict the ME's words that death occurred by strangulation associated with the blow to the head. JB must have been still alive when the injuries were inflicted to her vagina, otherwise she would not have bled. But I think we can rule out that the garrote with the handle played any role in strangling her. If she was strangled, it was from the rope pulled tightly around her neck and fastened with a knot. It does look like a knot to me, and wouldn't a knot tied like that rule out a garrote being applied? So it seems that the garrote device was added after tying the knot to give the impression of an especially cruel device which should point away from the parents. Do you posters believe the Ramseys thought JB was already dead when they staged the garrote scene? Wouldn't it have been normal for them to examine if their daughter was still breathing? Why conclude on their own that the child was dead? Or maybe they didn't want to know? Didn't want to be saddled with a brain-injured child which would be a vegetable for the rest of her life? If they knew that JB was still alive (though probably in an irrecoverable coma or nearing death), the strangling would be a first-degree murder. I wouldn't put it past the Ramseys. For parents staging such a brutal scene with a paintbrush shoved up their child's vagina are capable of anything imo.
[All quotes from Easywriter]: I admire Steve Thomas very much too. He was no-nonsense detective who asked himself the right questions and who smelled a rat right from the beginning. I'm two thirds through Thomas' book and have just read the episode where people from the Boulder police department as well as some people from the DA's office (including Lou Smit), met with the FBI's highly respected profilers from the Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit (CASKU). These skilled professionals came to the conclusion that the ransom note was bogus and written in a panic, that the crime was an incredible risk for an outsider to undertake, that it was criminally unsophisticated, that the ligatures indicated staging, and many other crucial things which you, EW, and many other knowledgeable people on this board have pointed out so often. p. 219: "Throughout the FBI sessions, Lou Smit said not a word about his Intruder Theory." Interesting, isn't it? That measly little phony Lou Smit knew exactly that he was out of his league compared to these highly specialized FBI people, which is why he cowardly kept his mouth shut. He knew they would tear him and his idiotic intruder fantasies apart. I realize that using the word 'device' might connote 'sophisticated' and 'premeditated', but that is not what I meant. I meant to say that the person fumblingly tried to construct some kind of 'apparatus' which should make people believe that it was a special device. But from your very convincing analysis of the garrote, we know how miserably the perp failed in staging that! Very convincing explanation, EW. Makes perfect sense imo. I have always interpreted the word 'associated' like that too: it does not imply a time sequence, but leaves it open. I believe that in case the Ramseys had confessed, their defense strategy would have been that they thought JB was already dead. And since the prosecution would not have been able to prove what went on in their heads, they would not have been charged with first-degree murder. I think voluntary manslaughter would have been likely.
