Page 9 of 45 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 97 to 108 of 532
  1. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AMES
    I have always thought that the damage was on the side, back part of the skull.
    I think you are correct. That's where the punched-out hole in the skull was located.

    From the autopsy report:
    At the superior extension of the is area of
    hemorrhage is a linear to comminuted skull fracture which
    extends from the right occipital to posteroparietal area forward to the right frontal area across the parietal skull.
    In the posteroparietal area of this fracture is a roughly
    rectangular shaped displaced fragment of skull measuring one
    and three-quarters by one-half inch.
    'occipital' = relating to the back of the head,
    'posteroparietal' = relating to the bone covering the side of the skull (parietal bone), postero = the back region of this bone near the occipital region.

  2. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Not Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom
    Are YOU saying that JonBenet was unconscious from strangling before she was hit in the head?
    Yes that is what I am saying.

    The first strangulation was functional, it caused unconsciousness. The cord was placed around the neck and lastly the head blow was delivered. The head blow was ceremonial, having something to do with the right hand of God as per The Psalms. imo.

  3. #99

    Default

    Well, as we all can see, the theories are no less prolific and no more proven without a trial. Even with 11 years of LE, experts, and all us armchair sleuths giving it our best, there is no conclusive answer.

    Now we can add the knowledge that medical examiners are as fallible as the rest of us to the confusion. How many times are bodies exhumed and the MOD changed to "homicide", as the true crime shows and recent cases demonstrate? Not to mention, we now have learned pathologists, medical examiners, and experts are for hire, with "desired" testimony for sale, resulting in the facts being skewed before juries in any case where the defendant has money.

    It's very depressing when you think about it.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  4. #100

    Default

    I also think that the oddly braided hair was done in preparation for the blow. The hair entwined in the cord/handle may mean she was strung up in preparation for the blow with the arms above and behind the forward leaning head, exposing the skull and saving the face from abrasion.
    "Saving the face from abrasion"? "You" should rethink your scenario since JonBenet did have abrasions on her face. They are listed in the autosy report. A theory should follow the evidence, and not be constructed ignoring the evidence.
    And how do you think JonBenet was 'strung up'? Please elaborate.

    jmo

  5. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    Well, as we all can see, the theories are no less prolific and no more proven without a trial. Even with 11 years of LE, experts, and all us armchair sleuths giving it our best, there is no conclusive answer.

    Now we can add the knowledge that medical examiners are as fallible as the rest of us to the confusion. How many times are bodies exhumed and the MOD changed to "homicide", as the true crime shows and recent cases demonstrate? Not to mention, we now have learned pathologists, medical examiners, and experts are for hire, with "desired" testimony for sale, resulting in the facts being skewed before juries in any case where the defendant has money.

    It's very depressing when you think about it.
    Imo not even a circumstantial evidence case trial would have brought clarification here. For example, there was no way for the prosecution to prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt which Ramsey delivered the head blow and why (not even the weapon could be determined!) - a big stumbling block for a prosecution team who has to present an offender to the jury.
    The ransom note writer and main stager of the scene (the evidence strongly points to Patsy) - need not necessarily have been the killer either - another big stumbling block for the prosecution.

    Imo this case was lost at the beginning - when the police failed to arrest the Ramseys as suspects immediately after the body had been found. If their clothing had been collected immediately and if they had been questioned separately before being able to put a story together, - we probably would not be discussing this case today as an 'unsolved case'. I'm not sure about John, but Patsy would have caved in imo.

    jmo
    Last edited by rashomon; March 1, 2008, 7:19 pm at Sat Mar 1 19:19:46 UTC 2008.

  6. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heymom
    No, you're right, KK. And the issue of contrecoup damage from the brain rebounding off one surface of the skull (the one that struck an object) and onto the other side of the skull (from the force of the strike) would be a major feature of the autopsy. There was none, which means she did NOT strike an object while her body was in motion. She was hit with an object. Period. This thread should put to rest all speculation about the head blow being an indirect result of some sort of fight with Patsy.
    I have question, heymom: did your son have a contrecoup injury to the brain as a result from the fall?

  7. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Not Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon
    "Saving the face from abrasion"? "You" should rethink your scenario since JonBenet did have abrasions on her face. They are listed in the autosy report. A theory should follow the evidence, and not be constructed ignoring the evidence.
    And how do you think JonBenet was 'strung up'? Please elaborate.

    jmo
    Uh, could you please list those abrasions (plural) on the F A C E?

    face 1. the front part of the head, from the forehead to the chin.

    "just below the right ear at the right angle of the mandible" is not the face. That is to the side of the face.

  8. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox
    Uh, could you please list those abrasions (plural) on the F A C E?

    face 1. the front part of the head, from the forehead to the chin.

    "just below the right ear at the right angle of the mandible" is not the face. That is to the side of the face.
    It verbatim says face/ right side of face in the photos on ACR where the abrasion is shown:

    ***WARNING - graphic photos! ***

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

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

    And how do you think she was "strung up"?

  9. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Not Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon
    They are listed in the autosy report.

    jmo
    Where are "they" listed in the autopsy report? Where in the autopsy report does it say face/ right side of the face? It doesn't, and there aren't multiple abrasions.

  10. #106
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    1,311

    Default

    It has the same meaning...mandible means the jaw line. Just by looking at the pictures, whether you define it as mandible, jawline, face or side of face- the abrasions are there in plain view. There is only one there, but other abrasions of the same type are also other places on her body. In all the other locations except her face, the abrasions are in pairs. I have read where some people think there is a very faint second mark on her face, possibly under where the duct tape was, but I really don't see it when I look.
    This is my Constitutionally protected OPINION. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

  11. #107
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    3,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon
    I have question, heymom: did your son have a contrecoup injury to the brain as a result from the fall?
    No, he didn't. He fell off the board and onto his right side, and I think he rolled a little, because he had some road rash on his shoulders. He had just a small fracture on the part of his skull inside his ear, narrowly missing his hearing structures. If he had hit just a few mm in the other direction, he'd be permanently deaf on that side.

    He had some bleeding around the fracture site, which also bled out his ear, right from the start and then until the next day. That was very troubling, but the neurologist said it was good, so I tried to stay calm.

    As I understand it, he could have had a contrecoup injury if he'd struck more straight down instead of glancing. It's from the rebound of the brain from one surface to the other, from velocity.
    "We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

    MY OPINIONS - DO NOT COPY THEM ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!

  12. #108
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Not Boulder, Colorado
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Envy



Similar Threads

  1. Steven's autopsy
    By JC in forum FIRE-In-The-HOLE
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 6, 2005, 7:07 am, Tue Dec 6 7:07:36 UTC 2005
  2. Autopsy...
    By Tez in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 25, 2003, 5:29 pm, Sun May 25 17:29:05 UTC 2003

Posting Permissions

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