A little quiz

Something just came to my mind in regards to what John said in The Muderer chapter (pg 402 PB)- The garrote around JonBenet's neck was not hurriedly put together, nor was it a simple tourniquet.

A tourniquet is a device used to stop bleeding by placing pressure on a blood vessel by tieing a bandage around the injured part of the body and then inserting a stick and twisting it to tighten the bandage. So could this mean that the attached paintbrush handle was not used for the purpose of pulling the cord tied around the neck, but instead was inserted under the cord and then twisted? Then on pg 404 he writes ...so he pulled the garrote too tight so she wouldn't scream again, and she died.

Now, there is no way that cord could have been pulled tight due to the double knot, so John's mentioning of a tourniquet seems to be a clue. I would think there would be a lot more bleeding going on than there was, if one was to wait for the post-mortem swelling to occur to cause the cord to become embedded in her neck. And, lastly, I wonder if this was how garroting was done in the Philippines, where John was stationed at in the late '60s or so?

-Tea

 

Thanks for the interest and commentary. It helps maintain focus upon this most important evidence. A detailed response is necessary to do justice to your observations. I am rather busy at the moment, but will get to it later, probably tomorrow.

 

It is good to go over all this again EW. Great post!

For me, this is the only type of garrote I have seen used in the movies. As for the type of creations used in sex games, *cough* I have to plead ignorance here. Oh, I have read some stories here and there, but it sure is a touchy subject, but it was obvious the Ramseys were trying to make this staging look like a pedophile had been on the premises. Thanks for your expertise here, EW.

Tea should enjoy your reply.

 

A Gigli saw is a garrotelike device used for amputation of limbs.
A piano wire garrote frequently causes some level of incision into the neck.
This stick and a string was neither. There were no cuts into the neck. It was a way to try to strangle the air from her tiny brain, in order to stop the agonal movements brought on by a serious head injury.
The child deserves more in this case, and the parents deserve more, too, in a different sort of way. :devil:

 

ICEDTEA4ME:

“Yeah, to me this points to John's involvement with the cord. Who
knows. Maybe he did a pseudo-strangulation to get his hands
dirty, too, since it was his actions that night that caused Patsy
to deliver the head blow. He does this half-hearted
pseudo-strangulation and convinces Patsy that he's done his
part.â€

I am 100% certain it was a staged crime scene. I don’t qualify
this in any way. I would bet my life on it without a second of
hesitation. As for which Ramsey did what, I will have to back off
a tad and go with it in terms of probability. I can’t say with
absolute certainty that JonBenet was not struck with something,
but the physics of the situation strongly suggests to me an
incident wherein her head came in contact with a large stationery
object.

Initially, I also thought John was involved with the cord around
the neck. However, as I watched John on tv, read what he had to
say, and looked at the evidence, I came to the conclusion that
the whole thing was a Patsy production. John was a state-of-
shock bystander who performed only upon Patsy’s specific
instructions.

Whose paint brush was used for the handle? Where did the unusual
cord come from if not from Patsy’s sewing stuff? Who knew where
to find it? (And more) As for the note, the only thing missing
is an autographed photo of Ms. Patsy. When I read the note, I
shuddered at the cold author without any sense of empathy,
therefore, without compassion; only pretense to provide a
suitable public image. John is a liar and a pathetic individual,
but it is Patsy who stands out as not only the architect of the
staging plan, but also the main character in carrying it out.

“Then, as the hours pass, the neck swells causing the cord to
become embedded. And then the autopsy report is released listing
ligature strangulation as the primary cause of death, in
conjunction with the head injury, and John's gotta be like "Woah!
Wait a minute here!"(Ibid)

John will never recover from this.

“I was wondering from where you got the double throw slipknot, as
it isn't mentioned in the autopsy report.†(Ibid)

Dr. Meyer may be a great coroner, but cords and knots, he does
not understand. I got the double throw slip knot from looking at
the photos. This is what Dr. Meyer called a double knot. I will explain in follow-the-cord detail if you like. Often,
the same knot is called by different names. No matter what the
name, this knot arrangement clamped down on the cord and
prevented movement to strangle. Some “garrote†eh what?


ELLE:

“For me, this is the only type of garrote I have seen used in the
movies. As for the type of creations used in sex games, *cough* I
have to plead ignorance here. Oh, I have read some stories here
and there, but it sure is a touchy subject, but it was obvious
the Ramseys were trying to make this staging look like a
pedophile had been on the premises.â€

You’re are correct. It is a touchy subject, and a disgusting one.
Hobey 86 explained a great deal about this, so no need for me to
repeat here. Knowing the facts is knowing just how ridiculous the
notion of sex games is in this setting.


JustChillun:

“A Gigli saw is a garrotelike device used for amputation of
limbs.â€

Yes, I had forgotten about this.

“A piano wire garrote frequently causes some level of incision
into the neck.†(Ibid)

Indeed, the level is usually very deep - so I have been told by
someone trained in “silent combat.â€

“This stick and a string was neither. There were no cuts into the
neck. It was a way to try to strangle the air from her tiny
brain, in order to stop the agonal movements brought on by a
serious head injury.†(Ibid)

I don’t see any attempt to strangle at all. The cord was simply
and awkwardly TIED around the neck as staging. What kind of
“strangler†is so incompetent as to not pre-construct a noose to
depict a strangulation by noose?? As for agonal movements,
possible, but I doubt it. I strongly suspect that the severity of
the skull fracture stopped all movements very soon even though
there may have been a few seconds of convulsions.

In any event, staged crime scene is fact, and no way an intruder
fits into the evidentiary picture. The RST likes to cite history
and statistics as “evidence.†OK, let them chew on this one: Find
in all of recorded history a single murder committed by the kind
of apparatus found at the Ramsey crime scene.

 

Icedtea4me:
“EW, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this
as I feel John was very much a part of what went down that night
based on what's in the note and remarks he's made in interviews.â€
(Icedtea4me)

I have no problem with disagreement, but do have some questions.

“I can also see John telling Patsy what he needs to carry this
out -
"Patsy, I need a stick. Find me a stick." She gets her paint tray
and hands him a paintbrush. The ends were broken off and I just
don't see Patsy being able to do that, but I do see John doing
it.†(Ibid)

You reverse what I see as the relationship. I fail to see the
reason for this reversal. You say you see John telling Patsy.
What do you observe to reach and hold this conclusion? My first
problem with this is that John reveals he knows no more about
“garrotes†than Patsy, so can’t see him assuming authority in the
matter.

What is attached to whom? We know the paint brush handle was part
of the crime scene. We know that the paint brush belonged to
Patsy, meaning that Patsy had knowledge of it and knowledge of
potential use as handle. By what evidence is this knowledge
and\or action transferred to John? By what evidence is it
concluded that John constructed the “garrote.†I can find nothing
by which to conclude that John said anything to Patsy about any
of this. From the note on through, Patsy's mark is everywhere.

I did not see the paint brush in question, but do know that even
commercial house painting brushes are often made of weak wood and
easily broken; especially, small ones. I have no problem
envisioning Patsy breaking the paint brush handle to make a
handle for the “garrote.†Even is John broke it for her, it does
not change my position of Patsy as the main character in note and
all else.

“Then he tells her he needs some rope or cord. She remembers
there's a paper bag with rope in it under John Andrew's bed. She
reaches under the bed and pulls out the bag and, in the process,
moves a portion of the dust ruffle outward. Not being sure about
the rope, she goes back and tells John about it (or maybe he was
there with her.) He tells her that the rope won't do and asks if
she can find something else that's smaller and thinner. That's
when she gets the cord.â€

Why on earth would John want something smaller and thinner? This
implies that John thinks smaller and thinner is better suited to
his purpose. What purpose? How would smaller and thinner work
better? If just doesn’t jell. He has rope available and opts for
cord? If given a choice between rope and cord for a “garroteâ€, a
rope is the best choice. Sure you can strangle, or stage a
strangling, with just about anything, but a cord is a very poor
choice; particularly, this type of cord. No matter what material
used, it’s still a cobbled up mess. It is obvious that whoever
constructed the “garrote†was totally ignorant of the physics, so
the idea of John being choosy about cord or rope doesn’t fit.

The scenario I envision goes something like this: A fatal
accident with Patsy culpable. No scalp laceration, so cause of
death not immediately visible. Patsy decides to stage a kidnap,
sexual assault, murder. She formulates a plan. Her mind then
searches for means to carry out the plan. Material are needed.
Pad and pen are readily available. Tape somewhere in the house.
Binding? What is needed for binding? What was used? A speciality
cord probably used in sewing. Who would most likely know it
existed and where it was located? Patsy, of course.

Notwithstanding all the RST BS about the cord, having bought and
used hundreds of yards of assorted sizes of utility cord and
ropes, I can tell you that every one I used, or ever saw in a
hardware store is round. The cord at the crime scene did not come
from a hardware or similar type outlet. The inappropriate cord
was used for no other reason that immediate availability due to
being on hand for other purposes. The same is true of the paint
brush handle and literally all other items used in the staging.
Planning, preparation, and motive are not part of an accident.
This is precisely why the crime scene shows an absence of all
three. Motive in this situation goes to staging, not murder.

“He then tells her he's going to need something to cut the cord
with, like a knife.†(Ibid)

I can see use of a knife to cut the cord, but as indicated above
for the reasons given above, don’t see John doing the actual
staging while ordering Patsy to assist.

“Patsy goes upstairs to the kitchen, gets the paring knife, and
brings it downstairs. John uses it on the cord, getting fibers on
the blade. Maybe it isn't sharp enough for the job, so he tells
her to get a sharper knife and perhaps suggests Burke's Swiss
Army knife.â€(ibid)

Sorry, I don’t know of any facts to support this scenario. With
information at hand, I see one knife in use as part of the crime
scene, but nothing else. I don’t know where all the materials
were, (blanket, cord, clothes, etc.) so running up and down is
possible, but can’t envision it in the context you describe such
as the knife thing.

“Patsy takes the paring knife and goes straight to the second
floor, neglecting to stop off at the first floor to put the
paring knife in the kitchen. She stops off at JonBenet's room for
a moment to get some things, placing the paring knife temporarily
on the bed and some fibers fall off. Or it's possible she wiped
off the knife on the sheets. After getting what she needs from
JonBenet's room, she goes to the laundry area, places the paring
knife on the counter, opens the cabinet, pulls out the package of
Pull-Ups partway and retrieves Burke's knife. Then she heads back
downstairs with the items. (Come to think of it, wasn't there
something about a metal tie regarding the underwear package?
Could the paring knife have been used for that?) Anyway, that's
how I visualize the sequence of events.†(Ibid)

As previously stated, I accept that a knife was probably used to
cut the cord, but that’s about it as for as a knife or knives
attach to the crime scene. I’m afraid I can’t see any facts
justifying speculation otherwise. I don’t see that Patsy needed
or used John’s help except to follow a few orders, perhaps, like
helping clean up and dress the body and\or carrying to the
basement.

“I think the note describes what went down that night. Patsy had
been monitoring John getting something and comes across him
getting this something unexpectedly, and that something is sex
with JonBenet (...pick-up of your daug hter.)â€(ibid)

I don’t believe this for several reasons. Had there been semen
found, this argument would have some force. Without some proof
positive, there is no factual support. It has been established
that very poor hygiene was the norm and could, and probably does,
account for what has been labeled by some as chronic sexual
abuse. We also have a setting of preparing for bed in
anticipation of a big traveling day on the morrow. To be sure,
not proof in itself, but shows atmosphere not conducive to the
charges. Aside from that, as low as I believe John Ramsey to be,
I see nothing to even remotely suggest he is a pedophile in any
form, let alone incest.

Yet, several theories are predicated upon this notion. None can
start from known facts and incorporate other known facts without
contradiction. One theory is Patsy caught John molesting
JonBenet; swung and missed hitting her causing the skull
fracture. I am still waiting for identification of the object
wielded by Patsy large enough and heavy enough to severely
fracture the skull without lacerating the scalp.

There is also the time frame factor. The Ramsey testimony is that
they came home nine to tenish. John and Burke played for a while,
then they went upstairs. Patsy stayed behind doing a few things.
I know of no facts that disputes this. What is disputed is that
JonBenet was carried in asleep and put to bed.

If JonBenet was not in bed, where was she? Suppose JonBenet was
still downstairs with Patsy after John and Burke went upstairs.
Suppose for whatever reason, Patsy and JonBenet came into
conflict at this time. Suppose JonBenet suffered a fatal skull
fracture - at this time. The staging followed. Does this scenario
fit Patsy wearing the same clothes the next day? How about be
rested for tomorrow found in the note? Does this indicate the
mind of the writer was thinking and writing in terms of before
midnight? I see no incest, or sex games in this scenario. Most,
if not all if the sex games stuff comes from spin offs that
happened due to failing to identity the truth about the “garrote
scene.†Confrontation = skull fracture = staging. It’s that
simple.

“Dr. Meyer may be a great coroner, but cords and knots, he does
not understand. I got the double throw slip knot from looking at
the photos. This is what Dr. Meyer called a double knot. I will
explain in follow-the-cord detail if you like.†(EasyWriter)

“Ah.. okay. And, yes, I would appreciate some more detail on
this.†(Icedtea4me)

Way back when, I looked at every relevant photo I could find.
These were correlated with the coroner’s report. This was a long
time ago and one of the photos I liked best, I can no longer find
online. However, I recall it and others quite vividly and my
recollection coincides with what I wrote in the original two part
analysis.

Correlate and confirm are key concepts in getting at the truth.
So, before getting to the specific cord around the neck, let’s
look a the context of proximate and supporting evidence. I cannot
imagine a more obvious crime scene staging; so, am at a loss to
understand how it can be ignored by so many for so long. Since it
is ignored by so many, boring or not, I am going to keep on
repeating it at every opportunity.

“VII. Ligature of right wrist†(coroner’s report)

Red flags don’t get any brighter and bigger than this. No
ligature on the left wrist? Why not? Fell off? A ligature that
fell off? This is a binding as in “kidnaping and binding?†Good
grief, what do these “experts†need - a video of the staging and
a confession?

First, the wrists not bound together tells clearly that the
person does not know what he\she is doing. On top of that is a
foul up so bad, the “bond†fall off of one wrist! How can one
keep from thinking, “What is this person so desperate to hide
that this person attempts to stage a scene he\she knows nothing
about?†“What kind of mental mess are we dealing with?â€

Keep in mind, this evidence of amateurish bungling was visible
right out of the box; visible to any an all who viewed the “wrist
tie off the wrist.†This evidence was repeated in the autopsy
report. Still, it never raised an official eyebrow.

The same kind evidence just keeps piling up, yet these world-
renowned investigators keep stumbling all over themselves to get
away from actual evidence in order to construct one cockamamie
theory after another that is light years away from the truth.

Everybody knows the cord was tied around JonBenet’s neck don’t
they? Even Loony Louis acknowledged this. He also acknowledged
hair was entwined in the “garrote.†Hello out there in LE land.
If the cord is tied around the neck as opposed to a movable
noose, what in the hell is the handle for??? How is this to be
explained? I already have: “What is this person so desperate to
hide that this person attempts to stage a scene he\she knows
nothing about?†“What kind of mental mess are we dealing with?â€
Hint: A “kidnaper†who threatens to behead your daughter, but is
so concerned for your welfare, he admonishes you to be rested for
tomorrow. Literally every item screams “BOGUSâ€, yet the fools
keep chasing figments of their own imaginations; a very expensive
folly in many ways.

Yes, Icedtead4me, I did wander a bit, but am not sorry. I will
keep reminding then of the truth. Getting back to your interest
in understanding the “garrote scene†better, I sure wish you were
here and I could demonstrate it in a few minutes. Since that is
not the situation, to understand, you will have to envision from
words and\or get a piece of cord and manipulate it as dictated by
my description.

Every photo I have seen shows the knot in the center, or
approximate, back of the neck. This means that JonBenet was face
down when it was tied. One could do this tying from either side,
or from straddling the body. Take your choice.

Get a piece of string several feet long. Use a large doll,
whatever, or envision same. Assume straddling the body with the
head in front of you. The long string is trailing down the left
side of your body. Take end nearest you with right hand and run
it from right to left under the throat. Call this the short
section A. Bring the end of the short section A either over or
under the long section held in left hand. Now bring the end of
the short section A back to the right, the direction from which
you came. At this juncture, you have the short section over the
long section. There is a space created between over and under
with the short section. You have a U shaped situation. Now take
the loose end of the U and bring it over and under the other part
of the U. Do this twice. At this point, you have a short end and
a long end that goes back past your body. Grasp the long end part
where ever convenient. To tighten, pull both ends at the same
time. As you pull, the short section wrapped around the long cord
will start to slip and may move toward the neck a little.
However, if you pull upward as in a V shape, the slip knot will
move to and lock on the long cord without this area of the cord
ever reaching the neck. If you pull flat across the back of the
neck, there is a chance the knot will slip to touch the neck, but
the instant it meets any resistance, nearly all the force goes
into the cord compressing upon itself and it will go no further;
meaning no reduction of loop size to effect strangulation. There
is an additional lock factor due to the type of cord. Since the
cord at the crime scene is not round, as it compressed upon
itself, it created flanges on each side of the contact
prohibiting slipping even more. I said before and say again, the
idea of this silly construct being used for circumferential
strangulation is ludicrous.

I hope this explains. If not, let me know what is not clear and I
will try again.

 

My thinking on this is that John was very much aware of garrotes, but he knew that Patsy wasn't so he "dumbed-down" what he did know.

What is attached to whom? We know the paint brush handle was part
of the crime scene. We know that the paint brush belonged to
Patsy, meaning that Patsy had knowledge of it and knowledge of
potential use as handle. By what evidence is this knowledge
and\or action transferred to John? By what evidence is it
concluded that John constructed the “garrote.†I can find nothing
by which to conclude that John said anything to Patsy about any
of this. From the note on through, Patsy's mark is everywhere.

Yes, some paint brushes are made of weak wood, but I wouldn't doubt that Patsy used professional brushes made of a higher quality of wood. I also agree that Patsy wrote the note, but John's complicity in what transpired is also in the message.

“Then he tells her he needs some rope or cord. She remembers
there's a paper bag with rope in it under John Andrew's bed. She
reaches under the bed and pulls out the bag and, in the process,
moves a portion of the dust ruffle outward. Not being sure about
the rope, she goes back and tells John about it (or maybe he was
there with her.) He tells her that the rope won't do and asks if
she can find something else that's smaller and thinner. That's
when she gets the cord.â€

The rope that was in the bag was one of those very thick braided sisle(?) Western type of ropes, which I think would have been too cumbersome. Bottom line is that it was opted not to be used.

Then it could be that Patsy changed her mind about the rope. Who knows. As far as being totally ignorant of the physics of constructing a garrote, I disagree with this. Didn't you say that the cord was tied around JonBenet's neck with a double slip knot? The person who tied it had already made a single slip knot, which would have served the purpose, would it not? As I said before, I think John dumbed-down his knowledge of what knot would be sufficient for this task.

I do think that Patsy inflicted the head injury, but if it was purely an accident, then why not just take her to the hospital? Of course it could be accidental in that when JonBenet was struck or whatever Patsy didn't realize or mean to cause what had happened.

From Perfect Murder, Perfect Town pg 723 pb version- Meanwhile, Michael Kane asked Rich Gosage and Michael Everett to visit Linda Hoffman-Pugh and show her a photograph of a knife the police had discovered at the Ramsey house just after the killing. It had been found on the counter near the microwave oven in the utility area just off JonBenet's bedroom.
Hoffman-Pugh said it was the paring knife from the kitchen, which she put away many times. It had a wooden handle and wasn't serrated. She said that the knife had never been used upstairs; it was always in the kitchen.

From PMPT pg 729- Next was a picture of Burke's red pocketknife that the police found in the basement several yards from JonBenet's body. It might have been used to cut the cord that was found binding the child. Linda remembered taking the knife away from Burke several weeks before the murder and hiding it in a closed cupboard in the service area just outside JonBenet's bedroom.

Regarding the package of Pull-Ups hanging out halfway of the cabinet in the utility/laundry area by JonBenet's room, there's a mention of it in Thomas's book but I'm unable to locate the reference at this time.

The location of the paring knife on the counter just under the cabinet where LHP hid Burke's red pocketknife was what brought me to my scenario about the knives.

My question is- Why in the world would John even do that if he was completely blameless and uninvolved in what happened?

The word "pick-up", when hyphenated, is slang for a hooker. There is a noticeable gap in the word "daughter" (daug hter) when compared to the other "daughter"s in the note. Dr. Hodges, in his book A Mother Gone Bad, theorizes this is a symbolic representation of JonBenet being "torn in two" when she received the head wound after Patsy encounters what has been going on between John and JonBenet. And, yes, there is no semen present, but couldn't that be because he was caught before he was able to do so?

It's getting late, so I will continue Wed or Thurs as to why I think John was sexually molesting JonBenet.

-Tea

 

Poor hygiene=sexual abuse

I don't understand this idea. We know JonBenet was a bedwetter, and we Linda Hoffman-Pugh also said she soiled her bed with bowel movements. How could cleaning up a child from this sort of chronic problem cause interior vaginal trauma? And how ignorant would one have to be to wipe down a kid hard enough to cause her to lose her hymen? Patsy and John ain't ignorant.

As we've discussed in the past, abused children ofter wet or otherwise soil their beds to ward off their abusers. Our heroine, Marilyn Van Derbur, also tried to keep her father away by extending her use of feminine products at the end of her periods (her evil father was on to her).

We don't know JonBenet was abused of course, but there's lots of evidence that she was. If someone was roughly wiping her down after accidents such that she experienced the injuries found in the autopsy, I'd call that abuse as well.

 

Motive always goes with a conscious and deliberate action,
doesn’t it? If the intent was to sell the idea of death by
strangulation, would not the motivation be to use one’s knowledge
to create an effective and convincing device? To “dumb-downâ€
would be to defeat the purpose, would it not? The evidence is
there was no dumbing down. There was simply the lack of knowhow
with attempt made in ignorance and desperation.

“The rope that was in the bag was one of those very thick braided
sisle(?) Western type of ropes, which I think would have been too
cumbersome. Bottom line is that it was opted not to be
used.(ibid)

Could it be that the rope was not even thought of is why it was
not used? Do you know of anything to contradict this?

“Then it could be that Patsy changed her mind about the rope. Who
knows. As far as being totally ignorant of the physics of
constructing a garrote, I disagree with this. Didn't you say that
the cord was tied around JonBenet's neck with a double slip
knot?†(Ibid)

Yes.

“The person who tied it had already made a single slip knot,
which would have served the purpose, would it not?†(Ibid)

No, it would not, nor would a double slip knot. I see you did not
try the replication as described. Any slip knot in the scene is a
flaw, indeed, a fatal flaw. It is precisely the slip knot
compressing upon the main cord that prevent any “garroting
action.â€

“I do think that Patsy inflicted the head injury, but if it was
purely an accident, then why not just take her to the hospital?
Of course it could be accidental in that when JonBenet was struck
or whatever Patsy didn't realize or mean to cause what had
happened.†(Ibid)

I could speculate for a week as to why Patsy didn’t call for
help. However, whether my speculation is correct or not, the
truth remains that she didn’t. She, for whatever reason, or
reasons, opted to stage the crime scene in an effort to separate
herself from the incident and from the fatal effect.

“ From PMPT pg 729- Next was a picture of Burke's red pocketknife
that the police found in the basement several yards from
JonBenet's body. It might have been used to cut the cord that was
found binding the child. Linda remembered taking the knife away
from Burke several weeks before the murder and hiding it in a
closed cupboard in the service area just outside JonBenet's
bedroom.†(Ibid)

I recall reading this about Burke’s knife. As for any other
knives, I know of nothing that fits them into the crime scene.
Until shown otherwise, I consider such thing incidental to the
crime scene.

“Regarding the package of Pull-Ups hanging out halfway of the
cabinet in the utility/laundry area by JonBenet's room, there's a
mention of it in Thomas's book but I'm unable to locate the
reference at this time.†(Ibid)

I am also aware of reading about this, but don’t see how it
changes my conclusions about the “garroteâ€, or about Patsy and
John in relation to the “garrote.â€

“My question is- Why in the world would John even do that if he
was completely blameless and uninvolved in what happened?†(Ibid)

Again, I can speculate until doomsday, but whether the
speculation is correct or incorrect, the evidence still remains
that the participated in the attempted coverup.

“The word "pick-up", when hyphenated, is slang for a hooker.â€
(Ibid)

So? It is also normal language for certain common activities.
Many times, I have been told, or have told, “I will pick you up
at a certain place and time.†The terminology in the circumstance
is not at all unusual. A multi-page “ransom note†that says be
rested for tomorrow very strange.

“There is a noticeable gap in the word "daughter" (daug hter)
when compared to the other "daughter"s in the note.†(Ibid)

So?

“Dr. Hodges, in his book A Mother Gone Bad, theorizes this is a
symbolic representation of JonBenet being "torn in two" when she
received the head wound after Patsy encounters what has been
going on between John and JonBenet.†(Ibid)

I read only part of Dr. Hodges’ book. That was enough. He is a
total loony that sees whatever he wants to see in whatever he
looks at. Ten minutes of questioning Dr. Hodges and if he ever had
any credibility, it would be completely gone. He is a prattling
fool. He and Smit make a great couple of bookends.

“And, yes, there is no semen present, but couldn't that be
because he was caught before he was able to do so?†(Ibid)

Isnâ€t this a bit like the RST method of “evidence via the
unknown?†Could it be there was no one to catch?

 

Not to change the subject, but since EW mentioned the rope in John Andrew's room, and before I forget, check out the tire swing in one of the pictures of JB. It's got the same kind of thick rope as is in some of her other posed pictures.

 

On another site I posted on a few years ago Wombat, an excellent poster suggested that vigorous cleaning may well have been Patsy's punishment for JonBenét. I could believe this, and I can also believe that abrasions would show up in her vagina, because of this. However, it's the presence of a wooden splinter being found in JonBenét's vagina which makes me shudder, but I do think this was done after she was dead, to make this look like an act performed by a pedophile pervert.

 

[

Steve Thomas PB page 40

 

Do we actually KNOW it was a wooden splinter?

At one time, WhyNut introduced the idea on WS that the material described in the autopsy could have come from another source. What was found in JonBenet's vagina was microscopic and related more to the finish on the outside of the paint brush than the actual wood content. WhyNut said the same material was used in fingernail polish as well as other products.

We have always taken for granted the particle came from the paintbrush because of the similarity of their composition ... but that was only a supposition, not a definite fact.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it WASN'T from the paint brush ... only that we don't know that as irrefutable fact, and that there may have been another source for what was found.

The autopsy report said the material was "consistent" with some part of the paint brush, not that it WAS from the paint brush.

 

I still don't understand this. The autopsy report said there were signs of previous, chronic abuse, and her hymen was torn. How can that result from cleaning? Somebody maybe can explain it, but please be careful, because I think it is gross/disgusting/upsetting/immoral/illegal to discuss this sort of thing.

Wouldn't any Mom who rips up a girl's hymen and penetrates her somehow because of bedwetting be indictable? We have Patsy dragging JonBenet to the pediatrician once a month - wouldn't he have commented on it? If he found it, isn't he required by law to report it?

 

Bingo, wombat.

Yes, her hymen was torn and worn, according to the retired surgeon's interpretation of the autopsy, the one who used to post at purgatory. Also, according to Dr. Wecht, the hymen was torn and the vaginal injuries had to be at least 24 hours old or more. That's what CHRONIC means: not fresh, but present for some time, roughly.

No type of cleaning of a six year old should EVER involve injuries to the vaginal wall and the hymen. You're right, that moves it into abuse, pure and simple.

Some people argue that Dr. Beuf said he told Patsy the vaginitis could be caused by bubble bath or uncleanliness due to bedwetting and poor hygiene, therefore, these chronic injuries to the vagina and hymen were also caused by such. I find that rather naive, considering that JONBENET WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MOLESTED THE NIGHT SHE WAS MURDERED. That alone makes any refusal to consider the prior injuries as sexual abuse simply obtuse reasoning. The reason some people won't consider even the CHANCE that the old injuries were sexual abuse is because that opens the door to another conclusion they do NOT want to reach: someone molested JonBenet BEFORE the night she was murdered, and that means someone had to get her alone during that time. THAT leads to someone either close to the family or in the family.

They do NOT want to go there, do they? NO STRANGER INTRUDER? How is the RST going to keep digging up dead people to accuse if it wasn't a STRANGER INTRUDER?

And no, Dr. Beuf wouldn't have necessarily seen those injuries, because he hadn't seen JonBenet the last days of her life, had he? And he also never did a full vaginal exam with a speculum, did he, and why would he? There are not many reasons to do such an exam on a child, and he surely didn't suspect the Rams of sexual abuse, being the wonderful parents and Christians they are.... So he'd have no way of knowing, would he?

But if he DID have SOME suspicion that JonBenet had been abused, he could NOT say that now, could he? He'd be admitting HE BROKE THE LAW, and his professional life would be seriously damaged, wouldn't it? He could at least be sued, couldn't he?

Lord knows the Rams LOVE suing people, don't they?

 

Cherokee,

I believe there was some talk as to whether it was a wood particle or something else. I would need to research this part more.

It's hard to believe Patsy Ramsey didn't know her little 6 year old girl was being sexually molested by a family member; enough, to put a stop to it. Surely to goodness she would have spot some irritation when she was giving JonBenét a bath, and drying her. Patsy was vague with her replies when it came to personal details like this. It was almost as if she neglected her a great deal where this was concerned, but gung ho with the hair dye and makeup for the pageants.