Breaking it down

I edited this a bit, EW, to focus my response, if you don't mind.

I can see your point. Interesting theory. I've raised two kids, so I can see the scenario you describe as well. One learns quickly that pulling a child by the wrist doesn't work for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the potential for injury to the child.

I was looking at some pictures last night and came across the infamous "Las Vegas Showgirl" costume pictures. The bruise inside JonBenet's upper arm is so clearly one of a thumbprint, IMO. Someone had grabbed her, I think, pulled her by that arm. Nedra said it was from a birdcage that fell on JB, but there is nothing about that bruise that could be from a birdcage falling on her. It's the exact same size and shape as a thumbprint, in a location that anyone can recognize who has ever seen a parent grab a precocious child by the arm.Thumbprint inside the arm, above the elbow.

I understand that physics can do strange things we can't predict or expect without a given set of variables. Though I may have said that wrong, as it sounds a lot like an oxymoron. But maybe you know what I mean.

Thinking about this, the problem I have off the top of my head is the lack of bruising in the region of the coccyx. While the skull and brain injury may be governed by the physics of the fall and the surface/object impacted, skin and tissue bruise when someone falls like this. How could JB fall on her tailbone so hard and not leave even a small bruise from the impact?

Another problem is that the point of impact to the skull is on top of the head. She would have to have hit something protruding in exactly that spot where the displaced bone is. A flat surface...with some kind of protrusion? Like a decorative knob or handle on a piece of furniture? Something like that?

Dr, Wecht said this is a pattern fracture, though. Meaning that the approx. 1.5 inch displaced bone indicates the shape of the impact instrument, which he said would be consistent with a golf club or Maglite. So I guess I'm wondering if she could have fallen and hit something shaped like that which was fixed.

Well, this is interesting. Thanks for discussing this, EW. You've given me much to think about.

 

You are so right, Elle. This is the exact reason those LE interviews show repeatedly that Patsy, at least, is a consumate liar. Who could possibly not see through her intent to deflect the questioning from damning evidence involving her own clothes and what SHE had on that night by making it look like somehow Priscilla White was involved? It's absurd on its face, and the fact that Patsy would even go there says so much about her own guilty conscience: of course she was wearing her own clothes and not Priscilla's!

This is how the Rams have trapped themselves time and again: they over-compensate. Blame every single thing that happened on their friends, on LE, on the Internet gossips, on the press, on "the world," as John put it, that did this to JonBenet...oh...and yeah...heh...the killer...almost forgot him, didn't they? Truth is they ALWAYS forget him. That's why they have no need for a bodyguard unless it's to protect them against the press, no need for a working security system they bother to actually use, no need to bother with doing what the families of other murdered children willingly do, such as polygraphs, intense interrogation to eliminate them and give information that would actually help "find" the killer...no need to find any killer, really. Just a need to make everyone else pretend they don't notice.

 

This is the picture I was talking about upthread - same place on ACandyRose as the ones KK mentions. I thought Burke was also in the picture, but I was wrong.

http://www.acandyrose.com/jars-room-rope.gif

Wow, huh? JB sitting on the rope in that picture is just scary, given what was going to happen to her. Also, Miss Patsy lies AGAIN about the evidence. She was JonBenet's stylist, and probably bought the rope, blouse, and jeans in the picture, and braided her hair.

One of the things I've been thinking about during this thread is that the skinny little cord tied around JB's neck was just put there as part of the coverup to explain the huge bruises on her neck, which couldn't possibly be caused by the cord.

 

I have been trying to find this picture online, one without the bottom cut off. The reason is I have it in a one of the books, and it looks to me like the ends of that rope are possibly visible, and they look tied off just like the rope from the bedroom.

I used my magnifier thingie and looked closely at the right lower corner of this picture and it looks to me like the end of the rope is barely visible against JB's jeans, and it looks much like it's tied off, like the rope from JAR's room.

Anybody else see this, or am I out in left field?

But about the neck injuries not being caused by the cord: not so fast. That large bruise on the neck is not all that uncommon with strangulation victims. I found a similar one on an adult's neck at a forensics site online just a few weeks ago, but it was somewhat smaller. It was in exactly the same place. Also, I once heard it said that this was a common location for bruising in strangulation.

And the petechia above the garrote cord line are very real. That had to happen before death because it's from blood being pumped into vessels but not able to exit, causing the capillaries to rupture underneath the skin. The location of those petechia and the other bruising is consistent with strangulation by the cord on her neck. I'm not ready to concede all that evidence is somehow not real unless I see some explanation of other strangulation that explains it all. But that's just me.

 

Well, EW, I see your point about falling and rolling and the fleshy buttocks, but I don't know if you have ever raised a small, thin child. I can tell you that there are no fleshy buttocks, to speak of. A severe fall onto the tail bone would leave a bruise of some sort, IMO, and all the physics in the world can't erase the tissue damage such a fall would cause, even if it was only slight bruising at the point of contact with the floor.

We are talking about a terrible crack in the skull. Let's say all your physics apply to explain how JB's head contacted something flat that managed to punch out a 1.5 inch section of the skull and then crack it almost in two for a total of 8.5 inches. You do not explain the factor of bruising. The bruises on the body are always witness to what happened to the child.

If Patsy grabbed JB by the wrist and pulled her hard, and JB, a 45 lb. six year old, resisted just as hard, and Patsy let go, and JB then fell so hard against some surface she had the resulting skull damage, where are the bruises on the wrist or arm from the violence of Patsy's pulling that hard and JB resisting?

It's the same with the bruising under that garrote. You can't wish it away. It's there. And it's evidence. Now, maybe it's post mortem, but disagree with Wecht and Meyers and any other forensic expert you wish, I don't think every single one would manage to miss that the bruising under the garrote was post mortem. It's not that subtle.

I personally do not have enough expertise to state one way or the other. I can't even find a good picture online any more of the bruising damage to JonBenet's neck under the garrote, though I believe they once were online. Yes, I have accepted a lot of stated evidence from sources like Meyers, Wecht, and Thomas about the cause of death. Without going to medical school and examinig the body myself, I don't know what else to do. The DA won't give me a copy of the PowerPoint, which I did ask for, under the FOIA, and I don't think they're going to give me a copy of the case files, either. So there's a lot I have to take on faith. I may not have the intelligence and ability to apply various possibilities of physics to the evidence based on ceramics and sky diving and come to the conclusions you do, but I am trying to see your argument, I promise.

And I do disagree about the location of the skull injury. While not dead center on top of the head, it is not on the sides or back or front, which one would expect in, say, a fall where the head is whiplashed onto the floor or something on the floor. I am trying to imagine a fall where the head contacted something like a wall or door, because I do not see any way that this skull fracture was a simple floor contact during a fall, with the position of the fracture. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll get the autopsy photo of the skull I'm going by just in case, and I apologize if I am misreading the injury.

I do appreciate your patience with me. I don't mean to be obtuse, I'm just grappling with things here that are foreign to me in some ways, but as a parent, not in others. I have seen bumps on kids' heads. My son once saw a child get hit in the head with a full swing from a bat at a baseball game, and the kid didn't even bleed. Maybe this is why some think the skull fracture was from a bat. As far as Wecht being wrong about the pattern fracture, maybe he is, but I imagine he's seen hundreds if not thousands, and he probably has a better understanding of those than I.

I'll see if I can find the skull picture so at least you know why I see the fracture as being on top of the head.

Thanks again.

 

Here's a possible explanation which I tend to favor ... the initial strangulation was by JonBenet's shirt collar held manually and twisted by the perp.

If the perp was trying to pull JonBenet closer to them, they may have grabbed her shirt collar and twisted it, thus causing the bruising against her neck with their knuckles (consistent with a right-handed person) as it was held tighter and tighter and JonBenet struggled against it. The red/bruised line around JonBenet's neck that some people think was caused by the thin cord was actually caused by her T-shirt collar. The petechia could have happened at that point.

I believe JonBenet may have been whirling and struggling against the perp, and as the perp tried to gain control, they may have released their grip OR thrown JonBenet in such a way as to have her move violently away from them and smash her head against a very hard and protruding object. There were contracoup injuries seen on JonBenet's brain which indicates her brain moved with force in the opposite direction from her fatal head wound. That direction would have been consistent with the area of the large triangular bruise on her neck. This could conceivably indicate the position of the perp in relation to JonBenet and provide us with the driving motion to her injuries. As you know, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

I believe the ligature was part of the staging, and the perp had two reasons for its placement: (1) to deflect attention from the head wound and (2) to help cover up the knuckles bruises and shirt strangulation marks on JonBenet's neck.

Meyer's conclusion was that JonBenet died of "asphyxia by strangulation associated with cerebral trauma." The "asphyxia by strangulation" did not necessarily happen by means of the useless neck cord. There could have been another type of strangulation going on prior to/in conjunction with the "cerebral trauma."

Meyer was not a ligature expert, and therefore made the (logical to him) assumption that the cord around JonBenet's neck was the probable cause of the strangulation evidence on her body. That's not necessarily true.

In addition, in an excellent book called Dead Men Do Tell Tales by the late forensic pathologist, William Maples PHD, he talks about the post-mortem swelling of a body as begins the process of putrefaction. A body will bloat and become distended with methane gas. In fact, as body can actually swell to two or three times its normal size in twelve to eighteen hours. Dr. Maples goes on to relate that a colleague of his occasionally demonstrated the phenomenon by darkening his laboratory, lighting a match and thrusting a needle into a swollen set of remains. Onlookers gasped at the resultant great blue jet of flame.

As I have said before, I believe it was this kind of post-mortem swelling that made the ligature appear almost embedded in the photographs of JonBenet's neck. I do think the ligature was tied tightly around her neck, but not as tightly as it looks in the post-mortem photos.

Since JonBenet's body had already begun to smell of death when John brought her up from the basement, it's conceivable that putrefaction had already begun and was present when Meyer photographed her body.

 

CAUTION: THESE AUTOPSY PHOTOS ARE GRUESOME

Here are some pictures from the autopsy, one of the skull injury.

Other pictures here are clear, where the petechia can be seen above and below the garrote cord. There is also another picture of a strangulation which shows a similar bruise on the neck of the adult victim like the large one on JB's neck. Some deeper bruising in a linear pattern at the bottom of JB's large neck bruise is circled on the bottom picture in this group, as well. I hadn't noticed this before, but it coincides with the lower bruise line, which makes the large bruise pattern fit with being caused by the pulling of the cord, same as the other picture of the adult with bruising in that location.

One thing not pictured here is the deep bruise line underneath the garrote cord, found when the cord was removed.

http://zyberzoom.com/ComparisonPhotos.html

 

1. The neckline JonBenét wore to to the White's party on December 26, 1996 was a round necked white top with the sequined star in front, the top she was found dead in.

2, The top Steve Thomas suggests she may have been put to bed in, was the red turtlenecked top found balled up on JB's bathroom counter.

Would the red turtle neck top still have caused the same markings, I wonder, Cherokee (?).

 

Looking at these heartbreaking photographs again, convince me, this was definitely one deadly accident.

I can almost hear Patsy Ramsey saying. "We didn't mean for this to happen."

 

Well, koldkase, I not only raised a thin child, I WAS a small
thin child, but a rather rambunctious one. As a consequence, I
suffered multiple cuts, bruises, abrasions, sprains and one case
of frostbite. I went down hard on my backside too many times to
remember. It was on grass, gym floor wood, concrete, tile and
ice. I don’t recall ever once looking for bruises on my buttocks,
or being concerned. If there is an absence of backside bruising
in JonBenet’s case that doesn’t change my theory at all because
no such bruising is assured. I trust you are keeping in mind as
well that I labeled the theory speculation, not declared fact.

“We are talking about a terrible crack in the skull. Let's say
all your physics apply to explain how JB's head contacted
something flat that managed to punch out a 1.5 inch section of
the skull and then crack it almost in two for a total of 8.5
inches. You do not explain the factor of bruising. The bruises on
the body are always witness to what happened to the child.â€
(Ibid)

What does one have to do with the other? Are you saying that if
I don’t explain the bruises on the body, it somehow negates my
theory about the skull fracture? If so, how does this work?
Wouldn’t you have to explain the bruises to know they contradict
my theory about the skull fracture? Can you explain them? Do you
know anyone else who can? I don’t.

Also, what bruises are you talking about. Perhaps, he did, but I
don’t recall Dr. Meyer using the word, bruises, in reference to
the areas in focus. He used the term, abrasions; which can be a
light or heavy contact scrape of various angles and various
lengths from near zero to whatever.

I can speculate that the abrasions on JonBenet’s back and leg
happened in a physical confrontation with Patsy just prior to the
fatal skull fracture. I can speculate the abrasions about the
neck is from Patsy grabbing JonBenet by the collar, or by
fumbling to try to tie the cord tightly. I can speculate that
JonBenet was still barely alive when the cord was tied around er
neck. I can speculate until doomsday, and so can anyone else; and
not a whit of the speculation, whether correct, or incorrect,
will ever dismiss a single fact. On the other hand, I state not
as speculation, but as fact that the “garrote†and “wrist tiesâ€
were fatally flawed constructions. I state as fact that in the
circumstance, this constitutes staging. I state as fact the cord
around the neck was not primary. It was a most feeble attempt to
hide the truth about the skull fracture as primary.

“If Patsy grabbed JB by the wrist and pulled her hard, and JB, a
45 lb. six year old, resisted just as hard, and Patsy let go, and
JB then fell so hard against some surface she had the resulting
skull damage, where are the bruises on the wrist or arm from the
violence of Patsy's pulling that hard and JB resisting?†(Ibid)

Again, the assumptions of bruises without evidentiary support. I
have been held by the wrists to be pulled to roof level, and\or
amateur acrobatics back when I was much younger. I don’t recall a
single bruise from this; a little redness that soon went away,
but no bruising.

“It's the same with the bruising under that garrote. You can't
wish it away. It's there. And it's evidence....â€(ibid)

Evidence of what? Why would I want to wish it away? See above
about provable factual evidence and speculation and note the
former does not depend on the latter. I get the impression that
you are saying that one must first know everything before\he she
can know anything.

“Now, maybe it's post mortem, but disagree with Wecht and Meyers
and any other forensic expert you wish, I don't think every
single one would manage to miss that the bruising under the
garrote was post mortem. It's not that subtle.â€

Who missed what? Pre-mortem, post mortem, what’s the difference?
Whether JonBenet was completely dead, or still barely alive when
the cord was tied around her neck does not alter the framework
evidence of Ramsey guilt in any degree. I don’t recall any
disagreement with Meyer except the use of certain terminology
describing a knot. My disagreement with Wecht is his absurd
theory about sex games that doesn’t even come close to fitting
the evidence. Missing or not missing bruising (if existing) is
irrelevant to my comments about Wecht’s theory.

“I personally do not have enough expertise to state one way or
the other. I can't even find a good picture online any more of
the bruising damage to JonBenet's neck under the
garrote,...â€(ibid)

I have been aware of the various marks and abrasions since I
first read the autopsy report. I have also been aware that I have
no means to know exactly how they happened, and most likely,
never will. Ergo, speculation. Although curious, of course, I
don’t need to know every detail to know there was no intruder and
to know that John and Patsy Ramsey have been lying through their
teeth from the outset.

“... So there's a lot I have to take on faith.

I disagree. The fundamentals truth about the death of JonBenet
Ramsey is not dependent upon “expert opinionâ€, which more often
than not are at odds anyway. The ordinary evidence itself and
your own intelligence is more than sufficient for you to reach
your own conclusions independently of any other person’s view.
Other views are simply food for thought, not your final
conclusion.

“..., but I am trying to see your argument, I promise.

That’s all I’m looking for. Blind acceptance is what lies at the
root of most problems. I certainly don’t encourage it. Just look
where the blind acceptance has led. I refer to Smit’s exoneration
of “Christian John†followed by the RST following Loony Louie.
Good grief, have you seen some of the “knot theories†on other
forums. Talk about ignoring the evidence and wandering in the
twilight zone.

“And I do disagree about the location of the skull injury.†(ibid)

OK, I have no problem with that. I don’t have the skull and
instruments to offer precise measurement, so there is certainly
room for disagreement; especially so, since we are working from
photos which may distort in some measure.

“... I am trying to imagine a fall where the head contacted
something like a wall or door, because I do not see any way that
this skull fracture was a simple floor contact during a fall,
with the position of the fracture.†(Ibid)

“..Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll get the autopsy photo of the skull
I'm going by just in case, and I apologize if I am misreading the
injury.†(Ibid)

I believe you misread my post. At no time, or place did I express
or imply head contact with the floor. That doesn’t fit the
physics at all.

“I do appreciate your patience with me. I don't mean to be
obtuse, I'm just grappling with things here that are foreign to
me in some ways, but as a parent, not in others. I have seen
bumps on kids' heads. My son once saw a child get hit in the head
with a full swing from a bat at a baseball game, and the kid
didn't even bleed...â€(ibid)

Was the skull fractured, fatally, or otherwise? Many variables
come into play, so I don’t see this as a reliable reference.

“... Maybe this is why some think the skull fracture was from a
bat. As far as Wecht being wrong about the pattern fracture,
maybe he is, but I imagine he's seen hundreds if not thousands,
and he probably has a better understanding of those than I.â€
(Ibid)

I have no idea of what Wecht has seen of not seen, but I do know
by his theory of sex game, he “saw†what he didn’t see. I take
the word of no one who has revealed his\her word is not to be
trusted. In this category, Wecht joins Smit, Keenan, Wood,
Ramseys and long list of others.

 

Well, now I am confused, EW. I thought you were saying the garrote/cord did not work at all as a garrote, therefore was not the instrument of the strangulation causing death.

That is why I mentioned the bruising under the garrote, obviously caused by the cord because the pattern of the cord weave can be seen in that bruise. I have looked for it again online, but I can't find it and I guess it's all gone now, but when Smit released all those pictures, we could see it clearly. It's a match that cannot be explained with some other method of strangulation causing that cord line, her other neck injuries notwithstanding.

So my point in bringing up the bruising is simple: if the cord caused bruising before death, then it seems highly likely to be the actual cause of strangulation, intentional or not, as JB had to be alive for the tissue under the cord to bleed from the damage caused by it. If the bruising happened post mortem, then that means the cord was applied after she was dead. Period.

Those are the facts of which I speak. They tell the story of the cord and when it was placed on the neck in relation to the death. I cannot imagine a more relevant fact than that.

But if your point is only that the knots were incompetently made and you know that for a fact because of your reading of the autopsy record, you may be right.

If you are saying all the medical examiners are wrong and do not know how JonBenet died, then I guess it's a good thing no case was ever brought, because their testimony would be worthless and with no COD, how can there be a murder charge?

I do appreciate everyone trying to help me here. I reread the autopsy section on the knot today again. Maybe it will come to me.

 

In trying to explain something, there is always the issue of
potentially unnecessary rhetoric, or sacrifice of clarity for
brevity. In hopes of clearing up any misconception, I will
recall, repeat and supply a bit more detail.

In immediate response to your comment above, I refer back to the
position I have held from the outset: The “garrote†doesn’t work
as a garrote; meaning with a fixed noose, it is impossible to
implement any garroting action to reduce the size of the loop to
effect circumferential strangulation. In conjunction, I have
stated, and still state, the remote possibility of JonBenet still
being barely alive when the cord was TIED around her neck with
the possibility of some strangling during the tying. (I really
don’t think she was, but the concession doesn’t change any of the
basic (Ramsey-convicting) evidence.

From the outset, the case has been inundated by and saturated
with an endless array of misconceptions and fallacious
declarations. As I write this, on other threads, there is utter
nonsense about the “garrote†and “wrist ties.†In this confused
thinking, they have gone from declaring it to be the work of a
“professional†to saying it is so simple that anyone can do it.
All this is accompanied by a cacophony of ignorance that is truly
incredible and appalling. In desperation to evade the truth of a
staged crime scene, they simply declare it wasn’t staged and offer
“proof†riddled with falsehoods, hence, totally unrelated to the
evidence.

You appear to believe that I go against the professional experts.
When I know something to be in error, I do indeed. However, there
is more to it than that. Ambient circumstances often influence
professional opinion away from the facts if said ambient
circumstance is not clearly understood.

Dr. Meyer wrote: “C. Petechial hemorrhages, conjunctival surfaces
of eyes and skin of faceâ€

Ahha, the Rambots scream, “This means that JonBenet was strangled
to death.†They are not interested in: “Unfortunately the
presence of petechial haemorrhages does not automatically point
to asphyxia as a cause of death. They are fairly non-specific in
that they can be produced whenever there is a marked or sudden
increase in vascular congestion of the head that causes rupture
of capillaries.†( Richard Jones forensicmed.co.uk}

Does Dr. Meyer know this? I have no doubt that he does, but was
influenced by the circumstance. He saw the cord around JonBenet’s
neck; saw the petechial hemorrhages and made the call on this
quick observation without knowledge of, or consideration of,
other factors. Dr.Jones provides a rather long list of potential
causes of petechial hemorrhages. By no means is it absolutely
conclusive that JonBenet was strangled at all; not even with the
cord tying around the neck. If Dr. Meyer were questioned, I have
little doubt that he would agree with Dr. Jones and confirm this
conclusion.

Under the circumstance, Dr. Meyer saw no need to provide
alternative conclusions. The same is true of other parts of his
report. He reported little bleeding from the head trauma. Again,
the Rambots jump to the conclusion that this meant she was
already dead when the head trauma occurred. Personal experience
and research revealed that little blood loss even from a severe
head wound is not uncommon. Does Dr. Meyer know this? I have no
doubt he does, but it was not his duty to provide such
information. There is also the matter of the post mortem swelling
resulting in embedding the cord in flesh of the neck. Does Dr.
Meyer know this? I have no doubt he does, but that kind of
information was not required in his report.

“That is why I mentioned the bruising under the garrote,
obviously caused by the cord because the pattern of the cord
weave can be seen in that bruise.) (Koldkase)

I’m not at all surprised. Loosely tie a cord around the neck
(soft contact) of a newly dead person and leave it. When you come
back later, (several hours), it will be embedded in the flesh.
Remove it and the cord print and pattern will be etched into the
flesh.

“.... It's a match that cannot be explained with some other
method of strangulation causing that cord line, her other neck
injuries notwithstanding. (Ibid)

To the contrary, the match is explained above with no
strangulation at all. It’s a matter of physics.

“So my point in bringing up the bruising is simple: if the cord
caused bruising before death, then it seems highly likely to be
the actual cause of strangulation, intentional or not, as JB had
to be alive for the tissue under the cord to bleed from the
damage caused by it....†(Ibid)

I do not know there was any such bleeding, but giving benefit of
doubt, have you considered other possible scenarios? Do you have
any way of knowing for certain how and when the alleged bruising
took place? How about a scuffle between JonBenet and Patsy?
Possible? Is there any way you can rule out the possibility that
said alleged bruising didn’t happen prior to the head trauma?

“... If the bruising happened post mortem, then that means the
cord was applied after she was dead. Period.†(Ibid)

Do you have any concrete forensic evidence by which you can
determine with certain whether the bruising you allege was pre
mortem or post mortem?

“Those are the facts of which I speak. They tell the story of the
cord and when it was placed on the neck in relation to the death.
I cannot imagine a more relevant fact than that.†(Ibid)

The issue is not pre mortem or post mortem. The issue is pre
skull fracture or post head skull fracture. Whether she was
completely dead, or still barely alive when the cord was tied
around her neck does not change anything except if it can be
shown she was still barely alive, the official criminal charge
might be different.

“But if your point is only that the knots were incompetently made
and you know that for a fact because of your reading of the
autopsy record, you may be right.†(Ibid)

No may be about it. When I speculate, I name it as such.

“If you are saying all the medical examiners are wrong and do not
know how JonBenet died, then I guess it's a good thing no case
was ever brought, because their testimony would be worthless and
with no COD, how can there be a murder charge?†(Ibid)

Since you don’t list “all the medical examinersâ€, I don’t who
your are talking about. I have named my disagreements, and with
whom. I certainly don’t by Dr. Wecht’s sex game idea and all the
tripe that goes with it. Dr. Meyer states: “CLINICOPATHLOGIC
CORRELATION: Cause of death of this six year old female is
asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.â€

Focus on the phrase, “CLINICOPATHLOGIC CORRELATION.†The
operative word is CORRELATION, not isolation. I certainly agree
with the skull fracture as part of the correlation. That is an
absolute certainty. As for the strangulation, as I said before,
maybe, maybe not since petechial hemorrhages are not conclusive
and there is no internal throat damage that absolutely concludes
strangulation.

BTW, If it were up to me, the charge would be voluntary
manslaughter combined with tampering with evidence and
obstruction of justice. I would go for the maximum sentence on
all counts.

I hope this clears things up a bit, but if not, come on back and
I will try again.

 

OK, EW, I obviously need some help explaining bruising/bleeding of capillaries into tissue. That's the bleeding I was talking about in relation to bruising. So I've gone to a forensics site to help me, in lieu of typing out my Forensics For Dummies text. (That's really the name of a book I recently purchased and it's pretty good, listed on this same forensics site, I might add, as a resource for forensics students. hahaha That inspires confidence, doesn't it? :flol: )

http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/bruises.htm

Here is a bruise to explain a little about the long term progression of bruising, and I'm sure everyone has experienced this, but just to demonstrate:

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/FORHTML/FOR162.html

As for abrasions, here is a patterned abrasion from a fall:

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/FORHTML/FOR163.html

Here is a disgusting picture I found that might shed some light on the possibility of the head injury coming from a fall. I may need some help from the posters who know this medical stuff, if they'd like to chime in...pleasepleaseplease. But this is an autopsy picture of a blunt force injury to the head from a backward fall, and it mentions a contra-coup injury resulting, as well--DO NOT CLICK THESE IF YOU'RE QUEASY; THEY'RE GROSS AUTOPSY PICTURES:

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/FORHTML/FOR007.html

To compare the head injury from a fall, here is a blow to the head injury which produces quite a different pattern to the skull, it seems:

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/FORHTML/FOR123.html

Here is another site I like a lot...did I say that?

http://www.pathguy.com/lectures/env-23.htm

 

Is this where I am allowed to ask..."What do you really do for fun in your spare time KK?" Those autopsy photos were horrendous.

We truly have to admire all those wonderful people out there, who are involved in the medical field for what they have to encounter in a day's work.
My hat is off to each and every one of you.

 

okay then

If the petechiae weren't caused by a rope tightening around her neck, what do you believe caused the vascular congestion in her head which then caused the petechiae? Note in the autopsy that petechial hemmorhages are also found on the lung. That doesn't have anything to do with vascular congestion in her head but does show those are probably due to some strangulation.

I hope you understand that I agree that the garrotte would not function as a tightening device but I also see from the autopsy that some type of strangulation did occur.

Do you believe that if the ligature furrow was caused by the postmortem swelling that the furrow would be a consistent size around the circumference of the neck? The furrow actually varies in width - was the swelling uneven then?
Also, there is more than one cord pattern around the neck - I think it is possible that swelling may cause the cord to move some higher up her neck but I just don't think it would cause a mark and then move. I would think if the cord moved due to swelling it would just gradually move until it couldn't then leave a mark where it stopped.

 

Look, I'm not conceding anything here. I have seen the autopsy picture of the deep furrow with bruising shown when the ligature was removed. I think everyone can see the bruises and abrasions all over the neck, some that clearly came from the cord, at least partially because the necklace is rolled up in it. Some think there was another method of strangulation prior to the cord being tied on, perhaps a scarf, which may or may not be true, as we have no scarf for proof, just interpretation of the injuries present. It is a fact of the autopsy that the bruising was there when the medical examiner took those pictures and documented them, and since it is a fact that the petechia are present at various locations on the body, and since it is a fact that bruising which occured BEFORE death means she was alive and still breathing when those injuries happened, no matter how near death she was, in order for her to bruise, I do not see how I can simply say it's not relevant to the case.

I agree that much of this murder scene was staged. I even entertain the idea that perhaps the parent(s) thought she was dead or dying and so tied the garrote on the neck, not knowing that in fact it would cause her death, instead of just look like it to the handy dandy cops called to the scene that morning, giving the family time to get the hell out of dodge.

I also agree that the head trauma came first. I know we don't know and probably never will how that happened. I did ask EW to speculate, and he made it clear all along he was doing just that, as we all do.

But if I wasn't trying to use what evidence we do have to know as much as we can about what happened, then I wouldn't even bother to discuss it.

So, again, I'm going to say this: I do not know that the garrote/cord didn't cause the asphyxiation, whether deliberately or by simple luck/bad luck (depending on the killer's point of view, which we do not know). I do not know. I do know that the hitch on the wrist knot found on JB's wrist worked just fine when I replicated it from the picture. The loop tightened when I pulled it, keeping tightly secure until I took both hands to manipulate the knot back over the cord, loosening it.

So how is the knot on the garrote at the neck actually tied? EW believes he knows. I can't see it well enough to figure it out from the pictures I've found of it online. I can't tell conclusively by reading Meyer's description that it is as EW says it is. EW believes it. Maybe he's right. I don't know. I hold my judgment open as this is a possibility, because I have other sources who actually had access to the knot/garrote and the case files who say differently.

I appreciate the time everyone puts into discussing this. I appreciate EW sharing his knowledge with me. But for me...the jury is out. And will be for all time, I'm afraid....

Yes, Elle, I really really really need to get a new hobby, don't I?

Since you brought up the stun gun, EW, did you have a chance to look at the video at the very bottom of the last website--pathguy? It has a really good stun gun demo. (I've been downloading it all afternoon. It's over 7 minutes, and I'm on dialup. Sheesh.) It's interesting how they discuss why the man hollars and how that involves breathing. That's new info for me. And get a load of those blinds after the guy falls against them. heh

 

Thanks for all the information you have posted today, KK. I would think the pathguy site will be helpful to medical students. I downloaded the Taser Gun video. Did you notice all the wires attached to it? I didn't think there would be wires, unless they were there for this experiment (?). The fellow who was brave enough to be tested for five seconds didn't half scream, but he wasn't knocked out. I suppose if he had been zapped for longer, he would have passed out. He said he felt his lungs tightening up.

Very interesting. Thank you again KK. I have enjoyed your discussion with Delmar.

I saw a picture of the Taser beside the download, but in the video, I could barely see it. This flat panel monitor may not be bright enough, but it's at it's highest setting (?).