Breaking it down

I vote that the petechial hemorrhages came from a sort of venous tourniquet effect which meant there had to be blood pressure sufficient to cause arterial flow to the head, and yet since the venous return was impeded by the stricture/strangulation, there was a buildup of pressure within the head. Venous blowouts resulted.

 

I didn't mean to offend anyone with my last post - the questions I posted were sort of directed to EW who asks us to accept him as an expert in rope tying because of his experience and I'll gladly agree to that but as to petechial hemmorhages, head bruises and fractures, I'm not so willing to concede because he hasn't claimed any experience in those areas and I have some because I have worked in the operating room since 1983 when I graduated from our local college. During college I did participate in some autopsies although none involved head trauma.

I did help put a poor old man's head back together after he was beat with a tire iron. I can tell you that the extent of his injuries weren't clear until we peeled his scalp back to expose the fractures. He had some open wounds on his face that had to be stitched up but none on his scalp that I can recall.

I would never claim to be an expert in these areas but obviously have seen my share of bleeding, bruising, and fractures.

 

A question (I'm no native speaker): would 'voluntary manslaughter' mean the same as 'second degree murder' (= killing in affect and without premeditation)? If not, what is the difference?

And wasn't there massive hemorrhaging inside her brain?
If yes, wouldn't this too point to the head bash having happened first - when she was still alive?
Can anyone confirm what Steve Thomas wrote (p. 42/43 in his book):

"So the viewers at the autopsy were astonished when Meyer peeled back the scalp and discovered that the entire upper right side of her skull had been crushed by some enormous blow that left a well defined rectangular pattern. The brain had massively hemorrhaged, but the blood had been contained within the skull. The caved-in skull was a second, and totally unexpected, possible cause of death.

 

EW - you are quite reasonable with your open minded approach to the possible strangulation but I know that you lean more toward there having been no strangulation and the bruising and petechiae being just from postmortem swelling.

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.
(I don't know how to quote from another post, sorry)

I can see why that aspect doesn't affect your theory because you are showing that the construction of the garotte was amateur and unusable as the controlling device which some RST claim it was, therefore it was staging and only someone in or close to the family would have the need to stage.

I don't know why it seems so important to me to know exactly what happened that night. Whether she was still alive when the rope was tied does matter to me somehow.

 

Oh, the poor old man. I hope he recovered. I think it's wonderful that you and many more medical people like yourself are capable of doing this type of work, Texan. You and JustChillun certainly seem to know what you're talking about when you're both posting about anything relating to JonBenét's injuries. I sure wish I had your knowledge. Reading over the recent sites posted by KK made me realize how horrific it must be, when one is faced with the head injuries in those photos on that site.

Man's inhumanity to man, is beyond my comprehension. In JonBenét's case, I honestly think it was Patsy in a fit of rage who caused her accidental death, with John helping with the staged ending.

 

Elle, the taser has two possible methods of use. LE uses the one with the lines attacked because that is how the electrical pulse is delivered to the target. They actually shoot two probes at the target and they penetrate the skin, stiking into the target and remaining there until pulled out. Then the electrical impulse is delivered via the cords you see in the video. In this video, which seems to me to be either a demonstration of the taser and/or part of a lawsuit, possibly, maybe from the man they discuss at the beginning whose broken bottle of alcohol caused him to catch on fire when he was stunned the second time after he got up after the first stun...? Just guessing.

But the other method of using the taser does not include the electrical cords, if you remember Smit's demo for Katie Couric on the demo. Like this, the taser simply has prongs on it that are pressing into skin and the contact causes the electrical circuit created to stun the targer...or something like that.

Why Nut has a good video on his/her website that has teens stunning each other with the prongs at the end of the taser, I believe. I'll get the url for you if I can find it.

 

Oh, Texan, I can see my naturally irritating personality has misled you. I apologize. I am sorry if I seemed offended. I wasn't. I'm just an enthusiastic debater, sometimes to my own dismay. You should have seen me tell our DA I didn't believe him when he answered a question I asked him about court rules of leading a witness, accusing him of doing so in a mock trial. He was so nice, but looked a teensy bit surprised. And why not? Of course he was telling the truth. I just thought he was teasing me. He wasn't. hahaha I am so ridiculous at times. :curtsey:

Anyhow, thank you and JustChillun for sharing your experience with us. Yeah, you do have some expertise, even if you don't consider yourself an expert. And I appreciate what EW brings to us with his experience with knots, even if he doesn't consider himself an expert. I am no expert on anything, but I do bring a few things to the forum that I hope contribute, as well: questions, which lead to information and discussion. What else can we do for this murdered child? At least it's something.

And it does help to discuss this with those who do have personal experience with injuries in medical settings, with medical training. Y'all really can enlighten us about things specific to this case we can't find elsewhere. Again, thanks so much. You're priceless! :clap:

 

Ah. I did hear them talking about a man being set on fire. He was carrying the bottle in his left hand, and he fell, breaking the bottlle. and the alcohol caught fire. Oh my! This could be drastic. They also did mention something about stun guns for the public being different from LE's. Okay, Thanks KK. No! I don't recall (doing a Patsy here) the Lou Smit demo. Such a long time ago.

 

OK, Elle, Why_Nut's site has another video with the stun gun in "shoot" mode, with the wires involved. It's a police training exercise, I believe. In this method, I might add, the skin is broken and punctured. Not what they "think" they found on JB, whatever one's viewpoint of the "stun gun" theory is:

http://s92053900.onlinehome.us/


This is a group of screen capture pics at ACR's site, from one of the crocumentaries which has several pictures of the taser with the prongs at the end. I think there is even a picture of the poor pig they tortured under anesthesia to "prove" it was a stun gun, and then killed, as well. But you can see the taser model Smit believes was used on JB. Of course, you know that is disputed by the BPD, as Becknew said outright to the press they do not believe the marks were caused by a stun gun.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/10042002-48hrs-pic7.htm

 

That there should be an element of premeditation present in 2nd degree murder somewhat surprises me when thinking about the other true crime cases and verdicts I know of.
Where is the element of premeditation in a second-degree murder? Could you give an example?

Let's say someone (neither insane nor temporarily insane) strikes out at another person in a total rage, and this person dies from the injury.
So this would always be voluntary manslaughter, because it was not premeditated?
But haven't persons got verdicts of second-degree murder too for such an act?

Indeed, not even the people who believe the Ramseys are guilty think that they in any way planned beforehand to kill their daughter.
In all probability it was a situation where one of the parents snapped and lost it and an irrepairable damage had been done.
But I have always had problems with the word 'accident' in that context.
To me an accident would mean that not one element of intention was involved. Example: if e. g. the maglite or another heavy object fell out of Patsy's hand, thereby hitting JonBenet, this would be an accident. Or Burke swinging a club, not realizing his sister was standing behind him and hitting her, this would be an accident.
But someone pushing or shoving her child while in anger does not push the child accidentally: she pushes the child intentionally. Someone banging a flashlight or wahtever other hard object on JonBenet's head while angry at her did not do this accidentally, she did this intentionally.

Of course these people in hindsight at trial often say : "I did not mean for this to happen", referring to the often tragic results of their action while enraged. And they call the tragic results "an accident", completely leaving out how it all started - with their intentional attack on the child.

To get back to the 'murder' discussion in the Ramsey case:
No doubt the person who had injured JB (I think it was Patsy) realized at once how severe the injury was. But if JB was still breathing and therefore still alive (though in a coma), and the parents did not call an ambulance, but instead pulled a cord tightly around her neck for their staging scenario, fully well knowing that their child was not yet dead, and the child finally died from asphyxiation (in combination with the head injury) - wouldn't this be murder?
But I suppose in case Patsy had confessed, the defense's strategy would have been that she thought JonBenet was already dead ...

 

OK, let's see if I can clarify some things. Here is a site with a couple of pictures that apply to our discussion. One has a very good autopsy picture of the wrist loop still on JB at the time of autopsy. About half way down the page is an autopsy picture of the cord tied on the wrist. The knot is clearly shown. It is a simple hitch, I believe. When I said I constructed a knot like this one with similar cord, but made of cotton, and "pulled" it, I meant that I pulled the long end first--the part of the cord around which the hitch/knot is constructed, and the hitch slipped down and tightened on the "wrist" (in my case, a channel changer about the same size as JB's wrist, then I tried it on my foot). It had a tendency to work itself to the left as I pulled the long end, but if I'd flipped it, then it would have worked itself to the right. I noticed that in the autopsy picture of the back of the neck with the cord still tied on, the knot is also to the right, almost to the side. I hope this explains better what I was trying to say.

http://zyberzoom.com/JonBenet.html

If you continue down the same page of photos, you will see JB's neck from the back with the cord removed. There is bruising from the same cord found on her neck, I don't think there is any dispute about that. The question I have asked, which has been discussed through the years but which I can't remember the details of and haven't been able to source again, is about the time of the bruising. If those bruises are from the cord tied on her neck, then they were inflicted before she died or post mortem. One or the other. There is a difference in coloration of bruising after death, as contrasted with bruising before death. It appears to me that these bruises and their color indicate they were made before she died. I believe the remaining evidence of petechia supports that, as well. I did write in another post on this thread about how bruises we see are from "bleeding" under the skin, when the capillaries are broken dur to trauma, causing the discoloration. I provided a website that explains bruising far better than I can.

I understand that you, EW, state the cord could have been tied on before death, but just not functioned as a true garrote and did not therefore strangle JB in that sense. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. I believe you also have said that it matters not whether this cord did in fact "accidentally" strangle her in spite of its deficits, the point is that whoever tied it didn't know what she/he/they was/were doing and therefore this still proves the guilt of the Ramseys.

I believe there is sufficient--no, ABUNDANT--evidence to conclude the Ramseys are involved in the murder of JonBenet. Even if the garrote only worked "accidentally" in strangling JonBenet, it still killed her, IMO. Even if she was dying anyway from the head injury, she was still strangled to death, IMO, by the cord placed and tightened around her neck, however it worked. I don't believe she became so swollen before death that the garrote then unintentionally strangled her, and I don't believe you are arguing that, EW. This is also the same problem I have with Wecht's theory of the vagus nerve being suppressed in the neck and then the garrote used to coverup that "accident." Again, how to account for the bruising UNDER the garrote if she was already dead when it was applied? The only way I can see is post mortem bruising. It is an important, even critical, element of the autopsy, because it certainly does go to intent for any charges that might be brought against the killer: if she was already dead when the garrote was applied, then the defense would well be "accidental death" due to the head injury. What would the charges be? Not murder. Not even manslaughter. Tampering with a body?

So it's critical. Did the garrote contribute to her death or not? Was she strangled with something else or not? Obviously, someone was strangling her with something that night, as the bruises on the neck speak to this. I maintain until someone instructs me otherwise that the cord around her neck was at least the final instrument of strangulation that caused the child to die. The bruising proves the cord was tightened while she was still breathing, her heart still pumping. It stopped both those functions. JMO, of course, but that's how I see it.

As far as pointing you to the "access" sources about the knots: Thomas wrote about this in his book; why would he lie? Since a Canadian knot expert was brought in, Van Tassle (what a name for a knot expert), surely there is some believable testimony that the garrote either was or was not responsible for this death. If Van Tassle determined the garrote somehow wasn't possibly employed in the strangulation because of the knot, why would Thomas say it was? Again, Thomas in fact called it a slip knot. He spent a year and a half with this case. If you think he's wrong, fine. I'm not willing to throw out his opinion when I see plenty of evidence to support it.

But you have the best corroborating source already, mentioning his report many times: Dr. Meyer. He wrote in the autopsy the death was first strangulation, secondarily head injury. He removed the cord from her neck. He described in specific forensic terms every injury, every finding at autopsy. He determined strangulation. The bruising on the neck is evidence he obviously noted; the petechial hemorrhaging is evidence, as well, that she was strangled; the professional, experienced medical examiner, who also consulted with other pediatric experts, by the way, put his findings in the record for all time: cause of death--strangulation.

So we've done this to death. I'm sorry if I disappoint you, EW, but I can't see what you see and so can't say I do. I thank you for the discussion, however, because, agree or disagree, researching these issues always leads me to other things I don't expect or didn't think of before. This exercise just led me to another one:

If the basement was dark, and if the killer had to use two hands to cut and/or tie on the cords, cut and apply the duct tape, etc.--who held the flashlight?

 

I agree with you, Rashomon. While I cannot say the head injury was not an accident, I still cannot say it WAS. Because of the position of the skull fracture and bone displacement, I find it more likely it was a blow. I could be wrong, of course.

I think the idea of it being an "accident" if Burke struck the head blow or pushed JonBenet resulting in the head injury, is because a child of his age would not be held responsible legally for a deliberate blow/shove that would have eventually resulted in the death. That is because children are, by law, not mentally able to have "intent" in the fully competent way an adult does. A child cannot fully understand what death is, I believe the law has determined, in much the way a mentally impaired person cannot. They do not comprehend the concept of permanance.

But you're right about the manslaughter involved in a delibarate push or hit. If that results in death, it's manslaughter.

I know you addressed this to EW, but I was just reading on this as you two were discussing it, so if I may....

Murder one means it was planned and then executed. Murder two means the killer meant for the victim to die during the violence, but didn't start out with a plan for this. IOW, the murder happened from a circumstance not premeditated. Like a man finding his wife with another man: he shoots the wife and the other man, walking up and finishing them off with a final bullet to the head, and kills them. He didn't lie in wait, he didn't purchase the gun or bullets, he just came in and caught them. He then grabbed the gun out of his drawer and shot them--manslaughter/heat of the moment, no intent to murder, just a violent reaction that did in fact kill them in the heat of the moment. But we have further actions: after the first shots, he then put the gun to their heads and made sure they died--murder two. If he thought his wife was having an affair and bought the gun and bullets and waited down the street and walked in on them and then shot and killed them--murder one.

I think that's about how it goes. If I'm wrong, maybe others can give us a better idea about how this works.

 

My problem is threefold. I look at the knot and conclude it won’t
slip. I duplicate the knot and it does not slip. You say your
duplication does slip, but I see not slip in the photo of the
reference loop. If slip down to the wrist is a feature, why did
not the perpetrator slip the loop down to the wrist? Why two loop
sizes, two kinds of ties and neither slipped down to the wrist.
(See LASSOING THE TRUTH for more.)

“I understand that you, EW, state the cord could have been tied
on before death, but just not functioned as a true garrote and
did not therefore strangle JB in that sense.†(Ibid)

This is somewhat misleading. If you would quote me so I can tell
what you are referring to, it would help. To put this in
perspective, I say what I have said from the beginning. I believe
that John and Patsy thought JonBenet was dead from the head
trauma. Therefore, when the cord was tied around the neck, there
was no intent to strangle. However, if JonBenet was still barely
alive, some strangling could have happened accidently while
tying. (Again, see LASSOING THE TRUTH)

“For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. I believe you
also have said that it matters not whether this cord did in fact
"accidentally" strangle her in spite of its deficits, the point
is that whoever tied it didn't know what she/he/they was/were
doing and therefore this still proves the guilt of the Ramseys.â€

Again, a quote would have been better than paraphrasing, but it’s
close. The fatally flawed “garroteâ€, motivated by desire to hide the truth, is
just one of many item of evidence that clearly show Ramsey guilt.

“As far as pointing you to the "access" sources about the knots:
Thomas wrote about this in his book; why would he lie? Since a
Canadian knot expert was brought in, Van Tassle (what a name for
a knot expert), surely there is some believable testimony that
the garrote either was or was not responsible for this death. If
Van Tassle determined the garrote somehow wasn't possibly
employed in the strangulation because of the knot, why would
Thomas say it was? Again, Thomas in fact called it a slip knot.
He spent a year and a half with this case. If you think he's
wrong, fine. I'm not willing to throw out his opinion when I see
plenty of evidence to support it.†(Ibid)

What evidence to support what opinion? I looked far and wide to
find Van Tassle’s opinion. No luck. What I found (from a
newspaper article-can’t recall at the moment} that Van Tassel
hung around for about a week, then left town, but left no
conclusion. I would like to know where you got what Thomas said
and where he got what Van Tassel said. You mention an opinion
that you are not willing to throw out, but don’t quote the
opinion, nor specific source, nor any argument to support the
opinion. Mine is on record. Furthermore, if Thomas understood the
“garrote sceneâ€, he could have and would have hung the Ramsey out
to dry in front of a tv audience when they appeared on LKL.

“But you have the best corroborating source already, mentioning
his report many times: Dr. Meyer. He wrote in the autopsy the
death was first strangulation, secondarily head injury.†(Ibid)

C’mon this is an RST dodge from the beginning. Dr. Meyer rendered
no such conclusion. He does not isolate a single cause of death.
Remember that word, CORRELATION? AND - “Circumferential ligature
with associated ligature furrow of neck.†Associate, correlate.
How do you get your first and second out of this? Dr. Meyer
simply could not isolate the cause of death to the singular and
said so.

... by the way, put his findings in the record for all time:
cause of death--strangulation.†(Ibid)

What record is that? I have seen no such record. Are you saying
that Dr. Meyer is saying that the skull fracture is incidental
and not relevant to JonBenet’s death? If this is true, would you
contact Dr. Meyer, have him confirm and have him remove
“associateâ€, “correlate†and craniocerebral trauma from his
report?

My take on Dr. Meyers report is this. He probably concluded that
she could not and would not have survived the severe skull
fracture. On the other hand, he saw what he considered evidence
of strangulation. Even if it is concluded that surviving the
skull fracture was impossible, deprivation of oxygen could have
hastened the demise; hence, the association and correlation. The
fallacy of death by strangulation leaving out the skull fracture
included in Dr. Meyers report has been and still is a mainstay of
RST propaganda.

I repeat: I have never denied Dr. Meyer’s report from the
beginning. Go back to my posts starting in 2000 and check it out.
I have again and again stated that possibly JonBenet was still
barely alive when the cord was tied around her neck and some
strangling was possible during the tying. I don’t see that this
contradicts Dr. Meyer’s report, or any other evidence.

 

JB's bleeding from the vaginal injury would also point to her being still alive.
But she probably was already in a deep coma from the head injury and nearing death.

 

Thank you KK. These cops screamed as loud as the one in the first video.
Before I saw the first one, I just thought the person passed out when zapped by a stun gun, without getting the chance to scream. To think Lou Smit thought a stun gun was used on JonBenét is so ridiculous, she would have wakened up the whole damn street with screaming alone, and these cops were all well built men in these experiments. Frightening!