JonBenet hanging????

weapon

I also believe the maglite was probably the weapon.
Yes, it was a terrible blow to the head but the skull of a 6 year old girl is not as hard as a maglite and I don't think the force needed would be as much as some might imagine given the momentum that would be gained if someone taller than her (say an adult) were to swing it at her.

If it is true that the batteries had no fingerprints on them, the three main reasons I could see for this is if the maglite is the weapon and care was taken to wipe the prints or if someone left the maglite out with the prints wiped off the batteries in order to make it seem as if an intruder had left it. (the reasoning being that someone in the house would not need a flashlight) or that it was indeed an intruder who left it.

Of course there is the possibility that the surface of the batteries were not wiped and simply didn't hold fingerprints but that is unlikely since the surface was smooth and somewhat shiny.

 

Let's say we know for a fact the weapon was a rubber coated maglight...It follows the indention pretty well, and could account for the skin not breaking.

Let's try to nail down the Force issue before looking at the Intent or Who swung the Maglite.

I remember talk that the force was enough to take down a 300 pound man. I don't think it would matter how much the man weighed, his head is still relatively the same size and proportion as a 200 pound man, right?

Do we have anyone who can apply Physics or Trig to this equation?

We would have to know the density/bone mass of the skull of an average 6 yr old female and the same for the area over the ear. The medical people among us could probably find that out.

We have the basic size of the Maglite. Watching You or Anyone who has the same Maglite, can you post the weight and measurements of your Maglite with the batteries in it?

There are artist renditions and apparently actual photos of the fractured skull, can anyone make an educated guess as to the arch or angle of the object as it approached her head?

I think from there we could conclude the general force necessary to fracture her skull and produce a long 8 inch fissure at that point on her head.

If we knew the angle or arch the maglite was traveling in, we could make a better assumption on who might have swung it at her.

I have other talents, math isn't one of them, but I think this would open the door to our questions just a bit wider.

Mels

 

I like the way you think, Mels

This sounds like the kind of project Cutter from WS could take on.

One sign that the maglite is credible as the weapon is that Dr. Werner Spitz did his TV demonstrations with one, and he was retained by the prosecution to offer forensic pathology insight.

 

The Maglite found in the home was definitely the one given to John by his son John Andrew. Besides the Rams admitting John Andrew gave one just like that to John in their book DOI, I discovered last fall that Maglites have long been standard equipment for pilots. You can find numerous commercial websites targeting pilots--private and commercial--which have any size Maglite you need. You can also find websites wherein actual pilots have written about flying and the use of a Maglite is mentioned, or where private planes are for sale and a maglite is listed as part of the equipment, etc.

The Maglite belonged to the Rams. Private flight has been personally and professionally entwined in John's family for three generations now.

Also, if you read in Mark Furhman's book on the Martha Moxley murder, where he has drawings of her head injuries sustained when she was bludgeoned with a golf club, you will see that a golf club swing with an iron would have caused a laceration in the scalp. Reading about Moxley's injuries has convinced me that JonBenet was very near death or had just died when she was struck. Otherwise, it seems to me--an admitted layperson, there would have been bruising at the site of the blow to the scalp visible on the outer scalp, and shouldn't there have been some outer swelling in that area? It's my understanding, if I remember correctly, there was no visible bruising or swelling on or under the scalp. I've always wondered how that could be with such a blow. The only way I can explain it is that the heart had at least nearly ceased to pump at the time of the blow. This is not set in stone for me, but I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation for this. If those more knowledgeable can enlighten me on this, I'd appreciate it. It's one of those little things that seems to me a med examiner would know without even thinking about it. But we don't actually know what Dr. Meyer thought in great detail about this murder, other than it was strangulation in concert with the head blow.

Another thing that bothers me that ties in with the hanging question are the fingernail abrasions Smit claims are in evidence on JonBenet's neck. I personally can see those when I view Smit's "Today Show" interviews and the autopsy pics I recorded from them. But I can't see them that well on the fourth generation pics that show up on the net from those interviews, so I understand anyone who didn't tape the interviews not seeing them and thinking they're petechial hemorrhages. They look like elliptical fingernail marks to me.

Fly once told me at CS long ago when I was new to the forum (I was Portia there) that the lack of defensive wounds on JonBenet was significant in that this implied she was not fighting her killer when she was strangled and therefore was likely unconscious already from the headblow. That made a lot of sense to me. But then I came to realize that IF SMIT IS CORRECT about the abrasions above and below the garrote being made by JonBenet herself, scratching at the garrote, there is another way she could have been conscious and not have had bruising on her legs, knees, arms, elbows, heels, feet, hands, or wrists from a life and death struggle: if she was suspended from a pipe or beam, hanged. This makes sense to me IN THE SCENARIO where JonBenet is conscious during this strangulation. If she were conscious enough to scratch at her throat, she surely would have kicked, flayed, made bruising contact with any surface she would have been lying against or laid on top of, causing at least some significant bruising on the extremities. The fact that she had NO significant defensive bruising or contact bruising says to me she either had to be unconscious or she had to have been hanging at the time of death.

The loose wrist ties would not have prevented her from scratching at her neck. I agree that the lack of bruising on the wrists from the wrist ligatures is evidence she was not hanged by her wrists. In this scenario, it seems logical that the outstretched arms position set in rigor and the livor mortis on the backside would come from the killer taking her down and then leaving her in the position we all know so well.

Also, I have posted a number of times a quote from a book I have that describes the difference in ligature bruising patterns present on hanging victims. The type of knot used determines the angle of the ligature bruise line. A slip knot, like used on JonBenet, causes a nearly horizontal line with the knot in the back, vs the slanted bruise line left if a fixed knot is used, when the head is tilted to the side opposite the fixed knot.

Now consider this: I believe the paintbrush handle was used for leverage to strangle JonBenet. How did the killer know this would work? Had he/she done it before? Just lucky? Could you, in the middle of the night to cover for an accident, panicky and horrified, come up with something that precise that worked so well? The garrote IS the MURDER WEAPON, after all. I think the skill with which the garrote was made and the precision with which it was used is also significant: the killer HAD used this ligature configuration before, more than once. To kill? No. During S&M or autoerotic strangulation...or possibly in training, as in the armed forces.

And when I get a few minutes, I'll share with you how I discovered that the knot on the garrote handle is a well-known sailer's knot, a rolling hitch. I know, many have said this already, but I'm a show me person, alas.

Something I'm not able to yet rectify is the congestion often caused during hanging/strangulation and the swelling of the tongue. Perhaps Wecht addressed it and I need to reread since when I first read his book I skipped around a lot and might have missed that. But JonBenet didn't have that much facial congestion nor did the autopsy say her tongue was swollen, as far as I remember.

Whether staged or the actual intention of the murderer, this murder has all the elements of a sex crime. For whatever reason this was done, the killer knew the sex angle.

My hypothesis in this scenario: the killer committed the sex crime and murder, possibly to cover up for previous molestation before JonBenet could tell or to retaliate for JonBenet telling. The parents either were involved, one or both, or found her and, knowing the killer, staged the ransom note and the ensuing cat and mouse coverup with the police. Think about it: there are so many contradictory elements to this murder. It started out one thing and then went on a kidnapping tangent. The work of more than one? More than two?

Sorry for this sloppy post on this, but I am losing the desire to keep at this much anymore, so things I am hazy on or should research again or more thoroughly are not on my priority list right now. Real life has gotten my attention again.

Anyhow, I'd like to hear your ideas on my ruminations. These are just ideas, things I wonder about. Sure wish Dr. Meyer would actually publish the rest of his findings. He didn't even include the ligature bruise line lower on the neck in the released autopsy report, the old goat. We had to get that from Smit, too. I think that was where the garrote was originally tied and tightened first, before it began to roll up her neck. Some people think it was from a first strangulation that killed her and the garrote was pure staging. I don't think that's possible as the marks above and below the garrote are AT LEAST petechial, if not JonBenet's fingernails, and therefore she had to be alive when the garrote found on her neck was tightened enough to make them. Petechial hemorrhages only happen when the victim is alive at the time of strangulation, don't they?

 

quite a post ......................!

i have a few questions after reading your post.

and this question has been asked before:

where is the documentation that jonbenet
was found hanging....

or was she hanging and then john
put her on the floor?

your theory is interesting. and i am the kind
of person who is open to any theory since no one
knows what really happened.

i go back and forth with my theories, but
i have always thought that the motive had
to be more than just "patsy loosing it".
i have always thought that there was
a "sexual angle" to the whole thing.

but i do believe the night started out
one way, and something happened and then
the ramseys had to cover everything up.....and
the night turned out a whole different way.

do you think burke was involved at all?

i do know you have a real life to contend with but,
i would enjoy hearing more about your theory.

who is dr. weber? and where can his findings be found.
(it's late...but i dont remember who he is)

do you think the ramseys can ever be
convicted?

what piece of evidence shows they are guilty the most
besides the ransom note?

tell us more. thanks.

i've very interested,
purr

 

scalp

MJenn - Actually, there was hemorrhaging under the scalp, although there was no external trauma noted. The autopsy states:

<i>Upon reflection of the scalp there is found to be an extensive area of scalp hemorrhage along the right temporoparietal area extending from the orbital ridge, posteriorly all the way to the occipital area. This encompasses an area measuring approximately 7 x 4 inches. This grossly appears to be fresh hemorrhage with no evidence of organization. </i>

 

Crime scene

Well,I believe the coroner only stayed with the body for 10 minutes,as reff in one of the books,at the actual scene.Just how thorough an exam would this minimal time spent with the crime scene could he do?Seems as if he was a ,shall we say,a little lax?I haven't found any description that he made except,'Yep.she is dead".I DOUBT HE NOTICED MUCH AT ALL UNTIL HE HAD HER ON THE TABLE.

 

Only one wrist

MJenn,

In Dr. Meyer's autopsy, only one wrist is mentioned with a ligature ....the right one, and this loop was loose, and yet John Ramsey talks about not being able to untie the knot. He didn't have to. He could have slipped the loop off her wrist ....but why would JonBenét's arms be up above her head?

http://www.bouldernews.com/extra/ra...97/07/14-1.html

A brief examination of the body disclosed a ligature around the neck and a ligature around the right wrist. Also noted was a small area of abrasion or contusion below the right ear on the lateral aspect of the right cheek. A prominent dried abrasion was present on the lower left neck. After examining the body, I left the residence at approximately 8:30 PM.

Strange that John Walsh commented on the recent LKL show that John Ramsey cut JonBenét down, and yet we have John Ramsey saying he didn't see the cord around her neck. Not when he "supposedly" discovered her body, and not when he was carrying her upstairs.

Something wrong with this picture, but once again, in the autopsy of Dr.Meyers, only the right wrist
is mentioned.

 

Mjenn

Could the eliptical marks have come from someone else's fingernails frantically scrabbling to undo what they had done?Remember Mr. Kane saying that as he runs each day,he thinks about what could have been done to bring this to trial?He said there were so many secrets,that the public only knew a small part of what went on,and some of that was wrong.That was in his interview this past winter,as I read it at CS.Maybe the someone came to enough to realize just what they had done?And tried to undo it?Just musing here.I am really interested in your thoughts on this.

 

Knots

I forgot to add,I never knew a NAVY man that had no knowledge of knots.They are taught all knots in basic training.My father was in the navy and verified this MANY years ago.Also,a person into boats and sailing will definitely know about knots,or he is a fool.

 

pictures?

Can anyone tell me where I can see these pictures of the "fingernail marks". I don't go to the swamp and I'm curious about these marks.

The autopsy doesn't really say much except that there are petechiae and "abrasions" on the neck above and below the furrow and I guess the abrasions could be fingernail scratches but I haven't seen any pictures that show these marks clearly.
She would have attempted to loosen the rope if her hands were free and she were concious, whether she know the perp or not, because that is an instinctive action. Imo it doesn't mean she knew the perp if there weren't marks - might just mean she couldn't get her hands there.

 

Hit and miss...no pun intended

Sorry for the haphazard way I'm going about this, but I only have a few minutes and will come back and finish what I miss this time around. Thanks for the input.

Here's the article with the pic of Dr. Spitz' doing his Maglite experiment:

http://detnews.com/2000/metro/0003/19/


Thanks for refreshing my memory on that under-the-scalp bleeding, Fly. Could that have just been from blood already in capillaries? Or would it have been from a pumping heart? I guess I remembered mostly the small amount of swelling in the brain and hemorrhaging there...or the large amount, depending on who is debating the point. But what confused me...and that's not hard to do...is no outer SWELLING or visible BRUISING. I understand her hair could have concealed bruising, but once I saw a child fall onto some wooden alphabet blocks, forehead first, a fall that was just a foot, maybe. Now that I think of it, there wasn't much in the way of bruising, but the immediate huge lump between the eyes was stunning, about the size of a ping pong ball. The bruising did come in awhile, but was not that bright...like deep brusising. Took a long time to go away, too. Anyhow, I just don't get why there wasn't significant swelling over the huge fissure or along the skull fracture. Probably had to do with something I'm missing, but it's that kind of thing I need to know before I can come to a conclusion about what happened when.

Yes, I consider Burke a possibility, but have a couple of things that bother me about him as a suspect: I don't believe for one minute the Rams would ever have let him out of their sight that morning if he was involved, nor would they have allowed him to be questioned later without having to--they had every excuse at their hand not to and not one thing to their advantage if he slipped up. How reliable is a child in a stressful situation like that? Secondly, I'm not convinced he was sophisticated enough to do the sexual molestation and strangulation alone...which would put the actual murder into the hands of one or both parents if it was to cover only a head blow/sex games delivered by him. That still makes them the murderer, not him.

I consider John and his son, John Andrew, also suspects and much more capable and fitting of the profile. Just my opinion.

Ok, back later.

 

Maglite

Here I will post some links to some websites where Maglites are sold or discussed by pilots, etc. If these have been posted before, I apologize for repetition.

About 3/4ths of the way down the page, "Question of the Week" has this--Maglite as weapon in the cockpit:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*** LAST WEEK'S RESULTS ***
For our question last week, 94% of the more than 600 readers who responded felt the airlines and/or government could do more to protect flight crews from unruly passengers. However, one captain for a major airline isn't waiting for tougher fines or cabin doors for protection, saying, "I am at the ready in the cockpit with my three 'D' cell Maglite flashlight for the air-rage passenger to 'see the light.'"


http://www.avweb.com/other/week0004.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some general sites with Maglite sales to pilots:

http://www.acespilotshop.com/pilot-supplies/flashlights/flashlights.htm

http://aviationsoftware.com/avshop/pilotflashlights.html

http://pilotshopworld.com/maglite.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is an except from a pilot that illustrates how important a flashlight is to a pilot. That's how I found the connection. Discovery Channel had a documentary on private flight and at the very end, a man who is developing a line of private planes was showing off his prototype...with a 3D cell battery Maglite.

http://www.boeingsoaring.com/yaw/yaw200.html

"Before I start I want to climb up on a soapbox for a brief moment. In my opinion a thorough Blanik inspection cannot be accomplished without the use of a flashlight. There are too many sections of the aircraft that have little or no light and in times of bright sunlight (it really does happen sometimes) it is hard for your eyes to adjust to darker areas that need inspection. I carry a small AA battery Maglite in my flight bag and use it for any preflight I make. It's not expensive or bulky and often comes in handy for other unexpected uses. OK, I'm off the box now."

~~~~~~~~~

Well, you get the idea. All roads lead to the intimate lives of the Rams....

Should we discuss black duct tape and its uses in stage production and show business, film, etc.? You know...like BEAUTY PAGEANTS?

 

Autopsy photo

This is the only one I can find. I can see the nail marks clearly, but others say they can't. Decide for yourself.

(If I can't post this link here, please let me know, or if one of the mods will delete it, I'd appreciate it. Not sure of how this is done here.)

http://www.jameson245.com/neck1.jpg

And yes, I've considered that it could have been from someone trying to dig the garrote out besides JonBenet. Seems like it could have been removed under those circumstances. A good question I've seen debated is why was it left on her. It is evidence. It does seem reasonable for the killer to leave it on her if you consider it as staging...and that's certainly what I believe. I believe it was meant to kill her, but also to make the crime look sexual, whether for real, or to throw the police off, or both.

Also, I have no proof of JonBenet being hanged. I'm just speculating. I thought most people knew we all are just theorizing, based on whatever information we have been able to gather from the media and the books and TV interviews and so forth and so on....

And there is no single most convincing piece of evidence of the Ramseys' guilt after the ransom note. The body of evidence is the powerful case for their involvement here, as in most cases. The composite of evidence: knot on the garrote being a sailing knot--the Ramseys all have sailing experience; the handle on the garrote was Patsy's own paintbrush; the ransom note linguistically can be matched with many, many examples of the Ramseys speech and writing patterns; the pad and pen came from the home; the body was concealed in the basement, which from a profiling perspective signifies the killer wanted to keep someone from seeing the body until the police found it--ensured by the long, violent and deliberately intimidating note which would give the parents an obvious motivation--or excuse--to call the police immediately; the comfort level and familiarity of the killer in the home without fear of discovery while completing the murder and the note--time-consuming by any standard for a stranger in the home; the Maglite belongs to the Rams and is the source of the head blow; no fingerprints on the note or the Maglite or its batteries--all materials belonging to the Ramseys; DOI, TV interviews, and many documented inconsistencies in the Rams' stories about what happened that night--the pineapple, was she asleep or awake when they got home, why did they snap at Burke during the 911 call and deny he was up that morning, why lie about the ransom note being on the step--three 8.5" x 11" pages won't fit across those bottom steps laid side by side, etc.; the Ramseys' behavior after the murder and lack of cooperation and interest in finding out WHO killed JonBenet; the missing Ramsey cell phone records for December, '96; fibers from Patsy's jacket in the paint box and on the duct tape; whiping and redressing of the body after the attack; the favorite gown and blanket with her--why would a killer who did not care about JonBenet bother with redressing, favorite things, concealing her body from view in the most remote location in the home, etc.? Etc., etc....

All logic and profiling says the killer cared for JonBenet and for the family and did not want the body lying in plain view, sexually displayed, for all to see--if Burke woke up...or the friends who came over. The killer used the note also to conceal his/her identity with the note, not collect a ransom. If the family has no knowledge of the killer, then why would he/she have to do that? The note serves two purposes: a red herring; and an excuse for the family to call the police immediately and for JonBenet's body to be found quickly--by the police, anyone would expect, at which time logically the police would seal the home and the family would leave quickly. Didn't happen that way completely, but that's not the note writer's fault, is it?

OK, what else? One reason the arms could have been left in the raised position on the floor is because the killer had to untie one wrist and raise the arms to redress JonBenet. Pulling a shirt over her head and wiping and pulling up her pants could have necessitated having her hands free from both being held by the wrist ligature constraints, getting them out of the way to pull her pants back up...or perhaps because the killer personally finds that position provocative, whether for actual sexual activity or staging. We don't know if she was completely undressed or not while she was being molested. The urine in her longjohn bottoms seems to indicate that she had those on and voided in them either before, during or at the time of death, but we don't really know when she urinated on them precisely, do we? And we also don't know if her shirt was removed or not at some point.

We do know the garrote slip knot and the handle knot were constructed on her because her hair is entwined in both. Was she conscious for this and allowed this for some reason--prior conditioning by her killer? Was she already bludgeoned and therefore passively unconscious? This was very neatly done, not in hurried improvising. It was a killing instrument made under pressure, yet the killer did it very well, very efficiently. It worked flawlessly. Who could make such a thing on a breathing child and use it without hesitation? And the all important question--why?

Someone who was very familiar with the child, the home, the family, the activity, someone who had something very important at stake. Someone who needed her dead. Who could possibly need JonBenet dead? What threat could she possibly be to anyone? What do her injuries tell us about her killer?

He/she had sexual activity with her. He/she had no qualms about tying a garrote on her neck and using it. He/she had no problem bathing her and dressing her. He/she had no hesitation in going into her room and taking her out of it in the middle of the night. He/she targeted her out of four people in the home, with two adults and a male child also to choose from. He/she knew to take her to the celler room, the most remote room in the home, to hide her. He/she knew the dynamics of the home, the sound patterns, the family sleeping arrangements, the layout. He/she knew where the Maglite, the paper and pen, and the paintbrush were. He/she was familiar with the family's personal and professional lives. He/she knew who was in the home that night, that no one would be popping in unexpectedly in that busy household during the hours it would have taken an intruder to break in, write the note, learn the layout, hide from the family, lie in wait, take JonBenet, molest her and commit the murder, tying the garrote, cleaning and redressing her, hiding her body in the celler with her gown and blanket, placing the ransom note that had already been written and hidden somewhere during all this activity, all this while sneaking around with the very long and heavy Maglite, leaving it on the kitchen counter on the way out into the cold December night--throught a door? A basement window? In a bulky coat/jacket? With a bag of duct tape, cord, a dark cloth, wearing thick Hi-tec boots, leaving a bag of thick rope behind in JAR's bedroom? In all that time in the home, a place not known well to him initially, only leaving behind one tiny hair, one partial boot print, DNA so miniscule and degraded it couldn't be salvaged for a positive ID even if the police had his?

Will the Ramseys ever be prosecuted? Not in this lifetime. Hunter saw to that very well, in my opinion. A more incompetent or compromised DA never walked. Take your pick.

But this is all just my opinions and ruminations. I can be wrong in many of all of these questions. I was not there and I know there is much evidence I have never seen nor heard of, so I can only speculate. I can put together what I think might have happened that night, in a number of combinations, but it's mostly what others have long since postulated. My only deviation from the usual theories is that I consider one where in JAR and/or one of his friends is involved. That fits John Douglas' profile, also.

But one thing I believe sincerely: John and Patsy Ramsey know what happened to JonBenet, who did it, and why.

 

Dr Spitz conclusions

I forwarded the following url posted by MJenn to a friend of mine who discusses the JB case by e-mail with me. I thought I would share his thoughts with the posters here. I found them very interesting. I hope you do too!

http://detnews.com/2000/metro/0003/19/

Spitz's conclusion about her death: "Someone took a lot of time and trouble to stage strangulation and sexual abuse. All of that was done after she was unconscious or dead."

I fully agree on this.

"She was killed by a blow to the right side of her skull," Spitz said. The impact caused a rectangular fracture of the skull, displacing a fragment of bone and radiating out to her forehead.

From the picture, the fracture is only roughly rectangular at best. The radiation pattern itself moves away from rectangular toward roughly oval.

The murder weapon overlooked by police, Spitz said, is a heavy, three-cell Mac Lite flashlight that evidence technicians photographed on the Ramseys' kitchen table. In an experiment in his St. Clair Shores laboratory, he used a similar flashlight to strike a dummy head, creating a depression identical to the skull wound.

"Identical?" Whoa! Some big problems here.

Did the doctor have a mold of JonBenet's skull from which to make his experimental one?

Was the dummy head the same flexible consistency of the skull of a six year old child?

Was the skull covered with a membrane to simulate the scalp of a six year old child?

What surface was the experimental set upon?

What was the movement factor in relation to an actual human being struck?

How much force was applied? What was the angle of the flashlight head upon impact?

What surface of the flashlight came in contact first?

What is the effect of varying angles of attack? There's a lot of unanswered questions.

If a blow by a flashlight created " a depression identical to the skull wound", this implies no radiation pattern. Such a fit also implies a small object centralized force upon a convex skull. How can such a skull fracture be made with this small object upon this surface without breaking the scalp?

The good doctor did a poor job of replicating the crime scene and is simply guessing; guessing that doesn't match up to the physics of wielded objects in contact with convex and partially resilient surfaces such as a skull. Did he try a flat object or nearly flat object to see what fracture it would make? (Very incomptent detective work.)

The measurements of the Ramsey flashlight match the dimensions of the
wound Spitz created, as well those of JonBenet's injury. "You can place the end of the flashlight perfectly into her wound," Spitz said.

How close is "perfectly"? Is this alleged "fit" merely coincidence. What else would "fit" the wound? This "blow and fit" without breaking the scalp? It won't fly.A wielded object usually moves at considerable speed. Speed is a factor in the wound caused. The faster the speed, the less time for energy radiation. The damage will be more concentrated than contact of less speed. In estimating the speed of a wielded flashlight of small head surface coming in contact with a skull at this speed, the very high probability is that the small object combined with speed would break the scalp surface on contact. It didn't happen. A much larger, flat or near flat surface was involved. The size and shape of the skull fracture came from energy distribution via the convex surface of the skull, not from the shape of an object.

 

So what is your friend proposing was the object used to bludgeon JonBenet? A board? Something flat like that?

As best as I can remember, Dr. Spitz used a child's corpse for the experiment, one about the same age and size as JonBenet. I could be mistaken here, as I've forgotten more than I remember. Corpses can be purchased for research, believe it or not.

As to speed being more important that the actual size of the weapon in causing the size and shape of the wound, I'm a little confused by that statement. My hubby once had his skull caved when he was about 13, playing touch football. His skull made contact with someone's knee in motion. The skull was caved like an egg shell, in a small, circular pattern. Fortunately, he lived after surgery to pull the skull bone back out, reducing pressure on the brain that had given him temporary amnesia. He does have enough of a hearing problem from this that he was classified 4F during the Vietnam War when his number came up. But he still played football for the rest of his years in school. Go figure.

Anyhow, thanks for sharing that Elle. Food for thought.

 

obviously, something did

elle - To cause a chunk of skull to be broken out like occurred with JBR, whatever hit her produced a concentrated area of force at that location. Whether that occurs from contact with some protruding area on a large surface, or by contact with a smaller object, the fact remains that something produced much greater force there than in the surrounding area and still did not break the skin. Maybe it was her hair that protected the scalp. Maybe the object had relatively smooth contours. Who knows? But the fact remains that concentrated force was applied to that area, and the skin did not break - regardless as to how odd that might seem to us.

Certainly Spitz's experiment doesn't prove the Maglight was the weapon, but it suggests it might well have been. From what I've read, the characteristics of the skull fracture usually are assumed to relate reasonably closely to the characteristics of the object causing the fracture, assuming the area didn't involve any of the "seams" of the skull plates. If the Maglight is the approximate size of the displaced area, and especially if the handle would potentially be able to make contact along the linear segment of the fracture (thus producing the bleeding under the scalp long that line), then it has to be considered a likely possibility.

 

Probably falling downstairs

MJenn, Fly,

There are a few posters as well as myself who feel JonBenét could have been either running away or pushed down the spiral stairs, or who knows the stairs in the basement, and then ending up hitting her head on the floor.

I have also thought Patsy may have lost her temper if she came into the kitchen and found JonBenét eating the pineapple, and in a rage lifted the flashlight up and swiped JB with this. I can PM you this friend's e-mail, and he could explain himself further. because truthfully, I need some help to understand the dynamics of this. I usually ask my husband (a retired engineer) to help me understand the physics better.

Seeing you were seriously discussing JB's head injury, I thought you would both be interested in another opinion. You're both doing a great job.

Sorry to hear your husband had a serious head injury MJenn, and the surgery was successful. Football is a dangerous game. My own sons were involved.

 

When I went

to bed last night, I took notice of the Maglite sitting on my bedstand, next to my bed. This particular flashlight is NOT rubber coated. It is smooth metal, except for the middle portion of it, which has a mesh-like, or pebbled surface for gripping. My daughter has a police-issued Maglite, which is longer than mine (mine is standard Maglite size) and hers is rubber coated. Somewhere, I also have a rubber-coated Maglite, but I must have put it somewhere that I would be sure to remember where it was. Not.

Anyway, I looked that flashlight over pretty thoroughly. They are made well, and they could be used as a weapon, I think. Judging by the wrist weights I have, I would say this flashlight weighs about 2-3 pounds, loaded with batteries - heavier than most flashlight to be sure - a good, solid feel in your hands.

I picked the Maglite up and bopped myself against the head a couple of times with it. Obviously, I didn't do it very hard. I just wanted to get a feel for its strength. Then, I hit it against the nightstand, fairly hard, but again, not hard enough to break the flashlight.

I have to tell you, guys, it takes a lot of force to crack a skull. People who go through windshields usually have cracked skulls. Like MJenn said, a knee could crack a skull in certain situations. A hammer could crack a skull. My nephew fell asleep at the wheel a few months ago and hit some guard rails. His head cracked against the driver's side window and broke it. He had a pretty bad concussion but his skull was intact. That was a solid hit with solid force behind it.

I was thinking about all this as I examined that Maglite. According to sources, the force needed to crack JonBenet's skull the way it was cracked was something like 300+ pounds of force? Or was that a 300 pound person? My better sense says it was 300 pounds of force. Think about that. That's a lot of force. Could a 3 pound, or even a 5-pound flashlight do that? Well, sure it could, if it would hold together and not break.

The Maglite - I do not believe the glass lens in the flashlight would hold up to a 300 pound force blow to anything. I don't think it would hold up to a good solid blow from me onto the nightstand by my bed.

I'll pick up on this in the next post.

 

Maglite

The Maglite that I have is approx 2 - 2-1/4 inches across the glass lens. As I was saying before, hitting that flashlight on something with 300 pounds of force would, at the very least, dent the flashlight. I'm sure it would break the glass and shatter the bulb. The only thing I can think of that could cause the kind of damage to JB's skull that I saw (if that picture jameson had on her forum is in fact the autopsy picture of JB's skull, and I've had my doubts about that) would be something of substantial strength. A hammer. A baseball bat. A golf club.

But, here's the next dilemma - how did that skull get cracked like that without breaking the skin? A rubber-coated flashlight? Maybe, but I still don't think a flashlight could withstand a 300 pound blow to anything but a pillow. Oops.

That's what I said last night. Oops. If a baseball bat or a golf club had been used to hit her with such force as to crack her skull, surely it would have broken the skin. In fact, it just seems to me that even a rubber-coated flashlight would have broken her skin under that much force. But it didn't.

Why? This really bothers me. The only explanation I could come up with is that there was something between the weapon and her skull when that tremendous 300+ pounds of force struck her. What, then? A blanket? A pillow? And, why?

First - the why. If the blow to the head was part of the staging, which I believe, is it possible the person who swung that weapon didn't want to witness the devastation to her poor little head, even as s/he delivered the blow? There was a baseball bat found outside one of the basement windows. Did the cops even take that into evidence? There were golf clubs in the basement. Either of these items most likely would have split the skin as it cracked her skull - but maybe not if there had been a blanket covering up her face and head. It would be like - well, we have to do it, but this little girl was near and dear to us, so cover up her face and head so we don't have to see the brains squirt out.

What about that Maglite, then? I thought about this, too. It was sitting there on the kitchen counter, I believe, pristine - no dents, no fingerprints... more staging? Could it have been deliberately placed there to lead investigators to believe someone had used it to find their way around the dark house and just left it there?

I don't know if there was any damage to the flashlight, but I think we would have heard about it by now if there had been. I can't believe it would be whole and without a dent or broken lens if it had been used to break someone's skull, though. I don't even know if I would have the strength to deliver a blow that hard with a flashlight. I think I might be able to with a baseball bat, from a certain angle, or perhaps a golf club. I would probably have better luck with a five or seven pound hammer that wouldn't crack or fall apart when swung with that much force.

I have a hammer at home that has a rubber-coated handle. I could really hurt someone with that hammer, probably even crack a skull through a blanket.

So, while I'm not saying this is what happened, it's indicative of my dilemma. I cannot reconcile that Maglite as the weapon that cracked JB's skull with that much force and still be pristine. Even rubber coated, I can't see anything hitting her that hard without breaking the skin, unless something was between her head and the weapon, and I don't mean rubber-coated flashlight.

Talk me out of this one, guys.