JonBenet hanging????

Oh, and thanks Ayeka for your professional observations. What a job you have, like police and doctors, taking care of our human foibles and vulnerabilities.

Texan, I hear ya'. But I can't answer this, as I've never been strangled by a cord or rope and I don't have that knowledge at my fingertips. Maybe there are some pics in the autopsy sites that would answer that. I'll have to look some more.

But it would seem that an experienced med. examiner would know, doesn't it? THAT'S WHAT I MEAN! Why don't we KNOW the answer to this? Bummer.

Ok, I have GOT to read those sources...including Wecht and Englund today. This is probably common knowledge among those who are sitting out there laughing at me.... Go ahead, I deserve it....

 

Abrasions

I thought the abrasions Meyers was referring to were the so-called stun gun marks.

"Above and below the anterior projection of the ligature furrow are nonpatterned, purple to rust colored, and present in the midline, right and left areas of the anterior neck."

Okay, let's look at that. Anterior, obviously, is the front, or toward the front portion of the neck. Abrasions are different than scratches, or gouges from fingernails. The picture I saw of a woman who had been strangled and had gouged her neck with her own fingernails left no doubt as to what those marks were. The pathologist in that autopsy called them what they were - scratches or gouges - not abrasions.

It's interesting, though. What were those abrasions? midline, right and left areas of the anterior neck. Finger marks? Knuckle marks? How about a couple of thumbs at midline and fingers or knuckles on either side - leverage to apply the rope? I don't believe the garrote was anything but staging; IOW, it would have been awkward, to say the least, to try to strangle someone with that garrote with the wooden part of 17 inches away from the neck. Was the rope hand-tightened with knuckles pressing into the soft flesh of her neck and thumbs toward the midline? That's what I think, but since Meyer can only report on his observations and not his opinion on what caused the marks, we are left to speculate.

The one thing I really do believe, though, is that Meyer could differentiate between scratch marks and abrasions and he surely would have, especially knowing the attention this case was drawing and the importance of very accurate reporting. Experienced pathologists have seen just about every manner of death, and he would have been able to spot obvious scratch marks made by JB and would have called them scratch marks because he would know the importance of that information.

On p. 268 of ITRMI (ST), it says, <i>"The experts noted no blood or skin tissue beneath the fingernails, as they often see when a victimhas fought an attacker.</i> It goes on to say that DNA can be deposited by someone merely dragging their nails across their own cheek.

It just seems to me that it would be a real stretch to think Meyer would not have reported two very vital evidence items such as flesh and blood beneath her nails and scratches on her necks - items that would be linked to each other. I suppose if he were really inept, he could have overlooked one of those items, but both of them? I don't think he overlooked anything - quite the opposite, I think he was very thorough.

I've already done this, so I already know, but just for the heck of it, try a little experiment. Pretend you are being strangled from behind. Pretend you are lying on your stomach when you are being strangled with ropes around your wrist (I know, staging, but try it, anyway). The rope is tight, most likely pulling your head and shoulders back - off whatever it is you are lying on (if your head and shoulders are not being pulled back, forget it, you can't get your arms and hands beneath you to pull at the rope, anyway.) If you can manage to get your hands to your throat while lying on your stomach and being violently pulled backward, place your fingertips where you think you would place them if you wanted to get that rope off your neck - four fingers on each hand, two thumbs - and you are fighting for your life - the adrenaline if pumping - you have to dig into your neck hard to get under that rope. Even a gentle scratching there will leave long scratch marks where you tried to gain purchase to slip your fingers under that rope and gain relief.

Go ahead - pretend (gently) that you are in a panic, trying to get that rope off your neck. Wait for a few second, then go look at your neck in a mirror. The picture I saw of that woman had gouge marks from her own fingernails streaking from just under her chin all the way down to the rope mark on her neck. Under the rope there were two thumb nail gouges. Her wrists were not bound, and she was not on her stomach when she was strangled. That woman was fully conscious when she was strangled. Her fingernails were broken and bloody from the flesh and blood she gouged out of her neck and from the broken fingernails. Meyer reported nothing like that in his report. I don't believe JB was conscious at all.

 

I'm pretty sure you mean

I'm pretty sure you mean Ayjey, not me. Unless something about this case has to do with coffee or art or the internet.

Let me take this opportunity to thank you and fly and WY and everyone else for an astounding thread.

Ayeka

 

w y ...

Thats exactly what I meant. Those aren't really JBR's fingernail marks, imo. Abrasions are scrapes, not really scratches.

I

 

etc.

MJenn - TOD computations from the kind of information we have are very inexact. You'll find some fairly variable estimates of the timeline of rigor, even discounting the many variables that can further distort the timing. Past estimates we've made based on the state of rigor at autopsy, the timeline for the pineapple (if eaten after leaving the Whites') have all put her death somewhere around midnight, give or take a couple of hours. There's not going to be a firm determination of TOD. Any estimate is going to involve a range, and because there's no indication that Meyer did either a liver temp or vitreous humor exam, that estimate is going to be pretty broad, I bet.

Unless TOD could be firmly established during the period of time before the Ramseys report they went to sleep, we're no farther along that without TOD, and it's almost certain IMO that we're never going to see that definitive an estimate.

As to Meyer never mentioning the "second" ligature marking, perhaps that is because it isn't really a ligature mark when viewed live and in person. Remember, Smit and whomever he consulted, were working from pictures, and that isn't as reliable as having seen the body itself in many cases. Consider the issue of the petechia and the abrasions. For myself, I can't tell what marks are supposedly the fingernail marks vs the other marks (petechia?) Maybe with the actual photos it would be clearer, but what is posted online sure hasn't been for me.

WY - Yes, there's no question that until McKinley made her comment, we'd heard only that there was no signs of struggle.

Sorry, but until there is good evidence that something other than the ligature was used to strangle her, I'm not buying that it was staging. She was strangled to death. She was alive when that ligature was put on her. That isn't staging. That is the murder itself. Maybe the stick was added as staging, but then, I'm not sure you could tie that kind of a "knot" with one end of the cord already fixed around JBR's neck.

The only thing I can think of that suggests staging is the fact that her hair was not only caught in the knot at the neck, but also in the loops on the stick. That shows it was constructed in very close proximity to her, and that is something it's hard to believe could be done if she were conscious (although not impossible). Of course, she could have been knocked out, rather than dead.

As to the awkward length of the cord... I'm not so sure it is that awkward. NO, it's not feasible if the plan is to twist it to tighten the ligature. However, it is workable if simply used for pulling to tighten the cord. That length is with the cord tightened, and it's still far from the limits of a person's reach.

 

Well, Smit sure was wrong about the stun gun theory, so you may be right about the "abrasions." I can see the crescent shaped marks on the photo myself, or at least that's what they look like to me, but since I've never seen a strangulation or hanging in person, nor was I at the autopsy, I'm easily confused by the conflicting theories presented by the many parties involved.

I was reading the transcripts of the medical examiner who did the autopsy on Danielle Van Dam tonight, and he has some interesting things to say about taking the body temp in the liver and about the vitreous fluids. He also discussed rigor mortis and lividity. Interesting read. But it seems that in the end the pineapple is the closest indicator to pinpointing TOD.

I agree about the ligature being the murder weapon. I can't see how the petechia above and below it would be present if it weren't the actual cord used to strangle her. And it was way too deep into her neck for it to be not pulled with deadly force. If she had been already dead, there wouldn't be petechia and bruising present in that color, would there, where the ligature was found embedded in her throat?

Also, to use the garrote in the true garrote fashion, you need two ends to TWIST together. One won't do it. Someone posted a picture of how that works at JW once. The one used on JonBenet could only be pulled as it was constructed, I believe.

But I've begun to think about the Rams account of finding the ransom note again. That won't leave me. How would they know not to pick it up and handle it when they found it, not to get their fingerprints on it, unless they knew what was in it? Who wouldn't just pick up a note on the step and read it?

If that's the case...just supposing here...then they had to have written it.

In looking at those pics of the spiral staircase, the steps would not support three pages of an 8.5 x 11 inch note spread ACROSS ONE. Not wide enough. It would fall off. That's one lie right there.

So if the Rams made all that up about the note, handling it with care not to get their fingerprints on it from the very start...they wrote it.

I have for a long time thought somehow JAR or Burke were possibly involved. Then I got skeptical about Burke because I don't believe the Rams would have sent him away if he knew anything that morning. A lot can be explained if it was JAR except he has an alibi, though alibis have been shaken before.

The main thing that I see is that the garrote is a male weapon. I can't get away from that. But now, considering the Rams' story about finding the ransom note and why they had no fingerprints on it, I'm thinking about John again. He is the one who would have been trained to kill in the navy. He was staged in Subic Bay, and the traditional garrote can be traced to Asian executions.

How hard it is to imagine a mother or father tying that noose on a little girl's neck and killing her with it. What was happening inside that family? What was the trigger?

Oh, sorry, Ayeka and Ayjey. That's what you get for having names that start with the same two letters!

 

Fly

I am not questioning the ligature as the final instrument of her strangulation/death. However, I have not ruled out a soft scarf (or other such material) that may not have left any marks on her neck as a possible cause of the vagus nerve being compressed to the point that it stopped signals to her heart and she appeared dead, at which time the rope was substituted for the scarf and she was strangled to death. I know how that sounds - like I am grasping - but I'm not. It's a possibility, but I don't know as I really believe it.

I do believe is the ligature that was on her neck was used to strangle her to death. What I'm not so sure of is the use of the garrote in that strangulation. I can't remember now where I read it, but in one of the books about the case, someone gave a very good explanation why the garrote was probably not used for the purpose intended because the wooden handle part was so far away from the neck as to be nearly useless. It made sense to me because obviously a device such as that would be much more efficient very close to the neck - not nearly a foot and a half away from the neck. So, what I think happened was the ligature was tightened manually - that is by usiing the hands, not the garotte device - and that may be the source of those other abrasions on her neck (fingers, knuckles against the neck as the rope is tightened).

I think Dr. Wecht likes the spotlight pretty well, and he is sometimes given to hyperbole, but no one can dismiss his expertise or his experience. His opinion was that <i>someone had applied the noose to her neck to reduce the flow of oxygen to the brain. Someone had found sexual stimulation by forcing JB to experience the terribly uncomfortable and even terrifying effect of this near strangulation; at least, it was supposed to be near strangulation...

Wecht theorized that the rope had pinched the vagus nerve that descends from the brain down each side of the neck to control the functions of many of the body's organs. Among its purposes is the key role of regulating the heart and lungs. If the nerve's electrical messages are interrupted, cardiac and respiratory function may cease, resulting in what doctors call "electrical death." The heart and lungs could begin go slow down, develop erratic responses, and eventually stop - leaving no evidence to establish an obvious cause of death.

The tightening noose could have done exactly that to JB. Her death would have been inexplicable to the one who had ignorantly applied the fatal pressure to her neck.

In fact, Wecht realized, JB's death might not have been the "murder" it was so universally being called. If Wecht's theory was correct, JB's death had been accidental, even though it was caused by criminal conduct.</i>

There was some discussion of Wecht's theory in years past, but I think the implications of the compression of the vagus nerves has escaped many. If Wect is right, that would explain a few things - such as why the cover-up kicked in. Perhaps she could have been revived at this point, but to the untrained layperson, she was dead, and omygawd, someone in that house had killed her. Now they had to make it look like an intruder had broken into the house. It had to appear like a violent attack - not a gentle strangulation that got out of hand. The rope was tightened on that little neck, suffocating the remaining life from her body if there was any left. The petechea were already present from the non-lethal strangulation that had been applied previously.

Sexual deviates are often into visual stimulation - that garrote could have been used merely as a prop or pretend - for visual stimulation. It's sort of like a grown woman dressing as a little girl to provide visual stimulation for a grown man. In this case, it was there, but the rope was actually tightened by hand where the perp may have thought s/he had better control. Many of the discussions on the possible sexual actions of the perp during the commission of this crims at certain forums have, IMO, bordered on voyeurism, and I'm not going to go there - it's not necessary. Suffice to say the person controlling the pressure of the rope on JB's neck could have lost control at critical mass (how's that for descriptive writing, LOL) and that's when the damage was done.

I have never come up with a solid theory of how JB died that night, and I am not saying this is what happened. If a male killed her, then I do believe it was a sexual crime against JB that got out of hand. But, if a female killed her, I have to go a different way. Either way, all staging was done to confuse the investigators, and it certainly has done that. The fact that the strangulation was the cause of death according to Meyer, then I am more inclined to believe it was a male who killed her.

Actually, the autopsy report is pretty clear if we would stop trying to read things into it that aren't there. JB was sexually abused that night and, according to Wecht who interpreted the autopsy findings from the report, up to 48 hours before the murder.

It still makes no sense to me why they bashed her head in, though, except to further convolute the scene. Was she having gasping breaths - what they call agonal death - the struggle before death? Did they bash her to stop that suffering? That would explain why there was so little bleeding from the blow on the head.

Oh man, I'm rambling - indicative of the thought processes that have meandered in and out of this tortured brain for the past 5+ years.

 

Meandering is about all any of us have, WY. I understand, as a well-known meanderer myself....

The only thing that I can't understand is that IF the killer was just playing erotic asphyxiation sex games with JonBenet and didn't mean to kill her, then why wouldn't he do what is common in those games...pad the ligature? Even if it was a scarf, tightening it enough to cut off her air supply was likely to leave bruises, or at least reddened lines on her neck, wouldn't it?

And if there was first a "sex play" strangulation that cause the vegus nerve to stop her heart, how did the garrote then cause petechia? If the heart isn't pumping, then how does that happen?

Finally, and I say this over and over, the garrote found on JonBenet was not made by a novice. That was one well-made strangulation device. It worked, it worked fast, and it killed her. So let's say the killer had made and used this type of garrote before, on him/herself, on others in S&M, whatever. How long would it take to make such a thing on JonBenet?

OK, let's go there.

Someone is diddling JonBenet in the basement, their little secret. (In the pattern of pedophiles.) He breaks her hymen, she screams, he panics, hitting her in the head. But no one else in the house it awakened because blahblahblah. Didn't John give this theory at one time on TV?

Now she's really hurt. Unconscious. Convulsions? The killer realizes he's passed the point of no return. So he scrambles around, finding the paintbrush, cord he might have already been using, makes the garrote and used it on her to finish her off.

He can't get her out of the house, though. No car? Or that might wake up the others if he has to lift the garage door, drive out, etc. So he has to leave her in the house.

A plan is formulating in his mind. He puts the tape on her mouth, ties the wrist ligatures, or maybe they were already there for the sex play--that's why one was untied, to get her shirt back on her. That would mean it had to be John because he said HE untied it.

But back to the moment: the killer wipes her down, redresses her. Then he goes upstairs and writes the note, thinking he has to get the police there fast, get her body found by them so everyone won't see her like that, and get the family out of the house...which is to say get HIMSELF out of the house fast. Kidnapping. Terrorists. Threats. Call the police. They find the body, think she's been killed by an intruder/kidnapper/someone outside the family. So he writes the note, knowing he has some time because everyone else is asleep...and what else can he do? She's dead. A little luck is all he needs now, and a cool head....

He writes the note, goes to take his shower, so he won't wake Patsy up getting back into bed, and when Patsy wakes, it looks like he slept in the bed all night....

Ok, this seems simple on its face, but it has holes. Does he actually leave the note on the stairs? How does he get Patsy not to pick it up? And how do they both jump BACK UP the stairs OVER one of those winding steps while the note is still ON the stair. And the 3 pages WON'T lie side by side on one of those stairs.

And since it really looks like Patsy wrote the note, John would have to have been very clever in writing it, implicating his wife. Nah, I don't see John writing that long note. He'd write one short and to the point, wouldn't he? Man of few words.

Ok, at what point in this murder could he have brought Patsy into it, coercing her to help him? Could he possibly have done this murder and then convinced Patsy to help him, if she KNEW he'd done it? Back to the "accidental" swing at John....

And I still consider Thomas' theory, also. Is it possible that Patsy, all by her lonesome, knew how to make a garrote and strangle someone that efficiently? That's a hard sell for me. And then that brings up the question at what time did Patsy bring John into this murder coverup plan? Because they both seem to be involved once the note is "found." That hopping/hands and knees story won't wash.

Wecht does say JonBenet had been sexually violated at least in the last 72 hours. So if there were some type of sexual abuse going on between JonBenet and a male in the family that resulted in this "accident," John's motivation would be to go along to protect that male, fashioning the garrote.

Which is why I can't eliminate Burke or JAR. Lord, this is maddening.

You're right, WY, these criminal minds are superior to mine. Meanderingmeanderingmeandering....

It always goes back to the garrote and the note. Who made the garrote. A sailer's knot on the handle. Who wrote the note. Patsy all over it. It had to be both of them. Who sexually abused her? A male. Who hit her in the head? The one who sexually abused her?

My god. A family affair?

 

If I remember correctly, JBs hymen was basically intact, but stretched out over time...thus the thought of chronic abuse, backed by the autopsy report that she had vaginal congestion indicative of repeated abuse.

I agree with Texan, there would have been longer scratch like marks on her neck as opposed to the cresent-ish shape of the marks above and below the furrow if she had been clawing at her neck.

Don't I remember that the garrote was not a 'true' garrote? Rather a simulation? that it was indeed too long and not constructed to tighten when the wooden piece was twisted? I remember seeing the garrote and noting that it didn't seem functional in the original garrote fashion.

Seems to me that Pats and John worked together on the cover up...Why? Because someone they loved was killed by someone else they loved. IMHO...otherwise, the hatred and blame would have them already in court and separated.

John had lost one child, now another, I believe it was way too much for him to consider loosing Burke, too. Pats had lost one, and couldn't loose another into a system where they would have no control, where their money wouldn't be an effective motivator to their wishes.

How could they send Burke off that morning if he had done it? From what I have read here and also from Cookie, Burke MAY have had unusual characteristics that caused him to over react to simple interactions and perhaps be confident in his outbursts. But, in what MAY be a 'control' issue with him, he may be able to absolutely keep order by silence and acting out impulsively.

This may well be the secret that was so important to keep under wraps. Most loving parents go into tremendous denial when confronted with a child that may have what they think could be borderline psychological difficulties, particularly if they feel they can manage and maintain control over the bahaviors, or that the child will grow out of it.

If having Control of his life was as important to him as I feel like it may be, then he could well keep a secret, one in particular involving himself.

Let me reference the many many kids who don't say a word about being abused sexually or physically, etc...they just won't/don't/can't. Pick one, they can keep secrets for a long long time.

Tensions run high on Holidays, even for children...and many times what seems right/fair to a child in regard to his interactions with other kids/family can actually be unacceptable socially or morally and that is how they learn and adapt, or decide NOT to adapt.

Now, that is strictly my opinion. If Pats didn't catch JR gently molesting JB that night and attempt to kill him...and having missed her mark hit JB and thus started the ball rolling, my other theory is that Burke might have been involved more than we realize.

Just to add: I would hate to have my kids picked apart, or my family, by a crowd of strangers. And I know it is so easy to develop tunnel vision to fit a predjudice or mindset. My MIL is good at this. But, given the evidence we think we can depend on for information, it seems these 3 are deeply involved, if only from having the knowledge of the events, if not actually taking part.

Mels

 

I have never been

a Burke-did-it proponent, but I was vehemently against Alex Hunter's clearing of Burke. It appears there may have been evidence to clear JAR (I know, MJenn, I know), at least "apparent" evidence. I don't think JAR was in that house that night at all. That leaves three people we KNOW were in the house - JR, PR, and BR.

What indisputable evidence did Hunter have that allowed him to officially clear Burke? He had no solid evidence that Burke was not involved - it was only his opinion (and others' opinions as well, including ST's, one thing I personally disagreed with Steve about) that Burke was not involved. I didn't buy it then and I still don't, simply because no one has been charged with the murder of JBR.

While I think the subject of Burke needs to be handled with care because of his age, I also think that Hunter made a huge error in going public to clear him. What was Burke's alibi? He was there - how could he be cleared - unless they could definitely prove who DID commit the murder, which would then clear Burke. We know pansy-arse Hunter didn't have the degree of evidence he thought he needed to win in court, so how could he be so sure Burke wasn't involved?

I'm not saying I think Burke is guilty of anything - I'm only saying Hunter should not have cleared him without sufficient evidence he was guiltless. So, why did he? What Hunter did was enable the Ramseys to sue everyone and his brother for expressing an opinion about Burke. When you think about it, that was dead wrong - no one really knows what went on that night, and no one really knows what role Burke did or did not play in all of it. The Ramseys have taken advantage of the stupidity and arrogance of Alex Hunter in clearing Burke, when he very well could have been involved.


MO

 

Excellent website

on ligature strangulation.

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/ligature.html

 

Delmar England

MJenn,

Just wanted to correct Delmar's name. It's England
not Englund. In fact, why don't I just put down Delmar's url, and anyone else who hasn't read his analysis, can do so. Then you can all talk about them. I would say if we could get this very intelligent man on TV to demonstrate his garrote analysis, he would prove John Ramsey and Lou Smit's description of the garrote knotting being complicated was false, and that any one of us could have tied these simple knots.

http://www.acandyrose.com/delmarengland.htm

Ransom Note Analysis

Analysis on the Garrote I

Analysis on the Garrote II

Suspect Behavior Analysis

Delmar England's Paper On The Garotte Analyzed by jameson

Delmar England's Response Jameson Gibberish I

Delmar England's Response Jameson Gibberish II

 

LOL, WY...

I think you're taking care to NOT GET ME STARTED...? I just want to point out for the record...again...that I only consider JAR as ONE suspect. I have never said he did it and that's that. I ALWAYS qualify my opinions AS SUCH. Speculation, theory, ideas...you know, the stuff FREE SPEECH is made of?

But you said this, WY: "What Hunter did was enable the Ramseys to sue everyone and his brother for expressing an opinion about Burke."

Now, that is the absolute truth, and Hunter knew EXACTLY what he was doing. So how can people be so surprised when someone says HUNTER IS UP TO HIS EARS IN COLLUSION WITH THE RAMS...one way or the other?

Many seasoned investigators have shaken their heads at anyone being "cleared" but those investigating this case. That's not the way to investigate a case. It's so irresponsible as to be indicative of the main priority of the investigators/DA in the JB case: placating the Rams and their powerful attorneys. That's MY OPINION anyway.

Sorry, Mr. EnglAnd. That sure was a dumb mistake. Must have been getting it mixed up with someone else who spells their name Englund. Thanks, elle. Now, can you feed me some food throught that straw?

 

Blunt Force Trauma

JonBenet died from blunt force trauma....meaning the murder weapon was NOT the golf club. The rubber-coated flashlite I believe to be the weapon.

My maglite is not rubber coated. It weighs between 2-3 pounds with batteries, is 10 inches long, 5 inches bottom, 7 inches top.

Take another look at JonBenets neck. On the right side, close to the bottom, you will see four circular marks which are in the pattern of a square.

 

News Flash

As usual, I agree with every word you wrote, WY.

The bad part is that misstep is about to open a nasty can of worms. This NY Post discovery won't be a fatal hit, but will surely be something to overcome at a later point.

 

doubts/questions

The longest dimension of the displaced area of the skull fracture runs the same way as the linear portion of the fracture. If a flashlight were held normally, wouldn't the displaced area (corresponding the the point of initial contact) be expected to have its longest dimension perpendicular to the linear fracture? If the flashlight was used, seems likely that it had to have been held by the bulb end - not the natural grip.

Would a Maglight that would be heavy enough to produce the amount of force required for that fracture be narrow enough to fit the observed dimensions? If the light end made the initial contact, I could perhaps see the dimensions working, but as I noted above, that seems questionable.

WY and Fedorax - Perhaps Hunter realized his affadavit would allow them to sue more easily, but if he truly believes that Burke had nothing to do with the crime (as appears to be the general consensus of the DA's office and the cops, right?), isn't the decent thing to do to say he did not do this - even if it helps the parents?

 

Flashlite

Held by the bulb end which is 7 inches?

 

Toltec

The latern/bulb/light end measures 7 inches in length? Do we know that for sure?

What I'm saying is that most flashlights I've seen have bulb ends that are broader than the grip part, and certainly wider than the dimensions of the displaced area (at least any flashlight big enough to have any heft). That sould suggest to me that the longer dimension of the displaced area would be more likely to run perpendicular to the linear fracture, which is not the case in JBR's fracture.

 

Maybe the decent thing

to do was to clear Burke, Fly, but since when does decency override procedure in a murder case? Lin Wood thinks the decent thing to do is for the Ramseys to also be cleared.
'
I understand what you are saying, and I also understand the general consensus was that Burke was not involved. But, that doesn't change the fact that if they knew Burke wasn't involved, they also should have known who was involved. There should have been strong evidence of who killed JB, and according to Hunter, there wasn't strong evidence, at least not strong enough to prove it in court. I'm only saying that unless there was a strong alibi or other evidence (as in several of other suspects who were ruled out), no one should have been cleared.

This has always bugged me - if they know Burke didn't do anything, then they know who did. Isn't that a reasonable conclusion? All they have to do is prove who killed JB. Then they can logically say Burke didn't do anything. It just makes sense to me.

Believe me, I'm not into picking on Burke. I'm looking at it purely in a professional, hard-nosed manner. I don't care what they "thought," I want to know what evidence they had that cleared Burke.

 

Re: Toltec