Put the garrote in Patsy's hands

simple

Take a second look at the photo of the garrote. It is not complicated at all. Any one of us could have made this, and Delmar England feels even a child could have made it.

My Macrame plant hangings have more complicated knots than this garrote. As for the breaking of the ends of the paint brush. It's not an easy brush to break by hand, but one could wedge it between a door, or a drawer and the ends would snap. It wouldn't really have taken a long time to have made this garrote at all.

Delmar England has been trying for a long time to get the posters to pay attention to his analysis. I'm pleased to see you're discussing them. He is also willing to answer any of your questions. ... delmar@strato.net

 

Fly wrote:

"Mels - The press called the contraption a garrotte, and that
label has continued to be used by many people. It's been
pretty obvious from very early in the case that this isn't the
prototypical garrotte. I think the term persists because there
is more than just a cord involved."

Fly, the above has been my whole point in this discussion, or maybe you were directing your response to MJenn.

We could call a 'tent' a house...but it would best be described as a simple form of shelter.

We could call the cord around JB's neck a garrote but it would best be described as a ligature/strangling device.

The latter description more adequately describes each item.

To say the 'garrote' slipped and tightened as a 'garrote' is supposed to is totally wrong, to say there was a stick on the rope of the ligature that reminded someone of a garrote, that would be more consistant with fact.

As I stated in my last post...THERE WAS NO GARROTE, thus my suggestion to read Mr. England

Elle, I agree with you, entirely.

Mels

 

I know the difference between a true garrote and the ligature on JB's neck. I've discussed this case on these forums for 2 years. Two years ago or more, someone posted a link to a picture of a true garrote being used to kill a man in an Asian execution. The "twisting" effect used to tighten the loop around the neck can only be created if two ends are used to "twist." I get that.

The definition of the true garrote notwithstanding, according to Webster--and a very scary poster who claimed once on the CS forum to know professional killers well, the "term" garrote is used loosely in describing strangulation of different sorts.

There is no way that someone first strangled JonBenet with something else, which created the ligature bruise line found under that ligature which was embedded in her neck, and then created the ligature found on her, tightening it to perfectly match that same bruise line, without it rolling or varying from that bruise line one tiny bit. The ligature found on JonBenet was so tight that the actual imprint of the cord's weave was visible in the bruise pattern after it was removed from her neck. The cord found on her is the one that was used to kill her, IMO.

I never said I think the ligature is too hard for Patsy to make. I never said it would take a long time to make it. I said I need to see some evidence that she did in fact make it and use it to strangle her daughter. Making something like that, however easy once you do it, is still not something the average mom and housewife would know how to do in a pinch to strangle her child with. Is it? Or have I been much too lenient in my child-rearing?

I still don't believe that Patsy, or whomever strangled JB, made that ligature with handle for the first time that night, off the top of her/his head, and just got lucky that it worked so well.

And while I'm thinking about it...the green paint chip found on JonBenet's chin, which matched paint from the paint tray, has me thinking. If it stuck to her chin while she was laid face down on the carpet beside or near the paint tray, seems to me she would have been already unconscious. I can't see a conscious child lying passively face down on the carpet while a ligature with handle is being constructed on her. Not saying it's not possible, just got me to thinking.

Oh, and JonBenet's hair was found IN BOTH KNOTS on the ligature. The handle knot and the slip knot BOTH had her hair entangled in them. I am assuming that the hair still attached to her head that was entwined in a knot and had to be cut to remove the ligature was in the slip knot. That seems logical to me, and since we have no one to ask for clarification, logic is all I have. So I don't think the length of JonBenet's hair is an issue.

 

OK, read Mr. England's ideas about the garrote. I had, in fact, read them many moons ago. So, let me get this straight: he knows knots, so he can imagine how Pasty sat on JonBenet after killing her with a simple two handed pull of the cord in opposite directions, thoughtfully played with the cord until she...lucked out? Making what he describes as a very ineffective "garrote," that nevertheless Dr. Meyer believed was the killing tool because it was embedded perfectly in the bruise line, with corresponding petechial hemorrhages above and below it. Lucky Patsy just happened to be able to pull that sad little excuse for a murder weapon so that it exactly matched up to the bruise line in which it was found embedded...otherwise the good Dr. and the CBI and the FBI would have been able to conclude it was not the original strangulation device, wouldn't they?

Nope, again, I'm not convinced. Sorry. I can't see it.

Had to stop for a moment, so to finish my thoughts here about England's ideas:

Am I reading this right? England thinks that JonBenet had an accident, hitting her head on the tub or some fixture of some sort. Then Patsy strangled her with a cord she simply looped around her neck and pulled with both hands in opposite directions. Then she decided that wasn't convincing enough, so she sat on JonBenet and played around with the cord until she figured out how to pull it so tight it embedded into JonBenet's neck, lining up perfectly with the original strangulation bruise line without rolling or any variation from all the pressure on the maleable flesh, blood and bone, then tied the handle on for good measure?

All the while, if it was Patsy doing this, she'd be wondering if John might wake up and find her missing and go looking for her? Or Burke might wake up and look for her or JonBenet? Why not just strangle her with the cord crossed and pulled from both ends, quick and efficient, leaving it at that because if JonBenet was strangled, why the need to make something ELSE to strangle her? But Patsy takes the time to play with the cord and how to fashion something more complicated, in hopes of making it look like JonBenet was strangled by a professional...even though she had no idea how to even make what she was making, and even though she didn't even know when she started what she was trying to make? But lucky Pasty: she fashioned something, off the top of her head and without fear of discovery, that was so convincing all the experts in Boulder and the FBI haven't figured out yet that it wasn't the actual strangulation device.

And somewhere between the head wound and the first strangling, JonBenet died? Even though the damage done by the head wound was not visible to the eye, caused no bleeding or noticeable bruising of the scalp, and to the lay person, might only seem to have knocked her out, with the possibility she might have been revived with medical help?

So does England think this started out an accident or not?

Oh, and don't forget the sexual molestation. Or damage. Or whatever you choose to call it. That Patsy, she just thought of everything, didn't she? Even to the point of damaging JonBenet's vagina within 72 hours before her accidental murder, so as to make it look like...what? The intruder intruded before?

Sorry, I'm confused. Guess I'm just too dumb to fathom all this.

 

Not easy MJenn

I know it isn't easy MJenn. I quite believe Delmar thinks it was John Ramsey who fashioned the garrote, not Patsy. That John helped in the cover up. Yes, I believe he thinks this was an accident. with JonBenét's head coming into collision with maybe a tub, a toilet or a hard floor.

You know ,when I first got in touch with Delmar, I couldn't imagine a mother or a father capable of carrying out these acts on their six year old daughter ... but this was because I couldn't see myself doing it, and I was stuck with this for months, but learning more about Patsy's self centred type of character, and the need to keep her image flawless, I quite believe both of them were capable of creating this staging.

 

Whao! MJenn!

I don't think you took a breath!

Golly!

Factually, NONE of us know what happened that night. Period, end of story. Vascilation of opinion may be the Only FACT we have in this case.
If you have read the forums for two years then you should be well informed of all the same information/misinformation the rest of us have.

We have drawn from the experts that will come here, and from third party interactions and books by those who had a closer view of the picture...we have been all over the world and back on this case. We have Roasted and Toasted almost all the Players at one time or another.

Then, every once in a while, something comes to mind and we rehash it, down to the molecule. Some of us walk away with a different view after that, some no.

I would like to know exactly what YOU think happened that Christmas night years ago.

How do you see it all got started? Pats disciplining JB? John molesting her and getting caught?, Burke hanging her? JAR somehow slipping in and doing it? WHO do you see was the Villian?

I wasn't my intention to offend you, my focus was otherwise directed.

Mels

 

Sounds like you understand

Mels,

You do work your way through everything step by by step, and are very patient while doing it. I just read your other posting. It is obvious you understand what Delmar England is trying to get across. This contraption used in the cover-up was not a garrote.

This is a damned frustrating case, and you're so right about the rehashing we do.

 

Strangulation

I believe JonBenet was unconcious when strangled. No signs of a struggle...no carpet burns from being held down...unless she was strangled on her bed. I believe the head blow caused Jonbenets neck to swell to the point that the cord that was applied shortly after had become embedded in her neck.

In an interview with police, Patsy was shown pictures of JonBenets room. She told police this:

"The detectives pointed to some circles on her bedroom carpet, wondering what they were. The potholder frame wasn't there, but i could tell the circles were cloth rings that JonBenet would weave into potholders."

Patsy tells readers the potholder frame is missing. Could this potholder frame be the cause of the "stun-gun" marks one poster theorized at? Why would the cloth rings be scattered about? I doubt JonBenet would be playing with them given it was Christmas and she had new toys. Did they scatter during a struggle? Did they scatter when JonBenet collapsed from the head blow?

Sorry if I went off topic...

 

Short on time

and will read Delmar stuff tonight.

I am wondering about the 10 days that the forensic knot expert from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police spent in Boulder studying 'the strangling contraption'.

I am wondering if any of this testimony might have been presented to the GJ.

I am wondering what the BPD did with his findings. I do not remember his name now, it has been so long ago.

I taught macrame to adult education classes so many years ago it is a dim memory. But, to my eye, the person who tied that knot knew their way around knots pretty dang good. An experienced knot tier through marine activities and/or taught some aspects of knot tying by 'someone' in their lifes activities.

 

unconscious while strangked

I agree with you Toltec. I think she was unconscious while strangled, and I also believe the cord was embedded into her neck through swelling from her injury.

I've heard other posters discussing whether the potholder loom was responsible for the stun gun like marks on her face. Ruthee also discusses these marks in relation to the potholder loom at http://ruthees_library.tripod.com/stungun.html

 

Sorry, Mels

Didn't mean to get so terse. Oversaturation, I'm afraid.

As for my theory, I can come up with four. Pick one. Except the JAR one. Every time I even mention that one, I get jumped by JAR's fan club. If you want that one, you'll have to request a private viewing....

But see, there's always something new. Toltec and elle, I've NEVER seen anyone discuss JonBenet's neck swelling from her head injury, embedding the garrote. Please explain that one to me, if you have time, or point me to it. Is that England's?

That would mean the garrote was on her neck when she got her head injury, wouldn't it? But I thought you said you thought she got the head injury first, accidental.

You said, toltec, that the head injury happened, then the garrote was applied quickly after. How quickly? Are you saying that the killer already knew how to make the garrote? Lucked out while playing with it and got it right the first time while quickly improvising because the head blow, the physical damage of which wasn't even visible to the naked eye, caused her whole head and neck to swell?

A head injury covered up by a strangulation covered up by a strangulation covered up by a ransom note?

Well, no wonder we don't know what the &&#^%$#*&! happened that night. They might as well have ground her up in a meat grinder. The Ramseys would have to have been creeping around in the dark all night to come up with this scenario.

But elle, I'm not saying I can't believe Patsy and/or John would have done this. I think I've been pretty clear about believing that they are AT LEAST involved at some level. Personally, I think it had to be John or JAR who put that garrote on her neck. If Brad Millard wants to convince me he was in fact in JAR's presence in Atlanta all night that night, then I'll stay with John. I might even consider a close buddy of JAR's being involved with JAR in this murder in some way. Everything about this murder says a male committed it--except the ransom note. Burke could have done some of it, but I don't believe for one minute they'd have let him out of their sight that morning or that they'd have let him be interviewed or let him testify to the grand jury if he knew much of anything.

All I'm saying about Patsy is that IF she was the one who constructed that garrote on JonBenet, a garrote that can be argued until doomsday not to be effective, but which DID IN FACT STRANGLE JONBENET TO DEATH, then I need proof she knew how to do that, that she did it, or that she demonstrated at some time in the past some knowledge of constructing such a thing in some circumstance. That's all. (That's ALL, she said...heheh.)

Because no matter how you think JonBenet died, no matter what sequence of events, no matter which caused what...the killer HAD THE THOUGHT PROCESS TO TIE A LIGATURE AROUND HER NECK AND LEAVE IT THERE.

Why is that important? Because, like I said, the average person just MIGHT NOT THINK OF THAT. Even someone who might have been part of some accident and then decided to cover it up with a strangulation might have used a ligature to strangle her, just crossing the cord in the back and pulling with both hands. But WHAT PAST EXPERIENCE WOULD GIVE THE AVERAGE PERSON THE IDEA OF TYING A LIGATURE ON HER NECK LIKE THAT? What would make someone THINK OF THAT? If she was strangled with a lose cord, why wouldn't that seem sufficient to point to an intruder strangling her? WHY THE THOUGHT AND THE ACTION OF TYING THE LIGATURE ON HER WITH THE HANDLE? What experience did the killer have that would have inspired her/him to do that? The killer did not just come up with that idea in the middle of murdering a little girl, IMO. People get their ideas from somewhere. What was the background that brought tying a ligature with a handle on JonBenet's neck into the killer's mind?

That's what I need to know to say, OK, Patsy is the killer. Or John is the killer. Or anyone else.

It always goes back to John had combat training, and the only other thing I can think of is auto/erotic asphyxiation, which is more common than many people think, if you want to peruse the online S&M world--just type the word "knot" in some search engine and you'll be surprised at the things you'll find. I guess you could get the idea reading true crime or mystery novels, but how many of us go around trying out the things we read about in those texts? How many would think to make one up for the first time in such a pure panic as an accident like that would have caused, and then get so lucky that it looked quite well-done, if not professional, and strangled her in some swollen head effect from the head wound which the killer couldn't even have known was as bad as it was?

Dear god, deliver me from this case before it drives me insane. I have no idea what I just said and I don't care anymore. These rich killers who get away with murder make me sick. Their amoral support groups make me even sicker. Puke. Hock. Spit!

Camper, I know you hate these long posts, but if you're still reading...I think that Mountie's name was Knot, wasn't it? Or something impossibly coincidental like that.

 

MJenn

Its not that I hate the long posts, my eyes start hurting when reading on screen for too long, but yes I read the whole ding dang post.

My memory may kick in about tomorrow on what his name was, but seemed like he had a two section last name.

There would be a skillful trade huh, 'Forensic Knot Expert'. I am wondering how may people are murdered with a knotted rope.

Wonder how many trips he makes a year that last 10 days or so?
John Van Tassel (yep stringy sorta name alright) Now I am going to the link I just found and read it. Later

Found a link for him:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/1130knot1.html

Well here is his personal link as mentioned in the above link. Hmmm. You're welcome.

http://www.fingerprints.demon.nl/newpage1.htm

His website appears to be totally under construction, so keep an eye out for progress I guess, hmmmm.

 

Oh, yeah, that's so funny!

I knew it had some outrageous thing about it. Van Tassel, KNOT EXPERT. LOL Life is so absurd, isn't it? Can you tell I'm a Beckett fan?

Sorry about hurting your eyes. Maybe I should do "Posts on Tape"?

 

About the bed and fibers...

It was written in the PAPERBACK edition of Death of Truth...er I mean, Death of Innocence, written Mr. and Ms. Ramsey. It's in the chapter that was added only in the paperback edition. John says there was cord fibers found on her bed.

I think it's important to know if the hair found in the cord was still attached to JB's head. However, that STILL doesn't rule out that the garrotte was made Johnny on the spot. It could have been made at the time of the killing, but pulled the hair out. Perhaps the nodules (whatever they're called, that is) at the end of the hair shaft (that's provided the hair wasn't attached) could prove time of eradication from the head? Just some thoughts.

Also, John Andrew Ramsey AND Melinda were in Eagle Scouts. Not sure how much "scouting" experience either had. There is a photo of them, together, with other Eagle Scouts. Knot tying would be a piece of cake for JAR, I think. He sailed with John in races, per Patsy's Christmas letter. However, I think the best info I gleaned from the knowledge that the two of them were Eagle Scouts is that it gave them "police savvy", which I think was prevalent in the note. John and/or Patsy may have gotten the same "savvy" by osmosis...that is, being around and helping JAR and Melinda with their Eagle Scouting. This is just my opinion, of course.

 

actually,

Mels - Actually, my post was directed to you, not MJenn. Why? Because you were trying to convince us of something that most people already knew: the "garotte" isn't a prototypical garotte.

Sorry, but it is much simpler, even if less accurate, to use "garotte" than to use "cord with a stick tied to one end."

whomever - The hair length could be relevant if the hair still attached to her head was in the cord on the stick, not just the neck knot. If the hair was shorter than the cord, then we'd know it was unlikely that the stick was used to pull the cord tighter. That would not prove, but would support, the idea that the stick was added later. Won't identify the killer, of course, but adds a bit of detail.

Why would a blow to the head cause her neck to swell? Her face, perhaps, but we don't have any evidence that there was any swelling anywhere but in the brain itself. Sorry, but the idea that the cord wasn't really terribly tight and only became embedded because of swelling has never seemed sensible to me.

Even if one wants to believe the ligature wasn't the real strangulation device, the cord could still be extremely tight. Wouldn't that be the most sensible thing to do if trying to make the cord appear to be the killing device?

The knot on the stick might not be terribly complicated, but it is definitely more complicated than it probably needed to be. We don't absolutely know the purpose of the stick, but one obvious possibility is to provide a better grip while tightening the ligature. If that was the case, there wasn't really any need for anything beyond a simple square knot. One has to wonder why more than that was used. Staging? Possibly, but that would seem more likely if the stick was not actually used at the time she was strangled.

 

paint brush

It's possible Fly, the broken paint brush part was added, as part of the staging, to make it look more like something which would be used by a pedophile, for sexual gratification than just a simple piece of cord.

 

elle

Sure, that's possible, but I have to wonder whether a fairly complicated knot on a stick tied to the ligature would be something they'd associate with a pedophile. I'm not sure I'd think of that, but that's just me.

That also brings me back to something I've often wondered about, and have occasionally mentioned: could that knot be tied after the noose was around JBR's neck? I'm not so sure it could be, but then, I am not completely sure exactly how the knot is constructed.

 

swelling

I take it you haven't written to Delmar, MJenn. I think the swelling on the neck would also come from having the cord tightly round the neck too.

Like you, MJenn, I'm still trying to come to terms with all of this, and still have my own thoughts.

How could JAR be with his mother in Michigan and Boulder at the same time? Either Lucinda, his mother, is lying about that; also his friends. He went to see a movie, and still had the ticket stubs from that night.

All I can think of without going into all of the technicalities of the garrote; the head injury; the vaginal injuries is that this murder is like an old Agatha Christie play. Too many clues left around to make you think "someone else" other than the people who were in the same house that night killed this little girl.

1. The length of the ransom note.

A. Ridiculous!

2. Why was all this staging necessary?

To cover up previous sexual abuse.? This is believable! In the beginning, I never thought John Ramsey was this way inclined, but I am beginning to wonder about this part, MJenn. I think I'm changing my mind here, because the covering up of this horrible secret would warrant the drastic lengths they went to ... to cover this accident .. to make it look like a pedophile had killed JohnBenét.

 

Hmmm

I wonder what the movie was that 'they' saw? How long it had run, and IF IF IF they all had seen the movie previously.

Perhaps one of the fellows or 'someone' went again to purchase 3 more tickets, for their collective alibi, something is hinky, in my view at least.

What would be 'in it' for the friends to be a part of 'IT'?

I just wish and have said so many, many times before, that the police would have questioned all the people who 'attended the Christmas alibi dinner'. Just to see if they all saw the same decorations on the table, could have chosen the same things to eat, what was served, what color the tablecloth was, what kinds of desert were available, who ate which desert. etc.

There certainly was a lot of car shifting that night in GA, with the three boys.

I also wonder if JR's wife is a bible belt person. IF they would have all forgiven JAR for doing something while under the influence of the devil drink. He was not responsible for his actions ya da ya da.

Many scenarios work in this case, but nailing them down is like trying to capture a greased pig.

 

police checked plane flight plans

Camper,

On page 257 of Perfect Murder Perfect Town (paperback)
The police had interviewed the Ramseys' family; friends and business asssociates for seven weeks, without turning up real suspectsI'm thinking here ...who does this leave?

The police had finished their background checks on John Andrew and Melinda, and had verified commercial airline schedules and private plane flight plans and found no record that either of them had travelled the night of December 25. Their alibis were solid.