Tying Up Loose Ends

Easywriter

"Truth and evidence are always consistent."

And imho, Easywriter, evidence is in the physical realm, truth the spiritual.

 

It appears you speak of a dual reality in self conflict. Granted,
it is a popular notion, but a dichotomy I do not accept. I will
go no further on the forum, but will be glad to discuss it in
private if you like.

 

Althusser

Thanks for looking into this, Texan. I brought up this case because many seem to think there'd be obvious signs of manual strangulation on the victim's neck. Yet the police initially didn't believe Althusser when he confessed to "accidently" strangling his wife -- because they saw no such signs. That led me to wonder whether JonBenet might have been strangled in a similar manner. As you say, there was a significant difference in that Althusser's wife had her windpipe crushed and JonBenet didn't. On the other hand, the coroner DID conclude that the cause of death was strangulation and NOT the head blow. And Dr. Wecht concurred. So there must have been SOME internal signs of that. And there was also the fact that the head wound produced so little blood. I dunno. As with so much else in this case it seems we have a bit of a dilemma here. The "evidence" for cause of death is either on the side of some form of strangulation -- OR -- our old friend "inconclusive."

P.S. I seem to have driven EasyWriter out of the forum. He's been unwilling to respond to my posts and has just now announced he's not going to be writing any more. Sorry about that. I've always found his ideas about this case interesting and his posts extremely intelligent, highly informed and perceptive. But at some point he will need to learn the difference between evidence and the interpretation of evidence. NO evidence speaks for itself.

 

My first impression of the case comes from a picture I saw in the National Enquirer; it was a picture of Burke. When I saw the picture, I said to myself, this child did this. I never had an impression of who didn't do it, like some others seem to have had, but of who did do it. I hardly thought anymore about it until the Butts case came up online and I began reading about it along with the JBR case at jamesons. For alongwhile, I thought I must be the only person in the world that considered a child may have and/or indeed did murder his sister.

 

That's sad!

For Heaven's sake! This is absolutely ridiculous JC. What's happening to "Justice for our Children today?" What is it with these Grand Juries? Why bother having them if they're not doing a 100% job. I think the U.S. should change it's court rulings.

 

Althusser

Texan, JonBenét must have been close to death, or already dead, from that massive head injury she suffered, and it wouldn't have taken much pressure on her little neck with an adult's hand's tightening around it, to purposely put bruises there. No need for me to go into all that Delmar England has already explained about JB's body swelling into the fake garrote, and fooling people into thinking this was what strangled her.

Hypothetically, if JonBenét had just died, and the perpetrator wanted to make it look like she was man handled, would her body still bruise from hands gripping her throat, although she was already dead?

 

Just read your above post DocG. You're talking about Delmar England "needing to learn the difference between evidence and interpretation" ... what the hell are you talking about? I'm quite positive you wouldn't be able to find a hat that would fit your head making statements like that. How dare you insult someone as intelligent as Delmar England with statements like that?
No one else that I know of, other than Jameson and Rainsong, have ever insulted Delmar England like you have. Most posters highly respect Delmar for his contributions to the JonBenét case.

One of the biggest handicaps is an argumentative personality. Often without realizing it. Some people look for ways to disagree. This habit sets them up for making foolish statements. That's because they often enter territory that already has been examined by people who are much more familiar with it. (Author unknown).

 

My my my, someone has a very overinflated opinion of their abilities, don't you think? When I read this statement:

my interpretation (yes, interpretation, which is not evidence per your statement) is that sometimes a person just feels they've said all they can on a particular subject. The offer, as I see it, is on the table for further serious discussion without distraction, with anyone who would care to do so. I have personally found that to be a very productive process more than once.

Little

 

I have never dismissed Delmar's ideas, as he has so often been so quick to dismiss the ideas of others. He's claimed the evidence speaks for itself, but in fact he is ALWAYS offering his own interpretation, based on his own theory of the case. And in some cases, I'm sorry to say, his interpretations have struck me as absurd. I've posted responses to his posts, responses which have never been simply dismissive but always carefully argued. He's chosen to ignore them. Which tells me either that he has an Ego problem or he has no answer to my objections or possibly both.

He's made some very serious charges, directed at a person I regard as essentially innocent. I have a right to defend that person -- as well as my own interpretation of the evidence. If Delmar has a problem with that I suggest he find the words to counter my arguments.

I've had similar problems arise when posting at Jameson's forum. And for the same reasons. People on both sides find it very hard to tolerate anyone who sees things differently from the way they do. Meanwhile a killer goes free. What a shame!