Where's The Mystery?

Ninja:

“I. Ligature strangulation

A. Circumferential ligature with associated ligature furrow of
neckâ€

I've been searching for the term "circumferential strangulation,"
Delmar, and can't find it. I believe what Meyer was describing
here is that yes, the victim was strangled by ligature. But a
subnote to that is that the ligature was circumferential; not
that strangulation was circumferential.â€

Even if we go with this, it doesn’t disturb the core facts. Even
in cross pulling with much force, if there is any embedding at
all, the least embedding will be where the cord crosses and
creates double cord to embed. If strangulation were done in this
way, upon release, at least part of the cord is going to fall
away.

The scene was cord tied around the neck. The handle was pointless
as part of the strangling unless some strangling would take place
dragging the body with the silly construction. The
circumferential embedding coincides with locked loop as the neck
swells post mortem.

“With that said, I have believed all along that JonBenet was not
strangled at all, but as you say, she died as a result of
swelling that occurred as a result of the headblow.â€

Are you talking about brain swelling? My position is that the
skull fracture was fatal, but not necessarily immediately,
leaving room for some strangling and\or other air cut off to
possibly happen. Definitely strangulation was not the primary.
In fact, I see no intent to strangle; only to make it look like
strangling. Having said that, I concede the possibility that some
strangling could have taken place during the tying. If so, it was
incidental. I don’t think there is any doubt that the head trauma
was fatal even if not fully manifest at the time the cord was
tied.

“I believe she was alive, but barely...perhaps the parents
couldn't get her to respond in any manner and figured she was
dead (or as good as dead).â€

That they believed she were dead is my read. Everything followed
this conclusion.

“But early on, I believed the parents, especially John, were
shocked to learn she'd died (according to Meyer) from
strangulation.â€

Indeed, shocked he was. In fact, he was shocked into reversing
his story. (More on this another time and place.)

“I think they thought she was already dead and the strangulation,
as you noted, was simply staging to divert attention away from
them.â€

I have no doubt of this at all. Literally, every aspect of the
crime scene converges upon this conclusion.

“I believe this mucous run occurred after she was placed in her
tomb for the night, evidencing the fact that she was still alive.
(Also indicating her entomber didn't realize she was still
alive).â€

On this particular point, I don’t think I know enough to agree or
disagree.

“The autopsy report also notes certain weights and measurements,
indicating there was some brain swelling. The force of the blow
was horrific, knocking her unconcious, and eventually would have
proved fatal on its own. But I think the cord cut off her
breathing (as shallow as it was) because of the swelling, which
is why there's minimal petechial hemorahging.â€

Possible, but air cut off could have happened by other means
prior to the cord around the neck. There are certain things we
may never know for sure, but there is no evidentiary doubt it was
a staged crime scene, a very poorly staged crime scene, with the
singular purpose of pretending death by strangulation to hide the
truth about the skull fracture.

“I agree with Texan that the body was handled quite a bit that
night and probably in various positions as she was cleaned up and
redressed and then brought to the basement.â€

This is my read as well.

“There's also evidence that she was placed on the floor outside
the wine cellar door while materials were gathered to fabricate
the so-called garotte. The evidence also shows that this is where
the body lay as the paintstick and cord were fabricated into the
garotte and tied around her throat.â€

Again, this pretty much goes along with my thinking as well. I
think the “garrote thing†was the last act before laying her
where she was found.

“In this respect, I think many of the abrasions and so-called
stun gun marks are exactly what Wecht described...punctate
wounds.’

Could be.

“The surface of the basement floor was crumbling and moldy...not
smooth. Her body could have pressed against many a cement bit of
debris as she was handled, leaving the "mysterious" abrasions. As
noted, I believe she was very much still alive (although dying)
during this period, which is why she could easily have bruised or
incurred punctate wounds.â€

It hard to say just how long she lived after the skull fracture,
but apparently sufficient time to pick up some abrasions before
death. On the other hand, maybe some of those abrasions happened
during a sustained attack before the skull fracture.

The “stun gun†marks are equal, but on both back and face. To me
this implies happened when the body was in a horizontal position
and moved around as would be in cleaning and dressing. I think
she was laid on something with snaps or equivalent creating those
marks. What, where, or exactly when, I can’t say, but
unconscious, thought dead, and being prepared is my call.

“Wecht noted right away that there had been no internal injury in
the throat,....â€

Covered in earlier post.

“... which is how he came to his sex gone awry theory that many
posters believe (the erotic asphyxiation theory).â€

This is total nonsense as I and Hobey 86 both explained a long
time ago. ALL the material evidence is a direct contradiction of
the erotic asphyxiation idea.â€

“I prefer the theory that the parents unwittingly sealed her
death with the ligature coverup and that swelling from the severe
headblow caused the ligature to constrict and block the air flow.
I think that's why, somwhere in the AR, Meyer refers to the
association of the cranial injuries to the "strangulation".

I think he meant he couldn’t isolate a singular cause of death.
However, you have brought up something that has crossed my mind,
but I said nothing because I can’t prove either way and it’s not
critical to the case. I wondered if the head trauma contributed
to the neck swelling prior to and\or during the post mortem
expansion.

In any scene, crime scene or otherwise, every detail is not
likely to be known, not even by those present at the happening;
nor is it necessary to know every detail to know the basic
truths. In the Ramsey case the material evidence is way over
adequate to know there was no intruder involved. As a slam dunk
add on, the ever-changing stories and contradictions uttered by
John and Patsy constitute numerous de facto confessions. This one
is my favorite:

CNN INTERVIEW SIX DAYS AFTER THE DEATH OF JONBENET
THE “RANSOM NOTE†AND 911 CALL

CABELL: Mrs. Ramsey -- you found the note. Was it a handwritten
note, three pages?

RAMSEY, P: I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing And I --
you know, it just was -- it just wasn't registering, and I -- I
may have gotten through another sentence. (CNN - An interview
with John and Patricia Ramsey January 1, 1997}

Keep in mind, this was only six days after JonBenet’s death and
apparently Patsy forgot what she had said during the 911 call:

Boulder Police Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

Patsy Ramsey: What?

Boulder Police Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?

Patsy Ramsey: No. I don't know... it's there... there's a ransom
note here.

Boulder Police Dispatcher: It's a ransom note.

Patsy Ramsey: It says SBTC... Victory... please.

That’s a very large oops!

One does not know the ending of a note by looking at only the
first few sentences. Patsy literally, if not intentionally,
confessed to knowledge of the note prior to the morning of Dec.
26, 1996.

Later when she discovered the blunder, she tried to cover her
tracks. She did not do well at all.

PR: “Well, I read - I came back down and John had it, you know,
on
the floor, and what not, and I was glancing at it, and somewhere
I thought in there, because I didn’t read it line by line, I
looked over to see who it was from, and I didn’t know who that
was. And somewhere I caught in there where it said, ‘If you call
some’ - ‘Don’t call the police,’ of - wherever it said that. Oh,
here, ‘police, FBI, et cetera, ‘your daughter being held.’ And I
read that and I mean, my blood just went cold. You know, I
couldn’t-“

Entangled in all this stuttering and stumbling, Patsy is claiming
she knew the ending of the note by reading parts of it while
making the 911 call. What makes this even more miraculous, she
claims to have read it from a standing position with John hunched
over it in a dimly lit hallway.

PR: He was just in his underwear and he, uh, took the note and I
remember him being down hunched on the floor...with all three
pages out like that reading it and uh, and he said, “Call 911.â€
(Police Files, pg. 63)

PR. He, I remember him, while I was calling 911, he was hunched
over the note and had it laid out there on the floor ‘cause there
was a light. It was kind of darkish and there was a light,
hallway light on...he was, you know, reading it there. (Ibid, pg
69)

Do you suppose we could entice Ms. Patsy to give us a
demonstration of exactly how she pulled of the miraculous optical
feat? There are prisoners on death row because of a lesser
blunders, and LE AND the media let theRamseys get away this kind
of stuff as a matter of course.

Anyway, there are some of us “Borg wackos†still around to keep
reminding the Ramseys that not everyone is that stupid.

 

Dr. Ronald wright

Thank you for this information Little. I have never read anything about Dr. Ronald Wright before.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.

Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.

''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.
Source: http://denver.rockymountainnews.com...sey/0716jon.htm </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

good discussion

Some good theories and discussion is happening here.
EW - if you want to see why I think that triangular abrasion equals some type of strangulation to me, go to the following web page and somewhat past mid-page you will see an autopsy photo from a book of forensic science that shows something similar, although in all fairness appears to be more like a bruise rather than an abrasion. This picture is on Ruthee's website and while I don't agree with all her theories, I think she did so much work and did the best she could with the limited information that was available back then.
I miss her!
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/9337/cord.html

 

I miss Ruthee as well. The very first email I received after
getting into the case was from Ruthee.

Let me pick it up briefly from the beginning so that you can see
not only what I think, but why I think it. The autopsy report of
the “garrote scene†reveals totally flawed. A parallel is some
keys missing from your keyboard and others rearranged. Instantly,
you know things are not right and know what is not right.

My base premise is flawed strangulation scene; meaning it’s all
wrong for strangulation. This is something I can visualize,
describe and demonstrate. This pretense is the base fact evidence
of all my thinking that follows. Knowing that all actual
evidence and all valid theories must incorporate this premise, I
know that all theories opposing are incorrect.

What I have seen from the beginning is lack of understanding of
this scene. The usual has been and is to accept the “garrote
scene†as authentic. This fallacy is then woven into all sorts of
theories involving strangulation including sexual games and erotic asphyxiation. That’s why all such theories are saturated with contradictions.

The amateurish “garrote scene†reveals ignorance of proper
material, proper construction and proper application for
strangulation. There was no intent to strangle although a bit
might have taken place during the tying of the cord around the
neck. Not only does the absence of internal throat damage tend to
confirm this, keep in mind that when the cord was tied around the
neck, the perpetrator thought JonBenet was dead; hence, no
thought to strangle to death. The tied cord and whole apparatus
shows that the creator of this scene didn’t even know how to make
a strangulation look authentic. This is revealed by the many
flaws in the whole set up.

There are items about which I can say, “Yes, this is fact. I am
certain of it.†Others come under the concept, probability, in
different degrees with some simply open to speculation, which I
will not say are in error unless it contradicts the facts named
and alluded to above.

I can speculate that some of the abrasions came about while
JonBenet was under a sustained attack. Perhaps, the throat
abrasions came about by rough washing, or clothes briefly
entangled while undressing and dressing. Perhaps, some by
fumbling while tying the core around her neck. I really don’t
know. What I do know is that if cause is ever known for sure,
said cause will not contradict the conclusion directed by the
evidence: A staged crime scene with a face vale of death by
strangulation; an attempt to try to make it look like death by
strangulation to divert attention from the primary, i.e., the
skull fracture as fatal cause. The rest logically follows from
this.

 

certainly

and it makes sense if, in fact, they did think she was dead. What if she had seizures? There is a possibility of this and possible evidence with the great amount of mucous that had come from her nose. So much that it ran onto her white top. And it wasn't just saliva - the autopsy report said it was tan colored and it also mentions some in her nostrils. This could also be consistent with some strangling.

If she had some seizure activity it would throw the perp into panic. What to do now? So I know that the garotte couldn't and didn't do the job. It is amateurish. Why put it on anyway if she was already dead? If there was strangulation of a crossover variety why not leave it at that?

Because the perp thought they needed to stage the scene. There is no question the scene was staged. The garotte was constructed because the perp was doing what anyone staging a crime scene would do - point in the opposite direction from themselves. We have seen the results - no parent would use a garotte according to RST(whether the garotte would work or not doesn't matter because it has managed to accomplish what the stager wanted so far)

Did you look at the picture? One thing I also noted - these pictures were of people that died of stragulation and the furrows were not really very deep. Leading me to believe that the ligature must have been enough pressure to constrict the jugular veins which would cause a disruption in the blood flow back out of her head which, in turn, could cause swelling.

 

"Why put it on anyway if she was already dead?" Excellent question! A family member is responsible for accidently bludgeoning JonBenet, the girl dies or is at the verge of death. Why then concoct an elaborate coverup? Your beloved daughter is dead as the result of an accident, and your next move is to attack her dead body with a "garotte"? And then penetrate her vagina? So it will look like some monster intruder attacked her? This is how two loving parents would react to the accidental death of their child? And for what purpose? The patently phoney "garotte" and the patently phoney note are going to be a LOT more suspicious than the head blow.

I agree the "garotte" is phoney, it's got to be some sort of staging. But WHY? Clearly not to cover up a head blow. That could easily have been explained away as an accident. "She fell in the tub and hit her head on the spigot, officer."

No, that's not the way it happened. If the "garotte" is staging then it's there to cover up something else, something we're not yet aware of. My best guess is that her death was caused by manual strangulation. Which might have left prints. The purpose of the "garotte" could have been to cover up the prints. But the fact is we just don't know WHAT happened, how she was killed. Or why there was a head blow at all.