Time span between head blow and strangulation

I too think the flashlight was used to move around.
In her 1997 interview, Patsy stated that the flashlight was kept in a drawer in the wet bar sink-cabinet combination on the first floor near the bottom of the spiral staircase (source: NE book, p. 243 pb).
In the 1998 interview, Haney showed her a crime scene picture of this drawer. It was open, the flashlight had obviously been taken out.
It looks like the flashlight was used to illuminate the area where Patsy wrote the ransom note.
Does anyone remember in which area of the Ramsey home the neighbor saw the strange moving light?

Does there exist a picture of the baseball bat found outside the butler kitchen door - the one which had a fiber from the basement carpet on it?

 

I found this one at the Rocky Mountain News archives. It's tiny and you can't click on it anymore to enlarge it. But you can enlarge it on your computer.



http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_408302,00.html

Gosh, that intruder must have LOOKED like Santa, with all the stuff he brought: a baseball bat, Maglite, pineapple in tupperware, a Santa bear, rope in a paper bag, duct tape, cord, a dark cloth, Patsy's stolen writing pad with the ransom note perfectly preserved, stun gun...what am I leaving out? A partridge in a pear tree?

All that, and he forgot to figure out how to get her out one of the many doors around the house.

 

The Ramsey neighbor saw what they described as "strange moving lights" in the kitchen area of the Ramsey house. This doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been seen in other areas. We don't know how long that neighbor stood there watching. If the note was written there, then the pad and pen were replaced in the little alcove desk area off the kitchen where the phone was. I think it was probably more likely that the flashlight was removed from the drawer where it was kept, used because from the photos I have seen, there were no shades or blinds on the kitchen windows, only short valences. People moving about the kitchen with the lights on would have been seen by anyone looking in the window. So that's why the flashlight was used, and I think they probably brought the flashlight to the desk alcove and wrote the note right there where the pad and pen were handy.
I have only seen one photo of a bat- on acandyrose. It is the bat under the basement window. I don't know if this is the bat with the fibers.

 

Going over those old posts of two years ago, I came across one of my own posts #466 where I asked why would anyone need to hit a little six year old girl over the head with a heavy object? It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Any adult could be in full control of a little six year old without the drastic measures of using a heavy object to hit them over the head with. Why stop at just hitting her over the head if in a rage?

To me this had to be an accident with the child being thrown against a fixed solid object. A six year old can be thrown around much easier than an adult, and an adult in a rage could achieve this very easily, throwing the child around with force.

Then for the sake of arguement, the killer decides to have some more sick fun and concocts a garrote. No way can I see this crime happening like this at all. I very easily see Patsy Ramsey in a rage throwing JonBenét around.
<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=tcat width="100%"></TD><TD class=vbmenu_control id=threadtools style="CURSOR: pointer" noWrap state="false" unselectable="true"></TD><TD class=vbmenu_control id=threadsearch style="CURSOR: pointer" noWrap state="false" unselectable="true"></TD><TD class=vbmenu_control id=threadrating style="CURSOR: pointer" noWrap state="false" unselectable="true"></TD><TD class=vbmenu_control id=displaymodes style="CURSOR: pointer" noWrap state="false" unselectable="true"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- / toolbar --><!-- end content table --><!-- / close content container --><!-- / end content table -->
<!-- post #134380 --><!-- open content container -->

 

The problem there is that kind of a depressed fracture would not happen from being thrown against a wall (or slammed on the floor). The coroner determined it was blunt force trauma, and that means being bashed with something.
Slamming could cause a fracture, yes, but not that kind, with a hole punched out of her skull.
Why would anyone need to do it? Well, they wouldn't NEED to. But they did. It just happened, a kind of knee-jerk reaction to something she did (like scream) and it was over in a second. An irreversible consequence of rage. No one bashes anyone over the head to control them. There are many other ways to control a child, you are right. But this wasn't about controlling her. This was a split-second reaction.

 

Could being thrown down and towards a bathtub faucet by a person in a rage cause that kind of a depressed fracture, especially if JonBenet was resisting so the person used extra force? What if during the struggle, the other person had hold of JonBenet's shirt collar and JonBenet's head was being whipped about from opposite force as the person tried to force JonBenet into the bathtub, or even on to the toilet?

The placement of the fracture on JonBenet's skull (toward the back and side) is consistent with being higher than a bathtub faucet and having her head whipped back into it during a fight, if she was facing her assailant. Just a thought.

 

Another example. http://crimeshots.com/JBMorning.html

by J. J. Maloney & J. Patrick O'Connor
Related Story: Solving the JonBenet Case by Ryan Ross. (04/14/03) ​

 

Interesting that the coroner did not call it a depressed fracture but a linear fracture. So maybe the piece of bone was not pushed into the brain at all, but merely 'dislodged`', and this can also happen when the brain hits a flat and hard even surface. A poster on another forum mentioned a case where a six-year-old was slammed against the wall by her enraged stepfather and a piece of skull bone was punched out through the impact.

 

But there was the evidence of prior sexual trauma to cover up, as well. If Patsy didn't know about the sexual abuse before JonBenet was dead, she probably knew about it after the cover-up. I think she DID know about it, because when the detectives tell her, she is not shocked the way you or I would be, it is a fake. She knew what had been done to JonBenet, and was trying to deny it.

Patsy could never have called the police, it was never an option that December morning...

 

I think she had to know about the sexual abuse heymom if bathing JonBenét on a regular basis. I agree about the 911 call not being an option, but it was an overkill with the staging including the broken paintbrush shaft.

If there hadn't been a head injury there would have been no garrote.

I think the Ramseys must have been more than stunned at getting away with their staging. Patsy Ramsey had ten free years which JonBenét never had.

 

Not only that, she got extremely defensive when asked about it. She was blase, then defensive. Her comment "Show me where it says that". Why would a coroner LIE about that? That says it all to me. She knew.
Nedra's comment "she was only a little bit molested" to DETECTIVES is astounding. There was a dirty little secret in that family. PR never thought she was wrong in tarting up her little girl. Probably in her experience, sexual innuendo in a toddler is not only acceptable, but considered precocious and "cute". Worthy of a tiara and a trophy.

 

Doesn't this make you ill just reading Nedra's comment, DeeDee, "she was only a little bit molested?" As if to ask "What's all the fuss about?"

 

This is why it has always been very clear to me that the prior molestation was a big factor in the decisions made that fatal night. If LE told an innocent parent her murdered child had been molested prior to the night of the murder, not only would she be devastated, but she'd be all OVER finding out WHO that molester was...PRONTO!

Not Patsy. Not the Ramseys. Not TEAM RAMSEY. NOT THE RST.

Their response, without FAIL, is NO, NEVER HAPPENED!

They CLAIM they want to know who the killer is, but they completely DISMISS OUT OF HAND, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, that the molester who had access to JonBenet and molested her before the night of the murder is on a SHORT LIST. Instead of jumping on that list and going for the killer's jugular, Team Ramsey simply DENIES, DENIES, DENIES the FACTS of the autopsy. La di da. The killer got INTO THE HOME, spent HOURS committing this murder right under the Ramseys' sleeping noses...but this master criminal COULD NOT have found an opportunity to molest her BEFORE that night, THEY REASON. Because...because...because...he just couldn't have! So they keep chasing the false confessors, the innocent bus victims, the RED HERRINGS. All led by their WORLD-CLASS DETECTIVES, Smit, Tracey, and Ollie. Talk about the three stooges! :monkey:

In their obtuse and irrational denials of the FACTS of the autopsy, what the RST completely miss is that they PROVE they KNOW where that evidence leads, and they will NOT go there, no matter what: THE RAMSEYS THEMSELVES ARE ON THAT SHORT LIST. That's why the RST pretend the evidence does not even exist. They've spent 12 years denying the evidence that clearly leads to the Ramseys, and they ever will.

Another example of that DENIAL: the RST won't even CONSIDER that LE combing the Ramsey phone records that first MONTH might have turned up an "intruder" connection--if there WERE an intruder. They make EXCUSES for the blank phone record, saying it was a lost cell phone, and no biggie. The FACT is IF Hunter had gotten a subpoena for the Ramseys' phone records, for a few months before and AFTER the murder, that question WOULD BE ANSWERED, wouldn't it? If the CELL PHONE WAS LOST, then how do they KNOW the INTRUDER wasn't the one who found it? WHAT INVESTIGATOR who REALLY wanted to find this killer WOULDN'T KNOW THAT?! But Team Ramsey think the Ramseys handing over selected phone records FOR THAT ONE MONTH of DEC, '96, giving LE LIMITED access to YEAR OLD PHONE RECORDS when they finally DID see what the Ramseys WANTED them to see, should have been just FINE in the LE investigation of JonBenet's murder. And remember that TEAM RAMSEYS' job was to ESTABLISH A DEFENSE FOR THE RAMSEYS. They did that very well, as Lin Wood said. The "intruder" also benefited very well, with all this stalling and obstruction, didn't "he"? No prob. The Ramsey's PRIORITY was their DEFENSE, after all, even thought they LIED to the public about that for years, until John admitted under oath their investigators were only working on their DEFENSE. (We knew that!)

I want to know this: WHAT DA IN THIS COUNTRY DOESN'T IMMEDIATELY SUBPOENA PHONE RECORDS OF ANY FAMILY AND HOME WHEN A BODY IF FOUND THERE, MURDERED, MUCH LESS A CHILD?!

The Ramseys are good for it! And DA HUNTER AND LACY ARE ACCOMPLICES AFTER THE FACT, AS WELL, IMO!

 

What the world should be asking is WHY in this case did the DA simply not seem to be interested in doing this? Not only a dead body in a home, but a CHILD's dead body in HER OWN home. Sure, blame in on an "intruder", SFF, whatever, but make sure LE NEVER has a chance to find out who they are. Real kidnappings for ransom are planned and thought out. That kind of kidnapping is never spontaneous. Yet the DA (and the RST) never wanted to see if anyone had been calling the home (to see when they were home, maybe looking for a babysitter to be in charge instead of the parents, etc.)

 

I am sorry to have to say this, but...the world no longer cares.

 

Sad, but probably true. All except for a very small part of the world...right here.

 

Petechiae form from lack of oxygen. Oxygen is cut off and the small capillaries burst, creating the petchiae.

Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that the person has to be alive (and probably kicking if they're being strangled) in order for the petechiae to occur, which is true, but it doesn't cause them appear...the forced lack of oxygen causes them to appear. Otherwise, people who hyperventilate would be covered in tiny little red spots!

I think that when the body reaches the premortem stage, many of the body's normal functions close down while many peri/postmortem functions begin to appear, definitely effecting evidence.

 

If I have understood your post correctly, petechiaie can also occur in an inert body already in a coma.

 

I think that's true. You just have to be alive. In a coma, you're still alive.

 

I found this while searching for something on jason Midyette..

http://www.gillettechildrens.org/default.cfm?PID=1.7.19.6.3

Read the whole article, it's very informative about head trauma in infants and young children.