Autopsy questions

Now that's interesting, Texan, what you said about the difference in blood flow vs air flow. I haven't really broken it down before, strangulation-wise. I have vaguely wondered though, about how the process works of cutting off air vs cutting off the blood supply.

I do remember that petchiae are caused by the delicate blood vessels filling up with blood and bursting because of the pressure of the blood in the head being cut off from artery blood flow away from the head through the neck...or something like that. Okay, that's badly done, I know. I'll have to look it up, unless you want to explain, Texan. ray:

Elle, I remember the discussions about Patsy having done macrame. It was a craft fad back in the 70's that got me interested. I enjoyed making macrame for a while, but like you, I eventually threw out most things I'd made because they get shabby looking and were certainly not works of art, though I have seen some beautiful macrame work that is art.

I'm sorry to hear Delmar is ill. Give him our best wishes for good health.

 

The thing is, DeeDee, that the whole family sailed on John's sailboats. He had two, one which he designed and either "built" or "had built". I can't imagine that John wouldn't have instructed his family in use of ropes and knots in sailing with him. It's LIFE AND DEATH, as a matter of FACT, after all, when you're at the mercy of the sea, that you are able to handle the boat.

Of course, John told LE he knows NOTHING of knots, but maybe Fleet did, because Fleet was into sailing.

It is comments like these that have convinced me that John Ramsey was involved in the murder and/or cover-up: he must really think LE are stupid beer can collectors if he thinks they believe he owned, designed, and sailed boats--even competed--but didn't know basic knots used in sailing. The man was in the NAVY in his younger years, as well.

So John, Patsy, Burke, JAR, Melissa...all must have been sailing with John in Michigan. That is why they had a lakehouse where they spent several months out of the year enjoying a prime location for sailing, it appears to me. Did they just sit and let John do all the work on the sailboat? I would wager that at least the males were called to duty: that's a GUY thing. Did Patsy help? I don't know, but she would have seen them making knots used to keep the sails up, to dock the boat, etc.

 

How fast would the swelling advance?

 

:stupid1:

That would be very variable, depending on age, and cause of death. But in this case, it is a moot point because they autopsy proved she died before it could advance. What the coroner failed to do was give a time of death. IMHO because he failed to do two very important and standard procedures when he first examined the body in the living room that night. He failed to take a sample of the vitreous fluid of the eye to measure potassium levels and he failed to take a core body temperature with a liver stab.

 

Typing error on my part- I meant to say EVER, not never. So we are in agreement.

 

Which means that this was no adjustable noose which was pulled tight, but that knots were tied. And this is what what raises the red flag: a knot does not require the pulling of a handle to get it tight.

Interesting thought about the paintbrush tip, KK. Both motives could have played a role imo.

 

I wondered about that when I read it.

Hey, for anyone in on this discussion who doesn't know, there is a new and really brilliant poster who has joined the topix discussion who is a medical person working on her doctorate--"Angie". Angie has some mentors at her school who will discuss the autopsy issues with her from time to time, and she has some interesting ideas and info she is sharing.

Here is a url to the last page we're on now, but you can go back to earlier in the thread if you want to see it all (ignore the nasties, just keep moving and the discussion is a good one): http://www.topix.net/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T7CDS3JQRQ18UC097/p10#lastPost

 

Yeah, and he failed to SHOW UP in time for any of that to be very accurate any way.

Odd, isn't it, in the murder of a child in the home of a prominent family?

 

I follow you, but I don't see how you reach your conclusion: the hair was caught in the tying of the knot on the neck, therefore the knot couldn't be a slip knot? Maybe I just don't understand what you're saying.

As I see it, the hair could have been caught in any knot tied on the neck. What does that have to do with it being capable of slipping up the cord, like a noose?

I'm sure you have noticed the hair entangled around the cord at the front of the neck, as well? There isn't even a knot there, just where the long hair was caught under the cord and then the cord rolled up the neck.

So I'm not sure of your thinking here.

 

Thank you for the link KK!

 

Glad you remember this session about the macramé KK. I have seen some nice art too, but the plant hangers can hang anywhere they like as long as it's not in my house. I'm enjoying the posts here with different opinions.

Will pass on your best wishes to Delmar.

 

The problem with the word "garrote" is that the word "garroted" is often used as a synonym for "strangled with a ligature", no matter what the technical construction or the material is. I have read articles where it said the vicim had been "garotted" with a nylon stocking.

On the other hand, in the JBR case discussion, it is often by pointed out by IDIs what a "sophisticated" tool the garrote was, how "complicated" (Lou Smit), and that no way could Patsy have had the knowledge to construct it.
But any kindergartner able to tie a shoelace could tie that neck knot. A kindergartner can loop some cord around a stick too.
Michael Kane emphasized how very simple the crime scene knots were.

Delmar said it was a double loop slip knot which locked to the point of preventing further slipping as the small loop tightened around the main cord.

The evidence contradicts a pulling from behind. For when you look at the crime scene picture, you can see that the knot was tied on the side of the neck. Imo this is another indicator that the "handle" was a stage prop and never pulled.

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceright.jpg

 

It was a slip knot, but like all knots, it had to be tied using both hands. Which makes the use of the handle superfluous. For once the knot has been tied, why pull at the handle afterwards?

Imo JonBenet was lying face-down on the floor when the cord was put around her neck and thus her hair got caught under the cord.

The hair entangled inside the neck knot indicates the knot was tied on the neck. It doesn't mattter which kind of knot it was - the stager could as well have used a double overhand knot and the result would have been the same.
It is the tied knot in combination with the handle which doesn't fit together.
The far too long distance (17 inches!) between the knot and the handle is another red flag.

 

In his analysis of the "garrote", D. England pointed out how ineffective those multiple wrappings around the stick were. Also, straight pull can't produce a circumferential furrow.

 

De

Referring to delmars' theories only help if you believe him. I think he could be right on some things but wrong on others. I am willing to look at them individually though but I don't believe them all without question.
I know what he told me regarding strangulation and he only slightly backed down when we discussed it more thoroughly to allow there may have been a small amount of strangulation but only as the rope was applied and it sounded as though he felt that it wasn't intentional. That is why I don't buy the whole cloth - he was never really open minded and when I pointed out why I didn't believe him on the strangulation issue he just posted full page replies that only repeated what he already said.

 

We can post until the cows come home about this case, Texan, but when all is said and done, it still boils down to Patsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note, and if I believe that then I believe anything else which followed was nothing but staging, and shouldn't be believed.

I also believe Patsy Ramsey will be remembered in "criminal history" for having pulled off the craftiest staging in a crime.

 

I don't believe anything without questioning either. What convinced me was the crime scene pictures with the hair entangled in the knot and in the cord wrappings. I have also tried done quite a few experiments, for example, I tied a knot and then pulled at a "handle" (I wrapped the remaining cord around a pencil), and saw the counterproductive effect for myself.
Also, the stager tied the knot on the side of the neck. Which makes the use of handle absurd anyway. It could not have been pulled from behind with the knot being on the side of the neck.
The FBI CASKU top experts came to the same conclusion as Delmar England: the ligatures indicated staging, so he is in good company.
But without DE's detailed study of the 'garrote', we possibly would not have taken a closer look at the knots and handle wrappings at all, and Lou Smit's myth of this allegedly being a "complicated, sophisticated sexual device" would not have been debunked so easily.

That thing was a stage prop. ITA.
The stager wanted LE to believe JonBenet had been the victim of a deliberate "tortured and strangled" murder by an intruder, which is why she and fashioned the handle to make a bizarre-looking killing tool.

Imo this is a far more intricate discussion point than the handle which can be so easily identified as a stage prop.
I believe that the stager did try to tie the knot as tight as she could, to make it look convincing, but why were there no inner neck wounds? No bruising, no bleeding, nothing?
JonBenet was not yet dead when the cord was put around her neck, but was the stager aware of that?

 

I really think the stager thought she was already dead. I doubt they knew anything about the significance of the petechiae. They pulled it tight enough to look convincing. Anyone who has never strangled someone before would not know how much pressure was needed to kill the person if that person appeared already dead. If you were strangling someone alive and struggling, you'd know how tight to pull it- till they stop struggling. The stagers (or a killer, for that matter) would have no knowledge of whether the hyoid bone was broken or not- that is something discovered at autopsy.

 

I totally agree.

 

Well, we have a bit of explanation about head/brain injuries in children given by an expert on the witness stand in the Alex Midyetter trial in Denver, prosecuted by a Boulder prosecutor. I just wish we had the transcript so we could get the full testimony. If Alex is convicted, we could purchase the section of this testimony cheap, once it's transcribed. The whole transcript will be very expensive, but IF Midyette is convicted, by law it has to be transcribed for appeal, so pages can be bought individually. (I did this with another trial long ago--I think it was Doc Miller's trial, and Mr. Fernie, the Ramsey friend, testified in it he was second to get to the home, so I bought those pages for the record, since we'd been told for years he was first.)

Anyhow, until then, we have what the bloggers report:

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/jan/20/alex-midyette-trial-blog/

Oh, click on the photos, too. There is a good model of Dr. Meyer, who conducted baby Jason's autopsy, with a model of the brain in front of him. Also, check out the photo of Midyette's lawyer standing on a chair holding a babydoll overhead. That's how far he says Jason would have to drop to sustain the level of brain injury he had.