Evidence of....... Evidence suggestive of.....

Isn’t it interesting how many posters spend an enormous amount of
time trying to figure out the evidence involving the neck while
the “professionals†didn’t even take a few minutes to observe
that the knot cannot possibly slip to strangle. Doesn’t it make
you wonder about who is getting paid, and why?

 

Texan, I was just trying to show that the photo on Ruth's website was a bit misleading if used for a single strangulation, as this photo was that of a double strangulation with a scarf. However, if I remember it correctly Ruth already had thought of a double strangulation.

According to Spitz the first manual strangulation, with the shirt she was wearing wasn't deadly, it was to control her. Then the blow on the head followed, but it wouldn't have had to kill her instantly. It could have taken at least an hour before she would have died from that blow. Maybe it was hardly to be noticed she even was still alive. That would also explain the lack of scratches from fingernails, she was already severe wounded and not or almost not struggling when the garrote was applied.

There are many photo’s in the book of a single cord strangulation, non show the same markings as JonBenét had. The only photo that does resemble the abrasion is that of the double strangulation.

You are right, there was petechial hemorrhage in the neck and on the conjunctival surface of the eyes, it is in the autopsy report. That indeed indicates she was still alive when the garrote was used. I can hardly believe that the manual shirt strangulation was severe enough to have cause petechial hemorrhage.

I also noticed that the golden chain and cross she was wearing were intertwined with the cord around her neck, those may also have left some of the markings in her neck.

 

How lucky for you to have known Ruthee, Sylvia.

 

EasyWriter, I do think Spitz was extremely careful with his theory. He had been called in by the BPD as an expert. Only he relied on the autopsy report, the photos, tissue samples and other evidence. The body was long buried by that time, no one was willing to exhume the body.

I agree, Meyer made some critical mistakes in the first hours. But when the body was going to be held for further testing, Hoffstrom and Co., together with the Ramsey’s began screaming “ransoming the body.†That was on the 27th, the same day the initial autopsy had taken place.

As said by Vernon J. Geberth in his book “CTICAL HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, Tactics, Procedures and Forensic Techniques"

At that time Hoffstrom was already in connection with the Ramsey lawyers and he was the one who informed them the body wasn’t going to be released yet. Yet, knowing this J. Ramsey had already made all arrangements for the burial in Atlanta. So what did he have to hide? Getting rid of the evidence so soon, as at that moment the body was evidence.

 

Dr. Werner Spitz: "You know like the snaps they have on blue jeans for instance. If you look at this one below the ear, this thing here. If you look at it closely with a magnify glass you will see within this brownish mark is a boat shaped structure which is missing with any of the other injuries."

Dr. Spitz's no stun gun call is certainly on the money here. Where can I find his full report?

 

Take it from a man who owns such a weapon, folks: it was no stunner.

 

I had forgotten about that gold chain.
Actually, I have seen marks like that from a chain on my shoulder once when the chain ended up under the strap of my purse. The weight of the heavy purse caused a pattern of marks on the top of my shoulder.

 

Elle, I didn't know her that well, just mailed with her a few times over books and met her at JW once or twice. Although the JW period was short as I got banned there over my critiques on Mame and co, who were smearing Fleet White with the sex ring story of that lunatic.

 

Sue, I also had forgotten that part, but just was reading a part in Steve Thomas book, as am trying to rewrite my critique pages, which I lost years ago. Suddenly saw that reference to the golden chain...so thought it might be possible and it does look a little like the imprint of a chain. Of course, I could be wrong. Was just an idea.

 

I have never been able to find his full report just quotes, a picture in which he reenacts the head blow, an interview someone transcribed.

Some quotes on the stun gun are:

About the blow on the head:

From Lee's book

And with the picture:

 

Thanks for the information, Sylvia. I mostly agree with Dr.
Spitz, but do have some reservations and questions about a couple
of things.

“But the Boulder police are relying on another opinion, that of
Dr. Werner Spitz. He thinks that pebbles or rocks on the floor
caused the marks. Spitz has worked as a forensic pathologist in
Michigan for nearly 50 years.

“A stun gun. Stun gun injury is an electrical burn, and these do
not look like electrical burns,†he says. Spitz believes the
large, dark mark on JonBenet’s face was left by a snap on a piece
of clothing.â€

We may never know what made the marks, but for sure, we know what
didn’t: a stun gun. My guess is snaps on a shower curtain on
which she was laid and turned over during clean up the body they
thought was dead, but wasn’t.

“Thomas, citing Michigan pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz, say
pathologists told police that someone struck JonBenet in the head
with a bat or a metal object such as a flashlight (each was found
in the home, clean of fingerprints). Her skull was fractured.
Massive brain damage was instantaneous. She could never have
regained consciousness.â€

For sure, her head came in contact with a object to cause the
skull fracture, but I see no evidence that she was struck by a
wielded object. As for flashlight or ball bat, just because they
had no fingerprints, doesn’t mean a thing. Unless the photos are
very misleading and my layman’s practical physics way off,
neither a flashlight, nor ball bat can account for that much
force without lacerating the scalp. It had to be a larger object
of a flatish nature to do this.

This is supported in some measure by the evidence of a physical
encounter of some time duration as opposed to the skull fracture
happening immediately. Given these elements, I find it most
unlikely the perpetrator reached for an object during the
encounter. I find it much more believable that the skull fracture
was caused by JonBenet being flung against something and\or going
down hard with head whiplashing against a large fixed object such
as a wall, or something large and heavy such as a refrigerator.
The non lacerated scalp, the location of the skull fracture and
the energy radiation pattern tend to confirm this as well.

“"Dr. Spitz was joined (in Boulder for an investigation) by Tom
Faure, the coroner's chief investigator, and Weinheimer (Dr.
Carey Weinheimer).... They also found that JonBenet had sustained
a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause
external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would
quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow
preceded that garroting with scientifc certainty , though the
head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head
wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had
survived for a period of time."

Evidence supports their conclusion that she survived for a period
of time. As for the question of sequence, even though they may
not have been able to determine with certainty by the injuries
themselves, the evidence of staging leaves no logical doubt that
the skull fracture came first. Without this as primary, there is
no place any of the evidence fits. With it as primary, it ALL
fits.

 

I'm in complete agreement.

 

It may not be right, but's it's logical and fits the facts.

 

You’re welcome, I have a little bit more information, but I don’t think I can post it here. It is an interview with Werner Spitz, only I pulled it of a private website one which someone transcribed the interview, can’t remember which one it was. Of course I could email it. No I also do not agree with everything Dr. Spitz says, but he sure is thorough and extremely good. Likelihood he is more right then I am is enormous. And compared to Wecht, Dr. Spitz isn’t for sale.

Dr. Spitz says here he thinks, meaning he isn’t sure. In other words, he is just giving examples. He doesn’t pinpoint it to any thing. I can agree with his way of thinking. Doesn’t mean he is right, but then again he could be. He is only sure it wasn’t made by a stun gun.

Markings are often left on the inside of the skin, we do not have those photos, but Dr. Spitz might have seen them. The imprint could have given him an idea of the weapon used. In addition, ever heard if the first blow comes free? It means no lacerations if there was only on blow with a round weapon. Still on the inside of the skin there would be an abrasion or imprint indicating which weapon was used. Hitting a stable object can as well give lacerations. I found that out a couple of months ago, when I fell and hit my head against the bed. The whole mattress was soaked with blood, pools had formed. Laceration of the head skin, no skull fracture, yet a darn good brain contusion. Plus the fact that Dr. Spitz would have life sized images of the damaged skull for comparison, which would give quite a different picture and are useful in comparing of weapons used.

Actually Dr. Spitz is convinced the blow to the head, was administered, before the final garroting, There is also a brain damage called coup contrecoup contusions, which means shaking of the head thereby causing injuries on both side of the brain. It is in the autopsy report. Babies die often if shaken in such a way (shaken baby syndrome.) A Dr. Brisee had the theory that after the blow to the head, they tried to revive her by shaking her. This could be an explanation too. Of course can not be sure of this, but it sounds logic.

I guess in on some points we differ in opinion, oh well, should be normal, allowed and possible. I hope I written everything correctly, it is extreme late here so I am a bit tired. If there are some mistakes in my post, blame it on the time.

BTW I thought Dr. Brisee’s theory similar to Dr. Spitz theory is written down in Hodges book “A Mom Gone Bad.†Sorry can’t check it as at the moment I don’t have Hodges books any longer. Will try to obtain them again as soon as cash start flowing in again, they were extremely interesting too, although Hodges is really somewhat arrogant.

 

No idea, Sue, on this particular point just dumb guesswork.

 

Not enough force

Again, I'm not a Dr. but do work in an operating room and I can tell you it would take considerable force to cause a skull fracture like that - particularly in a child. She couldn't have just fallen against the tub and caused that. Maybe enough force would be generated if she were swung by the feet and connected with a surface. Either she had to be moving with a great deal of force or an object was swung at her with a great deal of force.

 

In other words, this could bring us back to the good sized flashlight on the kitchen counter, Texan (?). It could have all occurred when they returned home. Tucking into the pineapple with the whole family present (?).

 

Texan, that is where my thoughts go on this. I have wondered about the ifs and hows the red top that JonBenet had refused to wear earlier in the day might fit in...if it fits in. The taped interview of Patsy that used to be available on CTV had one segment about Patsy being asked about "a" red top, the one that was in the sink I think. It may or may not have been the one she and her mom disagreed over, but for some reason this brought Patsy to tears. Complete speculation and no facts or evidence to back my next comment up so I apologize ahead of time.

Cutting to the chase here, would it be possible to pull a child who only had a top pulled over their head, (the arms still not in it), back or to the side with enough momentum to cause them to strike their head against the side of a tub or sink and do that much damage to their skull? Just thinking if an adult grabbed the part of the shirt that was not on the child this would leave some space between the child and the adult - more room to build a bit more momentum between them. Or another thought, if a child was pulling one way and the adult another way - if the adult lost their grip on it, could a child fall with enough backward momentum to do this? ..also, possibly causing some brush marks on the neck.

Little

 

With Patsy in a rage, JonBenét could have been thrown around with great force, Little. Is it possible she could have been thrown against The iron bars of the Spiral Staircase?