Lassoing The Truth

The intent of this post is to prove a point: Literally every
person reading this has the experience and knowledge to extract
the fundamental truths of the case without any “expert help.â€
Whether they want to and do so or not is another matter.

Various backgrounds and various experiences translates to various
areas of knowledge. Due to my background, I happen to know a
great deal about ropes, cords, knots, handles and that sort of
thing. By some, I have been called an “expert†in the field. So
has Van Tassel who probably has difficulty tying his own
shoelaces. Forget the “expert†BS. This is a layman’s case. No
“experts†required.

Envision a five year old child getting into the cookie jar after
being told not to. He accidentally drops the lid and it breaks
into two pieces. He takes some bubble gum and sticks the two
pieces back together as best he can. The bubble gum oozes out
each side and you can see the cookies through the crack in the
lid. He hopes and expects this to hide the truth.

This is the mental level indicated by the staging in the Ramsey
case. This person did not know any more about the materials and
construction than the five year old did about “staging†a cookie
jar. This person may know a lot about a lot of things, but cords
and knots are not two of them. That this child-like staging has
for over nine years fooled a long list of “experts†in and out of
LE leaves me shuddering. The theories propagated and promoted in
order to deny simple facts of physics are of such outlandish
nature as to put The Brothers Grimm to shame.

http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote5.jpg

Without considerable experience, a written description is not all
that easy to grasp. Fortunately, we have photos. These, combined
with your knowledge, makes what happened not difficult to
understand at all. First, get and hold in mind the overall scene.
The elements combined reveal the intent to portray a kidnaping,
sexual assault and murder by strangulation. Bound and gagged is a
classic in kidnaping. Now, look at the “bindings†and see what
they tell you.

One loop was tied so loosely around the wrist, Dr. Meyer removed
it without cutting or untying. The other loop apparently came off
when the body was moved prior to Dr. Meyer’s arrival. This loop
is much larger than the other loop. Neither compressed upon a
wrist; hence, no binding. The knot of one loop is different from
the knot of the other.

How is all this to be explained? Do you conclude these non
functional “wrist ties†and differences in knots were by
conscious intent? If so, what do you believe the perpetrator
intended to gain by this? If the intent was not to bind, what was
the intent? If the intent was to bind, what accounts for the
abysmal failure to accomplish the task?

Since I don’t have the actual evidence, let’s do a bit of
‘supposin’ and see how it shakes out. Suppose you had the large
loop in hand and tried to tighten it to the wrists, but found
that it was knot-locked and would not move, therefore, could not
be compressed upon the wrist. Do you think this was intentional?
If so, for what purpose? If the intent was to compress upon the
wrists and bind, why the failure?

At this juncture, we know the wrist binding attempt came up
negative. If you cannot find a reason for this being purposely
done, what remains but bundling ignorance of the perpetrator?
Suppose you wrap the cord around the wrist, then loop it over
itself, followed by one or two loop turns to make the knot. Now
you pull the leads intending for it to go down to the wrist, but
the loop knot compresses upon the cord and stops. You pull harder
trying to get the cord to compress the wrist. It doesn’t happen.
It’s stuck, and stuck tight. What now? You can’t get the knot
loose to start over; and even if you could, you wouldn’t know how
to do it right. What do you do? Just leave it? What next? Go to
the other wrists and try again, but still not knowing what to do?
Is this how the knot with a bow turned up, but not binding the
wrist either? (BTW, the usual purpose of a bow is quick release.
What, the perpetrator had planned to use it again? )

Looking for yourself and breaking it down to the ultimate
simplicity, a claimed kidnaping with the body in the house
immediately loses a lot of credibility. A “binding†that does not
bind if by intent is self-contradictory; and if not by intent
clearly exposes a bungling amateur totally ignorant of materials
and construction? Why if not from desperation to hide the truth?
How does a long-gone “intruder†fit into this scene?

http://www.acandyrose.com/garrote4.jpg

The cord embedded deeply into JonBenet’s neck is often cited as
evidence of the “brutality of the murder.â€

“A deep ligature furrow encircles the entire neck.†(Autopsy
report)

Hello out there is RST land. Can you read? Can you say, encircle?
Do you know what the term, encircle, means. Please take out a
long piece of string from your DEFECTIVE DETECTIVE KIT. Tie or
make a loop around a round something several inches and diameter.
Now pull. What happens? Do you observe that the maximum force is
one eighty degrees from your pulling position with corresponding
dissipation of force around the rest of the neck except the very
back of the neck where the string pulls away and does not touch
the neck at all.

As the primary question in the course, PHYSICS FOR FOOLS, pray
tell dear Rambots how in the hell does pulling the handle create
a circumferential furrow? Second question: If pulling the handle
does not work to create the circumferential furrow, what is it
purpose? Third question: How was if used? The idiots over at
double B have been chasing their tails for year with theories
about the function of the handle and none fit the evidence.
Simple reason: The handle had no function except to satisfy the
aberration of the perpetrator who was a ignorant of “garrotingâ€
as she was of “wrist ties.†It just came in mind that a handle
was a needed finishing touch.

What did create the furrow? I’ll say it again: The post mortem
swelling meeting the resistance of a fixed diameter cord; which
in turn means, the size of the noose could not be reduced to
effect circumferential strangling. According to Dr. Meyer, the
cord was tied at the midline of the back of the neck. This means
the attempt to tie tightly exerted the primary force one eighty
degrees away, meaning the front of the throat. This is one of the
reasons that I have always considered the possibility of barely
alive and some strangulation taking place; but as primary - never
happened.

Am I mistaken about no “experts†needed? Is not the physics
described within your range of knowledge? Without y “expert
opinionâ€, don’t you grasp the flaws clearly revealing the
staging? “Bubble gum case†- Right?

 

Wow Easywriter, there's quite a discussion going on about those knots and loops over at Websleuths, lol! ("Double Loop Knot" thread).
I asked the posters if they had read your analysis of the knots and the garrote. No one obviously had. But some seem to have read it now, and one or two got pretty emotional over the whole thing.
Their emotion can be explained imo because you analyzed these knots very convincingly as totally unprofessional and as the work of a bungling amateur, and also said that they are not listed in any knot book and that this was hardly surprising.
This of course questions any intruder/kidnapper scenario for one would at least expect from kidnappers that they know how to tie knots which function.

One poster at Websleuths stated:

I know next to nothing about knots - my question:
Is a slip knot a knot in which the size of the loop can be controlled by pulling at the ends?
Is a double loop knot a slip knot too?
The way I understood your anylysis of the bigger wrist ligature was that once a double loop knot is pulled tight, control over loop size ends, and that it was no longer possible to adjust the size of the ligature to fit tightly around the wrist. Therefore, this loop is not adjustable anymore.

And what would be the point in tying someone with a slip knot which stays adjustable, I ask myself. For couldn't the person easily free himself from the ligature then?
TIA for your help!

 

Good question Rashomon, but in this case, JonBenét was already dead, and Patsy Ramsey didn't think of this at the time of tying the knots, did she? No one else thought about this either in LE, because the Ramseys are still walking free out there.

Having said that, tying the wrists with slip knots in a real kidnapping would be really stupid, if the person was still conscious.

 

lol is right. In reference to some (not all) of the posts, I have
never seen that much absurdity crammed into such a small place
before. If they knew how silly they look against a backdrop of
the facts, they would cease the nonsense immediately. Of course,
they don’t know that they don’t know, so they keep on.

Have you seen anyone quote from my analysis, then try to show
error by description of how and why such and such is wrong? I
suspect not. The ususal is arbitrary declaration claiming error
if it doesn’t suit what they believe; no quote and argument; just
“you’‘re wrong†as if the words are magic and dismiss the
unwanted truth. There is also the usual demand for “credentialsâ€
as if truth comes via authority. In other words, they will do
and say whatever it takes to evade the facts. In other words,
nothing new at all. Rather pitiful, isn’t it.

“I asked the posters if they had read your analysis of the knots
and the garrote. No one obviously had. But some seem to have read
it now, and one or two got pretty emotional over the whole thing.
Their emotion can be explained imo because you analyzed these
knots very convincingly as totally unprofessional and as the work
of a bungling amateur, and also said that they are not listed in
any knot book and that this was hardly surprising.
This of course questions any intruder/kidnapper scenario for one
would at least expect from kidnappers that they know how to tie
knots which function.†(Ibid)

Excellent summation. I have no idea of how may photos of knots
have been put up for comparison, but the one I found the most
amusing is the photo of the raft lashing that “looks something
like†some tie at the crime scene. They never even noticed that
the “wrist ligatures†had two different kinds of ties.

“One poster at Websleuths stated:
Quote:
The loops incidentally are made with slip knots, so the size of
the individual loops in the photos is irrelevant. They are
adjustable.†(Ibid)

Funny, funny, funny. Why then were they not “adjusted†down to
the wrists? It is precisely the slip knots that were utilized in
a manner to render the loops non adjustable. Typical RST: Long on
declarations. Short on facts.

“I know next to nothing about knots - my question:
Is a slip knot a knot in which the size of the loop can be
controlled by pulling at the ends?†(Ibid)

There are too many variables to answer your question with a
simple yes or no. This will be explained in detail by what is to
follow. What you are reading in most places about a slip knots
shows no understanding at all. They invoke the term slip knot and
imagine this relates to reduction of noose size to effect
strangulation. In another place and time, it could, but in this
situation of staging, the slip knot is precisely what precludes
reducing loop size for strangulation. They know the name, but not
the construction and physics - and PHYSICS NEVER LIE.

The active phrase is “slipping knot†for slipping is exactly what
it does. The knot in focus is usually tied from one end of a
given length of cord or rope; one end as opposed to both ends
utilized in tying a shoelace. The slip knot is made by wrapping
cord around itself in a manner to create a knot. The issue is
slipping how and where, to do what. In one place, it will
accomplish what is intended. In another where ignorance is
paramount, it can and often does result in the exact opposite of
what is intended. The slip knots in the staging are totally
inappropriate for the circumstance. Indeed, it is one of the
major factors that expose the fraud.

“Is a double loop knot a slip knot too?â€(ibid)

Yes, single, double, triple, etc., goes to number of turns around
itself. The basic construction is the same.

“The way I understood your anylysis of the bigger wrist ligature
was that once a double loop knot is pulled tight, control over
loop size ends, and that it was no longer possible to adjust the
size of the ligature to fit tightly around the wrist. Therefore,
this loop is not adjustable anymore.†(Ibid)

Your understanding is correct if you are referring to pulled
tight firmly compressing the cord. Perhaps it would be more clear
if you understood exactly how and why this happens. The
explanation also explains the structure of a slip knot.

On another forum, there is a thread, “Is this the knot.†It is an
ongoing part of a silly nine year ghost chase. Not surprisingly,
the confusion is maximum. There is a drawing of a small fixed
loop with the end of the cord run through it to create a free-
moving adjustable noose. This is the principle utilized in calf
roping and numerous other operations. This is proper construction
for a lasso, etc.

The drawing of the small fixed loop and larger noose is all well
and good, but it has nothing to do with the crime scene. There is
no such construction in the crime scene. The tie and the knot
around the neck does not even remotely resemble the drawing.
Further proof is that if the cord around JonBenet’s neck was
free moving, it would have moved away, not embedded in the neck
during post mortem swelling. Also, pulling does not produce
circumferential pressure whether slip of not slip.

As a primary aid in understanding the cord and knots at the crime
scene, construct the most basic slip knot. Take a long piece of
string. Put one end over a horizontal bar, post, ect. Bring it
under and back to you on the left of the main cord. Some distance
from the end of the cord you brought back, grip between finger
and thumb. Now bring the end of this section up and over the
right side of the main cord. Now bring it over the thumb and
finger holding that section of the cord. Bring it back through
the hole created. You now have a single knotted turn around the
main cord. Around the cord allows it to slip. You may pull and
get it to slip down to the bar.

This is not the end of it. There are many variables that must be
understood in order to accomplish what you wish to accomplish.
Although you may pull and slip this loop down to the bar, there
is no means to remove it except to get something under the loop
and pry it loose. How difficult this is depends on how hard the
cord is pulled and how hard the knot is. This is a fundamental
knot I have used thousands of times in various applications,
including tying a horse to something, except I finished with a
half bow for quick release. So, a slipping knot is merely a wrap
round and loop back through the opening creating the finished
product. The slip knot, or the double loop knot refers to the
construction of the knot itself, not how it is utilized to create
a loop, or tie a horse.

To speak of a slip knot and imagine that’s the end of it reveals
ignorance of the variables in construction AND application. I
cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of the variables.
With the same construction, the behavior of a 1\8" nylon cord and
a 1\2" Manila rope are drastically different. Look at the photo
of the large loop. Notice the end of cord is wrapped around
itself creating the wrist loop. Further notice that the edge
appears to be turned up a little. This is because the cord is
compressed by the slipping knot when pulled tightly. If this
material were a large round Manila rope, it would still compress
and reduce the slipping factor in some measure. If it were a
small, soft round cord, the compression would be more pronounced
and slipping much more difficult. Since this cord is not round
and is a small, soft synthetic, the compressing creates flanges at the
junction that makes slipping literally IMPOSSIBLE once the leads
are pulled tightly.

How did this happen? I don’t have a video of Patsy’s performance,
but the large loop evidence that didn’t reach the wrist gives me
a pretty good idea of the physics of the failure.

Take one end of the cord and bring it around the wrist. To make a
loop, it must then be looped around itself. Following the over
and under, the short part of the U is brought under and over the
bottom with the end going through the opening creating a slipping
knot. In this photo, I cannot tell if there is one or two loops.
It doesn’t matter because the physics are the same.

At the time the slipping knot is loosely made, the cord will slip
and the wrist loop could be carefully worked down to contact the
wrist. However, if someone doesn’t know the physics and there is
a pull of the leads (angle of pull a factor as well) with the
loop a long way from contacting the wrist, the slipping knot
slips down and compresses the main cord and the slipping ball
game is over. It is locked. It is not going anywhere. THIS is
what the photo reveals as evidence. Only the most green of the
green would make this blunder. It clearly reveals that this
person is a rank amateur attempting something without a clue as
to how to go about it. Does this read desperation, or what?

The cord around JonBente’s neck shows the same basic construction
except that two turns are clearly visible. With minor variation,
it reveals the same error and same fatal locking effect as the
“wrist ties.†( BTW, I found that in duplicating these ties and
knots, a large, flat shoelace from a work shoe is an acceptable
substitute in appearance and performance.)

As for the notion of “four loopsâ€, “ankles bound†and that sort
of stuff, all I can say is, “Good golly, Miss Molly, did your
optometrist die?†“Hmmm, off your medication again, right?†Or -
“Don’t you know LSD is illegal?â€

“And what would be the point in tying someone with a slip knot
which stays adjustable, I ask myself. For couldn't the person
easily free himself from the ligature then?â€

This is just one of the many flaws in the staged crime scene.
The first clue is that proper binding of wrists is wrists close
together with wrap around and finish between wrists to create
effective handcuffs. If for some reason, the hands are wanted
apart, it is as you said, you don’t bind with something that will
slip off. The perp didn’t have to worry about that because the
â€ties†never got to the wrist. Do you think the RST is having fun
trying to make something clever out of pronounced ignorance and a
consummate mess?

“TIA for your help!†(Ibid)

I thank you. I am most pleased to see someone take an interest
and devote time and energy to understanding this very very
critical evidence. Had LE taken such an interest, the Ramseys
would have been put in jail a long time ago.

 

On the subject of knots... one thing we have on common with the ramseys is that we are a sailing family. With the exception of my daughter, we've all taken sailing examinations and of course, knot tying is an important part of this. I'm not certain if the Ramseys took exams - but I'm guessing "not" on the basis that they do tend to be rather vocal about their achievements and I think we'd have heard if they had taken and passed sailing exams.

However, knot tying is very, VERY important on a boat and I simply do not believe that the Ramseys males at least weren't well versed in this. It astonishes me when they continually distance themselves from every teensy bit of evidence in this case.

Another point about knots is that anyone can make a complicated looking knot with a bit of cord. Years ago, I went into my son's bedroom to find that he'd spun a web out of knitting yarn and it covered the entire room. I ended up cutting it all off with scissors as I couldn't begin to untie any of it. He was about 8 years old at the time.

 

LOl, my kindergartners do this too from time to time. When watching them, I'm often amazed at their creativity and ideas when it comes to constructing such an intricate web of loops and knots. When they do that, the kids are very focused and concentrated. They know exactly what they want to do.

But I think the person who tied the ligature around JB's hands was not focused at all. That person was nervous and panicky, rushed for time, and hastily trying to put some kind of ligature around a dead (or almost dead) child's wrists and neck.

From Steve Thomas' book (p. 41):

"A single loop of white cord was around the right wrist, tied on top of the sleeve but so loosely the doctor easily slid it free. There were 15 1/2 inches between that loop and a loop on the other end, which once apparently had bound the other wrist."

So one loop had already come off and the other was so loosely around the wrist the doctor could easily remove it.
Those loops seem to have had had no function at all in terms of restrainment: I'm a layperson, but tying a loop on top of the sleeve seems to be a very stupid thing to do: for theoretically, the person only needs to tug at the sleeve with the other hand (fifteen and a half inches allowing free movement), and the sleeve can be removed from under the ligature, making room for the hand to free itself.

All this proves to me that the cord was tied on a person who was not conscious, i. e. who needn't have been restrained to keep her from moving or running away. But what's the point in tying up a dead person? None at all, unless the perp wants to dump her in a river, but then he would have tied up the whole body differently (after wrapping it in a bag for example).

These ligatures scream staging, and they scream poor staging.

 

I agree with all you have to say too, Rashomon, and yet the Ramseys are still free.

 

I took a macramé course when it was all the craze years ago, Jay Of course I had to follow instructions, and there was a teacher there, but my plant hangers were more complicated than the staged garrote.

For sure the Ramsey males must have known how to tie knots on their boat.

That must have been one big Charlotte's web in your son's room.

 

Hi Rashomon. Great hat, by the way. Appropriate!!

I believe Mr. Ramsey stated once or twice early on, to BPD, that he started to untie JonBenet when he "found" her.

 

"Very stupid thing†is representative of the whole
staging fiasco. I cannot imagine a staged crime scene that looks
any more staged than the Ramsey one. Blunder after blunder marks
it as the most inept staging in history. Were it not such a
tragic situation, it would be amusing to watch the RST try to
spin the fatal flaws into something clever.

The evidence, which evidences a messed up mind in panic, is, by
the RST, “interpreted†as the work of a mastermind intruder
manipulating the investigators. When truth is exposed in such
measure and clarity that not even the RST can deny it, they learn
nothing. They simply do a double shuffle to dance around the
truth by denying the truth while admitting the truth.

For years, they have talking on and on about the kidnaped scene,
bound, gagged and “garroted†to death. The bindings that didn’t
bind have been exposed to the point of no logical denial. This is
just one example of the gross incompetence of the perpetrator. It
just one more item of evidence exposing the staging and pointing
right at the Ramseys. I know it. The RST knows it, but they still
deny the truth. At another forum, the incompetent “wrist tiesâ€,
are addressed in the thread, "Why the fake "bindings"?"

How clever to substitute the word, "fake" for grossly incompetent. Now ain't that just too cute? Well, maybe not so clever at that. Anyway you slice it, they have just admitted the crime scene is not what it appears, and not what they have been claiming for years. What next?

By all means, tune in. I’m sure you will amused at the extended cleverness
of an intruder who "faked" the wrist bindings. Don’t go away. There
is more to come. It is literally impossible to get a
circumferential furrow out of a pulled noose, slip or non slip.
Sooner of later, they will have to admit this. I just can’t wait
for the next thread, “Why the fake "grroting?â€

 

My name is Grebbs, Sgt. Matt Grebbs. I’ll explain the LINEUP to
you. Each of the suspects will be numbered. I will call off the
name, number of charge. If you are sure, or not to sure, have
them held. The questions I ask are merely to get a natural tone
of voice. Do not pay much attention to their answers as they
often lie.

 

Thanks for the welcome, wombat. I'm glad to have been directed to this great forum by poster Little (who is also a moderator on the Crime and Justice JB message board).

In terms of your post: suppose it was like John Ramsey said, i. e. that he started to untie her hands. But one ligature was still around her right wrist when Dr. Meyer first saw JB's body at the autopsy.
And that ligature was loosely tied on top of her sleeve (I think there are also pictures which show this). Would any kidnapper tie a ligature on top of a sleeve? Certainly not. Would any kidnapper leave 15 1/2 inches space between the hands of a person whom he wanted to tie up? Certainly not, because the person then could move both her hands and try to loosen the ligatures.
Did the investigators ever call in a rope expert? For if not, chances are that they didn't know more about knots and loops than average laypeople.
I hope I didn't dream this because the name was so funny ('Tassle' for a rope expert, lol!), but I read in a post that this Mr. Tassle allegedly examined the ligatures. What were his conclusions?

 

LASSOING THE TRUTH ADDENDUM

The thing about contradictions is that they compound; and in the
compounding, eventually show up as so absurd that heretofore
staunch supporter of an idea abandon it in favor of what they
believe to be a more tenable position. This is what you now see
happening on some forums. When it is exposed with such definitive
clarity that the “wrist bindings†bound nothing, the “defense
shift†is to admit to this fact, admit that it was staging, but
still weave scenarios alleged to exonerate the Ramseys. At least,
one such person appears to hold this notion. This person has no
desire to question me, yet, presumes to question my logic in
attaching the Ramseys to the staging. Although, I have already
explained this at least a dozens times, I am not at all averse to
doing it again.

The question not asked and answered by this person is how do you
attach the staging to an intruder. There is a natural law that
states an individual must always act in what the individual
believes to be in self interest with the intent to gain and\or
protect. The outcome may not be what is hoped far and intended,
but the natural law does not vary. Of course, this poses the
question as to what a long gone intruder intended to gain or
protect by staging. Notwithstanding all the scenarios of unknown
and projected psychological prompting, the simple truth is a long
gone intruder would have no motivation since no gain or
protection could come from such action.

The staging tries to project the picture of kidnaping, bound and
gagged, sexually assaulted and murdered. Staging, by definition,
is an effort to hide the truth. In this case, to hide the skull
fracture as primary by setting the kidnaping, binding and
strangulation scene. If long gone, or caught, staging would not
lessen the crime to benefit an intruder; hence, no motive. The
only person who stood to gain is not someone long gone, but
someone present who intended to gain by drawing attention away
from the skull fracture as primary. Add to this the gross
incompetence of the staging and it comes up desperation to
deceive.

Keep in mind the scalp was not lacerated, so the severe skull
fracture was not immediately visible. Had the cause of death been
ruled death by strangulation without notice of the skull
fracture, the staging would have successfully diverted attention
to where it was desired. In the alternative between death by
strangulation and death by severe head trauma, the stager chose
to present strangulation. This translates to evidence that the
stager had a negative view of the skull fracture and did not want
this as an issue with questions to answer. What else but
culpability motivates a person to go to such lengths as to try to
stage a crime scene without even minimal knowhow? Who else but
one or more of the Ramseys stood to gain or protect by the
staging?

Also, consistency is the nature of evidence. In addition to the
obvious inept staging, all the staging material whose source is
known was attached to and found in the Ramsey residence. The
evidence includes the dead body of JonBenet. Staging, indeed, the
most incompetent staging imaginable, logically points nowhere
except directly at the Ramseys.

 

EW, according to your theory, the Ramseys had truly thought that JonBenet was already dead when they staged their garotting scene, because they knew how severely she had been injured by the blow to her head.
Which is why I have no doubt at all that they knew the head injury would be detected during the autopsy.
I think their staging was a desperate attempt to muddy the waters: make it appear like a bizarre and sexually motivated crime, vaguey hoping that the investigators would buy the head-bash as part of the staged crime scene too: for example, a perp finally bashing JB's head in to quicken her death.

 

Yes, I do believe they believed JonBenet was dead from the head
trauma. However, I believe you attribute forethought to them
which is not in evidence anywhere in the staged crime scene. I
doubt that they thought of autopsy at all. The note was written
not from a psychology of “what will they believeâ€, but from a
psychology of “what I want them to believe.†You can tell by
several oddities in the note that there was no anticipation of
probable reaction. As I mentioned in my note analysis, this
reveals a mental condition of lack of capacity for empathy.
Anything even approaching exhaustive explanation of this mental
malady would be very lengthy, so, I won’t get into it here.

Every day, I shake my head in disbelief as I observe a simple
case extended beyond nine years with no official resolution. The
official investigators would have to move up a few notches to
reach the level of the Keystone Cops. Never before in my life
have I witnessed such effort to evade irrefutable facts. The
thinking skills, rather the lack thereof, are truly amazing in
the most negative way. The lack of rudimentary observation, basic
comprehension, and elementary deduction are most disturbing.

If you sleep through the night, awake to a cloudless sky, but
observe water dripping from trees and running down the street,
you have a pretty good idea it has been raining though you did
not see it happening. You can deduce it had been raining from
your knowledge of certain entities and knowledge of the
relationships between those entities. Your knowledge is knowledge
of cause and effect. This is the thinking you use every day to
survive and accomplish goals.

The official investigators in the Ramsey case took a different
tact. There was (and is) no effort to examine the evidence and
follow effect back to cause. To the contrary, actual evidence is
simply ignored to the end result of endless theories that have
nothing to do with the evidence, nor resolution of the case. If
this mental mess is deliberate, it’s rather scary. If not
deliberate, it’s more scary.

Consistency is the nature of truth (evidence). What this means is
that regardless of the scope and type of the endeavor,
identifying even one truth sets the course of the inquiry. To
reach a correct conclusion, all else must relate to this truth in
a non contradictory manner. Suppose we isolate an area and see if
we can extract a reference truth from it.

The photo of the cord embedded in JonBenet’s neck has been
distributed and viewed on an international scale. What does this
evidence tell? Does it tell of a brutal murder and vicious
strangulation as is usually declared? Or does the evidence tell a
different story?

For the cord to embed in the flesh, one of two things had to have
happened? 1. The size of the loop had to meet the neck and
decrease diameter with force to embed. 2. The size of the loop
remained the same while the size of the neck increased to meet
the loop with pressure and embed. Which is true? How does the
answer effect the direction of inquiry and ultimate conclusion?
How do we find the answer? By utilizing the other evidence in
thinking manner that does not contradict any other evidence, nor
contradict any natural law of physics.

Actually, the answer is practically self-revealing. Even if a
loop had been constricted to embed, when released the lack of
pressure lets the loop move away from the neck. The permanent
circumferential embedding (and degree of embedding) could have
come about only by a non slip loop acting as resistance against
an expanding neck due to post mortem swelling.

Verifying evidence: No direction of pulling, or force of pulling
the noose can effect circumferential strangulation. So, even if
there were a adjustable size noose, circumferential furrowing is
literally impossible with it. Add to this the undisputed fact
that the loop was tied around the neck and all the evidence
converges upon the fact of a non slipping loop dismissing the
idea of strangulation by reducing the size of the loop. It just
didn’t happen. If she were still barely alive, some possible
strangulation in tying, yes. Circumferential strangulation by an
adjustable noose, no way.

This is not “just my opinion.†It is physical evidence subject to
testing and verifying beyond a shadow of a doubt. Any theory
predicated upon the idea of an adjustable noose is not derived
from the evidence. Any claim of duplicating the construction of
the staged crime scene and effecting an adjustable noose is
either a deliberate lie, or a mistake due to dismissing the truth
the physics tell. Sure, you may loop knot one cord around another
and get it to slip - IF you don’t pull it too tightly. However,
IF it is pulled tightly and severely compresses the cord, the
slipping is over. This is exactly what Dr. Meyer’s report and the
photos show.

There is more if you like. Hair entwined in the cord and knot
around the neck tells of effort made to tie closely as opposed to
making an adjustable noose and putting in over the head. Hair
entangled in the cord used in mummy wrapping the handle tells
that this was done after the tie around the neck. Since the tie
was made closely and the handle added last, it tells of no intent
to tighten the “garrote†by pulling the handle, which would not
have worked to do so anyway. All the direct evidence and all the
corroborating evidence leaves not even a whisper of evidentiary
doubt that the loop around the neck was of a non slip
construction, therefore, labeling as false any and all theories
that contradict this irrefutable evidence.

I have no doubt things will go on pretty much as before. The RST
will keep on evading and denying the truth. They string together
false claim after false claim, silly scenario after silly
scenario and amusingly claim “based of facts.†I dream of a day
in court and the “show me†environment. Where will the RST be
then? Ans. Anyplace but court.

 

EW, I'm not sure if the Ramseys believed JB was dead - but all this is speculation.
And you are right that the crime scene doesn't indicate that they might have had a following autopsy in mind. But the crime scene doesn't exclude such a possibility either (that they tried to build the head injury into the scenario). We just don't know.
But no doubt did the perp realize that JB was very severely injured and would probably die from that injury, or at least remain severely brain-damaged. The person who delivered the head blow to JB did not want to take responsibility for the action by turning himself/herself in to the police. That was the main motive imo, and that motive was so strong that I think any concern for JB's life played second fiddle. And everything which was done after inflicting the head injury flowed from that decision: the perp wanted to save his/her hide.

You said that this is a simple case, and I too think it initially started as a simple case: a parent snapped and lost it and irrepairable damage was done.
One can read about cases like that in the paper almost daily.

But what makes the case a standout is the amount of (poor) staging which subsequently was done there, and the failure (or unwillingness) on the part of LE to identify as a staging a situation unparalleled in criminal history (as far as I know): a dead body found in the home together with a ransom note.
The ransom note with its political message not adding up with the garrote and sexually motivated crime staging scenario; Kidnapping for ransom not adding up with the staged garrote scene either.
And what's the point in leaving behind a ransom note if the kidnapper obviously could not abduct the child at all?
All this is a jumbled mess, and come to think about it, indeed, the mess was so big that it is simply inconceivable that anyone in LE could have swallowed all these contradictions without realizing that it was exactly the total mess and inconsistency in the staging which pointed to no one else than the parents themselves: they desperately tried to stage a scene (in severeal stages I think) and fouled it up.
And still got away with it despite all the mistakes they made because no one held their feet to the fire; instead they got kid glove treatment right from the start until the present day.

EW, interesting observation on your part that the ransom note points to a mental condition lacking capacity of empathy.
This would point to a sociopathic personality structure, and I think a person like Patsy would fit that profile perfectly. For only a sociopathic personality type lacking empathy would for example put her child through pageants in which the children are trained to act like precocious Lolitas. Pageants like that are a form of child abuse imo.
Once, after a pageant, JonBenet was chilly in a restaurant and wanted to put her jacket on. Patsy refused: "You're still on show", she told JB.
Lack of empathy indeed. And that lack of empathy showed in many other things which Patsy did.

Another thing: in one of your posts, you mentioned (Im paraphrasing) that it is possible that 'some strangling' was done when the cord was tied around JB's neck.
I have diffficulty with the word 'some' here: I always thought that 'strangle' was something definite, like e. g. pregnant: one can't be 'a little' pregnant.
Therefore I thought whenever the word 'strangled' is used, it means that the person died from asphyxiation caused by strangling. But I'm no native speaker, and may be wrong.

 

Little is well known on this board, Rashomon. She was the one who told me about you, as I posted before. She was very impressed with your posts.

I can see what she means by the above post. Excellent!

 

I agree with that assessment.


They call me the Punisher because I leave the guilty in torment, withering in the face of their own darkness. No one can help you when the darkness falls. No one will catch you if you slip.