JBR "garotte"
MS
word "garotte." I think, from the description in the book, that this
was more of a handle. As I understand it, the string around her neck
had a sort of loop in the knot, and the other end of the string went
through the knot. Pulling on the "garotte" tightened the string. Is
this what anybody else understands?
Martha
YaKnow
There's a picture of the "garotte" at:
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Marina/5808/jonbenet.htm
The web page was written ages ago so the text is probably way out of date,
but it does have those infamous photos.
It looks like the rope was wrapped around the paintbrush handle about seven
times and then knotted. The photo only shows that end of the rope, so I
have no idea how the other end was done.
I was just thinking about the theories that it was an auto-erotocism gone
too far. If so, then the garotte would've likely been added later since the
handle was a little extreme. You can also note in the photo that hair was
caught in the knots.
Douglas M. Case
fer...@worldnet.att.net (Fernando Melendez) wrote:
>Schiller never once used word "garotte," preferring the (correct)
>spelling of the instrument as "garrote." There are no double "t's" in
>Spanish.
Once again, in deference to all the faux-French sophistication the case
has brought our way, I think "garrotte" is only fitting. Are you out
there, Betsy?
>I am sure you are an expert in loops and in knots, being constantly
>in a state of trying to disengage yourself from those you create for
>yourself in life: but you haven't the foggiest notion of how the cord
>and the paintbrush handle used in JBR's murder relate to each other or
>to JBR's neck. Just calling the cord a "string" defines your (absent)
>knowledge about such things. Please do the right thing and ask the man
>of the house to explain exactly what Dr. Meyer wrote in his autopsy
>report, which is simple and clear. Her neck was tightly wrapped by the
>cord, which had a double knot in the back. Yes, pulling on the handle
>would "tighten the string" as you say; but only the 17 inches of cord
>from the handle to the knot. It (pulling the handle) would have no
>effect in terms of tightening or loosening the ligature around the
>neck. The paint-brush handle was not a "garrote." Or a garotte.
Slow reader that I am, not to mention just plain slow, I'm trying to
avoid much comment until I finish the last 200 pages. But Schiller's
description, or his source's, repeats the frustrating inaccuracy of the
autopsy. Is there no one in Boulder who understands knots?
[page 226]:
"The cord tied around JonBenet's neck was not a classical garrote in
which both ends of the cord are attached to a turning device such as a
stick.
[This is the equivalent of saying Segovia didn't play guitar because he
didn't play the vihuela.]
"In this case, the cord had been placed around JonBenet's neck like a
noose, the cord pulled through a knot, and a stick tied to the cord 17
inches from the knot.
[A knot is not a portion of cord directly (and permanently) affixing one
point to another; it is the entire construction. There are plenty knots
which do not contain any such point: a sheepshank is an example; so are
most hitches. A loop of cord is known as a "loop", or a "bight". A
"noose" is a specific type of knot, and an accurate term for the entire
construction here. BTW, people are not formally hanged with nooses, but
with hangman's knots, a more complicated form which contains several turns
(traditionally 13) around a pair of loops. A noose would strangle rather
than break the neck unless the fall was very great.]
"The coroner was unable to determine if JonBenet's killer had turned the
stick in garrote fashion to cause the strangulation or had used the stick
only to pull the noose tighter around the child's neck to suffocate her."
Given the abundant amount of hair tangled in the loops around the stick
the answer seems obvious. Pulling the free end of a 17-inch cord would
have kept the loops away from the hair.
In addition, the cord material, flat and probably unsheathed, would in
all likelihood have jammed the knot under pressure, meaning it would no
longer slip and pulling the cord would no longer tighten the "noose",
unless the victim was prevented from moving in the same direction. The
extent to which the knot jammed cannot be inferred from Dr. Meyer's having
cut it. He did so to preserve the knot as evidence. I sure wish he'd
loan it to someone who knows the difference between a double overhand and
a half-hitch.
dmc
---------------------
Learning,n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious.
-Ambrose Bierce
Kris Baker
>
>I am gratified to see that Schiller consistently uses quotes
>around the word "garotte." I think, from the description in the
>book, that this was more of a handle. As I understand it, the
>string around her neck had a sort of loop in the knot, and the
>other end of the string went through the knot. Pulling on the
>"garotte" tightened the string. Is this what anybody else
>understands?
I don't know if I understand how that particular "garotte" (or
ANY garotte) would work -- but I've always felt that it was
created to make it look like some kind of weird professional
killing. You know, the foreign faction kind ;)
In fact, I don't think that the handle/garotte was needed at
all to do the strangulation; it was just there to make the
scene look like, well, some kind of weird professional
killing. ;)
Kris
Fernando Melendez
>I am gratified to see that Schiller consistently uses quotes around the
>word "garotte." I think, from the description in the book, that this
>was more of a handle. As I understand it, the string around her neck
>had a sort of loop in the knot, and the other end of the string went
>through the knot. Pulling on the "garotte" tightened the string. Is
>this what anybody else understands?
>
>Martha
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For someone as punctilious about others' minutia as you seem to be,
you sure are careless:
Schiller never once used word "garotte," preferring the (correct)
spelling of the instrument as "garrote." There are no double "t's" in
Spanish.
I am sure you are an expert in loops and in knots, being constantly
in a state of trying to disengage yourself from those you create for
yourself in life: but you haven't the foggiest notion of how the cord
and the paintbrush handle used in JBR's murder relate to each other or
to JBR's neck. Just calling the cord a "string" defines your (absent)
knowledge about such things. Please do the right thing and ask the man
of the house to explain exactly what Dr. Meyer wrote in his autopsy
report, which is simple and clear. Her neck was tightly wrapped by the
cord, which had a double knot in the back. Yes, pulling on the handle
would "tighten the string" as you say; but only the 17 inches of cord
from the handle to the knot. It (pulling the handle) would have no
effect in terms of tightening or loosening the ligature around the
neck. The paint-brush handle was not a "garrote." Or a garotte.
Finally, I appreciate your kind fantasies (about me) as posted
elsewhere. I would prefer your not going public with them, though: you
embarrass me, and you would probably embarrass yourself if you were
capable of such an emotion.
Fernando.
Eliza
>I am gratified to see that Schiller consistently uses quotes around the
>word "garotte." I think, from the description in the book, that this
>was more of a handle. As I understand it, the string around her neck
>had a sort of loop in the knot, and the other end of the string went
>through the knot. Pulling on the "garotte" tightened the string. Is
>this what anybody else understands?
>
>Martha
I haven't read the book yet, but I did notice that on "Burden of
Proof" Schiller made a point of saying that it wasn't really a
garotte. I didn't understand his explanation of how it might actually
work if the turning motion wasn't the key; I think I understand yours
a little better.
The main thrust of his point, though, was that a lot of force had to
be applied to JBR's back to effect the strangulation. Wreaks havoc on
the BDI's, in my opinion; I don't see how he could have killed her or
even knocked her unconscious, unless he swung her around by the heels.
I know you said you were on the fence, Martha. Time to come down!
Eliza
Fernando Melendez
Case) wrote:
>
>... Given the abundant amount of hair tangled in the loops around the stick
>the answer seems obvious. Pulling the free end of a 17-inch cord would
>have kept the loops away from the hair.
> In addition, the cord material, flat and probably unsheathed, would in
>all likelihood have jammed the knot under pressure, meaning it would no
>longer slip and pulling the cord would no longer tighten the "noose",
>unless the victim was prevented from moving in the same direction. The
>extent to which the knot jammed cannot be inferred from Dr. Meyer's having
>cut it. He did so to preserve the knot as evidence. I sure wish he'd
>loan it to someone who knows the difference between a double overhand and
>a half-hitch.
>
>
>dmc
>
>---------------------
It sounds as though you are saying that Meyer "cut the knot." He did
not. He cut the cord at the right side of the neck (the knot was at
the back) and marked it so that the police would know how it went: "a
single back ink mark is placed on the left side of the cut and a
double black ink mark on the right side of the cut." (from the autopsy
report, p. 3)
In any event, it is obvious that the cord-work and the knot-tying was
a man's work. There are no bows there, none of the "Honey, put your
finger here so I can tie this knot real snug" sort of thing. Someone
used to racing sailboats (as JR was) must have expertise in tying
quick, secure knots. Just the way the cord is tied around the
paint-brush handle reveals competence with lines and knots
In all of this we must not forget that JBR was unconscious (most
likely), and if not, groggy and incapable of putting on a vigorous
defense. Under the circumstances tying the deadly ligature was easy.
Fernando
MS
> >word "garotte." I think, from the description in the book, that this
> >was more of a handle. As I understand it, the string around her neck
> >had a sort of loop in the knot, and the other end of the string went
> >through the knot. Pulling on the "garotte" tightened the string. Is
> >this what anybody else understands?
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Marina/5808/jonbenet.htm
>
> The web page was written ages ago so the text is probably way out of date,
> but it does have those infamous photos.
>
> It looks like the rope was wrapped around the paintbrush handle about seven
> times and then knotted. The photo only shows that end of the rope, so I
> have no idea how the other end was done.
>
> I was just thinking about the theories that it was an auto-erotocism gone
> too far. If so, then the garotte would've likely been added later since the
> handle was a little extreme. You can also note in the photo that hair was
> caught in the knots.
The hair tangled in the cord around the stick was offered as evidence
that the stick had been turned close to JBR's head. I believe, though,
that those hairs are caught in the actual knots of the cord, not merely
twisted into the cord.
Martha
MS
> >word "garotte." I think, from the description in the book, that this
> >was more of a handle. As I understand it, the string around her neck
> >had a sort of loop in the knot, and the other end of the string went
> >through the knot. Pulling on the "garotte" tightened the string. Is
> >this what anybody else understands?
> >
>
> I haven't read the book yet, but I did notice that on "Burden of
> Proof" Schiller made a point of saying that it wasn't really a
> garotte. I didn't understand his explanation of how it might actually
> work if the turning motion wasn't the key; I think I understand yours
> a little better.
>
> The main thrust of his point, though, was that a lot of force had to
> be applied to JBR's back to effect the strangulation. Wreaks havoc on
> the BDI's, in my opinion; I don't see how he could have killed her or
> even knocked her unconscious, unless he swung her around by the heels.
>
> I know you said you were on the fence, Martha. Time to come down!
>
> Eliza
Something else Schiller reports: Some medical examiner (sorry, I can't
recall the name) suggested that if the blow to the head came first, the
person who hit her might not have realized how severe the blow was
because there was no external bleeding. I think this observation opens
the door to the idea that maybe the person who hit her was not the same
person who strangled her.
Martha
Douglas M. Case
fer...@worldnet.att.net (Fernando Melendez) wrote:
>It sounds as though you are saying that Meyer "cut the knot." He did
>not. He cut the cord at the right side of the neck (the knot was at
>the back) and marked it so that the police would know how it went: "a
>single back ink mark is placed on the left side of the cut and a
>double black ink mark on the right side of the cut." (from the autopsy
>report, p. 3)
Not to quibble; it's difficult to discuss it when common usage has it
that "the knot" is only that portion which secures the loop to the
standing part. It isn't; the whole thing is a "knot", and what he did,
technically, was "cut the knot at a point on the bight". You're correct
about the location of the cut, of course.
>In any event, it is obvious that the cord-work and the knot-tying was
>a man's work. There are no bows there, none of the "Honey, put your
>finger here so I can tie this knot real snug" sort of thing. Someone
>used to racing sailboats (as JR was) must have expertise in tying
>quick, secure knots. Just the way the cord is tied around the
>paint-brush handle reveals competence with lines and knots
Competence with knots, when it comes from practical use and not a
general fascination with the subject, dictates learning a *minimum* number
of knots for the tasks at hand. Otherwise, small errors can set in with
possibly fatal results. Day-to-day operation of a sailing vessel requires
a mind-numbing variety of knots, but powerboats do not. I can't speak
from much experience, but I'd guess that a bowline, splice, and half-hitch
are probably all that's required for competence, and many weekend sailors
might lack that.
Once again, the public reports, maddeningly, imply that a double
overhand is the only type of knot in existence. A simple noose is
commonly secured with a single overhand. This would not jam so tightly,
and would not come loose under strain if tied securely. My guess is that
the ligature *was* secured with a double overhand, which is overkill.
Most people with any real competence never tie them. But someone trying
to hide competence might.
I haven't heard much about the handle; "tied" is about it. The photo
(mine, at least, is of poor quality) seems to show the standing part
threaded through a loop, but I can't be sure. That could be done either
competently or incompetently; futher description is necessary for
judgement.
>
>In all of this we must not forget that JBR was unconscious (most
>likely), and if not, groggy and incapable of putting on a vigorous
>defense. Under the circumstances tying the deadly ligature was easy.
I'm far from convinced about the unconsciousness, and assuming the
garrotte was constructed in advance all that would be required, since the
knot "slipped", would be getting the loop over her head.
Douglas M. Case
>The hair tangled in the cord around the stick was offered as evidence
>that the stick had been turned close to JBR's head. I believe, though,
>that those hairs are caught in the actual knots of the cord, not merely
>twisted into the cord.
It's difficult to tell from the picture (my copy, anyway) just how
entangled the hair is, and where. It's also impossible to say that the
loop in the front (which is what I think you are referring to) is actually
knotted. My guess is it isn't; there's no visible free end or point of
insertion. I think the cord was secured to the handle (reports have it
"tied"), wound several times then passed through a loop. Hard to say for
sure.
Insisting, if you are, that her hair got tangled when the cord was tied
to the handle, and then the contraption was pulled instead of torqued,
requires that the handle was tied close to her head, rather than
previously constructed or tied a foot and a half away from her. Possible,
certainly. Hard to say anything definitely without knowing how it was
tied. But if as it appears, the standing part of the cord was passed
through a loop, that would tighten as the cord was tightened, grabbing her
hair when it got close.
Strangulation by pulling back on the cord would also require that she be
held in place to some extent.
esa...@mindspring.com
fer...@worldnet.att.net (Fernando Melendez) wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:13:56 -0700, MS <ma...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >I am gratified to see that Schiller consistently uses quotes around the
> >word "garotte." I think, from the description in the book, that this
> >was more of a handle. As I understand it, the string around her neck
> >had a sort of loop in the knot, and the other end of the string went
> >through the knot. Pulling on the "garotte" tightened the string. Is
> >this what anybody else understands?
> >
> >Martha
> For someone as punctilious about others' minutia as you seem to be,
> you sure are careless:
>
> Schiller never once used word "garotte," preferring the (correct)
> spelling of the instrument as "garrote." There are no double "t's" in
> Spanish.
>
> I am sure you are an expert in loops and in knots, being constantly
> in a state of trying to disengage yourself from those you create for
> yourself in life: but you haven't the foggiest notion of how the cord
> and the paintbrush handle used in JBR's murder relate to each other or
> to JBR's neck. Just calling the cord a "string" defines your (absent)
> knowledge about such things. Please do the right thing and ask the man
> of the house to explain exactly what Dr. Meyer wrote in his autopsy
> report, which is simple and clear. Her neck was tightly wrapped by the
> cord, which had a double knot in the back. Yes, pulling on the handle
> would "tighten the string" as you say; but only the 17 inches of cord
> from the handle to the knot. It (pulling the handle) would have no
> effect in terms of tightening or loosening the ligature around the
> neck. The paint-brush handle was not a "garrote." Or a garotte.
>
> Finally, I appreciate your kind fantasies (about me) as posted
> elsewhere. I would prefer your not going public with them, though: you
> embarrass me, and you would probably embarrass yourself if you were
> capable of such an emotion.
>
> Fernando.
Niles,
Your little Tourettes hiccups are pretty mean-spirited for one who spends his
entire day marvelling at his own archaic vocab skills and loving himself
(pro'ly in more ways than one) so incessantly. As usual, you offer up an
anti- contribution, replete with a spell-flame snore and a dash of sexism.
Do you ever get out of the fucking house or what?
The Hot Wheel Guy
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
esa...@mindspring.com
MS
I'm not convinced one way or the other about the cord and its knots. I
need to see a good closeup photo of the part that was around her neck
and of the part attached to the stick to feel comfortable about
discussing this. Schiller seems to me to be saying (and I don't have
any reason to believe *he* has seen the apparatus, or even a photo that
we haven't seen) that one end of the cord was tied around her neck in
such a way that a loop was created, through which the other end of the
cord ran. At what point was the stick attached? Was the loop made
before it was put over her head? Was the cord *tied* so tightly as to
leave a groove, or was it merely *pulled* so tight that it left a
groove?
Martha
Douglas M. Case
>I'm not convinced one way or the other about the cord and its knots. I
>need to see a good closeup photo of the part that was around her neck
>and of the part attached to the stick to feel comfortable about
>discussing this. Schiller seems to me to be saying (and I don't have
>any reason to believe *he* has seen the apparatus, or even a photo that
>we haven't seen) that one end of the cord was tied around her neck in
>such a way that a loop was created, through which the other end of the
>cord ran. At what point was the stick attached? Was the loop made
>before it was put over her head? Was the cord *tied* so tightly as to
>leave a groove, or was it merely *pulled* so tight that it left a
>groove?
Schiller's story proceeds from the Ramsey attorneys getting the
information, so who the ultimate source is is anyone's guess. But he
relates that the cord was "pulled through the knot", which apparently
means it slips (think of a yo-yo knot). Time to bury the idea that it was
tied so tightly as a staged act that it suffocated her accidentally.
MS
I dunno. What if the head shot good as killed her? What if the string
was put there and tightened by someone who thought she was already dead?
Does anyone else see a connection between the threatened "beheading" in
the ransom note and how tight that string was?
Martha
MS
>
> On Mon, 01 Mar 1999 09:22:04 -0700, MS <ma...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Something else Schiller reports: Some medical examiner (sorry, I can't
> >recall the name) suggested that if the blow to the head came first, the
> >person who hit her might not have realized how severe the blow was
> >because there was no external bleeding. I think this observation opens
> >the door to the idea that maybe the person who hit her was not the same
> >person who strangled her.
> >
> >Martha
>
> Seems like a pretty big coincidence, unless they were related in some
> way. I can't think of a way right now, but who knows, maybe one will
> come to me....
>
> Eliza
Well, my original theory (or one of 'em, anyway) was that Burke had hit
her on the head but didn't realize how serious the injury was. Patsy,
hearing the ruckus, yelled upstairs for him to go to bed. She goes up
later to take JBR to the pot and finds her in death throes. She can't
bear the thought of losing both her children (Burke to the everlasting
stigma of having caused his sister's death), so she finishes off JBR and
stages a kidnapping and the sexual assault. She tells her husband that
Burke did it and that she's covering for Burke. That's why JR was so
convincing in the early days--he truly didn't think she did it. I think
he knows now, but is in too deep to say so. I think they're going to
get away with it.
Martha
Eliza
Eliza
>Well, my original theory (or one of 'em, anyway) was that Burke had hit
>her on the head but didn't realize how serious the injury was. Patsy,
>hearing the ruckus, yelled upstairs for him to go to bed. She goes up
>later to take JBR to the pot and finds her in death throes. She can't
>bear the thought of losing both her children (Burke to the everlasting
>stigma of having caused his sister's death), so she finishes off JBR and
>stages a kidnapping and the sexual assault. She tells her husband that
>Burke did it and that she's covering for Burke. That's why JR was so
>convincing in the early days--he truly didn't think she did it. I think
>he knows now, but is in too deep to say so. I think they're going to
>get away with it.
>
>Martha
I don't think a boy his age (nine?) could do that much damage with a
single blow.
Eliza
MS
Cyril Wecht says he could, and I think he could. Ever see a
nine-year-old play baseball?
Mothra
Maggie8097
>> >Well, my original theory (or one of 'em, anyway) was that Burke had hit
>> >her on the head but didn't realize how serious the injury was. Patsy,
>> >hearing the ruckus, yelled upstairs for him to go to bed. She goes up
>> >later to take JBR to the pot and finds her in death throes. She can't
>> >bear the thought of losing both her children (Burke to the everlasting
>> >stigma of having caused his sister's death), so she finishes off JBR
>and
>> >stages a kidnapping and the sexual assault. She tells her husband that
>> >Burke did it and that she's covering for Burke. That's why JR was so
>> >convincing in the early days--he truly didn't think she did it. I think
>> >he knows now, but is in too deep to say so. I think they're going to
>> >get away with it.
Eliza said:
>> I don't think a boy his age (nine?) could do that much damage with a
>> single blow.
Martha said:
>Cyril Wecht says he could, and I think he could. Ever see a
>nine-year-old play baseball?
***Cyril Wecht says a lot of things.
Ever see Burke play baseball (he looks pretty frail)?
Maggie
"Blessed are those who have nothing to say and cannot be persuaded to say
it."--James Russell Lowell
Michael Newton
>
> I am gratified to see that Schiller consistently uses quotes around the
> word "garotte." I think, from the description in the book, that this
> was more of a handle. As I understand it, the string around her neck
> had a sort of loop in the knot, and the other end of the string went
> through the knot. Pulling on the "garotte" tightened the string. Is
> this what anybody else understands?
>
> Martha
Yes. I believe at one point he even notes that the stick was not
employed as in a classic garrote, and suggests that it may have been
added as part of the clumsy staging to support the "SBTC" and "small
foreign faction" red herrings.
mn
MS
>
> On 2 Mar 1999 15:57:34 GMT, Michael Newton
> I saw a web site (and didn't note the url) that discussed Patsy's
> cancer and how she became very religious. She even called her cure a
> *Divine Intervention*. This site pointed out that some zealous
> Christians use SBTC as an acronym for *Saved By The Cross*. Some such
> Christians also use the word *Victory* frequently. The ransom note
> was signed:
>
> Victory!
> S.B.T.C.
>
> Terri
That's true, and one of the things Patsy did to the corpse, according to
the Enquirer, was put a gold cross around JBR's neck.
Mothra
tld
Douglas M. Case
<eyeo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Yes. I believe at one point he even notes that the stick was not
>employed as in a classic garrote, and suggests that it may have been
>added as part of the clumsy staging to support the "SBTC" and "small
>foreign faction" red herrings.
I still can't fathom what the linguistic game with "garrotte" has to do
with anything, except to rebut the suggestion she was the victim of
thuggee. And where, this side of Dame Agatha, are murder weapons red
herrings?
Two years ago, absent the full autopsy, it was possible to argue that
she was strangled by some other means and the cord added as a prop. But
that cord is the murder weapon, whether it was used with the handle or
not. She was strangled brutally, not given a coup de gras.
"Staging" has become a catch-all for anything which doesn't fit the
Crazy Patsy Went Off Her Nut Theory. The fact that it requires a belief
that two distinct, even contradictory tableaux are set doesn't even give
pause.
The police, apparently, believe that either both Ramseys, or Patsy
alone, purchased both duct tape and cord in the same transaction just
weeks before the murder. But no one seems to consider premeditation.
Nope, just a couple of handy items around the house, there in case of
"accident".
dmc
---------------------
Let us be strange and well-bred: Let us be as strange as if we had been married a great while,and as well-bred as if we were not married at all.
苦illiam Congrieve
Michael Newton
>
> And where, this side of Dame Agatha, are murder weapons red
> herrings?
In any case where a weapon is deliberately selected with intent to
divert suspicion from the actual killer...in this case, possibly to
reinforce the notion that a "small foreign faction" based in a nation
once dominated by Spain might be responsible for the murder, instead
of the only logical (live-in) suspects.
> The police, apparently, believe that either both Ramseys, or Patsy
> alone, purchased both duct tape and cord in the same transaction just
> weeks before the murder.
Then again, the duct tape could be a phony piece of "evidence," too.
No one but John ("I forgot to mention that open window") Ramsey ever
claimed to have seen it on JonBenet, and the autopsy exam turned up no
evidence of the expected skin irritation (or, apparently, any traces
of skin, body oils, etc., on the tape itself). Could easily be one
more piece of manufactured "proof" pointing to an abduction gone
wrong. The parents, after all, would no more need to tape her mouth
than they would need to tie a cord "loosely" around one wrist. Smells
like a smokescreen, to me.
mn
MS
>
> In article <36DBC7...@worldnet.att.net>, Michael Newton
> <eyeo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Yes. I believe at one point he even notes that the stick was not
> >employed as in a classic garrote, and suggests that it may have been
> >added as part of the clumsy staging to support the "SBTC" and "small
> >foreign faction" red herrings.
>
> I still can't fathom what the linguistic game with "garrotte" has to do
> with anything, except to rebut the suggestion she was the victim of
> herrings?
> Two years ago, absent the full autopsy, it was possible to argue that
> she was strangled by some other means and the cord added as a prop. But
> that cord is the murder weapon, whether it was used with the handle or
> not. She was strangled brutally, not given a coup de gras.
>
> "Staging" has become a catch-all for anything which doesn't fit the
> Crazy Patsy Went Off Her Nut Theory. The fact that it requires a belief
> that two distinct, even contradictory tableaux are set doesn't even give
> pause.
> alone, purchased both duct tape and cord in the same transaction just
> Nope, just a couple of handy items around the house, there in case of
> "accident".
>
I've been wondering about that. I do not think this was a premeditated
crime, and I don't think anyone else (outside the dwindling ranks of
Intrudistas) does, either. Schiller's book seems to me to make a pretty
good case for Patsy's having bought both items at a Home Depot in
Georgia, as you say, weeks before the murder. But she denied having
either item in the house--why? An intruder could have used materials
s/he found there--the paintbrush worked, didn't it?--so why would she
deny having bought them? I wonder why she did buy them. At one point
Schiller says a picture had a similar type of tape on its back, but that
it wasn't the exact same kind. This seems to me like another strange
lie, if it is a lie, along with the midnight laundry and a couple of
other things. Are you clinging to erotic asphyxiation by John? Do you
think the string was bought specifically for that purpose? The Book
says the duct tape was applied post-mortem--was that a part of the sex
games, do you think? And if he was willing to send his wife out to buy
his erotic equipment, wouldn't he have fashioned a better sex toy? If
he was going to be spending money on it anyway, I mean.
Martha
Eliza
Case) wrote:
>
> "Staging" has become a catch-all for anything which doesn't fit the
>Crazy Patsy Went Off Her Nut Theory. The fact that it requires a belief
>that two distinct, even contradictory tableaux are set doesn't even give
>pause.
> The police, apparently, believe that either both Ramseys, or Patsy
>alone, purchased both duct tape and cord in the same transaction just
>weeks before the murder. But no one seems to consider premeditation.
>Nope, just a couple of handy items around the house, there in case of
>"accident".
>
Well, Doug, I wouldn't say it doesn't give pause, unless you just mean
that there are some people for whom it doesn't appear to give pause.
I'm on record as being very concerned about the contradictions between
the two supposed "staging" scenarios...and I've concentrated most of
my efforts on trying to reconcile what I view as three distinct
scenarios present in the case, explaining why either two would fit the
initial incident or two would fit the cover-up. It's tricky, though;
you have to either accept that some things that look related may not
be, or figure out a way to combine them into an extraordinarily
complicated story, which is hard to sell.
I'm glad you brought up the pre-purchase of the tape and cord. That
doesn't seem to me to get enough attention. But I still can't figure
out how to make it all work.
Eliza
Fernando Melendez
>Schiller's book seems to me to make a pretty
>good case for Patsy's having bought both items at a Home Depot in
>Georgia, as you say, weeks before the murder.
>
>Martha
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, yes. Close, very close. Schiller calls it the McGuckin Hardware,
not the Home Depot, and he places the store in Boulder, not in
Atlanta. Otherwise you're right on the button.
Fernando
Kris Baker
>I've been wondering about that. I do not think this was a premeditated
>crime, and I don't think anyone else (outside the dwindling ranks of
>Intrudistas) does, either. Schiller's book seems to me to make a
pretty
>good case for Patsy's having bought both items at a Home Depot in
>Georgia, as you say, weeks before the murder.
What??? REALLY at a Home Depot? ALL Home Depots
have completely computerized register/inventory systems -
meaning that the purchase CAN be definitely tied to specific
items! But why would anyone shop for such items in
Georgia, then take them to Boulder?
Kris
Maggie8097
>
>>I've been wondering about that. I do not think this was a premeditated
>>crime, and I don't think anyone else (outside the dwindling ranks of
>>Intrudistas) does, either. Schiller's book seems to me to make a
>pretty
>>good case for Patsy's having bought both items at a Home Depot in
>>Georgia, as you say, weeks before the murder.
>
> What??? REALLY at a Home Depot? ALL Home Depots
> have completely computerized register/inventory systems -
> meaning that the purchase CAN be definitely tied to specific
> items! But why would anyone shop for such items in
> Georgia, then take them to Boulder?
***I think Martha meant the hardware store in Boulder. There was some mention
of a clerk in a Home Depot in Georgia somewhere thinking she/he had sold
something to the Ramseys, but there must not have been any proof. Remember, if
the story is true (unlikely, I figure), Patsy could have paid cash.
Maggie
"Age is a high price to pay for maturity."--Tom Stoppard
WWWoLadyA
>>I'm glad you brought up the pre-purchase of the tape and cord. That
>>doesn't seem to me to get enough attention. But I still can't figure
>>out how to make it all work.
>
>Maybe they just were restocking supplies and bought tape and cord. It
>doesn't mean there was any premeditation--or even any specific need
>for tape and cord. They're not unusual items to have on hand.
Is it known, whether these two items were part of a larger purchase ?
Lady A
DorianA123
>I'm glad you brought up the pre-purchase of the tape and cord. That
>doesn't seem to me to get enough attention. But I still can't figure
>out how to make it all work.
>
I'd be very interested in finding out what else was on the hardware store
receipt. If there was a whole list of items purchased (cord and tape being
among them) then it might just have been a normal stocking-up shopping trip. I
think most people have cord and duct tape in their homes.
OTOH - If those were the only two items purchased it would hint much more that
premeditation was involved.
On the MSNBC special they showed a receipt with only a few items but they never
said if that was 'the' receipt or just for demonstration purposes.
Dorian
MS
>
> MS <ma...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >I've been wondering about that. I do not think this was a premeditated
> >crime, and I don't think anyone else (outside the dwindling ranks of
> >Intrudistas) does, either. Schiller's book seems to me to make a
> pretty
> >good case for Patsy's having bought both items at a Home Depot in
> >Georgia, as you say, weeks before the murder.
>
> have completely computerized register/inventory systems -
> meaning that the purchase CAN be definitely tied to specific
> items! But why would anyone shop for such items in
> Georgia, then take them to Boulder?
>
My mistake. It was a Boulder hardware store. Don't know where I got
the idea it was a Home Depot. Drunk again, I expect. Sorry.
Martha
MS
>
> >MS <ma...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I've been wondering about that. I do not think this was a premeditated
> >>crime, and I don't think anyone else (outside the dwindling ranks of
> >>Intrudistas) does, either. Schiller's book seems to me to make a
> >pretty
> >>good case for Patsy's having bought both items at a Home Depot in
> >>Georgia, as you say, weeks before the murder.
> >
> > What??? REALLY at a Home Depot? ALL Home Depots
> > have completely computerized register/inventory systems -
> > meaning that the purchase CAN be definitely tied to specific
> > items! But why would anyone shop for such items in
> > Georgia, then take them to Boulder?
>
> of a clerk in a Home Depot in Georgia somewhere thinking she/he had sold
> something to the Ramseys, but there must not have been any proof. Remember, if
> the story is true (unlikely, I figure), Patsy could have paid cash.
>
Whew. So I *did* see the words "Home Depot" in the Book. Not as drunk
as I feared.
Mothra, breathalyzed
Maggie8097
>>I'm glad you brought up the pre-purchase of the tape and cord. That
>>doesn't seem to me to get enough attention. But I still can't figure
>>out how to make it all work.
dorian said:
>I'd be very interested in finding out what else was on the hardware store
>receipt. If there was a whole list of items purchased (cord and tape being
>among them) then it might just have been a normal stocking-up shopping
>trip. I
>think most people have cord and duct tape in their homes.
>OTOH - If those were the only two items purchased it would hint much more
>that
>premeditation was involved.
>On the MSNBC special they showed a receipt with only a few items but they
>never
>said if that was 'the' receipt or just for demonstration purposes.
***I think it should be pointed out that there is no proof at all that any cord
and tape were purchased. The only thing the cops have is a copy of a receipt,
listing prices that correspond with the prices of the cord and tape. One of
those prices was $1.99 and I can't remember the other. Anyway, lots of things
cost $1.99--I don't think that information is indicative of anything,
particularly if the Ramseys regularly shopped at that hardware store.
Kris Baker
most likely purchased at McGluckin's Hardware in Boulder.
Right?
So....the police DO know the exact type of cord and tape.
Right?
Anyone here near Boulder and McGluckin's? Wanna go down
there and see what that tape looks like, and what the package
says it's useful for? Same assignment for the cord, of course ;)
Kris
Kris Baker
>My mistake. It was a Boulder hardware store. Don't know where I got
>the idea it was a Home Depot. Drunk again, I expect. Sorry.
Darn! I got SO excited! ha ha
Kris
Needs a drink, so I can throw it on my Pentium fan.
Kris Baker
>***I think it should be pointed out that there is no proof at all that
>any cord and tape were purchased. The only thing the cops have
>is a copy of a receipt, listing prices that correspond with the prices
>of the cord and tape. One of those prices was $1.99 and I can't
>remember the other. Anyway, lots of things cost $1.99--I don't
>think that information is indicative of anything, particularly if the
>Ramseys regularly shopped at that hardware store.
>Maggie
Actually, Maggie - they have more than that.
McGluckin's Hardware (I've probably misspelled that) MUST
carry that exact type of "strange duct tape" as well as that exact
type of cord. Otherwise, they'd not have narrowed down the
purchase to that store.
This isn't ordinary duct tape - it's black and not shiny (as I
remember.) The investigators were searching all over for
sources of it. Once you know who sells it, you can track
receipts.
Kris
Maggie8097
>
>>***I think it should be pointed out that there is no proof at all that
>>any cord and tape were purchased. The only thing the cops have
>>is a copy of a receipt, listing prices that correspond with the prices
>>of the cord and tape. One of those prices was $1.99 and I can't
>>remember the other. Anyway, lots of things cost $1.99--I don't
>>think that information is indicative of anything, particularly if the
>>Ramseys regularly shopped at that hardware store.
>>Maggie
>
>Actually, Maggie - they have more than that.
>
>McGluckin's Hardware (I've probably misspelled that) MUST
>carry that exact type of "strange duct tape" as well as that exact
>type of cord. Otherwise, they'd not have narrowed down the
>purchase to that store.
***I think you're right, but that doesn't mean that lots and lots of other
stores don't carry it. What they've narrowed down is that the Ramseys shopped
at *a* store that sold the cord and/or tape.
>
Kris said:
>This isn't ordinary duct tape - it's black and not shiny (as I
>remember.) The investigators were searching all over for
>sources of it. Once you know who sells it, you can track
>receipts.
***But the receipt does not show that the Ramseys purchased it. It only shows
that the Ramseys purchased *something* from the store that cost $1.99. That
could be almost anything.
MS
>
> maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie8097) wrote:
>
> >***I think it should be pointed out that there is no proof at all that
> >any cord and tape were purchased. The only thing the cops have
> >is a copy of a receipt, listing prices that correspond with the prices
> >of the cord and tape. One of those prices was $1.99 and I can't
> >remember the other. Anyway, lots of things cost $1.99--I don't
> >think that information is indicative of anything, particularly if the
> >Ramseys regularly shopped at that hardware store.
> >Maggie
>
>
> McGluckin's Hardware (I've probably misspelled that) MUST
> carry that exact type of "strange duct tape" as well as that exact
> type of cord. Otherwise, they'd not have narrowed down the
> purchase to that store.
>
> remember.) The investigators were searching all over for
> sources of it. Once you know who sells it, you can track
> receipts.
>
You're right, Kris, and that's exactly what the cops did. The duct
tape, especially, was an odd item, and the Boulder hardware store had it
in stock at the time Patsy bought something from the department the tape
was in that cost exactly what the tape cost. They also carry the nylon
cord, but it is not so rare a type as the tape.
Martha
MS
>
> >maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie8097) wrote:
> >
> >>***I think it should be pointed out that there is no proof at all that
> >>any cord and tape were purchased. The only thing the cops have
> >>is a copy of a receipt, listing prices that correspond with the prices
> >>of the cord and tape. One of those prices was $1.99 and I can't
> >>remember the other. Anyway, lots of things cost $1.99--I don't
> >>think that information is indicative of anything, particularly if the
> >>Ramseys regularly shopped at that hardware store.
> >>Maggie
> >
> >Actually, Maggie - they have more than that.
> >
> >McGluckin's Hardware (I've probably misspelled that) MUST
> >carry that exact type of "strange duct tape" as well as that exact
> >type of cord. Otherwise, they'd not have narrowed down the
> >purchase to that store.
>
> stores don't carry it. What they've narrowed down is that the Ramseys shopped
> at *a* store that sold the cord and/or tape.
> >
> Kris said:
> >remember.) The investigators were searching all over for
> >sources of it. Once you know who sells it, you can track
> >receipts.
>
> that the Ramseys purchased *something* from the store that cost $1.99. That
> could be almost anything.
>
I believe there's a department code on the receipt, Maggie, showing that
the item came from the department where the tape was carried.
Martha
Eliza
wrote:
It could be, but to me it's a pretty big coincidence, especially if it
was very soon before the crime; if she only bought a few items at the
time; and if, as Kris says, it was very unusual tape. I wonder, too,
what she said about that trip to the hardware store. If it was at all
recent at the time of the crime, she should have been able to remember
what she bought. The store could then check and see if they stocked
the items and if the prices matched, and the Ramseys could produce
them and prove what they bought. On the other hand, since they
weren't interviewed for so long, I guess they could very plausibly
claim to have fogotten the purchase by then.
Eliza
MS
And the store should have inventory records of how much tape they had in
stock at the time of Patsy's purchase, and how much they sold during the
time between the purchase and the murder. If it's only a few rolls,
maybe they could track down the purchasers.
Martha
AgEnT OrAnGe
from
a nearby McGluckin's a few weeks before the murder. The register data is not
detailed enough to know exactly what was purchased, but based on the prices
charged, it may well have been the rope and tape. Another nail in the
Ramsey's
coffin.
Kris Baker wrote in message
<7bmb71$dk0i$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
JBrown6000
<<
I've been wondering about that. I do not think this was a premeditated
crime, and I don't think anyone else (outside the dwindling ranks of
Intrudistas) does, either. Schiller's book seems to me to make a pretty
good case for Patsy's having bought both items at a Home Depot in
either item in the house--why? An intruder could have used materials
s/he found there--the paintbrush worked, didn't it?--so why would she
deny having bought them? I wonder why she did buy them. At one point
Schiller says a picture had a similar type of tape on its back, but that
it wasn't the exact same kind. This seems to me like another strange
lie, if it is a lie, along with the midnight laundry and a couple of
other things. Are you clinging to erotic asphyxiation by John? Do you
think the string was bought specifically for that purpose? The Book
says the duct tape was applied post-mortem--was that a part of the sex
games, do you think? And if he was willing to send his wife out to buy
his erotic equipment, wouldn't he have fashioned a better sex toy? If
he was going to be spending money on it anyway, I mean.
>>
**There is no evidence that Patsy bought the items in question. She stated she
did not buy it, and those items were not found in the house. They were not
found in USE anywhere else in the house either. Explain that one.
jb
MS
The tape is a very uncommon type, produced in limited quantities. It is
sold in a Boulder hardware store where Patsy made a purchase before the
murder, including items priced the same as the tape and cord. Do you
believe that the intruder brought tape and cord, but forgot to bring a
ransom note? Or a stick? Puhleeze.
Martha
JBrown6000
<<The tape is a very uncommon type, produced in limited quantities. It is
sold in a Boulder hardware store where Patsy made a purchase before the
murder, including items priced the same as the tape and cord. Do you
believe that the intruder brought tape and cord, but forgot to bring a
ransom note? Or a stick? Puhleeze.
**Yeah. I think he brought the tape and cord.
jb
Greg Goss
>Whew. So I *did* see the words "Home Depot" in the Book. Not as drunk
>as I feared.
Didn't Home Depot grow out of Home Hardware? As the big box version
of the tiny hole-in-the-mall hardware stores? The author may have
accidentally confused the two, or used the word generically to mean
hardware store.
MS
I don't know about that, but when the cops were trying to track down the
duct tape and cord, there was some speculation among the detectives that
those had been among the items Patsy bought at a Home Depot store in GA.
Martha
Sara Ellis
>
>I've been wondering about that. I do not think this was a premeditated
>crime, and I don't think anyone else (outside the dwindling ranks of
>Intrudistas) does, either. Schiller's book seems to me to make a pretty
>good case for Patsy's having bought both items at a Home Depot in
>Georgia, as you say, weeks before the murder. But she denied having
>either item in the house--why? An intruder could have used materials
>s/he found there--the paintbrush worked, didn't it?--so why would she
>deny having bought them? I wonder why she did buy them. At one point
>Schiller says a picture had a similar type of tape on its back, but that
>it wasn't the exact same kind. This seems to me like another strange
>lie, if it is a lie, along with the midnight laundry and a couple of
>other things. Are you clinging to erotic asphyxiation by John? Do you
>think the string was bought specifically for that purpose? The Book
>says the duct tape was applied post-mortem--was that a part of the sex
>games, do you think? And if he was willing to send his wife out to buy
>his erotic equipment, wouldn't he have fashioned a better sex toy? If
>he was going to be spending money on it anyway, I mean.
>
>Martha
I think, for what it's worth, that the duct tape and cord were bought
for Burke for use in one of his hobbies and this is the reason that
Patsy and JR got rid of them. Surely no-one believes this was
anything but an accident, let alone erotic asphyxiation (JR would have
used the cord on himself not JBR.) The duct tape is the fly in the
ointment as far as the Burke theory goes, because if Burke had applied
it, JR would have ripped it off to try to revive her (as he did when
he "found" her.) JR and Patsy, if *they* were guilty would have put
it on post-mortem to go along with their kidnapping story. However, I
don't think that they initially meant JBR to be found, so what would
be the point of the duct tape? Could JR have put it on during one of
his trips to the basement when his plans to fly the body out of state
fell through and he had to change his plans? I realize that this is
all speculation--but so are everyone else's hypotheses.
Sara
MS
> I think, for what it's worth, that the duct tape and cord were bought
> for Burke for use in one of his hobbies and this is the reason that
> Patsy and JR got rid of them.
I really like this idea. We know that Burke stayed up xmas night to
play with a model he'd received as a gift--do I recall that his room was
decorated with model airplanes? Would black duct tape and that nylon
cord be somethin a model-builder would need?
Martha
Sara Ellis
>
>I really like this idea. We know that Burke stayed up xmas night to
>play with a model he'd received as a gift--do I recall that his room was
>decorated with model airplanes? Would black duct tape and that nylon
>cord be somethin a model-builder would need?
>
>Martha
I don't have any sons, just two daughters, but I know how many times
I've said to them after wandering around Walmart for the exact thing
that they wanted, "Well, this will do. This string will do, we'll make
do with this duct tape." If Patsy bought the cord and the duct tape,
then she had a reason for doing so. A specific request from Burke?
"Mom, I need duct tape, make sure it's black and some kind of string,
nylon or shiny, not brown, you know not *garden* string." Surely it's
obvious that Patsy didn't say, "Well, after Christmas I'm going to do
away with JBR. I need cord and duct tape. Better pick it up and,
gosh, I'll pay with a credit card."
MS
Yes. Assuming that Patsy *did* buy those items, though, why would she
deny doing so? It's like saying she found the ransom note on the spiral
stairs and did gymnastics to avoid stepping on it--why not say it was on
the kitchen counter next to the coffee maker? Other implements used in
the crime were from their house, like the paintbrush handle. If she had
bought the tape and twine for some legitimate purpose, like something to
do with Burke's models, why not admit it? My guess right now is that
John may have disposed of the twine and the tape before the body was
found--they weren't left with the body, maybe--or maybe Patsy wasn't
sure about fingerprints on them? I think the fact that the two items
were not found in the house has something to do with her unwillingness
to confess to having bought them.
Martha
Eliza
wrote:
>I think, for what it's worth, that the duct tape and cord were bought
>for Burke for use in one of his hobbies and this is the reason that
>Patsy and JR got rid of them. Surely no-one believes this was
>anything but an accident, let alone erotic asphyxiation (JR would have
I certainly don't think it was an accident. Somebody whacked her
awfully hard, and I don't think it happened when the whacker was
trying to hit a fly. I don't think it was premeditated, either, but
there's a difference between unpremeditated and accidental.
I also don't think the duct tape had anything to do with models,
although I guess there could be some other hobby-related reason (hobby
unknown) for it. It would kind of ruin the look of a model airplane
to have a piece of black duct tape stuck on it! I think they use
glue.
Eliza
Sara Ellis
wrote:
>
>I certainly don't think it was an accident. Somebody whacked her
>awfully hard, and I don't think it happened when the whacker was
>trying to hit a fly. I don't think it was premeditated, either, but
>there's a difference between unpremeditated and accidental.
Well, we could have an argument about premeditation and a blow that
happened on the "spur of the moment." You are saying that Patsy
whacked JBR when she found her with John. In other words, as John
Ramsey was--excuse me--fingering his six year old daughter (and JBR
was enjoying it because as yet she wasn't bound and gagged and
therefore making no noise) Patsy came upon them and beat the shit out
of her daughter? And then because it was unclear whether JBR was
alive or dead, one of them decided to strangle the child? Hmmm. Well
okay. Do you have another scenario? Or is this it?
Sara
taco
wires of the supposed train platform in the train room.
taco
JBrown6000
<<I really like this idea. We know that Burke stayed up xmas night to
play with a model he'd received as a gift--do I recall that his room was
decorated with model airplanes? Would black duct tape and that nylon
cord be somethin a model-builder would need?
**I think this is one of those "knotty" problems a future prosecution will have
to address. According to Schiller there is no smiliar tape in use anywhere in
the house.
jb
JBrown6000
<<Yes. Assuming that Patsy *did* buy those items, though, why would she
deny doing so? It's like saying she found the ransom note on the spiral
stairs and did gymnastics to avoid stepping on it--why not say it was on
the kitchen counter next to the coffee maker? Other implements used in
the crime were from their house, like the paintbrush handle. If she had
bought the tape and twine for some legitimate purpose, like something to
do with Burke's models, why not admit it? My guess right now is that
John may have disposed of the twine and the tape before the body was
found--they weren't left with the body, maybe--or maybe Patsy wasn't
sure about fingerprints on them? I think the fact that the two items
were not found in the house has something to do with her unwillingness
to confess to having bought them.
**Then wouldn't you concede that these items would have been used? They're not
in use anywhere except the murder scene.
jb
MS
That's a good idea, too--in fact, when word first got out that the duct
tape was black, all I could think of was electrical tape. Duct tape is
a different breed, though, and I would imagine that *black* duct tape is
pretty hard to find--if electrical tape is what was needed, I wonder why
this duct tape was bought? There must be *some* specialized use for it
that we haven't thought of. Do sailors use it? Patsy played softball--
is that what you wrap around the handle of a bat?
Mothra
Maggie8097
>>
>> Black (or any color) duct tape might be just the think to use on the
>> wires of the supposed train platform in the train room.
martha said:
>That's a good idea, too--in fact, when word first got out that the duct
>tape was black, all I could think of was electrical tape. Duct tape is
>a different breed, though, and I would imagine that *black* duct tape is
>pretty hard to find--if electrical tape is what was needed, I wonder why
>this duct tape was bought? There must be *some* specialized use for it
>that we haven't thought of. Do sailors use it? Patsy played softball--
>is that what you wrap around the handle of a bat?
***Is everyone forgetting that no other pieces of the tape were found anywhere
around the house? If it was bought for a specific reason weeks before the
crime, surely it would have shown up somewhere (on that train set, bat, etc.).
And I can't believe the parents would have the presence of mind to take the
tape off anything to which it had been applied and dispose of it.
Although I still think Patsy did it, this tape is a real problem. My
inclination is to think the tape was originally stuck to something else, or
that it was brought in by the person who killed JBR, who is known to Patsy (my
faking-a-kidnapping-to-bring-John-closer scenario).
Maggie8097
>I certainly don't think it was an accident. Somebody whacked her
>awfully hard, and I don't think it happened when the whacker was
>trying to hit a fly. I don't think it was premeditated, either, but
>there's a difference between unpremeditated and accidental.
>
>although I guess there could be some other hobby-related reason (hobby
>unknown) for it. It would kind of ruin the look of a model airplane
>to have a piece of black duct tape stuck on it! I think they use
>glue.
***I agree 100%, Eliza. The blow had to have been deliberate, but I bet there
was almost instant remorse, whoever did it.
Kris Baker
jb, just because you can't find other evidence of the tape in the
home after the murder - doesn't mean that it wasn't used in the
home prior to that time. It may have been used on something
that left the house: a book, scout project,, a car, etc.
In fact, when I use duct-type
tape, I tear off a few 5" pieces and stick them by an edge onto
something metal (ie, pre-torn usable pieces.) I do this in
my basement, and have gone back weeks later and used one
of those pieces. That could have happened here. The
piece used on JBR may have been the ONLY piece left in
the house.
Kris
Eliza
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Mar 1999 06:18:41 GMT, eli...@mindspring.com (Eliza)
>wrote:
>>
>>I certainly don't think it was an accident. Somebody whacked her
>>awfully hard, and I don't think it happened when the whacker was
>>trying to hit a fly. I don't think it was premeditated, either, but
>>there's a difference between unpremeditated and accidental.
>
>Well, we could have an argument about premeditation and a blow that
>happened on the "spur of the moment."
We could have an argument, but I'm pretty sure you'd lose. Are you
saying that if somebody delivers a killing blow on the "spur of the
moment," the death should be considered an accident? I think you
probably just picked the wrong word when you said accident, although I
may have misunderstood your rejoinder quoted above; the point of that
comment isn't very clear to me.
>You are saying that Patsy
>whacked JBR when she found her with John. In other words, as John
>Ramsey was--excuse me--fingering his six year old daughter (and JBR
>was enjoying it because as yet she wasn't bound and gagged and
>therefore making no noise) Patsy came upon them and beat the shit out
>of her daughter?
I have said nothing of the kind. Where did you get that from?
>And then because it was unclear whether JBR was
>alive or dead, one of them decided to strangle the child? Hmmm. Well
>okay. Do you have another scenario? Or is this it?
I don't have a single favorite theory. There are about four or five
that I consider to be plausible, all involving Patsy as the primary
mover in covering up the crime but with various people committing the
crime itself. There are two things that I don't consider at all
plausible: that the blow that began the violence was an accident, and
that Burke crushed JonBenet's skull, on purpose or on accident. I put
these two further down on my list than a "lone intruder" scenario;
however, I also disbelieve the LI theory at this point.
FWIW, I have a lot of trouble fitting the strangulation into it and
squaring that with the so-called ransom note, which is why I tend to
prefer complicated theories that involve at least two actors whose
thought processes and/or motives conflicted. However, the scenario
that you outlined above and tried to attribute to me is something that
I have never come close to supporting.
Eliza
MS
>
> >taco wrote:
> >>
> >> Black (or any color) duct tape might be just the think to use on the
> >> wires of the supposed train platform in the train room.
>
> martha said:
> >That's a good idea, too--in fact, when word first got out that the duct
> >tape was black, all I could think of was electrical tape. Duct tape is
> >a different breed, though, and I would imagine that *black* duct tape is
> >pretty hard to find--if electrical tape is what was needed, I wonder why
> >this duct tape was bought? There must be *some* specialized use for it
> >that we haven't thought of. Do sailors use it? Patsy played softball--
> >is that what you wrap around the handle of a bat?
>
> ***Is everyone forgetting that no other pieces of the tape were found anywhere
> around the house?
*Do* we know that? We know that the rest of the *roll* of tape wasn't
found, but I think it's possible that the police did not inspect every
item of the Ramseys' possessions before they were removed from that
house.
If it was bought for a specific reason weeks before the
> crime, surely it would have shown up somewhere (on that train set, bat, etc.).
> And I can't believe the parents would have the presence of mind to take the
> tape off anything to which it had been applied and dispose of it.
I agree, but I also can easily imagine either the cops not looking very
hard for bits of tape on something, especially something of Burke's, or
the Ramseys being able to pack up whatever the tape was used on quickly
and quietly.
MS
This would be hard to accept, Kris, if the tape is truly from the roll
Patsy may have bought a few weeks before Christmas. Think about all the
*stuff* you have in your house--is your house anywhere as big as the
Ramseys'?--and then think about all the places you've used tape where
the tape is not obvious, even to someone searching the house. The
Ramsey basement was apparently piled high with *stuff*--how can we
possibly know that the cops carefully turned over each item to inspect
it, inside and out, for black tape?
Martha
DorianA123
>This would be hard to accept, Kris, if the tape is truly from the roll
>Patsy may have bought a few weeks before Christmas. Think about all the
>*stuff* you have in your house--is your house anywhere as big as the
>Ramseys'?--and then think about all the places you've used tape where
>the tape is not obvious, even to someone searching the house. The
>Ramsey basement was apparently piled high with *stuff*--how can we
>possibly know that the cops carefully turned over each item to inspect
>it, inside and out, for black tape?
>
>Martha
>
>
Not the most thorough bunch at all.
Dorian
JBrown6000
Patsy may have bought a few weeks before Christmas. Think about all the
*stuff* you have in your house--is your house anywhere as big as the
Ramseys'?--and then think about all the places you've used tape where
the tape is not obvious, even to someone searching the house. The
Ramsey basement was apparently piled high with *stuff*--how can we
possibly know that the cops carefully turned over each item to inspect
it, inside and out, for black tape?
**Except we do know that they checked items they though MIGHT be the tape, and
couldn't find any. They had possession of the house for quite awhile. The
Ramsey's didn't remove any items that might have had tape, because they left
the house that day.
The cops took over.
jb
MS
When I use tape, I'm usually trying to hold something together without
calling attention to the tape--if I wanted the repair to be as
inconspicuous as possible, I'd go out of my way to buy a special tape in
a color that would render the repair as invisible as I could manage.
People were removing things from that house from day one, before the
body was found, imho, and I do not believe that the cops went through
everything piled in the basement.
And what if, as is suggested by the timing of the purchase, the tape was
needed for something to do with the multitude of Christmas decorations?
I can see black duct tape's being just the thing to repair sagging
branches on artificial Christmas trees, of which there was one in every
room. Do you think the cops dismantled each tree and checked for tape?
I don't.
Martha
JIM FILZ
>inclination is to think the tape was originally stuck to something else,
********** This was my suggestion over a year ago, when no "roll" could be
found. The same might apply to the cord. Finding or not finding more tape or a
roll, really has no great bearing on this case, and does not point to any
suspect or away from any suspect. It's just not important where that tape came
from.
MS
Unless it's tape that Patsy bought a few weeks before the murder. Then
I think it's *very* important--it might even show premeditation
(although I don't think so).
Martha
Kris Baker
>Kris Baker wrote:
>> jbrow...@aol.combyte-me (JBrown6000) wrote:
>> >Martha says:
>This would be hard to accept, Kris, if the tape is truly from the roll
>Patsy may have bought a few weeks before Christmas. Think about all
the
>*stuff* you have in your house--is your house anywhere as big as the
>Ramseys'?--and then think about all the places you've used tape where
>the tape is not obvious, even to someone searching the house. The
>Ramsey basement was apparently piled high with *stuff*--how can we
>possibly know that the cops carefully turned over each item to inspect
>it, inside and out, for black tape?
>Martha
What I'm thinking, Martha, is that the tape was bought for a
special purpose (why else does anyone buy something like that?)
for one-time usage. Evidently costing $1.99, I don't think this would
be a LOT of tape (roll of 3" wide tape with only a few feet on it.)
We know that Patsy did a lot of school volunteer work, Burke was
involved in scouting - but Patsy wasn't the kind of woman who
would be involved in household maintenance (ie, I cannot picture
her deciding to put duct tape on a basement heat vent.)
That's why I believe the tape was primarily used for something
that left the house - and only a bit remained. Where's the
rest of the roll? It could even have been burned in one of the
many fireplaces. (A cardboard core from a roll of tape would
burn quickly.)
Kris
MS
Possible. $1.99 for duct tape isn't very much. It can't have been a
very big roll--maybe it was all used up. I can't help thinking it was
bought for some Christmas-related project--like the gingerbread houses
Patsy had for their party guests to decorate. Could that tape have been
used inside the gingerbreak houses, to reinforce their joints, or to
hold them safe to a cardboard base? Could it have been used to hang
some decoration? I suspect that if there was any left, it and the cord
disappeared forever during one of John's unexplained absences that
morning.
Martha
Sara Ellis
wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Mar 1999 06:18:41 GMT, eli...@mindspring.com (Eliza)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>I certainly don't think it was an accident. Somebody whacked her
>>>awfully hard, and I don't think it happened when the whacker was
>>>trying to hit a fly. I don't think it was premeditated, either, but
>>>there's a difference between unpremeditated and accidental.
>>
>>Well, we could have an argument about premeditation and a blow that
>>happened on the "spur of the moment."
>
>We could have an argument, but I'm pretty sure you'd lose. Are you
>saying that if somebody delivers a killing blow on the "spur of the
>moment," the death should be considered an accident?
Not at all, but neither was it premeditated.
I think you
>probably just picked the wrong word when you said accident, although I
>may have misunderstood your rejoinder quoted above; the point of that
>comment isn't very clear to me.
I just don't want to argue legal points--I'm not a lawyer. I simply
want to know why Patsy whacked JBR, if you believe that is the case.
>>You are saying that Patsy
>>whacked JBR when she found her with John. In other words, as John
>>Ramsey was--excuse me--fingering his six year old daughter (and JBR
>>was enjoying it because as yet she wasn't bound and gagged and
>>therefore making no noise) Patsy came upon them and beat the shit out
>>of her daughter?
>
>I have said nothing of the kind. Where did you get that from?
>
Sorry. I had not intended to put words in your mouth. I'm just very
frustrated that no-one with a Patsy did it leaning ever comes up with
a logical scenario.
>>And then because it was unclear whether JBR was
>>alive or dead, one of them decided to strangle the child? Hmmm. Well
>>okay. Do you have another scenario? Or is this it?
>
>I don't have a single favorite theory. There are about four or five
>that I consider to be plausible, all involving Patsy as the primary
>mover in covering up the crime but with various people committing the
>crime itself. There are two things that I don't consider at all
>plausible: that the blow that began the violence was an accident, and
>that Burke crushed JonBenet's skull,
Well, cracked, with splintering along the crack.
on purpose or on accident. I put
>these two further down on my list than a "lone intruder" scenario;
>however, I also disbelieve the LI theory at this point.
>
>FWIW, I have a lot of trouble fitting the strangulation into it and
>squaring that with the so-called ransom note, which is why I tend to
>prefer complicated theories
Occam's razor, Eliza.
that involve at least two actors whose
>thought processes and/or motives conflicted. However, the scenario
>that you outlined above and tried to attribute to me is something that
>I have never come close to supporting.
>
I would be grateful if you could give me a reason why--other than
Burke could never have kept his mouth shut?
Sara
>Eliza
SFount1964
>frustrated that no-one with a Patsy did it leaning ever comes up with
>a logical scenario.
I think that is one of the problems with solving the case. There is not a
"logical" reason why anyone would kill a six year old child. As someone said
in an earlier post, a lot of the evidence makes no sense whether you believe
the Ramsey's did it, or whether you believe an intruder did it.
sf
DorianA123
Sara wrote:
>Sorry. I had not intended to put words in your mouth. I'm just very
>frustrated that no-one with a Patsy did it leaning ever comes up with
>a logical scenario.
Once again....you have to be careful about trying to apply logic to an
irrational act.
There is no logical or rational reason why anyone would kill a 6 year old
child.
The fact remains that it's well documented that parents have killed their
children over bedwetting incidents.....and parents who are molesting their
child have killed them when they've threatened to tell someone or have refused
to play the game anymore.
What someone does after accidentally killing their child in order to cover-up
the crime is hardly likely to follow a logical pattern either.
Dorian
Eliza
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Mar 1999 22:36:17 GMT, eli...@mindspring.com (Eliza)
>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Mar 1999 06:18:41 GMT, eli...@mindspring.com (Eliza)
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I certainly don't think it was an accident. Somebody whacked her
>>>>awfully hard, and I don't think it happened when the whacker was
>>>>trying to hit a fly. I don't think it was premeditated, either, but
>>>>there's a difference between unpremeditated and accidental.
>>>
>>>Well, we could have an argument about premeditation and a blow that
>>>happened on the "spur of the moment."
>>
>>We could have an argument, but I'm pretty sure you'd lose. Are you
>>saying that if somebody delivers a killing blow on the "spur of the
>>moment," the death should be considered an accident?
>
>Not at all, but neither was it premeditated.
Who said it was? You did use the word "accident," and now's the time
to take it back, since that's what started this particular dispute.
>>>You are saying that Patsy
>>>whacked JBR when she found her with John. In other words, as John
>>>Ramsey was--excuse me--fingering his six year old daughter (and JBR
>>>was enjoying it because as yet she wasn't bound and gagged and
>>>therefore making no noise) Patsy came upon them and beat the shit out
>>>of her daughter?
>>
>>I have said nothing of the kind. Where did you get that from?
>>
>Sorry. I had not intended to put words in your mouth. I'm just very
>frustrated that no-one with a Patsy did it leaning ever comes up with
>a logical scenario.
I don't particularly have a PDI leaning, and again, I'm not sure why
you're assuming so. I have tried to take pains to leave the role of
the murderer open when I can. I do have a Patsy-covered-it-up
leaning, but since John has been excluded as the writer of the note,
the reasons for that seem obvious. While the primary PDI theory --
bedwetting rage -- is not my favorite theory, I don't see how you can
claim it's less logical than an accidental - hit - during -
molestation - rage (AHDMR) or brother - killed - her - accidentally -
playing - doctor (BKHAPD). There are certainly more cases of
bedwetting - rage murder than AHDMR or BKHAPD on record.
>>>And then because it was unclear whether JBR was
>>>alive or dead, one of them decided to strangle the child? Hmmm. Well
>>>okay. Do you have another scenario? Or is this it?
>>
>>I don't have a single favorite theory. There are about four or five
>>that I consider to be plausible, all involving Patsy as the primary
>>mover in covering up the crime but with various people committing the
>>crime itself. There are two things that I don't consider at all
>>plausible: that the blow that began the violence was an accident, and
>>that Burke crushed JonBenet's skull,
>
>Well, cracked, with splintering along the crack.
Since there's an indentation in the skull, the bone was crushed at
that position. There's really no other way to make an indentation in
a skull (without resorting to surgery), because they don't bend in.
>on purpose or on accident. I put
>>these two further down on my list than a "lone intruder" scenario;
>>however, I also disbelieve the LI theory at this point.
>>
>>FWIW, I have a lot of trouble fitting the strangulation into it and
>>squaring that with the so-called ransom note, which is why I tend to
>>prefer complicated theories
>
>Occam's razor, Eliza.
(1) Just because somebody puts a name to a maxim doesn't mean it holds
sway over the universe; in crime as in other social (as opposed to
mathematical) matters, sometimes the truth is complicated. (2) In my
opinion, all of the simple theories in this case leave at least one
very important question unanswered; therefore, they don't fit Occam's
razor because they're not solutions to the problem. (3) I'm not sure
what your theory is, but if it means that the crime can possibly be
described as an accident I don't think it's very simple.
>that involve at least two actors whose
>>thought processes and/or motives conflicted. However, the scenario
>>that you outlined above and tried to attribute to me is something that
>>I have never come close to supporting.
>>
>I would be grateful if you could give me a reason why--other than
>Burke could never have kept his mouth shut?
I have said why, but I'll repeat it: I do not believe a nine-year old
boy can crush a person's skull -- at least, not without the assistance
of gravity and height.
Eliza
JIM FILZ
>I think it's *very* important--it might even show premeditation
>(although I don't think so).
>
*********** There's no "proof" that Patsy bought any "tape" a few weeks before
the murder. The cash register tape doesn't really tell us anything. And if you
are so interested in the tape, then you do have to "find" the roll, or at least
more of the tape somewhere in the house. It's just another "red herring".
MS
Well, sez you. The cash register tape shows someone using Patsy's
credit card bought something with the department code from where that
tape was sold. That unusual tape was found with her child's body.
Other items used in the murder were things that belonged to the family,
specifically to Patsy. I don't think it's wise to discount its
evidentiary value.
Martha
Sara Ellis
>
>Well, sez you. The cash register tape shows someone using Patsy's
>credit card bought something with the department code from where that
>tape was sold. That unusual tape was found with her child's body.
>Other items used in the murder were things that belonged to the family,
>specifically to Patsy. I don't think it's wise to discount its
>evidentiary value.
>
>Martha
I agree. I find it a bit odd that Patsy "can't remember" what she
bought that day. It's not like a grocery store and you can't remember
what you bought when. Most people go to a hardware store to pick up
something specific. I think it's very likely she did buy the tape and
cord there--perhaps for some project not gotten round to--used them on
JBR, and discarded because of the fingerprints on the duct tape (ever
try to tear duct tape without getting fingerprints on the unused
portion?) and while they were cleaning up: "Get rid of this cord as
well."
Sara Ellis
wrote:
>
>I don't particularly have a PDI leaning, and again, I'm not sure why
>you're assuming so. I have tried to take pains to leave the role of
>the murderer open when I can. I do have a Patsy-covered-it-up
>leaning, but since John has been excluded as the writer of the note,
>the reasons for that seem obvious. While the primary PDI theory --
>bedwetting rage -- is not my favorite theory, I don't see how you can
>claim it's less logical than an accidental - hit - during -
>molestation - rage (AHDMR) or brother - killed - her - accidentally -
>playing - doctor (BKHAPD). There are certainly more cases of
>bedwetting - rage murder than AHDMR or BKHAPD on record.
>
with a reason for the strangulation. She was six years old--you could
have pinched her nose closed and she would have died. Why the
overkill? If Patsy whacked her in rage after a bedwetting incident,
sorry, Eliza, but her immediate reaction would be "Omigod, call 911,"
not, "Let me now devise a strangulation, even though I hear her trying
to get her breath." If she walked in on JBR and JR doing stuff and
she knew about it, why would she get upset? If she didn't know about
it, why would she blame JBR--and even if she did why would she beat
JBR about the head, and then, one would suppose with JR's consent,
get a paint brush and fashion a garotte to strangle the child? BDI is
the only scenario that makes sense-we just have to assume that Burke
was able to keep his mouth closed and had the strength to crack JBR's
skull. Tell me, if you could believe that Burke had the strength,
would you then believe the BDI scenario?
Sara
Eliza
wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 06:06:25 GMT, eli...@mindspring.com (Eliza)
>wrote:
>>
>>I don't particularly have a PDI leaning, and again, I'm not sure why
>>you're assuming so. I have tried to take pains to leave the role of
>>the murderer open when I can. I do have a Patsy-covered-it-up
>>leaning, but since John has been excluded as the writer of the note,
>>the reasons for that seem obvious. While the primary PDI theory --
>>bedwetting rage -- is not my favorite theory, I don't see how you can
>>claim it's less logical than an accidental - hit - during -
>>molestation - rage (AHDMR) or brother - killed - her - accidentally -
>>playing - doctor (BKHAPD). There are certainly more cases of
>>bedwetting - rage murder than AHDMR or BKHAPD on record.
>>
>Eliza, no-one apart from the Burke Did It (BDI) theorists can come up
>with a reason for the strangulation. She was six years old--you could
>have pinched her nose closed and she would have died. Why the
>overkill? If Patsy whacked her in rage after a bedwetting incident,
>sorry, Eliza, but her immediate reaction would be "Omigod, call 911,"
>not, "Let me now devise a strangulation, even though I hear her trying
>to get her breath." If she walked in on JBR and JR doing stuff and
>she knew about it, why would she get upset? If she didn't know about
>it, why would she blame JBR--and even if she did why would she beat
>JBR about the head, and then, one would suppose with JR's consent,
>get a paint brush and fashion a garotte to strangle the child?
You are assuming that the oft-mentioned theories (bedwetting rage and
molestation rage) are the only possible theories alternative to BDI.
I am not fond of the popular theories and have said so several times,
and have expressly mentioned the apparent pointlessness of the
strangulation as one of the primary reasons for my dissatisfaction
with many of those theories. Once again you are assuming an awful
lot, and assuming it incorrectly.
If Burke both bashed and strangled JBR, then that must mean he killed
her as intentionally as a child can kill anyone, and did it rather
sadistically; surely you're not proposing that he whacked the hell out
of her *and* strangled her accidentally during the course of a game!
(If he didn't do the strangling, then the strangulation makes as
little sense as it would if Patsy or John did the bashing.) There is
no reason in this world to assume that Burke is more capable of a
sadistic killing than Patsy or John. For example, one or the other of
the parents may have subjected her to a relatively long session of
eventually murderous punishment for alleged misbehavior of unknown
kind ... perhaps related to the earlier 911 call, perhaps not. Such
abuse does occur, and while sibling abuse is a problem and some of it
is severe, horrific abuse at the hands of parents is more common.
(Let me repeat here that I'm not a particular fan of the bedwetting
theory, so please don't jump to an incorrect conclusion as to the
suppposed misbehavior on JBR's part; also, let me point out that this
is not necessarily my preferred theory, but merely one of several I am
considering.)
>BDI is
>the only scenario that makes sense-we just have to assume that Burke
>was able to keep his mouth closed and had the strength to crack JBR's
>skull.
We do not have to assume any such thing! You're being ridiculous; why
should your particular logical problems with other people's theories
prevail over other people's logical problems with yours?
>Tell me, if you could believe that Burke had the strength,
>would you then believe the BDI scenario?
I would certainly consider it, but I wouldn't glom onto it as you have
because, as I said, I don't think it has any logical advantage over a
PDI or a JDI kill. It has a slight logical advantage over two popular
scenarios -- bedwetting and molestation rage (neither of which, I
repeat so you don't forget, is my theory) ONLY if you discount the
strength issue ... which I am not willing to do because while I
certainly think emotional probabilities (such as "why would they want
to do that"?) are worth considering, physical capabilities present
limitations that are much more absolute. As many people have pointed
out but you don't seem to accept, somebody did something that none of
us can imagine doing, so who's to say where the irrationality would
stop?
Eliza
tld
wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:41:53 GMT, rhe...@madbbs.com (Sara Ellis)
>wrote:
>>Eliza, no-one apart from the Burke Did It (BDI) theorists can come up
>>with a reason for the strangulation. She was six years old--you could
>>have pinched her nose closed and she would have died. Why the
>>overkill? If Patsy whacked her in rage after a bedwetting incident,
>>sorry, Eliza, but her immediate reaction would be "Omigod, call 911,"
>>not, "Let me now devise a strangulation, even though I hear her trying
>>to get her breath." If she walked in on JBR and JR doing stuff and
>>she knew about it, why would she get upset? If she didn't know about
>>it, why would she blame JBR--and even if she did why would she beat
>>JBR about the head, and then, one would suppose with JR's consent,
>>get a paint brush and fashion a garotte to strangle the child?
>
>You are assuming that the oft-mentioned theories (bedwetting rage and
>molestation rage) are the only possible theories alternative to BDI.
>I am not fond of the popular theories and have said so several times,
>and have expressly mentioned the apparent pointlessness of the
>strangulation as one of the primary reasons for my dissatisfaction
>with many of those theories. Once again you are assuming an awful
>lot, and assuming it incorrectly.
>
>If Burke both bashed and strangled JBR, then that must mean he killed
>her as intentionally as a child can kill anyone, and did it rather
>sadistically; surely you're not proposing that he whacked the hell out
>of her *and* strangled her accidentally during the course of a game!
>(If he didn't do the strangling, then the strangulation makes as
>little sense as it would if Patsy or John did the bashing.)
The strangulation makes *perfect sense* when it is viewed as the main
component of the staging (cover-up). This is true whether BDI or PDI
or P & JDI. The strangulation may have indeed unintentionally been
the cause of death, but its real intent seems to be to function as a
red herring.
I am moving away from the whole idea of BDI because I don't believe
that particular 9 year old had the physical strength to inflict that
particular blow to the head. But even if BDI is the case, I believe
both parents staged the whole sexual/strangulation scenario in the
hopes that the cops would immediately rush out looking for perverts
else where. And had the cops found a viable pervert in the night, you
can be certain the Ramsey's would have done all they could to help
convict such a person. Even if they knew for a fact this individual
was innocent. Unfortunately for the Ramsey's, the police never seemed
to move very far in that direction.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced there wasn't at least one home
grown pervert in the house that night. If so, there would possibly be
some evidence on JBR that she had been *diddled* with. So some
explanation for things like a partially penetrated hymen would need a
*reasonable* explanation. Also an explanation that didn't lead back
to a family member. Staging a strangulation as part of sick sex crime
committed by an alleged pervert who supposedly broke in the house,
would function well to cover any such sexual evidence. And, would
thus theorectically take suspicion away from family members.
Whatever the truth is, I believe the strangulation is a red herring
contrived to throw everyone off the track. And so far, it seems to
have functioned pretty well in that capacity.
Terri
Eliza
Maybe, but if they wanted to stage a sex crime, why did they leave a
ransom note? That contradicts their OTHER cover story. And why not
leave the body naked? That's step one for convincing people they've
got a sex crime on their hands. And there's really nothing
essentially sexual about strangulation; a few odd people involve it in
sex, but more people involve other things in sex...like urine, and
whips, and animals .... People who are murdered as part of a sex
crime seem to me to be at least as likely to be beaten or stabbed as
strangled at all, much less strangled with a garotte (or
pseudo-garotte).
The bondage element seems to me to have been possibly intended to
suggest a sex crime, but not really the strangulation itself.
Eliza
guppy99
JIM FILZ wrote in message <19990315075058...@ng-fs1.aol.com>...
>>Unless it's tape that Patsy bought a few weeks before the murder. Then
>>I think it's *very* important--it might even show premeditation
>>(although I don't think so).
>>
>
>*********** There's no "proof" that Patsy bought any "tape" a few weeks
before
>the murder. The cash register tape doesn't really tell us anything. And if
you
>are so interested in the tape, then you do have to "find" the roll, or at
least
>more of the tape somewhere in the house. It's just another "red herring".
One does wonder why Boulder's Finest didn't inventory all of the items in
the
particular department where Patsy shopped that matched the price of the
cord and duct tape, then compare them to items at the Ramseys' house.
guppy
Kris Baker
>
>JIM FILZ wrote:
>> *********** There's no "proof" that Patsy bought any "tape" a few
>>weeks before the murder. The cash register tape doesn't really tell
>>us anything. And if you are so interested in the tape, then you do
>>have to "find" the roll, or at least more of the tape somewhere in
>>the house. It's just another "red herring".
>Well, sez you. The cash register tape shows someone using Patsy's
>credit card bought something with the department code from where that
>tape was sold. That unusual tape was found with her child's body.
>Other items used in the murder were things that belonged to the family,
>specifically to Patsy. I don't think it's wise to discount its
>evidentiary value.
>Martha
I agree, Martha -- and here's a point that's been forgotten in
these discussions: Patsy bought SOMETHING from that
department, for that same price. I doubt that she's a frequent
customer of such stores, thus it would have been quite easy for
her to say "No, it wasn't black tape - I bought such-and-such."
The resounding silence as to what was bought is very telling
to me.
Kris
Kris Baker
>On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 08:51:37 -0700, MS <ma...@erols.com> wrote:
>>Well, sez you. The cash register tape shows someone using Patsy's
>>credit card bought something with the department code from where that
>>tape was sold. That unusual tape was found with her child's body.
>>Other items used in the murder were things that belonged to the family,
>>specifically to Patsy. I don't think it's wise to discount its
>>evidentiary value.
>>Martha
>I agree. I find it a bit odd that Patsy "can't remember" what she
>bought that day. It's not like a grocery store and you can't remember
>what you bought when. Most people go to a hardware store to pick up
>something specific. I think it's very likely she did buy the tape and
>cord there--perhaps for some project not gotten round to--used them on
>JBR, and discarded because of the fingerprints on the duct tape (ever
>try to tear duct tape without getting fingerprints on the unused
>portion?) and while they were cleaning up: "Get rid of this cord as
>well."
Although the pipes in the home have been checked, I still suspect
that the kitchen knife (found in the utility area near the 2nd floor
washer) was used to cut up the remnants of the tape, the roll,
and the cord. Such pieces were flushed down the toilet. If the
plumbing in the home had been used at all the morning of the
26th (very likely, considering how many people were in the house for
so many hours), those remnants would have long passed through
the home's plumbing and into the city's sewage system.
Kris
was
Kris Baker
>
>>On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:41:53 GMT, rhe...@madbbs.com (Sara Ellis)
>>wrote:
>
>>>Eliza, no-one apart from the Burke Did It (BDI) theorists can come up
>>>with a reason for the strangulation. She was six years old--you
could
>>>have pinched her nose closed and she would have died. Why the
>>>overkill?
>Whatever the truth is, I believe the strangulation is a red herring
>contrived to throw everyone off the track. And so far, it seems to
>have functioned pretty well in that capacity.
>
>Terri
Bingo, Terri!
The strangulation fits in perfectly as staging, along with the
note. The note was written to portray the kidnappers as very
mean people (use of word "beheading" for instance.) Some
very cruel things were done to JBR's body during the cover-up,
to insure that these "really mean guys" were believable.
In reading the Schiller book, I keep seeing references to
"not all the pieces fit" in regards to motive. I don't agree.
Once the child was bashed on the head, the cover-up/staging
scenario (definitely "overkill") went into play - and the person(s)
doing so put in as many nasty things as they could in an attempt
to insure that it looked like a stranger did this.
Kris
MS
That's right. Another reason to fill the house, I guess--boy, I've
learned a lot from the Ramseys about committing the perfect crime. Not
only is there lots of extra DNA, hairs, boogers, dandruff, clothing
fibers, footprints and fingerprints and what-not from their friends
floating around, but their friends' toilet needs (and this was the
morning after a party, so you *know* there was coffee-drinking going on,
and you know what *that* means, toilet-wise) would ensure that those
pipes were flushed, again and again. Geniuses.
Martha
Kris Baker
>x-no-archive: yes
>JDK...@prodigy.com (Kris Baker) wrote:
>>I agree, Martha -- and here's a point that's been forgotten in
>>these discussions: Patsy bought SOMETHING from that
>>department, for that same price. I doubt that she's a frequent
>>customer of such stores, thus it would have been quite easy for
>>her to say "No, it wasn't black tape - I bought such-and-such."
>>The resounding silence as to what was bought is very telling
>>to me.
>But so what? Other items from the house have been shown to have been
>used in the murder and cover-up, so what is the big deal if tape
>belonging to the Ramseys had been used too? Frankly, the fact that the
>tape was apparently then taken from the house might buttress the
>intruder theory a bit--one might argue that Mr. Intruder
>absentmindedly slipped the tape in his pocket and left with it.
>Eleanor (elli...@ix.netcom.com)
Hi, Ellie -
I think that this would be a major piece of exculpatory evidence
for Patsy (being able to point out that she did shop at McGuckin's,
but that she purchased a different $1.99 item.) Of course, the
major problem is that it's so long ago, that the home's contents
at the time of the murder cannot be positively identified.
Kris
Firefly192
<snip>
>And what if, as is suggested by the timing of the purchase, the tape was
>needed for something to do with the multitude of Christmas decorations?
>I can see black duct tape's being just the thing to repair sagging
>branches on artificial Christmas trees, of which there was one in every
>room. Do you think the cops dismantled each tree and checked for tape?
>I don't.
>
>Martha
What about the use of the black duct tape for *outside* decorations/lights?
Were there any? And would they have been checked?
-----------------------------------------------------
--Steph
MS
I doubt it. I think there are any number of places that tape might have
been used and not noticed by police. Maybe it *was* a piece that had
already been used for something else and was taken off that and put on
the corpse's mouth--the "wine cellar" was where their xmas stuff was
stored.
Martha
Kris Baker
>Firefly192 wrote:
>> MS <ma...@erols.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >And what if, as is suggested by the timing of the purchase, the
>> >tape was needed for something to do with the multitude of
>> >Christmas decorations?
>> >I can see black duct tape's being just the thing to repair sagging
>> >branches on artificial Christmas trees, of which there was one in
>> >every room. Do you think the cops dismantled each tree and
>> >checked for tape?
>> >I don't.
>> >Martha
From Schiller's book, it sounds like the investigators spent
mucho time inside the home - went back time and again.
But you're right - I doubt they disassembled the Christmas
trees. The likely spot would be reinforcement along the
point where the branch slips into the tree "trunk." That
would be a hidden point.
>> What about the use of the black duct tape for *outside* decorations
>> /lights? Were there any? And would they have been checked?
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> --Steph
Actually, Steph - I think that's pretty good thinking! There WERE
outside lights on the Ramsey home -- as well as some fairly
tall wooden candy cane decorations up each side of the
walkway to the front door.
The purchase of heavy black tape to help hang up Christmas
lights kinda makes sense to me. I remember seeing early
photos of the Ramsey home, and the Christmas decorations
were clearly shown. Christmas lights have dark-colored
cords....and black tape would be much better than shiny
silver duct tape.
AND......white! White cord. White candy canes with
red stripes. My neighbors string their candy canes
together, using (ta dah!) white cord in between them. I'll
have to find a picture of the front of the house, to see if
this was possible. But it's so obvious.......
>I doubt it. I think there are any number of places that tape might
have
>been used and not noticed by police. Maybe it *was* a piece that had
>already been used for something else and was taken off that and put on
>the corpse's mouth--the "wine cellar" was where their xmas stuff was
>stored.
>Martha
Very possible that this was a piece of previously-used tape.
It held no fingerprints (only some black and red fibers.) It
didn't even have any of JBR's skin cells on it.
Kris
Kris Baker
>OK, I can see it being exculpatory if she didn't buy the tape, but I
>just don't see it as terribly incriminating if she did.
>Eleanor (elli...@ix.netcom.com)
True - but it places the knowledge of the tape at the Patsy level.
Brings it into the home before the crime, which makes it even
odder that the only evidence that it ever existed is that a small
piece of it was on JBR's mouth.
Kris
tld
Case) wrote:
>In article <7cm7b9$71qa$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>JDK...@prodigy.com (Kris Baker) wrote:
>
>>ves...@execpc.com (tld) wrote:
>
>>>Whatever the truth is, I believe the strangulation is a red herring
>>>contrived to throw everyone off the track. And so far, it seems to
>>>have functioned pretty well in that capacity.
>
>
>>Bingo, Terri!
>
>
> That's bingo? We're playing with different cards. Strangulation is all
>but *ignored*. If anything has contrived to throw everyone off the track
>it's the desire to find comforting answers-a moment's rage or a sibling
>rivalry.
>
>
>>
>>The strangulation fits in perfectly as staging, along with the
>>note.
>
>
> In fact it's the weak link of the whole notion of staging. It doesn't
>work from the physical evidence, it doesn't work with the ascribed
>motive(s), and it raises the serious question of how an accident becomes
>an exercise in slow brutality.
I believe it makes sense if viewed as nothing more than an attempt to
make it look like anyone on earth but mom and dad did it. In that
sense the garotte works well as evidenced by the post I'm responding
to.
The Ramsey's aren't professional criminals or even experienced
murderers. How much would they know about how a bona fide sex crime
is carried out? Even after reading true crime books, most people
could only guess at what is *normal* in the commission of such a
crime.
> Begin with the closing section of Schiller:
>
> "What [no one] connected with the investigation could explain was the
>use of the noose on JonBenet...
> "....It would have been just as easy to end her life by smothering or
>strangling her by hand. There was no explanation why anyone would even
>think of making a noose-which takes time-slip it around her neck, and use
>it to kill her.
> "Death by this method is gruesome and horrifying. It does not come
>quickly. The person pulling the cord and tightening the noose little by
>little...would not even have been able to look away. He or she would have
>had to eventually look into the child's face, to be sure that she was
>dead."
My understanding is that JBR was already deeply unconscious by the
time she was strangled. I am supposing that when the strangulation
staging was employed, the parents already believed JBR to be dead. If
she were deeply unconscious, I don't see how it would take a great
deal of time to *finish her off*. Certainly if she were that
unconscious, JBR could not have put up much (if any) physical
resistance.
If the theory is that JBR was strangled first, I think that would
change the whole of what I've been saying.
>
> Far from fitting perfectly, that doesn't fit the idea of staging at all
>(and I found it incredible the book would end by posing a central question
>it had nowhere explored in 600 pages). Sure, anyone can bash in a skull
>in an uncontrolled moment. Anyone faced with the circumstances might try
>to stage a different explanation for the crime. But a slow strangulation
>by tourniquet? What's missed, I think, in the rejection of deliberate
>strangulation, is the simple fact that she *was* deliberately strangled.
>Claiming this was just setting a tableau is even less intuitive than
>saying it was intentional.
> Which is why, if you look at the history of claims about staging on this
>board, you find that it began with a denial that the garrotte was even
>used, then switched (for Maggie, who is the only one to try to confront
>the physical evidence) to the idea that the ligature was *accidentally*
>tied too tightly. Now we know it was tied with a slip knot, not a
>stationary one. With so many alternatives which would "finish her off"
>while coinciding with an intruder as a cover story, but not require
>hands-on brutality, where is the explanation for what actually occurred?
>"To make it *look* brutal"? Wrapping a cord around her neck several times
>and tying it would look brutal. So would stuffing a sock in her mouth and
>duct-taping it in place. And both would kill this accidentally bashed
>child *without* actually squeezing her life out by hand.
Again, I think that perhaps you are trying to attribute logical
thoughts to a situation that was anything but logical or reasoned.
Sure a sock in the mouth and duct tape or a rope wrapped around the
neck would *look* brutal. But whoever did this was in a panic, was an
amateur at strangulation and murder and staging. I still think the
overkill aspect of the garotte was to lead the police to look for
perverts elsewhere...anywhere but wherever mommy and daddy were.
Terri
>
> Add in the physical evidence-careful placement of the cord, the abrasion
>bisected by the ligature furrow, indicative of struggle, the empty bladder
>(voluntary, not involuntary, within minutes of death), and the possibility
>she was heard to scream, and you have, not a perfect case of staging, but
>a textbook case of reasonable doubt.
>
>
>
>>The note was written to portray the kidnappers as very
>>mean people (use of word "beheading" for instance.) Some
>>very cruel things were done to JBR's body during the cover-up,
>>to insure that these "really mean guys" were believable.
>
>
> Believable in a comic-book, maybe (which I admit doesn't mean that
>wasn't the intention). Small foreign factions do not wage war against the
>United States by diddling the daughters of the Military-Industrial
>Complex. This doesn't fit, it's being made to fit. If you'd staged a
>sexual attack and strangulation it would make sense to leave a note from a
>sexual strangler, not the Bader-Meinhoff gang.
>
>
>>
>>In reading the Schiller book, I keep seeing references to
>>"not all the pieces fit" in regards to motive. I don't agree.
>>Once the child was bashed on the head, the cover-up/staging
>>scenario (definitely "overkill") went into play - and the person(s)
>>doing so put in as many nasty things as they could in an attempt
>>to insure that it looked like a stranger did this.
>
>
> Well, Schiller managed to mention twice that the FBI had no records of
>such a combination, which has been used here to suggest that the crime
>could not be "real". But of course it also means they've no record of
>such a crime being staged. What I'd like to see would be records of
>accidental infliction of grievous injury to family members which were
>followed by horrific hands-on dispatch of *any* kind.
>
>
>dmc
>
>---------------------
> I hate quotations.
>
> -Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
Douglas M. Case
JDK...@prodigy.com (Kris Baker) wrote:
> I still think the strangulation was intended to fit into the tone of
> the entire crime. Everything done to JBR was violent: head
> bashed, vagina violated, strangulation.
Right. See next.
> If you want to make it look like a "really mean foreign faction"
> broke into the home and killed JBR, it fits. We're not talking
> about any sort of reasonable crime - or an accident, imho. I
> believe we're talking about a crime in which an enraged person
> performed one violent act against a child (and I'm willing to
> say that it's possible the strangulation was first, but more
> likely the head bash preceded it.)
Not premeditated, then, but not especially accidental? Rage driven, but
not a momentary loss of control? I think that accords better with the
evidence. Except for one thing: why is there only a single blow? Why
isn't she beaten to a pulp?
> The person who wrote the ransom note was full of rage - and
> the tone of the note and the violent wording (to me) fit the
> tone of the evidence on the body and the violence done to it.
Then I don't understand where "staging" becomes a compelling
explanation. A *considerable* amount of time has to pass between skull
fracture (if it comes first), asphyxia, and the writing of the note. A
person who had not intended the blow to kill would be sobered up
immediately by the damage. A person whose rage extended incontinently for
a couple of hours at least might very well have strangled her later in
such a gruesome fashion, but you have the question of why there's only one
blow to begin with, and why they don't choose to simply bash her to death
when it's discovered she's still alive.
So yes, it could be that the implement was switched to throw pursuers
off the track, but depending on how you see the rage, you have a
continuation of the motive behind the skull fracture, or a premeditated
decision to end her life. Calling either "staging" conveys (to me, at
least) the idea that what transpired wasn't "real". But in either case
the strangulation is a premeditated act of murder, which makes the reason
for the decision to switch implements pretty trivial by comparison.
>
> But....we're not talking about a
> crime committed by a reasonable person. We're talking about
> someone who is "over the edge" mentally from the very
> start of the crime, and whose anger/guilt increases as the
> coverup begins. ALL that matters to the perp, at the time that
> it's realized that JBR is dead/dying, is "I don't want to be
> blamed for this." The desire for self-protection is stronger at
> that point than any love for the child.
But the appeal to irrationality, which seems so popular, isn't an escape
hatch. After all, the act of covering up is itself a rational act, and
one which has to begin less than an hour after the skull fracture.
Irrationality certainly doesn't make the case for staging stronger.
>
> In reading the book, I felt that (by the end) Schiller was somewhat
> sympathetic for John Ramsey - did anyone else feel this
> way?
I think it's a complete misreading to see Schiller's personal opinions
in the book, or even to care what they might be. There are passages
favorable or less than favorable to anyone you'd care to name, which is
the book's M.O.-Schiller relays the story as told by his sources. The
book is not a meditation on various theories of the crime. It's a mile
wide and an inch deep.
But then, I agree in the sense that Schiller seems most interested in
following the apparent Patsy Dunnit leanings of certain portions of the
BPD and Hunter's office. We hear, for example, that some of the
investigators and some of the Pathologist Confab, believe there was
chronic molestation, but we hear nothing more of the argument.
And I find it more than passing odd. The effect is that, having failed
to turn up semen, or kidporn, JR is judged free and clear. And it's here
that I agree with Lou Smit-the investigation narrowed too far too fast.
Combine the fact that prior molestion *might not* have occurred, with the
fact that bedwetting *can* be a motive for killing-in-a-rage, and the fact
that Patsy *might be* the author of the note, and you come up with *the*
solution? Yet the book weaves in the minor theme of the continued
suspicion of Santa McReynolds. Well, Bill McReynolds did not kill
JonBenet because she wet her bed. Neither did an intruder. If either of
those remains possible, then the same motive remains possible for either
Patsy or John.
> My personal gut feeling (and yes, I know that gut feelings
> are irrational) has always been that this crime began by one
> person, and another helped out at the end. That's why there's
> so many different themes in the ransom note, so many different
> things done to the body. But...."gut feelings" (being irrational)
> can also be good ways to detect the irrationality of others.
I've got nothing against intuition, Kris, but intuition is generally
followed by a rational thesis. That's what I'm replying to.
>
> Yes - and because the noose had actually caused deep furrows
> in her neck (which we'd already known about), this part of the
> act was performed while the killer was still in the rage stage.
It had to leave a furrow if it was to kill, whatever the motive.
>
> Nothing here makes sense -- and many good and reasonable
> people are trying to make it make sense. It will never make
> sense.
Disagree. Trying to make sense of things is not the same as trying to
make them make sense. Attempting to do so does not involve the insistence
that "everything must make sense", only the recognition that that's the
only way they can be understood. We can certainly recognize irrationality
through rational means; we just can't predict it.
> The perp's rage is evident in the note - even in the parts where
> there is nice-talk.
The great danger in deciphering the note is that-as with Dr.
Hodges-there's no way to place any boundaries on our exertions or to
justify the results. Everyone agrees that the note is staged. It's
fiction. Fiction does not have to be autobiographical.
>
>> Add in the physical evidence-careful placement of the cord, the
>abrasion
>>bisected by the ligature furrow, indicative of struggle, the empty
>bladder
>>(voluntary, not involuntary, within minutes of death), and the
>possibility
>>she was heard to scream, and you have, not a perfect case of staging,
>but
>>a textbook case of reasonable doubt.
>
> Reasonable doubt for what?
Reasonable doubt that it's a mere tableau.
> There's no doubt that the
> strangulation occurred. The cord may look to have been
> carefully placed, but that may have been either dumb luck
> OR performed by someone with a tiny bit of medical
> knowledge.
Or martial, literary, erotic, even general knowledge. Coincidence it
may be, but if so it's coincidence piled on coincidence.
>
> Your comic book analogy is very good - it could be replaced
> by "almost like in the movies."
Yeah, but that one's been used to death.
>
> The perp(s) are getting away with this because they committed
> a very disorganized and confusing crime. As in the OJ case,
> this is "overkill" -- rage against someone you love is stronger
> than against a stranger.
>
> And in an attempt to cover up "perfection", this crime includes
> as many things as the perp could think of to do. The vaginal
> penetration (not the strangulation) is, for me, that part that
> doesn't fit into the type of scenarios I've built. But....think
> about this: if this act did begin with bedwetting rage, what
> parts of the body is the perp angry at?
Oh, I agree. I find a lot less to disagree with in your account of
overwhelming rage than I do with the idea of an accidental bash followed
by Grand Guignol.
Douglas M. Case
>I believe it makes sense if viewed as nothing more than an attempt to
>make it look like anyone on earth but mom and dad did it. In that
>sense the garotte works well as evidenced by the post I'm responding
>to.
Well, forgive it, Terri, but I've been doing my poor best to make a
cogent argument out of the *facts* for more than two years. It might be
more persuasive if you'd address those instead of declaring the whole idea
feeble-minded, not that you mightn't be right either way.
>The Ramsey's aren't professional criminals or even experienced
>murderers. How much would they know about how a bona fide sex crime
>is carried out? Even after reading true crime books, most people
>could only guess at what is *normal* in the commission of such a
>crime.
Good question. How do they know how to construct a garrotte which
effectively exerts *and releases* pressure? How do they know how to place
a ligature where it will do no damage to the cricoid or thyroid? Why is
there only a single loop around her neck? Happenstance? They just hit
upon that method instead of the dozen or so methods which are intuitive,
quicker, less "hands-on", and just as effective as "staging"?
>
>My understanding is that JBR was already deeply unconscious by the
>time she was strangled.
The matter is disputed; thus-putting your understanding in its most
favorable light-we have Schiller: "According to the specialists, her head
injury had *likely* come first" [emphasis mine]. The idea is later
described as "conjecture".
Along with this you have Dr. Cyril Wecht's contention that the minimal
amount of subdural bleeding means the blow to the head was perimortal; the
abrasion on the anterior neck, bisected by the ligature furrow, indicative
of struggle against the direction of the pressure (not spasmodically in
multiple directions); the completely voided bladder, which is not a result
of death throes; and Dr. Ronald Wright's (if I recall the attribution
correctly) statement that the injury "would not necessarily have resulted
in immediate loss of consciousness".
You may understand it however you wish, but an accurate rendition is
that the blow "likely" came first and "possibly" rendered her unconscious.
>I am supposing that when the strangulation
>staging was employed, the parents already believed JBR to be dead.
Unconscious people breathe; comatose people have a pulse. So you also
suppose they did nothing to check? And you suppose that she was out like
a frozen mackerel, not flopping spasmodically like a hooked bass?
>If she were deeply unconscious, I don't see how it would take a great
>deal of time to *finish her off*. Certainly if she were that
>unconscious, JBR could not have put up much (if any) physical
>resistance.
Right, which makes the abrasion on the neck all the more important.
It's correct that if she were near death it would not take as much to
finish the job. But it is still correct that the method of strangulation
did not kill by preventing oxygen from reaching the lungs, but by
disruption of blood flow to the brain via the carotids.
>If the theory is that JBR was strangled first, I think that would
>change the whole of what I've been saying.
All I say is that there are competing explanations, and, as you note,
your claim is null and void in the case of one of them.
>Again, I think that perhaps you are trying to attribute logical
>thoughts to a situation that was anything but logical or reasoned.
No, I'm trying to point out fallacies-or at least the odd conundrum or
two-in wholly logical explanations given long after the fact by rational
posters.
>Sure a sock in the mouth and duct tape or a rope wrapped around the
>neck would *look* brutal. But whoever did this was in a panic, was an
>amateur at strangulation and murder and staging. I still think the
>overkill aspect of the garotte was to lead the police to look for
>perverts elsewhere...anywhere but wherever mommy and daddy were.
Don't you find the argument a bit contradictory? We can't attribute
logical actions, but we can assume that in a panic they-ignorant of the
subject-do something which *most closely resembles* the act they wished to
ape? Claiming the situation demands irrational acts-which is far from
proven-does not require that we accept all possible actions as equally
likely. People in a panic do not necessarily do wholly irrational
things. They do rational things which are inappropriate. They hit the
accelerator instead of the brakes; they do not reach for the cigarette
lighter. As the clock runs down they call timeouts when none are left;
they do not suddenly break dance. If the situation is one of total panic
the expected response is the more common, the more familiar, not a sudden
insight into things unknown. The natural inclination in strangling is to
grab above the larynx. A sock down the throat or an extension cord
wrapped tightly around her neck are the more likely signs of staging.
Mimicking erotic asphyxia in complete absence of expertise is an appeal to
coincidence, not irrationality.
dmc
---------------------
Many a good hanging prevents a bad marriage.
-Twelfth Night I.v.
Kris Baker
>In article <7cogee$4jog$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
>JDK...@prodigy.com (Kris Baker) wrote:
>> I still think the strangulation was intended to fit into the tone
of
>> the entire crime. Everything done to JBR was violent: head
>> bashed, vagina violated, strangulation.
> Right. See next.
>> If you want to make it look like a "really mean foreign faction"
>> broke into the home and killed JBR, it fits. We're not talking
>> about any sort of reasonable crime - or an accident, imho. I
>> believe we're talking about a crime in which an enraged person
>> performed one violent act against a child (and I'm willing to
>> say that it's possible the strangulation was first, but more
>> likely the head bash preceded it.)
>Not premeditated, then, but not especially accidental? Rage driven,
but
>not a momentary loss of control? I think that accords better with the
>evidence. Except for one thing: why is there only a single blow? Why
>isn't she beaten to a pulp?
I'm basing this on my belief that all killings start with some sort
of rage (whether it's an angry wife putting a contract out on her
husband, or parent(s) angry with the events surrounding a child.)
Premeditated can mean "a split second before the crime, the
perp decided to commit the crime" (a definition I've heard many
times, which defines ALL crimes as premeditated.)
Why only one blow to the head? If it came first, I believe it was
during momentary rage -- and I'm not entirely convinced of the
golf club or flashlight being the weapon (although the flashlight
is most suspect, having been wiped clean inside and out.)
I've wondered if it could have been a case where the child was
slammed against a bathroom fixture or some other hard
protruding surface in a home -- followed immediately by a
"What have I done?" response......and a cover-up once the
perpetrator believes the child has been killed. Said coverup
begins, then it becomes necessary to actually kill the child
once it's determined she's not actually dead - but close to it.
While I believe that "strangulation first" fits the molestation
theory perfectly, the THREE crimes (vaginal penetration,
strangulation, head blow) are almost mutually exclusive. No
matter what theories/scenarios we come up with, we account
for only two legs of this tripod.
Which has always led me to believe that more than one
person is involved -- and answers the "why switch type of
assault" dangling participle.
>> The person who wrote the ransom note was full of rage - and
>> the tone of the note and the violent wording (to me) fit the
>> tone of the evidence on the body and the violence done to it.
>Then I don't understand where "staging" becomes a compelling
>explanation. A [import problem lost some words here *]
>fracture (if it comes first), asphyxia, and the writing of the note. A
>person who had not intended the blow to kill would be sobered up
>immediately by the damage. A person whose rage extended incontinently
for
>a couple of hours at least might very well have strangled her later in
>such a gruesome fashion, but you have the question of why there's only
one
>blow to begin with, and why they don't choose to simply bash her to
death
>when it's discovered she's still alive.
> So yes, it could be that the implement was switched to throw pursuers
>off the track, but depending on how you see the rage, you have a
>continuation of the motive behind the skull fracture, or a premeditated
>decision to end her life. Calling either "staging" conveys (to me, at
>least) the idea that what transpired wasn't "real". But in either case
>the strangulation is a premeditated act of murder, which makes the
reason
>for the decision to switch implements pretty trivial by comparison.
I don't like the word "staging" - I think the last leg or two of the
tripod is pure cover-up....and fantastically sloppy but
at a genius level of coincidence that these methods were combined.
>> But....we're not talking about a
>> crime committed by a reasonable person. We're talking about
>> someone who is "over the edge" mentally from the very
>> start of the crime, and whose anger/guilt increases as the
>> coverup begins. ALL that matters to the perp, at the time that
>> it's realized that JBR is dead/dying, is "I don't want to be
>> blamed for this." The desire for self-protection is stronger at
>> that point than any love for the child.
> But the appeal to irrationality, which seems so popular, isn't an
escape
>hatch. After all, the act of covering up is itself a rational act, and
>one which has to begin less than an hour after the skull fracture.
>Irrationality certainly doesn't make the case for staging stronger.
I think criminality, by anyone, is a form of irrationality.
And, the sobering reality of what one has done (by either
strangling or bashing) sets the adrenaline going, making the
self-defense motive the most important task at hand.
Much like a little kid caught stealing cookies, the person who
attempts to cover up a crime begins digging the hole that
cannot be climbed out of. Unfortunately, in this case, the
investigator's actions during the early hours of this case
have provided the perpetrator with a very strong ladder.
>> In reading the book, I felt that (by the end) Schiller was somewhat
>> sympathetic for John Ramsey - did anyone else feel this
>> way?
> I think it's a complete misreading to see Schiller's personal
opinions
>in the book, or even to care what they might be. There are passages
>favorable or less than favorable to anyone you'd care to name, which is
>the book's M.O.-Schiller relays the story as told by his sources. The
>book is not a meditation on various theories of the crime. It's a mile
>wide and an inch deep.
True. The gaps are tremendous (where's the mention of the
911 call during the party on December 23rd?) The amount of
investigation carried out, and the multi-thousands of pages of
investigative "product", couldn't be combined into one book -
we'd be reading an encyclopedia.
In fact, I believe Schiller's leading us to some conclusion - but
does not want to pre-jeopardize this case.
> But then, I agree in the sense that Schiller seems most interested in
>following the apparent Patsy Dunnit leanings of certain portions of the
>BPD and Hunter's office. We hear, for example, that some of the
>investigators and some of the Pathologist Confab, believe there was
>chronic molestation, but we hear nothing more of the argument.
To me, the most telling discussion was where the book goes
into the fact that without a witness (JBR or an onlooker),
it's absolutely impossible to prove molestation occurred.
Various medical experts disagree (as do we here) as to whether
there was prior molestation - and even IF it were proven, how
would one prove WHO did it?
> And I find it more than passing odd. The effect is that, having
failed
>to turn up semen, or kidporn, JR is judged free and clear. And it's
here
>that I agree with Lou Smit-the investigation narrowed too far too fast.
Yes. Eliminating others earlier would make a strong case
against the known target(s). Back to my "provided a ladder"
statement.
>Combine the fact that prior molestion *might not* have occurred, with
the
>fact that bedwetting *can* be a motive for killing-in-a-rage, and the
fact
>that Patsy *might be* the author of the note, and you come up with
*the*
>solution? Yet the book weaves in the minor theme of the continued
>suspicion of Santa McReynolds. Well, Bill McReynolds did not kill
>JonBenet because she wet her bed. Neither did an intruder. If either
of
>those remains possible, then the same motive remains possible for
either
>Patsy or John.
The bedwetting theory is the easiest; parental rage during
a child's transgressions is probably the most common
motive.
>> My personal gut feeling (and yes, I know that gut feelings
>> are irrational) has always been that this crime began by one
>> person, and another helped out at the end. That's why there's
>> so many different themes in the ransom note, so many different
>> things done to the body. But...."gut feelings" (being
irrational)
>> can also be good ways to detect the irrationality of others.
> I've got nothing against intuition, Kris, but intuition is generally
>followed by a rational thesis. That's what I'm replying to.
Our theories are clashing, obviously. But yours (molestation/
strangulation first), doesn't entirely even the tripod. Why bash
last? ;)
>> Reasonable doubt for what?
Or...determining where to place it, by feeling one's own neck
for that "choke point."
>> Your comic book analogy is very good - it could be replaced
>> by "almost like in the movies."
> Yeah, but that one's been used to death.
Unfortunately, the perp led us to it - via the ransom note.
>> The perp(s) are getting away with this because they committed
>> a very disorganized and confusing crime. As in the OJ case,
>> this is "overkill" -- rage against someone you love is stronger
>> than against a stranger.
>> And in an attempt to cover up "perfection", this crime includes
>> as many things as the perp could think of to do. The vaginal
>> penetration (not the strangulation) is, for me, that part that
>> doesn't fit into the type of scenarios I've built. But....think
>> about this: if this act did begin with bedwetting rage, what
>> parts of the body is the perp angry at?
> Oh, I agree. I find a lot less to disagree with in your account of
>overwhelming rage than I do with the idea of an accidental bash
followed
>by Grand Guigonol.
>dmc
I always wonder if our theories are being monitored at all - or
when we'll learn how much we've postulated fits into the
official scenario.
Kris
tld
Case) wrote:
>In article <7cpd8l$6...@newsops.execpc.com>, ves...@execpc.com (tld) wrote:
>
>
>>I believe it makes sense if viewed as nothing more than an attempt to
>>make it look like anyone on earth but mom and dad did it. In that
>>sense the garotte works well as evidenced by the post I'm responding
>>to.
>
>
> Well, forgive it, Terri, but I've been doing my poor best to make a
>cogent argument out of the *facts* for more than two years. It might be
>more persuasive if you'd address those instead of declaring the whole idea
>feeble-minded, not that you mightn't be right either way.
>
>
>
>>The Ramsey's aren't professional criminals or even experienced
>>murderers. How much would they know about how a bona fide sex crime
>>is carried out? Even after reading true crime books, most people
>>could only guess at what is *normal* in the commission of such a
>>crime.
>
>
> Good question. How do they know how to construct a garrotte which
>effectively exerts *and releases* pressure? How do they know how to place
>a ligature where it will do no damage to the cricoid or thyroid? Why is
>there only a single loop around her neck? Happenstance? They just hit
>upon that method instead of the dozen or so methods which are intuitive,
>quicker, less "hands-on", and just as effective as "staging"?
Because according to Schiller's book, JR was in the service in an area
of the world that had a well known history with death by garotte. The
information was not only readily available in Subic Bay, but possibly
hard to avoid learning something about it because it was part of that
area's national history.
As far as placing the ligature where it would do no damage...maybe
that wasn't a premeditated act. Perhaps it just happened that way.
Seeing as JR had been in an area where there is a well known
*political* history of death by garotte, I don't see how this would be
*happenstance*. Maybe he recalled what he'd learned years ago and
thought this would fit with the foreign faction stuff in the
*kidnapping* note. I think in that respect it would (to him) seem
more effective as staging than strangulation by hand.
>
>
>>
>>My understanding is that JBR was already deeply unconscious by the
>>time she was strangled.
>
> The matter is disputed; thus-putting your understanding in its most
>favorable light-we have Schiller: "According to the specialists, her head
>injury had *likely* come first" [emphasis mine]. The idea is later
>described as "conjecture".
> Along with this you have Dr. Cyril Wecht's contention that the minimal
>amount of subdural bleeding means the blow to the head was perimortal; the
>abrasion on the anterior neck, bisected by the ligature furrow, indicative
>of struggle against the direction of the pressure (not spasmodically in
>multiple directions); the completely voided bladder, which is not a result
>of death throes; and Dr. Ronald Wright's (if I recall the attribution
>correctly) statement that the injury "would not necessarily have resulted
>in immediate loss of consciousness".
> You may understand it however you wish, but an accurate rendition is
>that the blow "likely" came first and "possibly" rendered her unconscious.
Fine, now its an accurate rendition which most still fits my
understanding that the blow came first. You quantified it with
facts, but I can't see where its changed anything I already believed.
As for unconscious or not...I can't see the possiblity of her not
being unconscious after a blow that left her with that big a skull
fracture. That's my opinion...not scientific...not medical...but its
the opinion I maintain in light of stated medical and scientific
theories already put forth.
>
>
>>I am supposing that when the strangulation
>>staging was employed, the parents already believed JBR to be dead.
>
>
> Unconscious people breathe; comatose people have a pulse. So you also
>suppose they did nothing to check? And you suppose that she was out like
>a frozen mackerel, not flopping spasmodically like a hooked bass?
Duh. Of course they breathe, have a pulse, have a heart beat.
However their respiration and pulse and heart beat can become so
shallow or slow that a NON medical person might not be able to pick it
up. The last I heard neither Ramsey was a doctor, nurse, or
paramedic. And probably they were in a state of shock and panic at
what had happened which makes their missing these signs of life even
more highly possible.
The garotte may have been familiar to JR. It was most likely not
*unknown* to at least this one of the parents. There is a good reason
to think he did know of Subic Bay history since he served there. That
doesn't mean that he knew (or didn't know) every detail of how the
garotte was used there. Besides it had been a long day (Xmas day),
the events had been upsetting to say the least and it had been a long
while since he'd served in Subic Bay. Maybe he thought he was doing a
real good job of recreating something he'd learned long ago...maybe he
thought it would be good enough to throw the cops off their trail and
onto someone elses. Which I think was the whole intent of this
staging.
>The natural inclination in strangling is to
>grab above the larynx. A sock down the throat or an extension cord
>wrapped tightly around her neck are the more likely signs of staging.
>Mimicking erotic asphyxia in complete absence of expertise is an appeal to
>coincidence, not irrationality.
Who said the inclination was to kill by strangling? I'm saying the
inclination was to make it *look* like killing by strangulation, using
an exotic method to point it to anyone (such as an unknown pervert or
a foreign faction). Anyone but the parents.
Clifford Griffith
covered it up). How long ago was JR in the Phillippines, and for how
long? We were there for a full year, '71-'72, at San Miguel rather than
Subic (but I don't think there's that much difference). The well-known
history of death-by-garotte is certainly news to me! The subject of
garottes never came up in any of *our* conversations, and the Navy
didn't teach their use where *my* husband worked. There were rumors
that a wire had been stretched across a road, decapitating a
motorcyclist; we heard that men let their thumbnails grow long so they
could dig at jugular veins in a fight. These were just rumors, not even
as popular as urban legends. The P.I. may be exotic to some people, but
I doubt those who have lived there would consider it so.
I think John would be more likely to use something he had read about in
a book within the past 20-30 years than some obscure factoid about
Subic. Does Schiller think that even *John* would consider a Filipino
Foreign Faction plausible?
Linda
tld wrote:
> Because according to Schiller's book, JR was in the service in an area
> of the world that had a well known history with death by garotte. The
> information was not only readily available in Subic Bay, but possibly
> hard to avoid learning something about it because it was part of that
> area's national history.
> Seeing as JR had been in an area where there is a well known
> *political* history of death by garotte, I don't see how this would be
> *happenstance*. Maybe he recalled what he'd learned years ago and
> thought this would fit with the foreign faction stuff in the
> *kidnapping* note.
> The garotte may have been familiar to JR. It was most likely not