An IDI Companion: the head blow
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#25 Dec 6, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
AK,
Here is some further information for discussion:
Force required to cause a depressed fracture in JonBenet’s skull in the posteroparietal region:
Modern studies of skull fractures conducted by the American military demonstrate that it takes a minimum of 90 foot-pounds delivered over 1 square inch to fracture the human skull with a blow delivered to the front of the head. If the blow is delivered to the temporal/parietal area, 45 foot-pounds will produce a fracture. A blow to the zygomatic region, the bony arch on either side of the face below and around the eye, requires only 18 foot-pounds of force to produce a fracture. A mace weighing 1.8 pounds can be swung at a speed of 60 feet per second by the human arm so as to generate 101 foot-pounds of energy on impact, more than enough to fracture a human skull at its strongest point.
From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies,Richard A. Gabriel, Karen S. Metz, page 57
FFJ has an excellent link with photos and diagrams as well (page 16 was my reference above):
http://tinyurl.com/m6fsv95
Well, I wouldn’t say that we have “no clue” what the weapon was; the weapon was something like the flashlight (golf club, baton, bat, etc).

At six years old Jonbenet’s skull should have been closer to an adult’s then an infant’s by some degree!

The strength of bone isn’t effected by relative position between object and target, and, I don’t think this target could have moved fast enough in any direction to noticeably effect the force required by the striking object to cause this damage. So, the force required to fragment bone remains pretty much the same.

As for position between Jonbenet and her killer, the injury suggests that they were probably front to back with the killer striking from overhead and behind. She could have been standing, sitting or lying down; he could have been standing or sitting on top of her.
...

AK

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#26 Dec 7, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I wouldn’t say that we have “no clue” what the weapon was; the weapon was something like the flashlight (golf club, baton, bat, etc).

As for position between Jonbenet and her killer, the injury suggests that they were probably front to back with the killer striking from overhead and behind. She could have been standing, sitting or lying down; he could have been standing or sitting on top of her.
...
AK
Uh, doesn't your listing 4 different things and the use of 'etc.
accentuate we have 'no clue'? Just a thought.

The killer could have been standing in front of JBR, and she could have been looking down too.
Delta88

Lansing, MI

#27 Dec 8, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, doesn't your listing 4 different things and the use of 'etc.
accentuate we have 'no clue'? Just a thought.
The killer could have been standing in front of JBR, and she could have been looking down too.
The four things are all blunt instruments. We have that much of a clue.

The golf club is different in that the club part, as opposed to the handle, isn't cylindrical.

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#28 Dec 9, 2013
Until that list can be narrowed down I still think it is "no clue".

Wasn't there a hand weight found in the basement somewhere as well?
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I wouldn’t say that we have “no clue” what the weapon was; the weapon was something like the flashlight (golf club, baton, bat, etc).

...
AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#29 Dec 9, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
Until that list can be narrowed down I still think it is "no clue".
Wasn't there a hand weight found in the basement somewhere as well?
<quoted text>
I agree with you but tend to gravitate toward the flashlight as the murder weapon. I say that because the wound is pretty much a match and the fact that the flashlight had NO fingerprints on it, inside or out which is VERY suspicious IMO. I can't imagine that there would be anything in anyone's home that would have NO fingerprints on them. Even utensils and items that we rarely use or see would have some fingerprints on them. In this case, it was a flashlight of all things, AND one that was kept on the counter and not thrown in a back draw, unused EVER.

In a house with children, for those who know, try leaving a flashlight around without a kid, ANY kid NOT picking it up to play with it or find an excuse to use it. Kids LOVE flashlights and to have NO fingerprints for me is a BIG red flag

I also have to say, and forgive me because I don't remember the poster that said it, that at this point, the murder weapon, while a valuable piece of KNOWLEDGE, is no longer the big issue it once was.

She was murdered and knowing the weapon at this point is not a smoking gun but just another piece of information that really doesn't narrow down any suspect field

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#31 Dec 9, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, doesn't your listing 4 different things and the use of 'etc.
accentuate we have 'no clue'? Just a thought.
The killer could have been standing in front of JBR, and she could have been looking down too.
The clues WE have are 1) type of wound and extent of damage, 2) shape of wound, 3) expert opinion (Spitz), and 4) media reports and such stating that BPD believed that the flashlight or one like it was the weapon.

I think the list is fairly narrow and IMO the bat and the golf club do not belong on it. These are forum favs and I added them – in brackets!– because sometimes it’s easier to accept some things than it is to argue about them.
...

AK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#32 Dec 10, 2013
I am not going to argue the ‘clues’ with you because that is all they are (ideas), and there are too many of them.

The experiment Spitz did (as evidenced by photos I believe on ACR’s site) are with a Maglite without the rubberized material around it, and the one found in the house had the rubber on it.
I am not sure what to think because that would obviously yield a difference in the skull fracture (immediate contact) and possibly also the resulting displacement of skull bone, as well as the wound itself. I can see the un-rubberized one also capable of making a laceration, which could have been caused by the metal edge of the flashlight.

I can see the rubberized one not creating such a laceration.
I am not sold on any murder weapon yet, but the flashlight or hand weight, or maybe a#3 wood club (not an iron for the same reason as not an un-rubberized flashlight).
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
The clues WE have are 1) type of wound and extent of damage, 2) shape of wound, 3) expert opinion (Spitz), and 4) media reports and such stating that BPD believed that the flashlight or one like it was the weapon.
I think the list is fairly narrow and IMO the bat and the golf club do not belong on it. These are forum favs and I added them – in brackets!– because sometimes it’s easier to accept some things than it is to argue about them.
...
AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#33 Dec 11, 2013
DrSeussMd wrote:
I am not going to argue the ‘clues’ with you because that is all they are (ideas), and there are too many of them.
The experiment Spitz did (as evidenced by photos I believe on ACR’s site) are with a Maglite without the rubberized material around it, and the one found in the house had the rubber on it.
I am not sure what to think because that would obviously yield a difference in the skull fracture (immediate contact) and possibly also the resulting displacement of skull bone, as well as the wound itself. I can see the un-rubberized one also capable of making a laceration, which could have been caused by the metal edge of the flashlight.
I can see the rubberized one not creating such a laceration.
I am not sold on any murder weapon yet, but the flashlight or hand weight, or maybe a#3 wood club (not an iron for the same reason as not an un-rubberized flashlight).
<quoted text>
Back to the possible "freak" accident. IF this was an accident out of anger, no matter who was wielding the weapon, the resulting injuries could not be determined, especially with no blood. Hence, the garrotte IMO

I am not sold on any particular weapon either, but still cling to the flashlight just because it fits the injury pretty well and there were NO fingerprints on it in addition to the Ramseys trying to deny it was theirs.

As I said in another post, for me the weapon is not as important as to who was wielding it. Whoever it was, the weapon is secondary to WHO. No matter WHAT the weapon was, anyone could be responsible

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#34 Dec 11, 2013
Those are two HUGE tells, and frontrunners in the Ramsey Misdirection Parade.
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>

I am not sold on any particular weapon either, but still cling to the flashlight just because it fits the injury pretty well and there were NO fingerprints on it in addition to the Ramseys trying to deny it was theirs.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anyone believe the ramseys didn't do the crime?? 1 hr Sheriff Wydell 114
GD Designs Rochdale LTD Reviews (17) 3 hr gendon 1
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 5 hr Stoned luck aka l... 534
Questions for jameson 5 hr Stoned luck aka l... 100
It always leads back to Burke (Oct '11) 6 hr Stoned luck aka l... 212
psalm 35. - from Steve Thomas' book 6 hr Stoned luck aka l... 41
Dr Phils credibility 6 hr Stoned luck aka l... 15
More from around the web