"JAMESON GIBBERISH"

PART II

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"The coroners' report states: "A deep ligature furrow encircles the entire neck."This is in contradiction with what I see in the picture. This encircling furrow cannot happen with the arrangement shown in the picture."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Did Mr. England look at the photos? I did -- there is a mark around the neck - left by the ligature and it goes completely around the neck."

Sure it does. Who said otherwise? My garrote analysis explains how this circumference furrow was probably made, and it was not by the garrote as seen in the picture. Hobey86 understood this quite clearly and confirmed my own conclusion. Gee, Jameson, it might help if you would at least read the analysis before trying to criticize it.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"the knot in the back of the neck may leave a mark that is different" from the simple straight line, but - - look at the tightness of the ligature - - that ligature left mark all the way around that tiny neck. Delmar England is playing semantic games. What is his point??."

Again, of course it all the way around the neck. Its clearly stated so in the analysis and explained how it likely got there. You don't even read the analysis, go off on some wild strawman tangent and imagine that I'm playing semantic games. What's my point? My point is a bungling amateur staged crime scene is explained in detail, but apparently light year beyond your feeble comprehension.

How about another explanation for the circumference furrow and depth of it. Even if the cord had been tied lightly around her neck when JonBenet was alive or very recently dead, the after death swelling would have caused it to be embedded at considerable depth. In fact, its a virtual certainty that after death swelling contributed greatly to depth of the furrow. The idea that initial strangulation buried the cord this deep and caused the circumference furrow via the inefficient garrote did not happen.

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"The cord looped over itself after brought around the neck appears to be a crude slip feature, so the twisting idea is pretty much ruled out."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"It was a slip knot"

What was a slip knot? Above, you stated, "The knots tightened and remained tight, as desired." Now you're talking about a "slip knot"? What knots stay tight and what knots slip? Where and why? Don't have a clue do you? News flash! As explained in the analysis, the slip knot is found in the construction of the small loop through which the main cord runs. The slipping of this slip knot allow the small loop to compress upon the main cord hindering the garroting action; ergo, the slip knot of which you seem so proud is a serious flaw, not an asset.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"No one has said that someone was using the cord as a tourniquet. I don't see any marks that indicate anything was shoved under the cord and twisted."

Well, I sure didn't conclude twisting. I even explained in the analysis why I ruled it out. So, are you having fun with your strawman. Oh about the twisting idea, what do you make of John's comment:

"The stick used to twist the garrote (apparently) was broken off of one of Patsy's paintbrushes "

Do you think John Boy might know something he isn't telling us? Or is he just his usual confused self and is talking about the long range handle?

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Delmar England ignores the lower ligature mark."

Meaning what? In view of the obvious frantic and amateurish bungling, I'm surprised there aren't a lot more marks. So, what does this have to do with the analysis and the conclusions therein? Oh, I see, you just wanted to find something I didn't mention and pretend it had some relevance. If it has, I sure wish you would have told me.

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"Pulling the handle without holding down the victim would result in energy going into lifting the body and not in decreasing size of he loop for strangulation. To hold down the body with one hand and pull via handle 17 inches away with the other places the elbow at an acute angle with a consequent substantial decrease in pulling power as well as decrease in control. This elbow angle is more suitable for eating than applying pressure in a strangulation."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"I just measured my arm - - from armpit to bottom of my wrist is 20 inches - -"

Now, if you will double this number and subtract four, you will have your IQ, but what does this have to do with anything?

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"there is no reason to think a grown man couldn't hold her down with one hand and pull the cord with the other."

So what? I stated as much.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"It works, no doubt it works."

What works? First, the issue is the inefficiency of the inept garrote with the handle 17 inches removed as more evidence of amateurish inefficiency. Second, it doesn't change any of the analysis about the furrow. Third, the issue is not what can be reached, but what is efficient. Seventeen inches away from the object is not efficient as clearly explained; meaning novice and amateur.

Your "it works" declaration is obviously predicated upon the notion that JonBenet was killed by being strangled by the garrote. Aside from the explanation provided by myself and hobey86, the coroner does not isolate strangulation as the cause of death. You, as a small cog in the massive Ramsey propaganda machine, ignore the head trauma and obediently go along with the con set up by the Ramsey spin doctors. From the blank out, you repeat like a parrot the preferred speculation that cause was the garrote and the garrote alone. Ergo, "it works" is based on fallacy.

Your alleged analysis analyzes exactly nothing. My garrote analysis not only points out numerous flaws, but explains why they are flaws with added suggestions for testing. You do not address a single one of these items and arguments, let alone try to refute.

In contradiction and evasion of these arguments, and in contradiction of the coroner's report and other relevant facts, like a demented parrot, you repeat over and over again "it works"as if this discredited declaration suffices to dismiss not only my analysis, but the coroner's autopsy report as well.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Once again, Mr. England is writing a fancy report and depending on the laziness of people, the gullibility - - he thinks if he sounds impressive people will be impressed."

Once again, Jameson is off on a wild goose, or wild strawman chase and prattling on and on without understanding a whit of the analysis, and certainly not taking any of the tests suggested to verify conclusions. Once again, Jameson just makes it up as she goes along and in self delusion argues with herself without awareness of the actual issues.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Well, I am not. I have shown the ligature marks that go completely around the neck,"

Well now, Jameson, I know that already. I really didn't need you to tell me. My question is this: After I explained in detail how I thought the marks all around the neck got there, how could you possibly read the analysis and imagine that I held the conclusion they didn't go around the neck?

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"showed that there was nothing shoved under the cord and twisted."

Who said there was other than John. Same question as above: Since the analysis rules out twisting, why did you think you had to show it to me when I had already stated as much? Boy, are you lost.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Finally, Debmar can say anything he wants about how ineffective the garrote was - - it worked, and it worked in just the way Mr. England says it wouldn't!"

Here comes the "it works" illusion again. Worked to do what? I explained. Hobey86 explained what didn't work and why it didn't work. You don't challenge a single point of this proof, but ignore all and claim "it worked" as if the absurd claim is proof because you declare it so. Get real. Why don't you go on back to my actual arguments and hobey86's about not working for this or that, quote from either or both and show us where we are mistaken. Again, I'm obliged to remind you that "you say" or "you believe" does not create facts.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"I think Mr. England is selling snake oil here. I think his work identifying me as the author of the Patricia letters showed the man to be a fool - - and I think THIS manuscript shows that he thinks the posters are fools. Myself - I think he should be ignored - but he wants to force his opinion into this discussion - - let him be exposed. His choice."

And this refutes what argument in my analysis? Oh excuse me, its not supposed to refute. Right. Its supposed to divert attention away from the arguments. Right? I mean you create this snake oil salesman who "forces" his opinion and my goodness there is no credibility here, so let's just ignore him. Jameson, do you really think you're fooling anyone but yourself? As for exposing, how do you like your ignorance and stupidity exposed so far? Stick around, there's lots more to come.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"The knot used was chosen by the killer for his own reasons. When he is identified and explains the details, we will understand all. Until then, all we can say is that he tied a distinctive knot and - - it worked! "

Oh, I get it: You catch the killer first, then he gives you the evidence needed to catch him. Is that it? "He tied a distinctive knot and -- it worked." Again, I ask, what knot are you talking about? Worked to do what? Why? "distinctive"? Please describe this knot and show me the "distinctive" features in contrast with a knot of non distinctive feature. A London fog has more definition that your "arguments."

You just don't get it at all do you? If you would spend a bit more time learning definitive analysis and investigation instead of wasting time calling names and that childish stuff, maybe you wouldn't learn something and quit making these silly declarations and imagine that your declaration makes it fact. What do you really know? Try answering the questions I have asked and you will find out it is between little and nothing with the edge going toward nothing.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"The multiple wraps could have been simply a way to use up the rest of the cord (with no thought of how "unprofessional" this is)."

Nope - - the factory sealed end of the cord was on the handle - - the other end cut.

Thanks for confirming the possibility. Don't strain yourself, but follow the bouncing ball. If you bought a spool of cord and each end had a factory seal, what happens if the cord is used down to say the last ten or fifteen feet with this left on the spool? Wouldn't there be a factory seal at the end on the spool? If a factory seal turns up on the handle, don't you think maybe this was either the first or the last of the cord? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Furthermore, the issue about the multiple wraps is the amateurish construction of negative effect. How about taking the test on this as suggested, then reporting back on your findings?

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"There is also hair entangled in the handle wraps of cord. This could have come from hair getting on the cord during the neck knot, or sticking to finger and transferring, or the handle could have been wrapped while close to the head with some hair getting picked up in the process."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Apparently Mr. England didn't understand - -the hair is IN the knots - - not ON them. Or is Delmar suggesting the tricky hairs wiggled in there after the fact to confuse investigators? With Delmar's "logic', maybe we need to ask."

Apparently Jameson needs a remedial reading class and\or stronger eyeglasses. The analysis states just inches away from your "observation":

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"There is also hair entangled IN the handle wraps of cord." (Emph. added.)

So, where in the hell do you think you read that I said hair ON the cord. Please review and count the number of times you responded to what you chose to interject, not what is in the analysis. Gee, Jameson, if it weren't for you creating "mistakes" for me, what on earth would you talk about?

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"A half-hearted effort was made, then abandoned, thus accounting for the "unprofessional" loose binding found at the crime scene. (With a preformed loop and about 3 or 4 feet of cord, wrists can be effectively bound in less than 30 seconds.)"

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Mr. England, I think is getting tired at this point - - he said nothing. The loops were preformed and slipped over her wrists. "

You really have no idea about what I meant by preformed loops do you? You don't how this works in binding wrists either, do you? In short, you're just spewing out words without a clue about the reality of the situation.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"The distance between the loops is NOT a typical way to "bind the wrists" - it is seen in bondage, not in situations where people are trying to limit a person's movements."

And you been in a lot of these bondage situations have you? Or is there a bondage manual that explains, maybe with pictures, so that you recognize this as a bondage scene? Jameson, you are something else. Whatever is found at the crime scene is gonna fit your theory isn't it?

Say, didn't one of the wrist bonds fall off and the coroner reported the other as loose? So maybe you can explain this:

From the Barbara Walters interview:

BW: this. Um, that you loosely tied your daughter's hands. That you put the noose, the garrote, to make it look as if some terrible person had done this. That this whole picture was staged.

JOHN RAMSEY Well, that's absurd. This was done by a terrible person. The garrote...was deeply embedded in JonBenet's throat. Her hands were tightly bound,

Jameson, you had better get together with John Boy and get your stories straight. John said her hands were tightly bound. You say no. You say loose bound is the way the bondage things works.

Now, Jameson, one of you has to be mistaken on this. Right? How about both? The hands weren't tightly bound, so John is mistaken. (polite for lying); and the loose binding was amateurish bungling as I said in the analysis, not any bondage bologna as you would like to believe.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"It seems he brought a flashlight, stun gun, cord and tape... Mr. England is misleading the readers here with BORG spin."

Yep, that is one hell of a spin. I don't recall writing any such statement. Would you mind telling me you found this in my analysis?

Oh yes, the BORG thing; and all this time, I never thought you never would pay me a compliment. BORG does stand for BETTER ORGANIZED RESEARCH GROUPS doesn't it?

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"When the facts of amateurism are added, I think we can safely rule out "professional" in the category of suspects."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"If the plan was to torture and kill the child, whether in the house or away from the home,"

Oh, is this the same "killer" that planned to go to the store and buy some of that small cord "slippery material" to make a garrote? :) Somehow the word, plan, just doesn't fit well with the crime scene; that is, except the plan to stage, then poorly planned and poorly done."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"there w he didn't NEED to leave any ransom note. I thik that shows that as no real plan to get money, that's all I see here."

If this "killer" with the "slippery material' didn't NEED to leave a ransom note, and you say that he did, how do you account for the "ransom note?" On the other hand, if someone wanted to make others believe that JonBenet had been kidnapped, wouldn't a "ransom note" be a good way to start? If the "killer" did not intend to collect money as you say, then the note thing doesn't fit at all does it? Diversion? What diversion? Why? To accomplish what? How? Care to ask John Boy these questions?

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"This leaves just plain intruder as the residue of Mr. Smit's theory. The profile here as also determined by the evidence dismisses the notion of intruder altogether. As a means to cause death, there are many choices. If the objective was simply to terminate the life of the victim, strangulation by hands, smothering, knife or other were available means; all simplistic and generally familiar to everyone. Yet, this intruder chose garroting with little knowledge of the weapon."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"He brought the cord, the slippery material, he made the garotte and it worked - - but England says he had "little knowledge of the weapon". How presumptuous!"

I just can't get over that "slippery material" bit. It is really hilarious. Anyway, sliding around on that "slippery material", it looks like you have circled back to the "it worked" declaration again, so again I direct you back to the coroner's report and to my analysis in conjunction with the conclusion (mine and hobey86) why it didn't work to cause the circumference furrow; and why it is most inefficient in any kind of working. Please quote and try to refute.

To say the person who created the garrote had "little knowledge of the weapon" is a stretch to grant this much. Oh yes, how "presumptuous" of me to accept the facts of my own experience rather than the nonsense of "professional" spouted by John, Lou, you or the deluded others.

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"Accidental or intentional? Or was there never the blunt instrument that Mr. Smit speculates about? "

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Clearly past Delmar's bedtime. There was no blunt instrument? Is he suggesting the head trauma didn't exist as well?"

Gee, Jameson, don't you think if you would actually read my analysis, you might find an answer to this. Oh excuse me, I forgot for a minute that you prefer to pretend, to make it up as you go along rather than actually responding to what I said.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"We don't know he hit JBR with - - was it the flashlight or the bat? Was it something else? Where is that object? We don't know."

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"We don't know" that "he" hit JBR, or that JBR was "hit" at all by anyone. What we know is that there is a head trauma which could have come, and more likely did come from JonBenet's head hitting something rather than the other way around, which would be one explanation why no wielded object has been found "

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"And, as with much of the other stuff Delmar discusses, it doesn't point to anyone, intruder or family, as the assailant."

You wish. What doesn't point to anyone? What does all the local evidence, the amateur garrote scene, the "ransom note" point to EXCEPT a Ramsey?. If you don't see my analysis of the note, garrote, and other, pointing to the Ramseys why are you objecting to it? Just one more of your contradictions in a very long list.

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"Worse yet, there was no preconstruction of a weapon. A weapon constructed after the victim is subdued rather than using for the subduing is hardly a "professional" use of an efficient garrote, nor even a proficient use of an inefficient garrote."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"PLEASE! All SickPuppies! Get your fantasies approved by Delmar England before you attempt to act on them."

Please Jameson and all you who holding fantasies of a fantasizing pedophile intruder check your fantasies at the door of reality and come on in to look at the facts. Read the analysis. Test it. Understand it; then Jameson come back and tell me about it."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Note that a proper garotte can only be utilized on a person who has NOT been subdued. To do otherwise is... I don't know, Delmar - - would you call it "cheating" as well as inefficient? Does it matter if the person actually DIES???"

Huh? Incoherent babbling."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Sorry -- this analysis is goddamned idiotic and Delmar England is an idiot and I will be happy when this commentary on his inane analysis is finished!"

I will agree that your mental inventions unconsciously designed to displace the real analysis are very idiotic. What did you expect considering the source?

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"In addition to all the flaws of the apparatus, the fact that strangulation was effected before completion of said apparatus further identifies the scene as staging."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Staging is something set up after the crime to cover up the true nature of the situation. Would someone please inform Delmar England that the ligature on her neck KILLED HER! "

Would you have them inform Dr. Meyer, the coroner as well? He reached no such conclusion as you state:

"CLINICOPATHLOGIC CORRELATION: Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma."

Dr. Meyer could not determine a single cause of death, hence, did not say "that the ligature on her neck "KILLED", but you "know" that it did? Sure, this is the story that John Ramsey and Company has been spouting for over four years, but the facts that reveal this claim to be fallacy still have not gone away.

I'm taking it you don't consider Dr. Meyer an expert? Is this correct? Early in your gibberish commentary, you indicated that only an expert is to be believed; never mind the facts, just trust the "expert." Isn't this the attitude you have established and used in a host of your "arguments."

This comes down to the criteria, by your own admission, of what is or is not an "expert." How about Lou Smit? He's an "expert", so you believe him. Right? But when Dr. Meyer, who is much experienced in his field and is no less an expert than Smit comes up with a conclusion you don't like, either you claim Dr. Meyer is not an expert, or admit to selecting only the "expert opinion" that suits your purpose. You don't see a big problem here? Admit it, Jameson, you believe whatever you wish and no facts are about to disturb that belief.

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"Since the garrote scene is obvious staging, this leaves the head trauma as the element that the garrote scene was designed to obscure in terms of importance. This means the head trauma came first and the perpetrator wished to obscure this fact and distance self from it. Since there is no known benefit that an intruder could gain from the staging, there is no motive for an intruder to do this. Indeed, the staging itself is for the purpose of "creating" an intruder."

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Nope - the EVIDENCE - -the photos and autopsy - indicate that THIS injury bled very little - - less than 2 tablespoons - and that proves that the flow of blood to the head was cut off BEFORE the blow to the head and THAT proves the garotte came first!"

This is certainly a favorite of the Ramsey spin (read lying) team. So, it bled very little. So what? This proves the garrote came first? Funny, Dr. Meyer didn't figure that out either. Do you consider yourself a better doctor and coroner than Dr. Meyer? Apparently so. How did or do you meet the criteria of expert in this field?

The idea that the small amount of bleeding means garroting first and cause of death is just so much more Ramsey spin not supported by a shred of evidence. My medical research did not turn up any conclusion that the garrote first is proven by low blood flow. The scalp and head in general are not the highest bleeding area by any means. One medical reference expresses it this way:

* Some bleeding may also arise at the suture points when the dura mater is torn away from the inside of the skull.*

Of course, some head traumas will bleed more that others, but the idea there is a set amount under the JonBenet circumstance that determines the strangling first is ludicrous.

I have personally seen several rather severe head wounds, including a couple of my own) that bled very little. In addition to this, a cranial shock without instant destruction of the central nervous system will effect muscle spasms that effect blood flow as well; which could happen with a head trauma that was not instantly fatal. So, once again, Jameson, your arbitrary declaration called "EVIDENCE" and "proof"doesn't hold up as anything except your personal preference to fit your personal preference theory that the Ramseys are innocent.

From original "Garotte Analysis I" by Delmar (05-26-2001):
"I have stipulated in detail with suggested testing to support my conclusion of bungling amateur. How about the same from John and Lou to support their conclusion of professional. Isn't this a fair request?"

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"In the final analysis I see a garotte that worked just fine -"

In the final analysis, what you see is what you want to see. Like a wanderer dying of thirst in a desert "sees" a pool of water, your mind invents and you can't tell the difference between what is inside your mind and what is outside. (I believe the technical term for this is insane.) You declare what's in as out and imagine "fact" and "proof" which are nothing more than illusions to fit preconceived notions.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"knots a normal husband and father or housewife and mother wouldn't make on a device they wouldn't think to construct."

Oh, you mean the knots with the "slippery material?" Tell me about these knots that a "normal husband and father" wouldn't construct. What kind of knots would this husband and father construct? You know as much about this as you do about the usual bondage ties; which is to say nothing except your imagination and preference.

The garrotes and knots were part of the crime scene. There is not a shred of evidence of an intruder. From the "ransom note"through the garrote scene is a clear theme of staging that fits no intruder theory, but certainly does fit the Ramseys trying to hide the truth. This theme of staging continues via the endless public appearances, book, lawsuit, etc. in an ever failing effort to sell an image that is not consistent with the facts. I know it. You know it. Deny all you want, but neither the garrote analysis and truth of amateur, or other telling facts are going to go away.

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
"Delmar England is selling BORG snake oil here"

Don't you ever get tired of spouting this silly nonsense? What do you expect to gain by it. You think it bothers me? What is does it tell me that you have no defensive arguments and are reduced to childish name calling. Don't you realize just how pathetic this is?

Delmar England's paper on the garotte - analyzed by jameson (07-16-2001):
" - and I think he is showing, once again, that he believes there's a fool born every minute. Well, Delmar - - Your mother had at least one - YOU!"

You have failed miserably to refute the arguments of a "fool"; thus by your own designation and appraisal, you set the judgment of yourself as less than a fool. I concur with your self evaluation.

Do you really like this silly game? Wanna play some more?

BTW, many thanks for your voluntary participation in this exchange and your help in further revealing the fraud which is the "Ramsey defense." One more thing: I suggest you send a copy of this to John and Patsy so they will see just how well you are doing in promoting their cause.

Delmar England

delmar@ct.net

Copyright at Common Law, Delmar England, 2000. All Rights Reserved.