Cord function?

I can only vote once.

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Mama2,
Did you look at the picture of the garrote? ESPECIALLY the handle???? The hair looks very entwined in the knots of the handle to me.
CC

She probably glanced at it and processed the information on the fly like she does everything else.

BrotherMoon wrote:

I can only vote once.

If you log out, you can vote again and you can do that daily at least. People can vote as often as they like, if they are willing to just log in and out

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
If you log out, you can vote again and you can do that daily at least. People can vote as often as they like, if they are willing to just log in and out

I tried that, it didn't work. I switched users and tried and that didn't work.

BrotherMoon wrote:

I can only vote once.

Yup! With each hat.

BrotherMoon wrote:

<quoted text>
I tried that, it didn't work. I switched users and tried and that didn't work.

I just tried it and you are right. It didn't work, but it used to work. I will have to see if I can vote again tomorrow. It really used to work that way so maybe topix changed the way they do their polls

Maybe LE can explain it

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup! With each hat.

Are you suggesting I use other hats?

I'm sure there is a way to multi-vote with the same computer, if someone wants to go to the trouble.

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
I just tried it and you are right. It didn't work, but it used to work. I will have to see if I can vote again tomorrow. It really used to work that way so maybe topix changed the way they do their polls
Maybe LE can explain it

Then again, the total just jumped by 3. Oh well.

Capricorn wrote:

<quoted text>
I just tried it and you are right. It didn't work, but it used to work. I will have to see if I can vote again tomorrow. It really used to work that way so maybe topix changed the way they do their polls
Maybe LE can explain it

If they can control the voting like they appear to be doing, it would seem they could exercise more control over the spammers.

I think they are going about it haphazardly, just removing posts as they are reported and making no effort to block anyone using a particular computer from posting, which IMO is what they should do when they find a particularly vile and ugly poster completely destroying conversation among/between legit posters.

Ole South wrote:

<quoted text>
If they can control the voting like they appear to be doing, it would seem they could exercise more control over the spammers.
I think they are going about it haphazardly, just removing posts as they are reported and making no effort to block anyone using a particular computer from posting, which IMO is what they should do when they find a particularly vile and ugly poster completely destroying conversation among/between legit posters.

Could you take the rejection?{:+)

BrotherMoon wrote:

<quoted text>
Then again, the total just jumped by 3. Oh well.

Then maybe it's just a delayed tally and it can be done.

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Mama2,
Did you look at the picture of the garrote? ESPECIALLY the handle???? The hair looks very entwined in the knots of the handle to me.
CC

Yes, I've seen the photo many times. Her hair was tied into the knot on her neck and tangled in the cord and handle, but not incorporated into the knot itself. "Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick." (Source: JB's Autopsy Report)

Legal__Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>
You have nothing correct in this post.
Ubowski was the BPD's expert at the CBI - even HE did not see the 'original' note!
Why did the coroner cut JB's hair if the hair was not entwined in the knot? When he removed the cord, the hair would have fallen away. IT DIDN'T DO THAT!

. Why don't you REREAD all the sources you seem to think you know by heart? The hair was not incorporated into the knot on the handle AND Ubowski was the first of the six experts to analyze the ORIGINAL RANSOM NOTE.

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>. Why don't you REREAD all the sources you seem to think you know by heart? The hair was not incorporated into the knot on the handle AND Ubowski was the first of the six experts to analyze the ORIGINAL RANSOM NOTE.

Hi Mama2,
I don't know what picture you were looking at, but there is a picture of just the wooden stick the hair, and the cord. IF the hair is not entwined in the knots of that handle, how do you suppose it stays with it????
CC

Mama2JML wrote:

<quoted text>. Why don't you REREAD all the sources you seem to think you know by heart? The hair was not incorporated into the knot on the handle AND Ubowski was the first of the six experts to analyze the ORIGINAL RANSOM NOTE.

How is something tied into something and entwined in it and NOT tied into the knot? YOU POSTED IT ABOVE.

"Blonde hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick." (Source: JB's Autopsy Report) "

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Mama2,
I don't know what picture you were looking at, but there is a picture of just the wooden stick the hair, and the cord. IF the hair is not entwined in the knots of that handle, how do you suppose it stays with it????
CC

That is what I want to know too. Why would the coroner have to cut the hair if the hair was not entwined in the knot (like SHE posted from the autopsy)?

BrotherMoon wrote:

<quoted text>
Could you take the rejection?{:+)

In order for you to insult me, I would first have to value your opinion.

Enuff said.

Two knots. One (on the neck) had hair tied into it, the other (on the stick) had hair wrapped around it, around the cord and handle too, BUT NOT TIED INTO THE KNOT. Her hair was NOT incorporated into or inside of the original knot on the handle. This means the handle was likely attached to the cord prior to the garrote being applied to JB's neck. Read the autopsy report AND look at the photo AGAIN if this does not make sense to you.

Mama2JML wrote:

Two knots. One (on the neck) had hair tied into it, the other (on the stick) had hair wrapped around it, around the cord and handle too, BUT NOT TIED INTO THE KNOT. Her hair was NOT incorporated into or inside of the original knot on the handle. This means the handle was likely attached to the cord prior to the garrote being applied to JB's neck. Read the autopsy report AND look at the photo AGAIN if this does not make sense to you.

Hi Mama2,
According to the autopsy report:
"Blond hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick."

While it does not specifically state the "knots securing the wooden stick," if you look at the picture, it is obviously entwined in the knots.

If you look at the picture at:
http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html
The second one down on the left, and pay a little extra attention to the cord in the center of the loops and knots, you will see some hair in the knots

Not that it makes any difference, the stick had to be tied to the cord after the strangulation, or at least while the cord was already around JB's neck. It is obvious, that the coroner cut the hair to detach the garrote from the body.
CC
CC

Charlie Chan wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Mama2,
According to the autopsy report:
"Blond hair is entwined in the knot on the posterior aspect of the neck as well as in the cord wrapped around the wooden stick."
While it does not specifically state the "knots securing the wooden stick," if you look at the picture, it is obviously entwined in the knots.
If you look at the picture at:
http://crimeshots.com/CrimeScene1.html
The second one down on the left, and pay a little extra attention to the cord in the center of the loops and knots, you will see some hair in the knots
Not that it makes any difference, the stick had to be tied to the cord after the strangulation, or at least while the cord was already around JB's neck. It is obvious, that the coroner cut the hair to detach the garrote from the body.
CC
CC

Hi CC, thanks for posting the link. Yes, in the first pic of the knot that had been on her neck, I can see that JB's hair is tied into the knot. Some of her hair is beneath the top loop and pulled through indicating that her hair became part of that knot, thus the knot was tied while the noose was around her neck.

The knot on the handle is complex, and shows no hair within or under it. JB's hair is wrapped/tangled around the cord, stick, etc. So, I believe the handle was attached prior to the strangulation involved with the "garrote". If the coroner had observed that her hair was tied into the knot on the handle he would have indicated such as he did with regard to the knot on her neck. Instead he states that the hair is tangled in the cord. Based on the complexity of the knot, the photo, and the autopsy report, I believe the handle was attached to the cord prior to the noose being applied to JB's neck. Certainly JB's hair was cut, no doubt.

My only disagreement with your interpretation is with respect to the knot on the handle. I think it was tied before application of the noose and I believe you thought it was after...