That's Knot the Whole Picture: A Closer Inspection of the Garrote
I’m writing this rant today because I think there’s been far too much emphasis on the knots that made up the garrote and noose. The knots themselves reveal little compared to what the entire device tells us about the killer. By focusing solely on the technical aspects of the knots, we risk missing the bigger picture—the forethought, intent, and psychological factors behind the construction and use of the garrote as a whole.
On its face, the garrote's makeshift paintbrush handle was entirely unnecessary. It wasn't needed for any aspect of the murder. The handle wasn't needed for sadistic control, or sexual choking, or even strangulation. The handle was not for leverage. It didn't make killing her any swifter or require less effort. This lack of a utilitarian purpose has led some investigators to conclude that the garrote was made for staging.
However, the staging theory doesn’t fully explain the garrote’s design. If the device was purely for staging, why was it so effectively lethal? A crude ligature would have sufficed to suggest strangulation, yet this garrote was functional, deliberate, and deadly. The killer put effort into constructing It. It didn’t just appear sinister but worked with precision. This paradox—its lack of necessity but functional use—raises critical questions about the killer’s intent and mindset.
The handle’s inclusion suggests something more complex than staging. It might reflect psychological distancing: a way to avoid direct physical contact during the act, both physically and emotionally. The handle allowed the killer to apply force without the tactile intimacy of gripping the cord directly. This could indicate an emotional conflict, where the killer struggled with the personal nature of the act and sought a degree of separation.
Alternatively, the handle might have symbolic significance. It transformed a simple ligature into a more elaborate tool, perhaps elevating the act in the killer’s mind to something methodical or purposeful. This aligns with the overly dramatic elements of the crime scene, including the ransom note, suggesting a killer attempting to create a narrative or impose a sense of control over the situation.
An additional benefit of the handle is that it reduces the risk of self-inflicted injuries from the ligature, such as friction burns or scrapes. This added layer of separation also minimized the likelihood of leaving behind trace evidence, such as DNA or skin cells, on the cord itself. The handle created a barrier between themselves and the primary components of the device, ensuring that their involvement was harder to detect.
Additionally, the handle provided better grip and control, allowing the perpetrator to apply sustained force more effectively than with the cord alone. This combination of practical benefits—reduced injury risk, evidence prevention, and improved functionality—suggests a deliberate and calculated inclusion, pointing to someone with an understanding of both mechanics and the importance of avoiding detection.
Ultimately, the garrote speaks volumes about the killer—not through the knots, but through its design and purpose. The device reveals forethought, emotional detachment, and possibly a need to project control or create a narrative. Understanding the garrote as a whole, rather than focusing on its individual components, provides deeper insight into the killer’s psyche and the motives behind this horrific crime.
The knots, though rudimentary and sloppily made, likely reflect the high emotion and stress of the situation. The device was constructed hastily, with strands of JonBenét’s hair caught in the knots—an indicator of rushed and chaotic assembly over a likely unconscious and possibly comatose JonBenet. While the garrote’s construction did not require advanced skills, its creation demanded forethought: the ability to envision the device, locate the materials, assemble it, and execute its use. This points to someone adept at thinking under pressure and potentially falling back on prior experience or training with improvised tools in high-stakes scenarios.
The garrote’s construction shows a degree of deliberation that undermines theories of pure panic or accidental death. The killer didn’t simply use the cord directly; they took additional steps to modify it, indicating intent and a methodical approach, even if executed in haste. The combination of emotional intensity and practical ingenuity reveals a complex psychological profile, one that blends impulsivity with calculation.
In the end, the garrote is more than just a tool of murder; it’s a window into the killer’s mindset. It reflects not only their capacity for improvisation but also the emotional and psychological turmoil driving their actions. Whether as a means to ensure death, a product of panic, or an element of staging, the garrote’s design speaks to a killer who, despite the chaos of the moment, was capable of focused and deliberate action. This duality—of raw emotion and calculated execution—provides critical insight into the nature of the crime and the person responsible.