A head injury similar to Jonbenet's

[elvislives]

Okay I should be wrapping Christmas presents but instead I've been reading thru medical texts on my shelf as well as scanning the internet to find some reasonable explanation for that goofy ME who says it takes 20-60 minutes for the brain to bleed and swell--he has really gotten under my skin. BTW I looked all over the internet for his original comments (not those published by the reporter) but I couldn't find them. I am hoping to find his original and conclude that he was mis-quoted. If anyone can find them, please post.
In any case, I can't find anything at all to support his comments. I did, however find a case where the injuries were very similar to JB's. I will post the case below, then comment on the next post. Here it is:

Emergency Medicine
Neuropathology Chapter 7
Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury
Case M-64

This is a 7-year old female involved in a motor
vehicle accident. She sustained a significant 15 cm linear fracture to the skull. There is extensive subarachnoid
hemorrhage with a mild degree of lateral and third
ventricular dilation. Blood/CSF levels are visible in the
occipital horns of the lateral ventricles. The left image
shows a considerable amount of blood in the fourth
ventricle (This may look like the quadrigeminal cistern,
but it is too low. The quadrigeminal cistern is visible in
cuts above the suprasellar cistern, not below the
suprasellar cistern). The center image shows blood in
the five-pointed star of the suprasellar cistern. The right
view shows blood in the posterior interhemispheric
space. The left image shows the subarachnoid hemorrhage which caused the increased intracranial pressure that compressed the brain. The hematoma started out as a flat blood clot between the dura and the arachnoid membrane. Fibroblasts are observed growing from the dura into the clot beginning to organize it. With arterial bleeding, symptoms develop rapidly and mortality rates are 85-95% even with immediate medical attention. This patient was airlifted to a level 1 trauma center within 20 minutes of her injuries and was DOA due to excessive intracranial hemorrhage and acute cerebral edema.

[elvislives]

Unfortunately when I copied and pasted the text, it did not include the pictures. I scanned this from a medical text onto my computer, but I don't know how (or if) I can attach the original so everyone can see the images. Can someone help me with this?

The injuries are very similar to JB's except the patient described was involved in a car accident and she had a 15 cm fracture (about 6 inches).

Anyway, if anyone knows how I can attach a word document to this thread, please advise.

[Louisadelmar]

Can't help on the attachments but here is a brief CV of Dr Wright as well as an email address should you become frustrated enough to want to write him.


Ronald K. Wright, MD, JD
Associate Professor of Pathology
Director of Forensic Pathology Division
2142 Holz Center
Jackson Memorial Hospital
Miami, Florida 33101
Tel: (954) 520-4958
Fax: (954) 212-0797
E-mail:rkw@rkwrightmdjd.com

CV
 BS Southwest Missouri State University 1967
 MD St Louis University 1971
 JD University of Miami 1980
 Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, University of Vermont 1971-1974
 Forensic Pathology , Dade County, Florida 1974
 Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, Dade County , Florida 1974-1980
 Chief Medical Examiner, Broward County , Florida 1980-1994
 Assistant and Associate Professor of Pathology, 1974-Present

Academic Interests
Primarily interested in the pathology of sudden death , whether from injury or from natural disease process. Particularly interested in electrical death and injury.

Selected Publication
Welti CV,Wright RK . Deaths from recreational cocaine use. JAMA, 241:219-22, 1979
Wright RK , Davis JH. The investigation of electrical deaths - a report of 220 fatalities. J For Sci, 514-21;1980.
Wright RK . Death or injury caused by electrocution. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine,3:343-53,1983.
Wright RK , Gantner G."Electrical Injuries and Lightning" In Froede RC, ed. Handbook of Forensic Pathology . Northfield IL College of American Pathologists;1990.
Wright RK ."Sudden Unexpected Death" In Froede RC, ed. Handbook of Forensic Pathology . Northfield IL College of American Pathologists;1990.
Wright RK.In Emergency medicine.1998. http://emedicine.com/emerg/topic162.htm

[elvislives]

This is a 7-year old female involved in a motor
vehicle accident. She sustained a significant 15 cm linear fracture to the skull. There is extensive subarachnoid
hemorrhage with a mild degree of lateral and third
ventricular dilation. Blood/CSF levels are visible in the
occipital horns of the lateral ventricles. The left image
shows a considerable amount of blood in the fourth
ventricle (This may look like the quadrigeminal cistern,
but it is too low. The quadrigeminal cistern is visible in
cuts above the suprasellar cistern, not below the
suprasellar cistern). The center image shows blood in
the five-pointed star of the suprasellar cistern. The right
view shows blood in the posterior interhemispheric
space. The left image shows the subarachnoid hemorrhage which caused the increased intracranial pressure that compressed the brain. The hematoma started out as a flat blood clot between the dura and the arachnoid membrane. Fibroblasts are observed growing from the dura into the clot beginning to organize it. With arterial bleeding, symptoms develop rapidly and mortality rates are 85-95% even with immediate medical attention. This patient was airlifted to a level 1 trauma center within 20 minutes of her injuries and was DOA due to excessive intracranial hemorrhage and acute cerebral edema.

Sorry I tried all kinds of things but cant figure out how to transfer the images. Anyway, a few comments on the above. This patient had a 15 cm fracture (about 6 inches) and was dead within 20 minutes. Also of note, her wounds had already begun to organize (again within 20 minutes at most). There are lots of these cases in medical journals, but I chose one of a child close in age to JB and with a similar (tho smaller) skull fracture.
There is a lot of detail on this case (I only posted part of it) and it is unclear as to exactly when she died--it only says that she was dead on arrival at the hospital and she got there 20 minutes after the accident. So the question is, if she had been strangled after this accident, how much time would the killer have for her to die of strangulation before she succumbed to the head wound? This is why I believe the strangulation came first--or immediately after the head wound was inflicted. There is no other way to explain why the head wound would not have begun to organize.

[bullmoose]

To Elvislives: Excellant post. I believe the reason so many[ including those on this board,the RDI's] are so insistant that Jonbenet suffered the skull fracture first is that it is the way they can explain the how and why's of her ligature strangulation. RDI theorists believe that Jonbenet was bashed, thought to be dead by her parents, and then garotted as part of an elaborate staging to cover the original bashing. The weird ransom note adds to the theory. If, as your post shows very convincingly, she was garotted first, as I myself believe, then a lot of the RDI theories are invalid. I don't think your evidence will be sufficent to convince the diehards, though.

[thewhitewitch1]

To Elvislives: Excellant post. I believe the reason so many[ including those on this board,the RDI's] are so insistant that Jonbenet suffered the skull fracture first is that it is the way they can explain the how and why's of her ligature strangulation. RDI theorists believe that Jonbenet was bashed, thought to be dead by her parents, and then garotted as part of an elaborate staging to cover the original bashing. The weird ransom note adds to the theory. If, as your post shows very convincingly, she was garotted first, as I myself believe, then a lot of the RDI theories are invalid. I don't think your evidence will be sufficent to convince the diehards, though.


Not when other experts on the subject (as previously posted elsewhere) say that the head injury could have come first. If it was absolutely undisputed, I'd have to rethink...but since it isn't...well...

[shill]

Maybe the killer slipped and dropped JB on her head as he was carrying her down the spiral stairs and thought she was OK.

[rashomon]

To Elvislives: Excellant post. I believe the reason so many[ including those on this board,the RDI's] are so insistant that Jonbenet suffered the skull fracture first is that it is the way they can explain the how and why's of her ligature strangulation. RDI theorists believe that Jonbenet was bashed, thought to be dead by her parents, and then garotted as part of an elaborate [staging to cover the original bashing. The weird ransom note adds to the theory. If, as your post shows very convincingly, she was garotted first, as I myself believe, then a lot of the RDI theories are invalid. I don't think your evidence will be sufficent to convince the diehards, though.
What Elvislives posted does not dispute the head injury having come first. For if the child had already been dead from strangulation first, how could she have bled at all?

It is true that Elvislives presented a mere 'theoretical' example: suppose person A strangles person B and then immediately whacks B over the head before B is clinically dead, B might still shed some blood.
But how realistic is such an IDI scenario? Not very much imo.
A blow to the head immediately following a strangulation attempt where the child is not dead yet?
If at all, it would fit more into an RDI theory:

for remember that Dr. Spitz (another renowned expert consulted on the case, Elvislives!), theorized that this is what Patsy Ramsey could have done: strangled JB somewhat first (by maybe twisting her collar around her neck), and then hit her over the head (either using the flashlight or yanking her head against a hard object).
And the garrote scenario was a scene which was staged later.

Elvislives:

what I find puzzling is that the horrible injury to JB's skull did not even break the skin.
So when looking fo comparable autopsy pictures of children of JB's age, you should look for those where the skin wasn't broken either.
How can that be? Does this happen often, that people get a skull fracture without the outer skin being broken? Or is this very unusual?

[elvislives]

The first thing I want to point out is that I am neither IDI or RDI--I'm still totally confused by this case. What I am trying to establish is the chronology of events. Just because the strangulation came first, does not mean that an intruder did it imo. As hard as it may be to believe, the parent(s) may very well have strangled their daughter then hit her on the head. Unfortunately it happens. So again, my only point in finding a similar case and dissecting the autopsy report is to figure out the sequence of events.

That said, to answer your questions, Rash, children have "softer" skulls than adults. So while it is uncommon for an adult to have a cracked skull without breaking the skin, it is much more common to see that in children. That is why diagnostic imaging (ct scans, x-ray etc) are so invaluable for patients with head injury. The extent of a kid's injury is often times not apparent based on an external exam. But it would have to be blunt force trauma to not break the skin.

[nuisanceposter]

We don't know that the strangulation came first. There's a detailed discussion going on at FFJ about clotting and organization, and I am still not convinced that the strangulation preceeded the head wound (thanks, Rashomon!) I can't see any other way to explain the definitive LACK of struggle unless JonBenet was unconscious when strangled, and her head wound absolutely could have come before she was strangled.

I do agree with your point that even if the strangulation came first that that does not immediately rule out the question of parental involvement and indicate the work of an intruder.

[elvislives]

Actually you are right--I think I misspoke here. The conclusions imo that can be drawn from the autopsy are not necessarily that the strangulation came first, then the head wound, but rather that they occurred within a very short time period. It IS possible that the head wound was first...and the lack of organization and bleeding was due to the fact that she was immediately strangled and her carotids were constricted. It does rule out however MY original theory that Patsy bashed her, decided she was dead or close to it, brought John into the action, plotted the intruder theory, fashioned the garrotte and strangled her for show then staged the rest of the scene. Unless Patsy did all that within about a minute, it couldn't have happened that way. So again it is still possible that she was bashed first, but if so the strangulation would have come right on the heels of the whack.

[nuisanceposter]

How do you explain the lack of any sign of struggle from JonBenet while being strangled to death? How is it possible that she was choked to death by that cord and offered no fight or resistance to the person choking her whatsoever?

[elvislives]

How do you explain the lack of any sign of struggle from JonBenet while being strangled to death? How is it possible that she was choked to death by that cord and offered no fight or resistance to the person choking her whatsoever?

I don't know. I've heard all sorts of theories....like she was drugged, it was a surprise attack from behind, she was stun-gunned. I've also heard some evidence that maybe she did struggle and her nails caused the crescent like marks on her neck. But I really have no clue. The autopsy report provides nothing imo to explain that. Its a great question tho.

[thewhitewitch1]

I don't know. I've heard all sorts of theories....like she was drugged, it was a surprise attack from behind, she was stun-gunned. I've also heard some evidence that maybe she did struggle and her nails caused the crescent like marks on her neck. But I really have no clue. The autopsy report provides nothing imo to explain that. Its a great question tho.

What if, as someone suggested, she had been "accidentally" strangled first by someone having a tight hold on her shirt so that the collar choked her, and was then pushed into something (such as a sink or bathtub) which caused the head wound. If she was already suffering from lack of oxygen from the shirt being too tight around her neck, couldn't that have slowed down the bleeding to her brain?
Wasn't it Cyril Wecht who said that some of the injury to her brain was consistant with "shaken baby syndrome"? I can envision an angry parent holding a child by their shirt and shaking them, and then roughly pushing them as they let go of the shirt.

[Athena]

The description of blunt trauma indicates she was hit with something on the head with a rectangular shape. Cyril Wecht also describes the shaking after the strangulation and I do not believe she hit her head on anything. JMO

[shill]

Well apparently they can't tell what caused the skull injury, so why didn't the Ramseys toss her down the spiral stairs on her head and avoid all the rest of the bull?
The spiral stairs are right outside JB's bedroom door.

[LindaA]

Well apparently they can't tell what caused the skull injury, so why didn't the Ramseys toss her down the spiral stairs on her head and avoid all the rest of the bull?
The spiral stairs are right outside JB's bedroom door.

My question exactly.

[thewhitewitch1]

Well apparently they can't tell what caused the skull injury, so why didn't the Ramseys toss her down the spiral stairs on her head and avoid all the rest of the bull?
The spiral stairs are right outside JB's bedroom door.


Maybe they didn't think of it. And if she was previously molested, throwing her down the stairs wouldn't account for that....unless they wanted to claim that she fell on the paintbrush on the way down.

[LindaA]

IMO the paint brush handle did its damage at a point far too far inside to account for prior penetration. I don't see how anyone would think it would cover up a stretch vaginal opening and hymen.

[bullmoose]

To shill: The reason John and Patsy didn't throw Jonbenet down the stairs after clubbing her like a baby seal was that their portable X-ray machine was in the basement, so they carried her down to X-ray her first, then set up the elaborate and strange staging.:biggrin:

[elvislives]

What if, as someone suggested, she had been "accidentally" strangled first by someone having a tight hold on her shirt so that the collar choked her, and was then pushed into something (such as a sink or bathtub) which caused the head wound. If she was already suffering from lack of oxygen from the shirt being too tight around her neck, couldn't that have slowed down the bleeding to her brain?
Wasn't it Cyril Wecht who said that some of the injury to her brain was consistant with "shaken baby syndrome"? I can envision an angry parent holding a child by their shirt and shaking them, and then roughly pushing them as they let go of the shirt.

It;s possible....but its a stretch. Keep in mind that she would have lost consciousness after the first few minutes and the killer would have to keep strangling her for a few more minutes until she was dead (remember she had petechial hemorrhaging in her lungs, hence she died of asphixia). Based on the severity of the head wound, I don't think it was caused by being pushed into anything flat like a bathtub. The corner of the sink is a possibility since that could have caused the hole, but they would have to have used extreme force to do so much damage. It looks to me like head injuries you see when a kid is hit with a baseball bat (usually accidently during the course of a game or something) ...a bat is usually swung with velocity and force (to hit a ball) which is how it can crack the skull or cause a hole. And kids that come in with accidental head blows from baseball bats usually have some degree of "shaken baby syndrome". All that is is trauma caused by the brain sloshing around within the skull.

[thewhitewitch1]

To shill: The reason John and Patsy didn't throw Jonbenet down the stairs after clubbing her like a baby seal was that their portable X-ray machine was in the basement, so they carried her down to X-ray her first, then set up the elaborate and strange staging.:biggrin:

Now, now, Bullmoose. If you must ridicule RDIs then we must retaliate.
The phantom kidnapper/pedophile who entered and exited the Ramseys home via a puff of smoke and silently floated through the house making no noise, leaving no fingerprints and wearing mismatched shoes, walking around with his phantom fly open so that a single pubic hair could fall out seems a much more reasonable theory. There were no footprints in the snow because he floated over it. (Very clever) I'm sure the reason he didn't take her body was because he had no substance and couldn't carry her. I think what he did was he possessed John or Patsy's body and forced them to carry out his evil wishes so that he could frame them. I think the intruder was someone who Patsy and John had wronged at some point who came back from the dead to seek vengence on them. The pineapple was JBs last meal and, of course, she had a cigarette afterwards, as is customary before an execution. (Hence, the cigarette butts in the alley).
Yeah. That's the ticket.

[shill]

How was the head injury covered up, by not covering it up?
Should have left a weapon next to her if it was a cover up.

[shill]

Now, now, Bullmoose. If you must ridicule RDIs then we must retaliate.
The phantom kidnapper/pedophile who entered and exited the Ramseys home via a puff of smoke and silently floated through the house making no noise, leaving no fingerprints and wearing mismatched shoes, walking around with his phantom fly open so that a single pubic hair could fall out seems a much more reasonable theory. There were no footprints in the snow because he floated over it. (Very clever) I'm sure the reason he didn't take her body was because he had no substance and couldn't carry her. I think what he did was he possessed John or Patsy's body and forced them to carry out his evil wishes so that he could frame them. I think the intruder was someone who Patsy and John had wronged at some point who came back from the dead to seek vengence on them. The pineapple was JBs last meal and, of course, she had a cigarette afterwards, as is customary before an execution. (Hence, the cigarette butts in the alley).
Yeah. That's the ticket.

People slip in and out of small houses with people sleeping all the time, and rob and kidnap while they are there. We know this happens in reality. This house was much much bigger then most.
Parents have never killed and staged a crime like this before. So this would be a one of a kind crime with no basis of believability.
Many of us IDIs don't believe it is the work of a pedophile, that's more of a RDI cover up thing.
Revenge has been a major motive for Murder throughout history.

The RDI theory is about how everything is not as it appears and the Ramseys are lying about everything.
The IDI theory is about how everything is as it appears and the Ramseys are telling the truth.
The RDI theory has to explain how the evidence was staged for it to point to their suspect.
The IDI theory tries to interpret the evidence as it appears so it will lead them to a suspect.

[Coloradokares]

JMHO but to even say clubbing her like a baby seal is just way to much for my sensitivities. This forum is really starting to get just a bit to disrespectful to be taken seriously at all. JMHO

[shill]

JMHO but to even say clubbing her like a baby seal is just way to much for my sensitivities. This forum is really starting to get just a bit to disrespectful to be taken seriously at all. JMHO

That's what I've been saying about the RDI theories.

[aussiesheila]

How do you explain the lack of any sign of struggle from JonBenet while being strangled to death? How is it possible that she was choked to death by that cord and offered no fight or resistance to the person choking her whatsoever?My explanation is that at the time, she was standing with her arms held outstretched straight above her head by the 15 inches of cord between the wrist loops which was attached in some way to one of the overhead pipes running beneath the ceiling of the basement.

[bullmoose]

To TWW: Actually your silly theory is better than some of the serious ones I've read; and it explains more than my silly theory. Will we ever know for sure what really happened? After ten years and no solution, I doubt it. This case in some ways makes me think of Dennis Raeder, the BTK killer. The husband of one victim was suspected of murder all those 20 years, the cops never even connected her murder to the BTK. It wasn't until he re-emerged that the cops found out that it was a BTK murder. This case just doesn't make sense to me any other way. JMHO, seriously[sorry about the baby seal line,CK].:confused:

[thewhitewitch1]

To TWW: Actually your silly theory is better than some of the serious ones I've read; and it explains more than my silly theory. Will we ever know for sure what really happened? After ten years and no solution, I doubt it. This case in some ways makes me think of Dennis Raeder, the BTK killer. The husband of one victim was suspected of murder all those 20 years, the cops never even connected her murder to the BTK. It wasn't until he re-emerged that the cops found out that it was a BTK murder. This case just doesn't make sense to me any other way. JMHO, seriously[sorry about the baby seal line,CK].:confused:

It doesn't make sense to me either but I have to say, if you can get past the emotional "reasoning" that a parent couldn't/wouldn't do these things to their own child for any reason, the Ramseys look guilty as hell.
Nobody wants to believe that they "did it" but in all reality, they very well could have. I happen to believe that they did. The problem is, some of the puzzle pieces have to be made to fit instead of just sliding in nicely but it's the same with all IDI theories too.
Frusterating, isn't it?!

[LindaA]

I don't really believe the R's did it, either, but it's not emotional reasoning. They evidence doesen't fit, IMHO. I agree with Elvislives. I think there is less emotional reasoning with the IDIs than most RDIs give us credit for.

[Coloradokares]

To TWW: Actually your silly theory is better than some of the serious ones I've read; and it explains more than my silly theory. Will we ever know for sure what really happened? After ten years and no solution, I doubt it. This case in some ways makes me think of Dennis Raeder, the BTK killer. The husband of one victim was suspected of murder all those 20 years, the cops never even connected her murder to the BTK. It wasn't until he re-emerged that the cops found out that it was a BTK murder. This case just doesn't make sense to me any other way. JMHO, seriously[sorry about the baby seal line,CK].:confused:

Thankyou. I know its hard to imagine. I used to see JonBenet and Burke out playing or her photos in the newspaper etc. I Know a family who knew them personally. This murder is not just another headline to some of us. It is more than a sluething interest or mystery whodoneit. Thanks again.

[LindaA]

CK, I think it is far more than a mystery to those of us who post here. Most people are passionate about the case.

[Coloradokares]

CK, I think it is far more than a mystery to those of us who post here. Most people are passionate about the case.

Perhaps that was unfair. But the baby seal comment and other indelicate references have served to make me wonder, not saying that others don't care, maybe the level of caring is different when its touched the lives of those you know. Its not a passionate case to me, its about a little girl who deserved so much more. All we can do for her now is to seek justice. Justice is proving who did this to her and seeing that the maxium time is served under the law. Anyone who did this to JonBenet has long since ceased to deserve mercy as the guiding component of our concerns. Remorse should have led the most hardened of hearts to confession by now.

[shill]

All we can do for her now is to seek justice. Justice is proving who did this to her and seeing that the maxium time is served under the law.
By all means take Patsy to trial, convicter her and give her 15 life sentences.

These forums are about finding JB's killer so justice can be done to them.
These forums shouldn't even allow people to talk about Patsy being the killer, because justice can no longer be served to her. If she was to be proven to be the killer, it would only be the end to a long hunt.

[LindaA]

By all means take Patsy to trial, convicter her and give her 15 life sentences.

These forums are about finding JB's killer so justice can be done to them.
These forums shouldn't even allow people to talk about Patsy being the killer, because justice can no longer be served to her. If she was to be proven to be the killer, it would only be the end to a long hunt.

Re that last sentence; that would be enough for me -- if PR were guilty.

CK, obviously you think the because you actually saw JBR no one can care as much about her as you. You may be right, but it's pointless to keep bringing it up. Everyone here wants the justice for JBR she deserves. We just differ on the person who should be held accountable.

[rashomon]

By all means take Patsy to trial, convicter her and give her 15 life sentences.

These forums are about finding JB's killer so justice can be done to them.
These forums shouldn't even allow people to talk about Patsy being the killer, because justice can no longer be served to her. If she was to be proven to be the killer, it would only be the end to a long hunt.
These forums are about discussing the JBR case, and Patsy Ramsey was never cleared as a suspect in her daughter's death. The fact that a perp has died does not automatically remove him/her from the discussion just becasue earthly justice can't be served anymore.

[cami]

So when looking fo comparable autopsy pictures of children of JB's age, you should look for those where the skin wasn't broken either.
How can that be? Does this happen often, that people get a skull fracture without the outer skin being broken? Or is this very unusual?

It could Rash...they likened it to a closed head injury suffered in an accident.

[nuisanceposter]

These forums are about discussing the JBR case, and Patsy Ramsey was never cleared as a suspect in her daughter's death. The fact that a perp has died does not automatically remove him/her from the discussion just becasue earthly justice can't be served anymore.

Very true, and a good point. Patsy Ramsey was still considered a suspect in JonBenet's murder at the time of her death, and her being deceased does not render suspicion of her guilt null and void.

It's like when people said everyone needed to stop suspecting Melinda Duckett of being responsible for her 2 year old son Trenton's disappearance when she committed suicide. There was very good reason people suspected Melinda's involvement, and her being deceased did not change the facts surrounding the case - that she could not be ruled out as the prime suspect due to her own words and actions.

[Coloradokares]

By all means take Patsy to trial, convicter her and give her 15 life sentences.

These forums are about finding JB's killer so justice can be done to them.
These forums shouldn't even allow people to talk about Patsy being the killer, because justice can no longer be served to her. If she was to be proven to be the killer, it would only be the end to a long hunt.


I have no desire to convict anyone but the killer and anyone who may have been a part of staging as it took place and covering up this crime and denying JonBenet any form of justice or dignity. I can't get past her laying soaked in her own urine on the front of herself, yet she was found face up shill. Who ever did this to her be they dead or alive should bear the responsibility of accountibility at the very least for their acts. What do you mean the forums shouldn't even be allowed to talk about Patsy as a suspect. She is a suspect and her death from cancer as bad as it had to have been to endure does not cancel this out in any rational way if she committed the act. Shill one moment your thoughtful and insightful and purposeful with your thoughts directed and you lend substance to the matter, then you post something so cruel or insulting or as above a statement that would lead one to believe that you'd rather convict anyone than the responsible party if the party is dead. It leaves at least me scratching my head going what?!?!? Its not the hunt or the debate or solving the case its seeking justice and the only way justice is served is in finding the person(s) responsible and convicting them in a court of law. Or at leastputting this cold unsolved murder to rest with a statement that is irrevocable if that is where the truth leads. I don't want just anyone to serve someone elses time for a crime they did not commit. I don't think that in truth that is what you'd want either. Please in the future. Walk away, just walk away from the keyboard till you can say what you need to express in a positive way. Surely you would not want anyone to bear the burden for Patsy if it is proven no one else could have done this would you. These are all huge if's... I realize that. No one has been tried or convicted as yet. But we have to look at all the possibilities. Not just the ones who give us someone we could seek to exact and extract justice from. JMHO

[sweetcharlotte]

Very true, and a good point. Patsy Ramsey was still considered a suspect in JonBenet's murder at the time of her death, and her being deceased does not render suspicion of her guilt null and void.
<snip>



I think it's fairly safe to say that no one has been cleared from this investigation. Patsy, John, Jeff Merrick, Fleet White, Fleet's wife, Santa, Ms. Santa, the housekeeper, and the list goes on and on. JMO

[Coloradokares]

Re that last sentence; that would be enough for me -- if PR were guilty.

CK, obviously you think the because you actually saw JBR no one can care as much about her as you. You may be right, but it's pointless to keep bringing it up. Everyone here wants the justice for JBR she deserves. We just differ on the person who should be held accountable.


There is a part of me that knows that. And I do believe that. Yet think of any little girl or boy just put the face to the name. Can you hear the sound of their laughter as you drive by... put their name in tomorrows headlines and then days later you hear all evidence points to the parents involvement. Lead investigators..... I know we only differ on the person(s) who could be involved. But do you see how callous statements or ones that are just a bit cold could seem over the top .... be fair to me as well. That is the only time I have implied that perhaps there is more than can possibly be understood if its a cold case or mystery . I mean how can this little girl be real to some who'd say the more callous thing? Gallows humor perhaps but for some its harder to laugh? See?

[andU]

Sometimes, in order to remain focused and unbiased, a person must remove themselves from emotional feelings. It was emotion that originally stirred up my interest, I confess. But there are times when, in order to do what a person sets out to accomplish he/she must banish emotions and concentrate on detail.

[Coloradokares]

Sometimes, in order to remain focused and unbiased, a person must remove themselves from emotional feelings. It was emotion that originally stirred up my interest, I confess. But there are times when, in order to do what a person sets out to accomplish he/she must banish emotions and concentrate on detail.


Easy to say hard to do. Maybe thats how we differ andu, I don't see myself solving this case. I see myself doing my part to bring about the actions that will lead to the resolution of this case. I am who I am .....we all are. I can't change that fact .... I am going into mostly lurk mode now. No one cares to hear the truth behind the evidence. Maybe someday this case will be solved. Ramseys spent their fortune to buy reasonable doubt. I guess they got their moneys worth. Because the fact that no intruder has ever been found means nothing. Well an intruder could have killed Laci Petersen too. Or Nicole Simpson. Or Susan's Smiths kids.....but our DA wouldn't prosecute so your right no one will probably ever know for sure who killed JonBenet. I might come to read....but there is not a bit of sense in posting ....

[sweetcharlotte]

Easy to say hard to do. Maybe thats how we differ andu, I don't see myself solving this case. I see myself doing my part to bring about the actions that will lead to the resolution of this case. I am who I am .....we all are. I can't change that fact .... I am going into mostly lurk mode now. No one cares to hear the truth behind the evidence. Maybe someday this case will be solved. Ramseys spent their fortune to buy reasonable doubt. I guess they got their moneys worth. Because the fact that no intruder has ever been found means nothing. Well an intruder could have killed Laci Petersen too. Or Nicole Simpson. Or Susan's Smiths kids.....but our DA wouldn't prosecute so your right no one will probably ever know for sure who killed JonBenet. I might come to read....but there is not a bit of sense in posting ....


The Ramseys spent their fortune to buy reasonable doubt. Really? Who did they pay? How much? When? Details, please.

Really good police work identified the killers of Laci Peterson, Nicole Simpson, and Michael and Alex Smith.

Too bad the same can't be said for the Ramsey case.

JMO

[andU]

The Ramseys spent their fortune to buy reasonable doubt. Really? Who did they pay? How much? When? Details, please.

Really good police work identified the killers of Laci Peterson, Nicole Simpson, and Michael and Alex Smith.

Too bad the same can't be said for the Ramsey case.

JMO

I believe the case will be solved and when it is there will be plenty of red faced RDIs wiping smug. RDIs have all the evidence they hope to get, we IDIs can hope for a match to the DNA....

[andU]

Easy to say hard to do. Maybe thats how we differ andu, I don't see myself solving this case. I see myself doing my part to bring about the actions that will lead to the resolution of this case. I am who I am .....we all are. I can't change that fact .... I am going into mostly lurk mode now. No one cares to hear the truth behind the evidence. Maybe someday this case will be solved. Ramseys spent their fortune to buy reasonable doubt. I guess they got their moneys worth. Because the fact that no intruder has ever been found means nothing. Well an intruder could have killed Laci Petersen too. Or Nicole Simpson. Or Susan's Smiths kids.....but our DA wouldn't prosecute so your right no one will probably ever know for sure who killed JonBenet. I might come to read....but there is not a bit of sense in posting ....


Why are you going away? Debate is good, isn't it? Although you have taken it beyond debate, no one is bashing you for it. Have your say, you are entitled, but please allow us the same.

[sweetcharlotte]

I believe the case will be solved and when it is there will be plenty of red faced RDIs wiping smug. RDIs have all the evidence they hope to get, we IDIs can hope for a match to the DNA....

I'm sure you heard (or read) JR's comments last evening, "You know, they feel pretty strongly they have the killer's DNA now. And, they have other samples to be tested, which they are going to test when DNA is advanced further in its capabilities."

Yes, we DO have hope for future findings.

[bullmoose]

Rashoman: Have you been reading Joseph Wambaugh's books? I mean where do you get off calling Patsy Ramsey a "perp"? Unless your command of English is very poor, which I haven't noticed, you have to know that the term "perp" [short for perpetrater] is copspeak for a criminal guilty of a specific crime. Are you a cop? Why not just say suspect instead? Are you calling all the other persons of interest that haven't been cleared perps? Fleet White-Perp?his wife-perp? Santa-perp? his wife-perp?the housekeeper-perp? Is this the start of a new self-perpetuating perp labeling machine? Be an RDI, but don't be a perp.

[rashomon]

It could Rash...they likened it to a closed head injury suffered in an accident.
Cami,
Elvislives also pointed out that children have softer skulls than adults, and therefore it is not that unusual for a child's skin not being broken from that type of injury. But according to this poster, it had to be blunt force trauma for that to happen, for a pointed object would not cause this kind of injury.
That it was blunt force trauma was also the opinion of virtually all other doctors consulted on the case
Maybe Patsy yanked JB around, slamming her head against the bathtub?

[LindaA]

The slamming her headon thebathtub theory is a common one. Most medical authorities say she couldn't have hit the bathtub hard enough to do that kind of damage; it had to have come from being hit with an object. IMO as I don't have a link.

[Tober]

I think it's fairly safe to say that no one has been cleared from this investigation. Patsy, John, Jeff Merrick, Fleet White, Fleet's wife, Santa, Ms. Santa, the housekeeper, and the list goes on and on. JMO

Hundreds of individuals have been investigated and cleared by BPD, Lou Smit, and others. Besides the first two, those you mention have been cleared.

[Coloradokares]

The slamming her headon thebathtub theory is a common one. Most medical authorities say she couldn't have hit the bathtub hard enough to do that kind of damage; it had to have come from being hit with an object. IMO as I don't have a link.


I am not sure I can agree with that. Not sure if it was this forum I told or not but I have had a closed head injury one that was substantial and created a bleed into the brain. Lots of brain swelling as well. I fell backwards from a broken chair and hit a very heavy old wooden picnic table that was behind me. I had a subdural hematoma that encompassed most of the back of the left side of my head. I was in short a mess. I had to learn to retie my shoes. I had alot of visual problems. It'd take hours to go through the cognitive difficulties. One of the reasons to this day I am probably not as organized as once was. I had short term memory loss I can remember events from 3 years of age. To that point pretty accurately. Don't talk to me about what went on yesterday. Or expect me to remember commands of more than 2 or 3 in sequence even yet. I remembered the fall and the sound of my head hitting I just couldn't conceptualize that was how I got hurt. Head injuries are very strange things. Had I been 6 years old I'd of been dead or PVS most likely. I am lucky I lived near Craig Rehab out in Denver. My injury occured in 98, One reason why I can rattle off details till then about JonBenets case. After that I may remember what I read only Lord knows where. One reason why I took flawless notes without realizing the importance of page numbers. Its taken me a very long time. What was bad....was I looked normal. No blood loss on the outside. Just a huge mess visible through my hair once all the swelling took place. Yet, I was far from normal. I had a rated closed head injury years later I'd go to drive to a mall forget where I put the car and not have a clue how to get home. I can be sharp as sharp can get....but then something misfires and I know its alzheimers. It takes a lot to learn to live with a head injury of that magnitude. I still have some difficulties I work and live with .....so I won't go to greater detail. I'd like to think I have returned to at least high functioning. However where I was going with this is there is no doubt in my mind that had JonBenet had her head in a rage attack slammed against the side of a heavy castiron porcelain covered tub she could have sustained a great deal of injury. You get your head whacked hard....lots of damage can occur. I will however agree with experts that conclude perhaps a bat or flashlight was used to inflict what would have been the fatal blow. But how can someone say if her head struck and object with velocity she couldn't have been that badly hurt. Trust me it can do damage. She need not have been garotted at all. Not close or far apart. That head injury was fatal from the get go....

[rashomon]

Rashoman: Have you been reading Joseph Wambaugh's books? I mean where do you get off calling Patsy Ramsey a "perp"? Unless your command of English is very poor, which I haven't noticed, you have to know that the term "perp" [short for perpetrater] is copspeak for a criminal guilty of a specific crime. Are you a cop? Why not just say suspect instead? Are you calling all the other persons of interest that haven't been cleared perps? Fleet White-Perp?his wife-perp? Santa-perp? his wife-perp?the housekeeper-perp? Is this the start of a new self-perpetuating perp labeling machine? Be an RDI, but don't be a perp.
Bullmoose,

I'm no cop, I'm a kindergarten teacher. :)
English is not my first language, but I don't think the word 'perp' is limited to copspeak, at least I don't get this impression from reading on true crime boards, where many posters use it.

Look up 'perpetrator' in this link:
http://courts.delaware.gov/How%20To/court%20proceedings/?JPglossary.htm#p

It says "perpetrator: "a person who has allegedly committed a crime."

I have used 'perp' in my posts because it is short ansd concise, and to me it is more neutral than e. g. 'murderer'. For I don't think Patsy murdered JB.
To me 'perp' simply means that a person committed a crime. For example, IDIs have also written on forums that "the perp garroted JonBenet".

As for Wambaugh: I have read "The Onion Field" many years ago, but didn't finish it.
I don't remember why I didn't like the book, but maybe I should give it give it another try, since it is one of the great true crime classics.

[sweetcharlotte]

Hundreds of individuals have been investigated and cleared by BPD, Lou Smit, and others. Besides the first two, those you mention have been cleared.

Oh, I think it's safe to say until someone has been arrested and charged in this case no one has been cleared.

[Louisadelmar]

Bullmoose,

I'm no cop, I'm a kindergarten teacher. :)
English is not my first language, but I don't think the word 'perp' is limited to copspeak, at least I don't get this impression from reading on true crime boards, where many posters use it.

Look up 'perpetrator' in this link:
http://courts.delaware.gov/How%20To/court%20proceedings/?JPglossary.htm#p

It says "perpetrator: "a person who has allegedly committed a crime."

I have used 'perp' in my posts because it is short ansd concise, and to me it is more neutral than e. g. 'murderer'. For I don't think Patsy murdered JB.
To me 'perp' simply means that a person committed a crime. For example, IDIs have also written on forums that "the perp garroted JonBenet".
[...]


Perp carries with it the connotation that the suspect has been arrested. Hence the phrase 'perp walk.'

Patsy was a suspect as were others.

[sweetcharlotte]

Reminds me of a B movie ------- or of Steve Thomas when he said Patsy was "good for it." JMO

[Louisadelmar]

I am not sure I can agree with that. Not sure if it was this forum I told or not but I have had a closed head injury one that was substantial and created a bleed into the brain. Lots of brain swelling as well. I fell backwards from a broken chair and hit a very heavy old wooden picnic table that was behind me. I had a subdural hematoma that encompassed most of the back of the left side of my head. I was in short a mess. I had to learn to retie my shoes. I had alot of visual problems. It'd take hours to go through the cognitive difficulties. One of the reasons to this day I am probably not as organized as once was. I had short term memory loss I can remember events from 3 years of age. To that point pretty accurately. Don't talk to me about what went on yesterday. Or expect me to remember commands of more than 2 or 3 in sequence even yet. I remembered the fall and the sound of my head hitting I just couldn't conceptualize that was how I got hurt. Head injuries are very strange things. Had I been 6 years old I'd of been dead or PVS most likely. I am lucky I lived near Craig Rehab out in Denver. My injury occured in 98, One reason why I can rattle off details till then about JonBenets case. After that I may remember what I read only Lord knows where. One reason why I took flawless notes without realizing the importance of page numbers. Its taken me a very long time. What was bad....was I looked normal. No blood loss on the outside. Just a huge mess visible through my hair once all the swelling took place. Yet, I was far from normal. I had a rated closed head injury years later I'd go to drive to a mall forget where I put the car and not have a clue how to get home. I can be sharp as sharp can get....but then something misfires and I know its alzheimers. It takes a lot to learn to live with a head injury of that magnitude. I still have some difficulties I work and live with .....so I won't go to greater detail. I'd like to think I have returned to at least high functioning. However where I was going with this is there is no doubt in my mind that had JonBenet had her head in a rage attack slammed against the side of a heavy castiron porcelain covered tub she could have sustained a great deal of injury. You get your head whacked hard....lots of damage can occur. I will however agree with experts that conclude perhaps a bat or flashlight was used to inflict what would have been the fatal blow. But how can someone say if her head struck and object with velocity she couldn't have been that badly hurt. Trust me it can do damage. She need not have been garotted at all. Not close or far apart. That head injury was fatal from the get go....

Congratulations on your recovery. Clearly you worked hard and I think, are well beyond mere 'high functioning.' You hold your own at this board don't you? :-)

Also, I don't know how old you are but some of what you describe: You know you read it but can't remember where, Forgetting the car location, Roads that suddenly seem unfamiliar can also just be age related. I have done every one of them and more and of course my immediate thought is Alzheimer's or the onset of senile dementia. If that's the case though all my friends came down with it at the same time. So don't be too hard on yourself.

[LindaA]

I'm under the impression that bath tubs are not still made of cast iron. I know the Ramsey's house was an old one that was remodeled. I'm wondering of their tub was new or old -- if it indeed was made of cast iron.

[Coloradokares]

I'm under the impression that bath tubs are not still made of cast iron. I know the Ramsey's house was an old one that was remodeled. I'm wondering of their tub was new or old -- if it indeed was made of cast iron.

I am not sure. What aggravates me is I know I should know the answer to that. I know a house a mere few blocks away had a very heavy tub although it was Jacuzzi. However Ramseys had done some updating... I don't remember it being acrylic or fiberglass.

[Coloradokares]

Congratulations on your recovery. Clearly you worked hard and I think, are well beyond mere 'high functioning.' You hold your own at this board don't you? :-)

Also, I don't know how old you are but some of what you describe: You know you read it but can't remember where, Forgetting the car location, Roads that suddenly seem unfamiliar can also just be age related. I have done every one of them and more and of course my immediate thought is Alzheimer's or the onset of senile dementia. If that's the case though all my friends came down with it at the same time. So don't be too hard on yourself.

I have been married for 38 years. So that puts me past 39 and holding;) I long ago got my AARP card and get my senior discount in alot of settings. HA HA. My mom had Alzheimers and each of my aunts and 2 uncles as well. So far only one Aunt has escaped it. That terrifies me. So I am flawlessly organized and make notes all the time. That was part of my cognitive retraining. I am not sure I hold my own at all on this forum. One thing that has changed is I am very non confrontational. Combative situations really drain my ability to reason and function. That is because I really am so tender hearted it floors me when things are less than civil. Life is way to short to live in abusive and combative situations. Well thanks for saying not to be so hard on myself. I have learned to let go but I do hate to disappoint others in my ability to prove what I say.

[shill]

I have been married for 38 years. So that puts me past 39 and holding;) I long ago got my AARP card and get my senior discount in alot of settings. HA HA. My mom had Alzheimers and each of my aunts and 2 uncles as well. So far only one Aunt has escaped it. That terrifies me. So I am flawlessly organized and make notes all the time. That was part of my cognitive retraining. I am not sure I hold my own at all on this forum. One thing that has changed is I am very non confrontational. Combative situations really drain my ability to reason and function. That is because I really am so tender hearted it floors me when things are less than civil. Life is way to short to live in abusive and combative situations. Well thanks for saying not to be so hard on myself. I have learned to let go but I do hate to disappoint others in my ability to prove what I say.
What the heck is in the water in Boulder?

[Coloradokares]

What the heck is in the water in Boulder?

Meaning? Regarding my family history of Alzheimers. I don't know its going to take a lot more research I think to fully understand. I just know that it is terrifying to me to think of Alzheimers in addition to a rated head injury. What is in the water in Boulder some of the most wonderful water ....Rocky Mtns all that....

[shill]

4 MIKE KANE: Did you know anything
5 about JonBenet having dumbbells in her room?
6 Did she work out or anything like that?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't think so.
8 How big were they? Were they -- Burke might
9 have had some, Patsy had some, she was
10 recovering from cancer, she used to ride her
11 bicycle and work these dumbbells. They were
12 usually -- they usually were in the TV room. I
13 am not sure they were there when she was works
14 out, but those were the dumbbells that we had
15 around.

[bullmoose]

To Rashoman:I believe the reason that you used the term perp, judging from your reply to my last post, because English is not your first language. Some things do not translate precisely, apparently. In the link you listed the term perp is indeed used in the state of Delaware Justice of the Peace Courts for persons suspected of crimes, but in that context, it is also talking about suspects that have been arrested and formally charged with the specific crimes they are suspected of having perpetrated. This does not apply in the case of anyone suspected by the police or anybody else for Jonbenet's murder, no one has been arrested or charged in connection with her death. However, I am not sure that the terminology in use in Delaware Courts would be used in Colorado, where the murder took place. It is about 1600km west of Delaware; I do not think that suspects in crimes are referred to as perps except by the police in Idaho, much further west of Delaware. In my life, I've only seen the term used in books, as I mentioned Wambaugh, never in real life. It bespeaks a presumption of guilt on whoever the label is pronounced, not merely suspicion. If you didn't finish the Onion Fields, maybe its because it was a true story, and very sad. I thought so.:seeya:

[Tober]

JMHO, seriously[sorry about the baby seal line,CK]

And you should be, as it was very disrespectful toward JonBenet.

[shill]

Somebody did club her like she was a baby seal.

[Tober]

Somebody did club her like she was a baby seal.

As anyone can see by reading your posts, you've insulted some who have disagreed with you. Therefore, I'd expect my comment to be over your head.

[rashomon]

To Rashoman:I believe the reason that you used the term perp, judging from your reply to my last post, because English is not your first language. Some things do not translate precisely, apparently. In the link you listed the term perp is indeed used in the state of Delaware Justice of the Peace Courts for persons suspected of crimes, but in that context, it is also talking about suspects that have been arrested and formally charged with the specific crimes they are suspected of having perpetrated. This does
not apply in the case of anyone suspected by the police or anybody else for Jonbenet's murder, no one has been arrested or charged in connection with her death. However, I am not sure that the terminology in use in Delaware Courts would be used in Colorado, where the murder took place. It is about 1600km west of Delaware; I do not think that suspects in crimes are referred to as perps except by the police in Idaho, much further west of Delaware. In my life, I've only seen the term used in books, as I mentioned Wambaugh, never in real life. It bespeaks a presumption of guilt on whoever the label is pronounced, not merely suspicion. If you didn't finish the Onion Fields, maybe its because it was a true story, and very sad. I thought so.:seeya:
Bullmoose,
you may be correct, but all I can say from my own observations on forums, even posters who are native speakers use 'perp' very often in a general way:
Random example: a post on Websleuths about "The Houston Area Rapist Preying on Men":
"The perp is described as between 5'6" and 6'. That's quite a span."

Just enter 'perp' into the search function of any true crime forum and you'll be surprised at the variety of contexts in which this word is being used.

In terms of Wambaugh's "The Onion Field": no, I didn't finish it because it was a true story - in fact I wanted to read it exactly because it is a true story, for I'm very interested in true crime cases and -books.
But although Germany has its share of crimes too, we hardly have any true crime literature here, (although the Germans are avid crime fiction readers). But somehow the genre "true crime literature" seems to have no market in Germany.
That's one of the reasons I'm posting on American true crime forums.
But I'll give 'The Onion Field' another try, since it is one of the great true crime classics.
For quite often, when rereading a book after many years, I perceive it in a totally different way, which is in itself a fascinating experience.

[shill]

As anyone can see by reading your posts, you've insulted some who have disagreed with you. Therefore, I'd expect my comment to be over your head.


Yea, you're over everybody’s head because you're so smart.

I guess the killer didn't see JB as prey, but was loving and kind to her when he strangled and bludgeoned her to death, unlike seal hunters who are cold blooded and premeditated in their killing.

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>
Ramseys spent their fortune to buy reasonable doubt. I guess they got their moneys worth.
<snip>


Still waiting for an accounting of how/where the Ramseys spent their money since this statement wasn't made as an "IMO", "JMO", etc.

[bullmoose]

To Rashoman: Again the language barrier; when the story refers to the perpetrator or perp, it is refering to whoever is responsible for the crime, not just everybody that is questioned or suspected of being the perp. In the Ramsey case, for example, whoever it was that actually committed her murder is definitively the perp or perpetrator of the crime, and you or me or anybody may believe that we know who that is; however I would never refer to whoever I thought it was as the perp on this forum until they were actually convicted in court in Colorado. Until then, I would refer to them as prime suspect or suspect. JMO There is a fairly large true-crime books market in the US, I have an extensive collection myself, 50 or more. Ann Rule is an author of a number of good books on the subject; she has the distinction of having worked at a suicide hotline with Ted Bundy once; Ted was an infamous serial killer in the 80's. Incidentally, although I am an IDI, I like your posts; I don't come here to just read the same opinions as mine.:seeya:

[Tober]

Still waiting for an accounting of how/where the Ramseys spent their money since this statement wasn't made as an "IMO", "JMO", etc.

The answer is utterly obvious and widely available in the public record, including a number of books on the case.

[sweetcharlotte]

<snip>

Therefore, I'd expect my comment to be over your head.


Please - get over yourself. JMO

[Tober]

Oh, I think it's safe to say until someone has been arrested and charged in this case no one has been cleared.

That's not an accurate statement. Based on the evidence, there exists a very limited number of persons who could have (based on the evidence) committed this crime.

[sweetcharlotte]

That's not an accurate statement. Based on the evidence, there exists a very limited number of persons who could have (based on the evidence) committed this crime.\

Yes, it is an accurate statement. We don't know that all of the evidence has been identified/found.

[SnarkyCow]

I usually try to keep negativity out of my posts, but I cannot bite my tongue: To those of you refering to JonBenet being "clubbed like a baby seal" - you are disgusting. That is so unbelievably disrespectful and offensive on any, and every, level.
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a65/snarky44/thsmack.gif

[Louisadelmar]

You don't like baby seals?

[shill]

I usually try to keep negativity out of my posts, but I cannot bite my tongue: To those of you refering to JonBenet being "clubbed like a baby seal" - you are disgusting. That is so unbelievably disrespectful and offensive on any, and every, level.
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a65/snarky44/thsmack.gif

It's a description of the perpetrator’s action.

I guess it's true, I don't understand how comparing JB to a cute and innocent Baby Seal with big beautiful eyes, is disrespectful.

[SnarkyCow]

It's a description of the perpetrator’s action.

I guess it's true, I don't understand how comparing JB to a cute and innocent Baby Seal with big beautiful eyes, is disrespectful.

Spin it however you want Shill, whatever makes you feel better. And it's not the comparison of JB to an innocent, beautiful, darling animal that is offensive (duh) - it is the frivolously disrespectful, shallow remark about the horrible way she was beaten and killed.

JonBenet deserves a little more honor and respect than that ignorant, flippant remark provides.

Respectfully yours,

SnarkyCow

[shill]

Spin it however you want Shill, whatever makes you feel better. And it's not the comparison of JB to an innocent, beautiful, darling animal that is offensive (duh) - it is the frivolously disrespectful, shallow remark about the horrible way she was beaten and killed.

JonBenet deserves a little more honor and respect than that ignorant, flippant remark provides.

Respectfully yours,

SnarkyCowWhy don't you describe to me how she was killed in your nice nice way?

[SnarkyCow]

Why don't you describe to me how she was killed in your nice nice way?

There is no "nice" way to describe it Shill, as you very well know - there is, however, a more respectful way to describe it.

Anyone with a modicum of class would apologize for being flippant about the brutal murder of a six year old girl, but you won't, so what's the point of having this conversation?

Whatever, my objection is noted and I'm over it.

[shill]

I usually try to keep negativity out of my posts, but I cannot bite my tongue: To those of you refering to JonBenet being "clubbed like a baby seal" - you are disgusting. That is so unbelievably disrespectful and offensive on any, and every, level.


There was nothing pretty or respectful about what happened to her that night. And as long as you're here on these forums talking about her death, you're just as frivolously disrespectful, making shallow remarks about the horrible way she was beaten and killed.

What a bunch of hypocrites!:patriot:

[SnarkyCow]

There was nothing pretty or respectful about what happened to her that night. And as long as you're here on these forums talking about her death, you're just as frivolously disrespectful, making shallow remarks about the horrible way she was beaten and killed.

What a bunch of hypocrites!:patriot:

Snarky & Shill ----> http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a65/snarky44/catfight.gif

If you met JR would you honestly feel comfortable shaking his hand and saying "Mr. Ramsey, I am sorry someone clubbed your daughter like a baby seal."? Do you honestly think your precious John Ramsey would not be offended by that? Of course he would because it is DISRESPECTFUL & FLIPPANT.

[Louisadelmar]

Snarky & Shill ----> http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a65/snarky44/catfight.gif

If you met JR would you honestly feel comfortable shaking his hand and saying "Mr. Ramsey, I am sorry someone clubbed your daughter like a baby seal."? Do you honestly think your precious John Ramsey would not be offended by that? Of course he would because it is DISRESPECTFUL & FLIPPANT.

OT But you woud introduce him as the 'precious John Ramsey?'

Anyway, I could see a prosecutor using that description to great effect in a summation. I think s/he would use it whether or not the Ramseys were present.

[shill]

Snarky & Shill ----> http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a65/snarky44/catfight.gif

If you met JR would you honestly feel comfortable shaking his hand and saying "Mr. Ramsey, I am sorry someone clubbed your daughter like a baby seal."? Do you honestly think your precious John Ramsey would not be offended by that? Of course he would because it is DISRESPECTFUL & FLIPPANT.

I wouldn't say, "Patsy killed her and you helped cover it up" to John in person, among the many things I wouldn't say to John that get posted here by RDI and IDI.

I have felt the things said about PR, JR, and BR by RDIs have been disrespectful to them and to JB as they are her parents whom she loved.
I don't think JB would want anyone saying the things they do about her parents, even if they are true.
JR chose to not read the autopsy reports because he didn't want to know the grim details, and yet everyone here reads them in great detail and debates to no end the cause and effect of it all with little regard to it being JB they are talking about.

[Coloradokares]

Still waiting for an accounting of how/where the Ramseys spent their money since this statement wasn't made as an "IMO", "JMO", etc.

I am not sure an accounting is available but according to the Ramseys they spent their fortune trying to find JonBenet's killer. Which we know was spent mainly on attorneys and PR. Paying for their own lie detector tests. According to DOI they were down to their last resources . So .....how about I just give you my imo even though it would be semantics and playing word games to argue the point. :shrug:

[sweetcharlotte]

The answer is utterly obvious and widely available in the public record, including a number of books on the case.


Then it should be very easy for the poster to provide a link. Is that what you were trying to say?

[bullmoose]

Sweetcharlotte, I'm quite sure thats what Tober meant. Otherwise?????????:biggrin:

[sweetcharlotte]

I am not sure an accounting is available but according to the Ramseys they spent their fortune trying to find JonBenet's killer. Which we know was spent mainly on attorneys and PR. Paying for their own lie detector tests. According to DOI they were down to their last resources . So .....how about I just give you my imo even though it would be semantics and playing word games to argue the point. :shrug:

But it would also mean you are playing according to the rules. You either state IMO or you provide a link unless it is common knowledge.

So the Ramseys spend their fortune buying reasonable doubt in your opinion and according to DOI.

I see. Thanks.

[Coloradokares]

Then it should be very easy for the poster to provide a link. Is that what you were trying to say?

Not necessairly. I am still looking to see if I can find an internet record of detailed spending on the part of the Ramseys on this ...How much for lawyers Pr firms etc. So far what I have found is accusations they didn't spend their money doing what they said in interveiws. However I am looking for ways to substantiate that information. Actual dollars spent etc. I'll get back to you on this ....I want only the truth out there not accusations If I can prove my opinion wrong.....I'll say so. So far this is shaping up to be an opinion I had and I am not proving myself right or wrong. It appears though their finances got dicey and that according to them in DOI. They say they spent it all trying to find JonBenet's killer. I can't substatiate that. or Disprove it I can't find detailed financial records on the Ramseys at all.

[LindaA]

CK, I would really doubt that those records are available in that much detail. What you will find, I am sure, is lots of accusations and lots of rebuttal. JMO

[watson]

Hi, all back from a holiday break. Happy holidays to all. I guess I missed most of this thread, congrats to all, I did review it though. Some important points..........
1.)Dr. Ron Wright's statement of 7-97 in the Rocky Mtn. News, based on only a partial autopsy report and only 1 days study still seems to be the only scientific opinion of the head blow coming first, and it was not his actual statement, nor has he (as far as we know) ever repeated or explained it.
2.)When we started this discussion 1 thing the head blow came first diehards came up with as 'proof' was that the brain had swelled, but the brain can swell just as well from hypoxia ( the cutting off of blood flow, air to it, as several ME's have said, and as can be found in online medical dictionary, wikipedia (cerebral edema)) as from a blow.
3.) Someone said above that if JB was already dead from strangling when the head blow was struck it wouldn't have bled at all, this is not true. Where do you think the blood goes in a freshly dead body, it's all still there, if you cut or injury the body it will seep out depending on the position of the body, it just won't gush out as there is no beating heart to provide pressure.
4.) Someone above also said JB could've been killed by the head blow first and then strangled when already dead, but that's impossible, because of the petechia. In a prior discussion the head blow first diehards said petechia hemorrhage could be caused to an 'unconscious' victim, because medical literature while not agreeing did not definitely rule this out, but I don't think anyone can argue 'petechia' can be caused to a DEAD victim! JB had extensive petechia and this makes it an absolute fact she was at least ALIVE while strangled.
5.) Last someone trying to explain the evidence in a way that the head blow could have come first said, the only way it could've happened is if...the blow came first and the strangling in 1 or 2 miuntes afterwards to cut off the artery and vien in and out of the head before it bled much.....WRONG...can't be! If she were hit in the head and then immediately cirumferentially strangled cutting off the bloods way into and out of her head, all the blood normally in her head would've been trapped there under great pressure and would have shot out of that hole in her skull like a geyser during the strangling.

[LindaA]

Thanks for the summary, Watson. I'd be interested in seeing what Elvislives has to say about your last paragraph.

Welcome back! :seeya:

[nuisanceposter]

PMPT, hb, page 432

On November 5, Detective Weinheimer arrived in St Clair Shores, Michigan, to meet Dr Werner Spitz, one of the world's foremost forensic pathologists.

<snip for space, discussing sexual abuse>

Ten days later, Weinheimer ans Spitz met with Tom Faure, the coroner's chief medical investigator, at Boulder Community Hospital. By then Weinheimer had already consulted with another specialist, Dr. David Jones, a professor of preventative medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.

<snip fpr space, discussing pineapple>

According to the specialists, her head injury likely came first. Since a six year old's skull is more resilient than an adult's the blow must have been of tremendous force. The injury on her head was fully developed (emphasis mine), which meant her heart had beaten for some time after the blow. Also, the bruise to her brain did not immediately shut down all activity in JonBenet's body. However, the strangulation by the noose had created a deep furrow in her neck, which acted like a tourniquet and caused complete interruption of the blood flow to and from her brain. The specialists estimated that ten to forty-five minutes maight have elapsed between the blow to the head and the cessation of JonBenet's vital functions, which was probably caused by the noose being pulled tight with the help of the stick attched to the cord.

The conjecture that the blow to JonBenet's head took place first fit the scenario that the police considered most likely: the JonBenet had been struck on the head with the heavy flashlight in or near the kitchen. The police had found it on a kitchen counter.



Now please read post #51 of this thread, where the poster has quoted a bit out of Dr Lee's book, which pertains to the head wound and its development and the liklihood that the head wound came first.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6121&page=5&pp=12

[LindaA]

My question is how much bleeding needs to occur before a head would is considered "fully developed." What is described in the autopsy reprt doesn't sound like much bleeding at all -- a teaspoon or two. Or is the development of a head wound measured in some other way?

[watson]

To nuianceposter re: your above post re Dr. Spitz.....maybe I missed it in the thread, as I was away for the holidays but what are you quoting from? What is PMPT hb p.432??? I also linked to Forums for Justice where they are quoting too, but could not find the source. Can you please elaborate?

[LindaA]

PMPT hb p.432 = Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, hardback, page 432. HTH.

[andU]

CK, I would really doubt that those records are available in that much detail. What you will find, I am sure, is lots of accusations and lots of rebuttal. JMO

Who, among us would make their personal finance records available to the public? It is sideline information, not actually relevant to the case, so I doubt that it would be available.

[LindaA]

Who, among us would make their personal finance records available to the public? It is sideline information, not actually relevant to the case, so I doubt that it would be available.

Absolutely, andU.

Funny, though, The R's hired Lou Smit and John Douglas and they are criticised for it. At the same time they are criticised for not doing enough to fiind their daughter's murderer. Damed if you do, damned if you don't.

[watson]

For your info in your post no. 97 above. I knew it would be something simple, and thank you Nuisanceposter for the info and all the trouble to find it. I'm now up to speed....NP was nice enough to go to the trouble to look up in the archive of another discussion website, forums for justice, a discussion they had there back in May 2005, 1 1/2 years ago about whether the JB strangling or head wound came first and the medical evidence. NP provides a link to the thread in his post ( no. 94 above). The thread there starts out by poster sue posting about hospital procedure and reports, then giving her own thought on the JB cause of death, and the speculation runs rampant from there with lots of posters getting in. Toward the end of page 1 a real piece of evidence is brought out, the autopsy report, but not really discussed. On page 3 of the thread someone brings up the book published early in the case in 1998, Perfect Crime Perfect Town, by Lawrence Schiller who has written c.10 true crime type books about sensational cases (including 1 co-authored with OJ Simpson) for the purpose of where Schiller in his 1998 book about JB quotes Steve Thomas, or police reports, or another policemen, about an interview held sometime with ME Werner Spitz where he supposedly made some pretty bizzare observations about the murder and cause of death, and supported Thomas's original head blow came first theory. NP links us to p.5 of the thread for these quotes of quotes. It really does seem to be a good site, BUT what is most striking is p.2 of this thread, (if you have the stomach for it), the real life color photo no.2 photo in post 13 of a dead JB and the shoelace like cord round her neck (I really hate to see these things, it makes murder way more than just an exercise of detection and debate), BUT can anyone who sees this photo of the extreme violence, and damage done to the neck and the extreme tightness of the cord doubt for a second, that this victim was strangled while very much alive and not as some have argued, as a FAKE strangling after being dead or unconscious and near dead from the head blow as part of staging! Look at the hair caught under the string even in the front of the neck...would someone 'stage' this? Look at the thin gold necklace interlaced with the strangling string, would someone stage this? It's said a picture speaks a 1000 words, this one (p.2 post 13, photo 2 of the linked thread in Nuisanceposters post no. 94 above), speaks of a very live, real, strangling being the cause of death, just as ME Meyer officially found, and not of a 'staged' strangling of a dead or unconscious victim as some argue to save the head blow first theory.

[watson]

NP thaks for all the info in your post 94 above and the trouble it probably took to find that May 2005 thread on the Forums for Justice website, but with all due respect I find it totally unconvincing, here's why...........I know your just using the thread there, for the posters quotes of Schillers book (perfect murder perfect town), where author, Schiller quotes discredited former detective Thomas, or another policemen, or maybe a poice report, about impressions real life ME Werner Spitz made way back when, supporting Thomas's original head blow came first theory. My problem with this is that, even if everyone got all the quotes right...the posters...Schiller....Thomas, or a report,or another policemen......Spitz's comments must have come VERY early in the case. Schillers book was published in 1998 within a a year and one half after the crime happening, his source material must have come way before that. My guess (just a guess) would be this interview came with Spitz soon after the crime before all evidence was in, while Thomas was still working and spinning the case toward head blow came first (he was forced to resign August 1998), and these early comments of Spitz, were like those early silly comments of Wecht back in 1997 about sexual asphixia etc. They are nothing but early partial impressions before the evidence matured, but let's leave no stone unturned, I'll get a copy of Schillers 1998 book, not for Schillers opinions which are not evidence, or part of the case, and meaningless, but for any info there might be in his book concerning possible expert medical opinion of Spitz to see.

[Coloradokares]

Who, among us would make their personal finance records available to the public? It is sideline information, not actually relevant to the case, so I doubt that it would be available.

The thing that makes it an interesting sideline is how much investigation was actually done to find a killer or to create merely reasonable doubt and keep them out of jail. Its an unanswerable question for a novice like myself.

[bullmoose]

It's true that the investigation to find Jonbenet's killer as funded by the Ramseys hasn't put anyone in jail or even to my knowledge, under consideration as a viable suspect; however the men involved that I have heard of, such as Smit and Douglas have not had their integrity impeached by those who have other conclusions in this case. I believe that if they thought the evidence pointed to the Ramseys, they would have said so. Maybe it is the job of the lawyers hired to create reasonable doubt for clients they believe to be guilty; but that was never in any way the job of Smit or Douglas. To imply that is totally wrong. Did the Ramseys spend a lot on lawyers? I'm sure they did; with the lynchmob mentality of the tabloids and others, they would have been insane not to have. If Synthroid Steve had got his way, the BPD would have arrested the distraught Patsy and attempted to sweat a confession out of her, to the cheers of the slathering lynchmob that he would have 'leaked info' about the arrest to. The well- spent money for lawyers has kept innocent people out of jail,IMO.

[Tober]

Absolutely, andU.

Funny, though, The R's hired Lou Smit and John Douglas and they are criticised for it.

I don't think the Ramseys were criticized for hiring them. They were criticized because Smit's and Douglas' conclusions are contrary to the evidence, which gives the appearance that the Ramseys were seeking to purchase favorable opinions, and not necessarily accurate ones.

[Athena]

Absolutely, andU.

Funny, though, The R's hired Lou Smit and John Douglas and they are criticised for it. At the same time they are criticised for not doing enough to fiind their daughter's murderer. Damed if you do, damned if you don't.

No Linda -- what's funnier is Smit WAS NOT hired by the Ramseys. He was hired by the DA's office to assist the BPD -- he was part of the BPD team. Douglas was hired by the Ramsey's attorney -- true - but they were trying to figure out if they had guilty clients. Douglas came straight out and told them - didn't matter who was paying the bills -- if they were guilty he would shout them out in a heartbeat.

[LindaA]

Thanks for the correction, Athena. Wasn't Smit retained by the Rs at a later date?

[nuisanceposter]

No Linda -- what's funnier is Smit WAS NOT hired by the Ramseys. He was hired by the DA's office to assist the BPD -- he was part of the BPD team. Douglas was hired by the Ramsey's attorney -- true - but they were trying to figure out if they had guilty clients. Douglas came straight out and told them - didn't matter who was paying the bills -- if they were guilty he would shout them out in a heartbeat.

And he proceeded to go against his own rules for investigation - one example is not speaking to the parents separately. I wonder why he went against his own teachings for the Rs?

As for him being hired by the DA's office instead of the Rs, that's hardly much of a difference, is it? I've pointed out before how Alex Hunter and Hal Haddon were old buddies from way back and that connection, in part, caused the DA's office to give the Rs extremely preferential treatment - to the point that people have suggested Alex Hunter be brought up on charges of obstruction of justice and prosecutorial malfeasance in the JBR case.

[nuisanceposter]

NP thaks for all the info in your post 94 above and the trouble it probably took to find that May 2005 thread on the Forums for Justice website, but with all due respect I find it totally unconvincing, here's why...........I know your just using the thread there, for the posters quotes of Schillers book (perfect murder perfect town), where author, Schiller quotes discredited former detective Thomas, or another policemen, or maybe a poice report, about impressions real life ME Werner Spitz made way back when, supporting Thomas's original head blow came first theory. My problem with this is that, even if everyone got all the quotes right...the posters...Schiller....Thomas, or a report,or another policemen......Spitz's comments must have come VERY early in the case. Schillers book was published in 1998 within a a year and one half after the crime happening, his source material must have come way before that. My guess (just a guess) would be this interview came with Spitz soon after the crime before all evidence was in, while Thomas was still working and spinning the case toward head blow came first (he was forced to resign August 1998), and these early comments of Spitz, were like those early silly comments of Wecht back in 1997 about sexual asphixia etc. They are nothing but early partial impressions before the evidence matured, but let's leave no stone unturned, I'll get a copy of Schillers 1998 book, not for Schillers opinions which are not evidence, or part of the case, and meaningless, but for any info there might be in his book concerning possible expert medical opinion of Spitz to see.

Regardless, my dear watson, the head wound has been stated by experts to have been fully developed in two different sources, and there is absolutely no sign of any struggle with the strangler evident on JonBenet's body.

No defensive wounds, no clawing at the cord, no internal evidence of her struggling found in her neck...I think she was completely unconscious from the head wound when she was strangled.

IMO, that's the only way a person is going to be able to strangle a healthy active, 6 year old child to death with absolutely no struggle from her whatsoever in the process.

[rashomon]

JMO There is a fairly large true-crime books market in the US, I have an extensive collection myself, 50 or more. Ann Rule is an author of a number of good books on the subject; she has the distinction of having worked at a suicide hotline with Ted Bundy once; Ted was an infamous serial killer in the 80's. Incidentally, although I am an IDI, I like your posts; I don't come here to just read the same opinions as mine.:seeya:

Thank you Bullmoose. I like discussing with IDIs too (as long as the debate is a fair one), for they keep me (as an RDI) on my toes.
Ann Rule is one of my favorite true crime authors too. I like 'Small Sacrifices' best, closely followed by "The Stranger Beside Me".
That Ted Bundy, the friendly young man she worked together with at at the crisis phone turned out to be the serial killer Ann had been doing research on - truth is stranger than fiction. Simply incredible.

Ann Rule in the mag. 'Woman's Day' (Nov. 2001, p. 56):

" I was driving home from a football game with one of my sons when the news came on the radio. I nearly drove off the road. My first thought was. No way! Not Ted! it took me five years to truly believe. It was a loss of innocence that I've never regained."

Evil can wear many masks, and Ted Bundy wore a perfect mask: that of the well-mannered nice guy.

If it was so difficult for Ann (who had worked a a police woman and wrote true crime stories) to finally "believe the unbelievable" - is it a wonder then that many people vehemently refuse to believe the Ramseys could have had anything to do with JB's death, despite virtually all the evidence pointing in the direction of the parents? Why do people cling so much to their belief that these parents could not have done this to their child?
If studying true crime cases teaches one anything, it is to look behind the surface of things.

But I think that refusal to give up their belief in the Ramseys' innocence would be such a shattering experience for many people that they shy away from it. For what would happen then is exactly this "loss of innocence" which Ann Rule speaks about.
For it raises question which may shake us to the core, because family life is something we all have experience with. So if an indulgent mother Patsy lost control in such a brief and tragic moment, could this have happened to us too? Are we all merely lucky that our occasional anger at our own children did not have such tragic results? Or that our parents' anger at us when were kids did not have these tragic results?

Parents who hurt their children fatally don't always have to be habitual abusers. This makes the Ramsey case so tragic. One brief moment of losing control, and irreparable damage was done.
And I believe the whole staging derived from that moment, its chaotic disorganization reflecting the panic and frenzy the parents must have been in.

[Louisadelmar]

Two things:

Bundy may have seemed charismatic on the surface but unlike the Ramseys, a little digging showed his behavior was not always congruent with the face he showed the public.

I think one of the reasons people were so quick to latch onto the Ramseys as the killers was they could tell themselves they would never do something like that to their child. However, if an intruder came into their house and killed then we are all vulnerable. So people felt safer believing it was the Ramseys.

[Athena]

Two things:

Bundy may have seemed charismatic on the surface but unlike the Ramseys, a little digging showed his behavior was not always congruent with the face he showed the public.

I think one of the reasons people were so quick to latch onto the Ramseys as the killers was they could tell themselves they would never do something like that to their child. However, if an intruder came into their house and killed then we are all vulnerable. So people felt safer believing it was the Ramseys.

Just to add a comment -- the Ramseys were investigated inside out for many years yet not one person came forward that said they had ANY previous psychopathic behavior to-date. For someone to not make a big deal out of bed-wetting to all of a sudden go into a rage over the same is beyond comprehension. JMO

[rashomon]

Just to add a comment -- the Ramseys were investigated inside out for many years yet not one person came forward that said they had ANY previous psychopathic behavior to-date. For someone to not make a big deal out of bed-wetting to all of a sudden go into a rage over the same is beyond comprehension. JMO

"Investigated inside out"? Not true. For example, the Ramseys have never been evaluated psychologically through testing.
And it needn't have been bed-wetting which caused the rage attack on JonBenet.

[shill]

Thank you Bullmoose. I like discussing with IDIs too (as long as the debate is a fair one), for they keep me (as an RDI) on my toes.
Ann Rule is one of my favorite true crime authors too. I like 'Small Sacrifices' best, closely followed by "The Stranger Beside Me".
That Ted Bundy, the friendly young man she worked together with at at the crisis phone turned out to be the serial killer Ann had been doing research on - truth is stranger than fiction. Simply incredible.

Ann Rule in the mag. 'Woman's Day' (Nov. 2001, p. 56):

" I was driving home from a football game with one of my sons when the news came on the radio. I nearly drove off the road. My first thought was. No way! Not Ted! it took me five years to truly believe. It was a loss of innocence that I've never regained."

Evil can wear many masks, and Ted Bundy wore a perfect mask: that of the well-mannered nice guy.

If it was so difficult for Ann (who had worked a a police woman and wrote true crime stories) to finally "believe the unbelievable" - is it a wonder then that many people vehemently refuse to believe the Ramseys could have had anything to do with JB's death, despite virtually all the evidence pointing in the direction of the parents? Why do people cling so much to their belief that these parents could not have done this to their child?
If studying true crime cases teaches one anything, it is to look behind the surface of things.

But I think that refusal to give up their belief in the Ramseys' innocence would be such a shattering experience for many people that they shy away from it. For what would happen then is exactly this "loss of innocence" which Ann Rule speaks about.
For it raises question which may shake us to the core, because family life is something we all have experience with. So if an indulgent mother Patsy lost control in such a brief and tragic moment, could this have happened to us too? Are we all merely lucky that our occasional anger at our own children did not have such tragic results? Or that our parents' anger at us when were kids did not have these tragic results?

Parents who hurt their children fatally don't always have to be habitual abusers. This makes the Ramsey case so tragic. One brief moment of losing control, and irreparable damage was done.
And I believe the whole staging derived from that moment, its chaotic disorganization reflecting the panic and frenzy the parents must have been in.
I have no problem believing parents like the Ramseys could have snapped and killed their daughter. That has never been an issue with me.

I do have a problem believing any parents, or even a babysitter, would create this bizarre crime scene, no matter how panicked and frenzied they might have been, as a cover up for their murder, especially if it was an accident.

IMO the crime scene is that of a premeditated crime and everything in it was done with purpose and those are the actual crimes committed, not additional crimes committed to cover up original crimes.

[Zoey]

I have no problem believing parents like the Ramseys could have snapped and killed their daughter. That has never been an issue with me.

I do have a problem believing any parents, or even a babysitter, would create this bizarre crime scene, no matter how panicked and frenzied they might have been, as a cover up for their murder, especially if it was an accident.

IMO the crime scene is that of a premeditated crime and everything in it was done with purpose and those are the actual crimes committed, not additional crimes committed to cover up original crimes.


I totally agree with this post.

[Tober]

IMO the crime scene is that of a premeditated crime and everything in it was done with purpose and those are the actual crimes committed, not additional crimes committed to cover up original crimes.

Premeditation is implied via the ransom note, yet premeditation isn't borne out in the crime (a red flag for staging). The so-called intruder initially planned to kidnap JonBenet, which indicates premeditation. Yet this intruder didn't write the ransom note prior to entering the home and didn't bring the items necessary to carry out the crime, which indicate no premeditation. The alleged intruder contradicts what an actual intruder would do. Even entering the home would have required premeditation, yet this alleged intruder did so completely unprepared.

[LindaA]

Tober, you know this to be a fact? What is your basis for saying the intruder was unprepared? He may well have brought some items with him and taken the remainder back out with him, but counted on finding certain things in the home (i.e. pen and paper).

[Tober]

Wasn't Smit retained by the Rs at a later date?
Yes.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/back_7.html http://www.krdotv.com/story.cfm?nax=news&storyID=1832.

[Tober]

What is your basis for saying the intruder was unprepared?

My basis for saying the alleged intruder was unprepared is the behavior (actions) exhibited by the offender in the crime.

[Zoey]

Premeditation is implied via the ransom note, yet premeditation isn't borne out in the crime (a red flag for staging). The so-called intruder initially planned to kidnap JonBenet, which indicates premeditation. Yet this intruder didn't write the ransom note prior to entering the home and didn't bring the items necessary to carry out the crime, which indicate no premeditation. The alleged intruder contradicts what an actual intruder would do. Even entering the home would have required premeditation, yet this alleged intruder did so completely unprepared.


Is it a fact, a known fact, that the ransom note was not written prior to entering the home? Could the pad and pen been removed at the Christmas party on the 23rd, or the open house, or the Christmas party with the church members earlier in the month?

The intruder seemed to be pretty prepared to me. Brought in rope and duct tape.

[shill]

IMO the plan was to make the Ramseys suffer by killing their daughter and leading them on a wild goose chase. That was done.
It also appears that the intruder brought duct tape and high strength cord in.
Carrying in a pre-written note would give them more evidence then using what was in the house, and if the intruder had waited around outside, he would risk being picked up by the police with an incriminating kidnap note on him.

And the plan might have been to not leave a note, just take her. But the head blow killed her and the note was written to buy time by making them wait for a phone call.
A kidnapping works if the kid is missing. JB was missing. How long do you think this charade would have gone on if JB had been put in the suitcase and then in the wine cellar? Probably for a couple of days.

To bad they didn't have bloodhounds for tracking, probably would have led them right to her.
They might have even picked up the scent of an intruder and tracked them.

[Zoey]

IMO the plan was to make the Ramseys suffer by killing their daughter and leading them on a wild goose chase. That was done.
It also appears that the intruder brought duct tape and high strength cord in.
Carrying in a pre-written note would give them more evidence then using what was in the house, and if the intruder had waited around outside, he would risk being picked up by the police with an incriminating kidnap note on him.

And the plan might have been to not leave a note, just take her. But the head blow killed her and the note was written to buy time by making them wait for a phone call.
A kidnapping works if the kid is missing. JB was missing. How long do you think this charade would have gone on if JB had been put in the suitcase and then in the wine cellar? Probably for a couple of days.

To bad they didn't have bloodhounds for tracking, probably would have led them right to her.
They might have even picked up the scent of an intruder and tracked them.


IMO...I have always believed the ransom note was written before anything ever happened to JB, not after.

[shill]

IMO...I have always believed the ransom note was written before anything ever happened to JB, not after.

It does seem reasonable that the note was written first, if the plan was to kidnap from the start.
But writing the note first is almost like putting the cart before the horse. As you write the note, you're risking detection at that point and showing intent to commit a crime. You go to jail. And if you write it and then go grab her and she starts screaming and you get caught, again you are just as guilty as if you had taken her out of the house and you go to jail.
But if you grab her, and things go wrong you can flee. If you get caught, all they know is you were attempting to kidnap or molest her. There is no letter about extorting money, threatening to kill her, and knowing the Ramseys. You go to jail with a light sentence.

So if you secure your target first, and the whole dirty deed is done and you are guilty and will go to jail, at that point there is no turning back, so then you write the incriminating ransom note, and leave, with or with out the target.

And if it was not meant to be a kidnapping and murder, then the ransom note could have been devised after the crime to buy time and confusion.

[Zoey]

It does seem reasonable that the note was written first, if the plan was to kidnap from the start.
But writing the note first is almost like putting the cart before the horse. As you write the note, you're risking detection at that point and showing intent to commit a crime. You go to jail. And if you write it and then go grab her and she starts screaming and you get caught, again you are just as guilty as if you had taken her out of the house and you go to jail.
But if you grab her, and things go wrong you can flee. If you get caught, all they know is you were attempting to kidnap or molest her. There is no letter about extorting money and knowing the Ramseys. You go to jail with a light sentence.

So if you secure your target first, and the whole dirty deed is done and you are guilty and will go to jail, at that point there is no turning back, so then you write the incriminating ransom note, and leave, with or with out the target.

And if it was not meant to be a kidnapping and murder, then the ransom note could have been devised after the crime to buy time and confusion.

Thank you. That really helped clear some things up for me.

[rashomon]

So if you secure your target first, and the whole dirty deed is done and you are guilty and will go to jail, at that point there is no turning back, so [B]then you write the incriminating ransom note, and leave, with or with out the target.
And if it was not meant to be a kidnapping and murder, then the ransom note could have been devised after the crime to buy time and confusion.
[Zoey]
Thank you. That really helped clear some things up for me.
Zoey, so you actually believe that a kidnapper (who happened to have killed his prey) then took the time to sit down in the Ramsey kitchen to write a three-page ransom note (obviously without any fear of being detected!)?

[Louisadelmar]

Zoey, so you actually believe that a kidnapper (who happened to have killed his prey) then took the time to [B]sit down in the Ramsey kitchen to write a three-page ransom note (obviously without any fear of being detected!)?

And you believe a parent who just accidently killed their beloved child could do it?

Personally I think it was written before.

[rashomon]

And you believe a parent who just accidently killed their beloved child could do it?

Yes, I do.
For as opposed to an intruder, a parent who had just fatally injured her child in a rage attack couldn't simply flee.
Therefore a way to 'explain' the violent death of her daughter was to concoct that ransom note.

[Louisadelmar]

Yes, I do.
For as opposed to an intruder, a parent who had just fatally injured her child in a rage attack couldn't simply flee.
Therefore a way to 'explain' the violent death of her daughter was to concoct that ransom note.

Could YOU do it?

[shill]

Zoey, so you actually believe that a kidnapper (who happened to have killed his prey) then took the time to sit down in the Ramsey kitchen to write a three-page ransom note (obviously without any fear of being detected!)?
The intruder took the time to take her from her bedroom to the basement, bind her hands and strangle her repeatedly, commit a death blow, and was comfortable doing it.
The ransom note would take a few minutes more to write and wrap things up.

[Zoey]

Zoey, so you actually believe that a kidnapper (who happened to have killed his prey) then took the time to [B]sit down in the Ramsey kitchen to write a three-page ransom note (obviously without any fear of being detected!)?

Yes I can believe that. I thanked Shill for clearing things up as far as what he thought, not cleared things up as far as what I thought. I guess I should have clarified that.

But, to be honest and MOO, I believe the note was written before hand, when the intruder was awaiting the arrival of the Ramseys to their home.

[rashomon]

Could YOU do it?
I don't see the point in such a question. It's about the same as if I were asking you: could YOU do what e. g. Susan Smith did - drive your kids into the water?

When trying to put oneself into Patsy's shoes to find out what could have been her motive, the leading thought should not be "what would I have done", but "What kind of behavior would be consistent with Patsy Ramsey's personality structure?"

Patsy obviously did not want to take responsibility for what she had done by turning herself in to the police. Maybe Patsy thought she would have to go to jail, leaving Burke behind with both the trauma of having lost his little sister and his mother being the killer.
Patsy must have thought it to risky to present some fabricated story about the child having accidentally fallen down the stairs, which why she, being in a total panic, decided to stage a scene.

[LindaA]

Rash, but she didn't think it was too risky to stage a strangling? That just doesn't make sense to me. Personally, I agree that any mother would have been too shaken to write such a ransome note after doing all you believe PR did to JBR.

[rashomon]

Rash, but she didn't think it was too risky to stage a strangling? That just doesn't make sense to me. Personally, I agree that any mother would have been too shaken to write such a ransome note after doing all you believe PR did to JBR.
Most mothers probably, but obviously Patsy Ramsey was not too shaken to write the note. Although the handwriting imo reveals that the writer must have been in a total emotional turmoil.
I think Patsy did not believe she would have the nerve to present a concocted accident story to the hospital staff without breaking down.

But now she had to do something else, for JB's dead body was in the house. So what choices were there left for her to stage a scene?
Tell John to dump the body somewhere outside? Again, far too risky.

Young girls are often grabbed, sexually molested and killed, often by strangulation. And that is exactly what was staged with JonBenet.

Patsy Ramsey was no criminal mastermind who planned this from start to finish, taking everything into account. Which is is why staged scenes in similar crimes are so easily identified as such, for the stagers (for example Darlie Routier, Jeffrey MacDonald, Patsy Ramsey) were no professional killers, but panicked perps trying to escape justice.

[LindaA]

I agree with you about the other cases you mention, but it doesn't add up with the Ramsey case. The whole thing was just too elaborate. In those cases the staging was done very quickly and simply. I can more easily believe that it was someone who was jealous of the family and wanted to take them down; thus, they staged the murder to look like what you describe.

Why would PR fear breaking down at the hospital? Isn't that what any normal mother would under the circumstances? Or by "break down" do you mean confess? Why is it more likely she would confess at a hospital ER than under scrutiny when questioned about this scene they found in the basement?

[shill]

I don't see the point in such a question. It's about the same as if I were asking you: could YOU do what e. g. Susan Smith did - drive your kids into the water?

When trying to put oneself into Patsy's shoes to find out what could have been her motive, the leading thought should not be "what would I have done", but "What kind of behavior would be consistent with Patsy Ramsey's personality structure?"

Patsy obviously did not want to take responsibility for what she had done by turning herself in to the police. Maybe Patsy thought she would have to go to jail, leaving Burke behind with both the trauma of having lost his little sister and his mother being the killer.
Patsy must have thought it to risky to present some fabricated story about the child having accidentally fallen down the stairs, which why she, being in a total panic, decided to stage a scene.Assuming Patsy did this, you have no way of knowing what Patsy was thinking, therefore you are stating your opinion of what you would have done, not Patsy.
To bad you haven't figured out what a hypocrite you are.

[watson]

Regardless, my dear watson, the head wound has been stated by experts to have been fully developed in two different sources, and there is absolutely no sign of any struggle with the strangler evident on JonBenet's body.

No defensive wounds, no clawing at the cord, no internal evidence of her struggling found in her neck...I think she was completely unconscious from the head wound when she was strangled.

IMO, that's the only way a person is going to be able to strangle a healthy active, 6 year old child to death with absolutely no struggle from her whatsoever in the process.
************************************************** *****
I strongly beg to differ my dear NP......The words 'fully developed' concerning the head wound are only those of book writer Lawrence Schiller (PMPT p.433) and no one else. As we've seen before in fact the actual evidence of the autopsy report indicates just the opposite 'a fresh hemorrahage with no evidence of organization' (AR p.7). Schiller got it wrong, but then Schiller never claims to be quoting Spitz or anyone directly. He doesn't even claim on p.433-434 (where he's relating a private verbal interview between Bolder detective Weinheimer, Spitz, and a Colorado MD in Preventative Medicine back in Schiller says Nov. 1997), that anyone used these words exactley, and of course Schiller and no one other was there, nor is there a transcript, report, recording of the interview etc. as ususal in his book he is para phrasing in his own words what he's heard or read or copied from other printed media reports,(some from the Globe and National Enquirer, see Schillers copyright page), and his own research...it's no more than rumour.
I can't understand, why some of you smart folks are so wedded to this head blow first theory. IMHO (in my humble opinion) you guys are going way off on a tangent in this case, right out of the starting blocks with this misapprehension, which you can only get to by twisting and spinning the evidence to fit it. There is nothing in the opening evidence of this case to indicate a head blow first, so why even go there?
And yes, of course it's possible for a full size adult to strangle a healthy 6 year old without leaving defensive wounds and signs of much struggle....by the size and stength difference alone, and especially if done in a bare basement room (what signs of struggle could there be), very quickly by surprise from behind, as the slipped down, zip type noose-garotte arrangement from behind indicates it was done. And yes, you could strangle an unconscious victim laying face down on the floor, but why the heck would you want to? Why this 'reach'. And why use this, what appears to be zip type noose-garrote? If victims unconscious why not turn them face up and smother them, or strangle them? Why use a garrote at all if the victims unconscious and near dead? As staging? A garotte is not necessary for staging a strangling, and why 'stage' a strangling if your plan is to 'stage' a kidnapping??? I'm not really asking these for you to answer I"m sure you could by some string of unlikely but possible or barely possible extrapalations, by why all this 'reaching' to still fit the IMHO the misguided early media and police theory of head blow first. Isn't it a lot easier to say the kid was taken to that dark, bare, basement room and surprised from behind by a quick zip noose strangling then hit in the head to make sure she was dead, as the evidence so easily indicates?

[andU]

Very good points, Watson!
Sometimes questions that don't require answers will find them... we need more questions, more 'trouble-shooting' ... we need to share with each other by using this as a 'sounding board' instead of attacking each other's opinions. I know I get caught up in my own personal feelings with this case, the same as other posters and forget objectivity...
Why Christmas night?

[rashomon]

Assuming Patsy did this, you have no way of knowing what Patsy was thinking, therefore you are stating your opinion of what you would have done, not Patsy.
To bad you haven't figured out what a hypocrite you are.
I'll leave it to others to figure out who is the hypocrite here, for you are continually trying to twist my words.
I can assure you if this had happened to me, I would never have had the nerve (nor the willingness) to stage a scene, but would have suffered a total nervous breakdown.

Since the circumstantial evidence links Patsy Ramsey to the staging of the scene, she quite obviously did have the nerve to do it. Therefore she must have had a personality structure which enabled her to carry this out.

To sum it up:
- it is a fact that Patsy Ramsey did not turn herself in to the police.
- it is a fact that the Ramseys did not take JB to the hospital with some concocted accident story.
And that's where reasoning has to set in by anyone trying to figure out WHY the Ramseys acted as they did.
And I listed in my post what I think were Patsy's motives for acting like she did.
What's so hard for you to understand about that?

[LindaA]

Rash, you are assuming PR did it. Why should she have turned herself in if she was innocent? Why should she have taken JBR to the hospital when she didn't inflict the injury? The statements you say are facts are, in fact, just your opinions. It's not hard for anyone to understand, as you say. IDIs aren't stupid, if that's what you are implying. What you are stating is just not logical.

[shill]

I'll leave it to others to figure out who is the hypocrite here, for you are continually trying to twist my words.
I can assure you if this had happened to me, I would never have had the nerve (nor the willingness) to stage a scene, but would have suffered a total nervous breakdown.

Since the circumstantial evidence links Patsy Ramsey to the staging of the scene, she quite obviously did have the nerve to do it. Therefore she must have had a personality structure which enabled her to carry this out.

To sum it up:
- it is a fact that Patsy Ramsey did not turn herself in to the police.
- it is a fact that the Ramseys did not take JB to the hospital with some concocted accident story.
And that's where reasoning has to set in by anyone trying to figure out WHY the Ramseys acted as they did.
And I listed in my post what I think were Patsy's motives for acting like she did.
What's so hard for you to understand about that?I twisted nothing.
What's so hard for you to understand that you are expressing your thoughts of what motivated her, not hers?

[Louisadelmar]

I don't see the point in such a question. It's about the same as if I were asking you: could YOU do what e. g. Susan Smith did - drive your kids into the water?

When trying to put oneself into Patsy's shoes to find out what could have been her motive, the leading thought should not be "what would I have done", but "What kind of behavior would be consistent with Patsy Ramsey's personality structure?"

[...].

I wouldn't do what Susan Smith did. I didn't have her background of sexual molestation and incest, impulsive decision making and depression. This is where 'history' comes in.

What would be consistent with Patsy's 'personality structure' is she would immediately take her daughter to the ER. Remember the golf club? That was an injury inflicted by a family member but there was no hesitation about getting immediate help.

[watson]

Very good points, Watson!

Why Christmas night?
************************************************
Well we're getting off on a little tangent here, but I'd have to agree with the FBI, all the profilers, and all of LE, and say Xmas night is probably the worst night of the year to commit violent crime. I've never heard anyones theory where the choice of Xmas night was significant to the theory or explained.
I guess the consensous so far, is..........the killer chose Xmas night only for a reason uniquely necessary to the killer, by accident, or only known to him.

[Louisadelmar]

Perhaps because he knew they would be out for part of the evening.

[shill]

************************************************
Well we're getting off on a little tangent here, but I'd have to agree with the FBI, all the profilers, and all of LE, and say Xmas night is probably the worst night of the year to commit violent crime. I've never heard anyones theory where the choice of Xmas night was significant to the theory or explained.
I guess the consensous so far, is..........the killer chose Xmas night only for a reason uniquely necessary to the killer, by accident, or only known to him.If there is anything to be learned from USA's occupation in Iraq, it is; Muslims like to strike revenge on Holy holidays, and beheading and defiling of a daughter is a method of revenge known to them. In a religion that women are to cover their bodies with a burka to not tempt man, JB would be as blasphemes to this religion as could be.

[elvislives]

[QUOTE=nuisanceposter;8794714]Regardless, my dear watson, the head wound has been stated by experts to have been fully developed in two different sources, and there is absolutely no sign of any struggle with the strangler evident on JonBenet's body. QUOTE]

I've been away and am catching up on the posts--I've read about 25% of the new ones...my max for the eve, so I'll get back again later. Maybe this has been covered, but what exactly does "fully developed" mean in relation to a head wound? This is not a medical term...at least not one that I have ever heard. I also checked out a number of medical texts and did a medline search, but can't seem to find anything that describes the term "fully developed head wound". NP or anyone else, can you please define this term/phrase and let me know what it means and where you heard it? Thanks! And happy New Year to all.

[thewhitewitch1]

I wouldn't do what Susan Smith did. I didn't have her background of sexual molestation and incest, impulsive decision making and depression. This is where 'history' comes in.

What would be consistent with Patsy's 'personality structure' is she would immediately take her daughter to the ER. Remember the golf club? That was an injury inflicted by a family member but there was no hesitation about getting immediate help.

Ah...the golf club. She was not the one wielding it and it was not a life threatening blow. Patsys "personality structure" was one of worry over whether it would leave a scar on her little trophy girl and then have the child recieve plastic surgery for a minor scar.

[shill]

Ah...the golf club. She was not the one wielding it and it was not a life threatening blow. Patsys "personality structure" was one of worry over whether it would leave a scar on her little trophy girl and then have the child recieve plastic surgery for a minor scar.
Wow, Patsy said she was worried it would leave a scar on her trophy girl and need plastic surgery to hide it? I did not know that.
I thought she would have been more concerned that JB was all right then worried about her cosmetic appearance. I guess I've been biased on my opinion of Patsy.

[nuisanceposter]

Ah...the golf club. She was not the one wielding it and it was not a life threatening blow. Patsys "personality structure" was one of worry over whether it would leave a scar on her little trophy girl and then have the child recieve plastic surgery for a minor scar.

Right - Patsy will immediately drive her daughter to the ER and a plastic surgeon if JB's precious crown-winning face is threatened with a mar, but something like wetting herself and the bed on a continued almost daily basis and requiring repeated trips to the doc for painful urination and vaginitis possibly due to the incontinence aren't important enough for Patsy to consult a pediatric urologist.

We know exactly where Patsy's priorities lie with behavior like that.

[rashomon]

Rash, you are assuming PR did it. Why should she have turned herself in if she was innocent? Why should she have taken JBR to the hospital when she didn't inflict the injury? The statements you say are facts are, in fact, just your opinions. It's not hard for anyone to understand, as you say. IDIs aren't stupid, if that's what you are implying. What you are stating is just not logical.
Linda, it is obvious that my post was from an RDI standpoint, for I wrote that the circumstantial evidence points to the Ramseys. I wasn't implying that anyone is stupid.
I was trying to think of a reason as to why Patsy neither turned herself in to the police, nor took JB to the hospital with a concocted accident story.
That was all my post was about.
What's so hard for you to understand that you are expressing your thoughts of what motivated her, not hers?
Of course they are my thoughts, not hers. But my thoughts about what could have motivated Patsy don't imply that I would have acted like she did.

If you present your thoughts about a possible intruder here, they are also 'your' thoughts. And in case you speculale about the intruder's possible motive, I wouldn't infer that you would have acted like the intruder did.

Wow, Patsy said she was worried it would leave a scar on her trophy girl and need plastic surgery to hide it? I did not know that.
I thought she would have been more concerned that JB was all right then worried about her cosmetic appearance. I guess I've been biased on my opinion of Patsy.
Shill, it speaks in your favor that you as an IDI openly state here you might have been biased in your opinion of Patsy. Not every IDI is able to do that.

[andU]

IMO, whether or not we do it willingly, when we truly believe something, that belief can cause us to be biased.... no matter what the belief is about...

[rashomon]

If there is anything to be learned from USA's occupation in Iraq, it is; Muslims like to strike revenge on Holy holidays, and beheading and defiling of a daughter is a method of revenge known to them. In a religion that women are to cover their bodies with a burka to not tempt man, JB would be as blasphemes to this religion as could be.
Not even the Ramseys themselves believed that this small foreign faction existed.
Remember how Patsy without realizing it, gave herself away when she said (I'm parpaphrasing) that there are at least two people on earth who know what happened to JonBenet: "the killer and one person the killer may have confided in." Now this doesn't mesh with a political terrorist scenario at all.
At that moment she had completely forgotten the small foreign faction nonsense which she had put in the ransom note.

But what Patsy said meshes with another scenario of course: Patsy confiding in John.
I couldn't see it on TV, but a poster on another forum wrote that John looked as if he was going to wet himself when he heard Patsy say that ...

[andU]

Not even the Ramseys themselves believed that this small foreign faction existed.
Remember how Patsy without realizing it, gave herself away when she said (I'm parpaphrasing) that there are at least two people on earth who know what happened to JonBenet: "the killer and one person the killer may have confided in." Now this doesn't mesh with a political terrorist scenario at all.
At that moment she had completely forgotten the small foreign faction nonsense which she had put in the ransom note.

But what Patsy said meshes with another scenario of course: Patsy confiding in John.
I couldn't see it on TV, but a poster on another forum wrote that John looked as if he was going to wet himself when he heard Patsy say that ...

Oh, please!

[Louisadelmar]

Not even the Ramseys themselves believed that this small foreign faction existed.
Remember how Patsy without realizing it, gave herself away when she said (I'm parpaphrasing) that there are at least two people on earth who know what happened to JonBenet: "the killer and one person the killer may have confided in." Now this doesn't mesh with a political terrorist scenario at all.
At that moment she had completely forgotten the small foreign faction nonsense which she had put in the ransom note.

But what Patsy said meshes with another scenario of course: Patsy confiding in John.
I couldn't see it on TV, but a poster on another forum wrote that John looked as if he was going to wet himself when he heard Patsy say that ...

It couldn't of course, have anything to do with the fact that most killers do at some point tell someone and Patsy had probably been told this fact by someone like Smit or Douglas.

P.S. I DID see it on TV and John looked perfectly normal when Patsy said that.

[elvislives]

Hi, all back from a holiday break. Happy holidays to all. I guess I missed most of this thread, congrats to all, I did review it though. Some important points..........
1.)Dr. Ron Wright's statement of 7-97 in the Rocky Mtn. News, based on only a partial autopsy report and only 1 days study still seems to be the only scientific opinion of the head blow coming first, and it was not his actual statement, nor has he (as far as we know) ever repeated or explained it.
2.)When we started this discussion 1 thing the head blow came first diehards came up with as 'proof' was that the brain had swelled, but the brain can swell just as well from hypoxia ( the cutting off of blood flow, air to it, as several ME's have said, and as can be found in online medical dictionary, wikipedia (cerebral edema)) as from a blow.
3.) Someone said above that if JB was already dead from strangling when the head blow was struck it wouldn't have bled at all, this is not true. Where do you think the blood goes in a freshly dead body, it's all still there, if you cut or injury the body it will seep out depending on the position of the body, it just won't gush out as there is no beating heart to provide pressure.
4.) Someone above also said JB could've been killed by the head blow first and then strangled when already dead, but that's impossible, because of the petechia. In a prior discussion the head blow first diehards said petechia hemorrhage could be caused to an 'unconscious' victim, because medical literature while not agreeing did not definitely rule this out, but I don't think anyone can argue 'petechia' can be caused to a DEAD victim! JB had extensive petechia and this makes it an absolute fact she was at least ALIVE while strangled.
5.) Last someone trying to explain the evidence in a way that the head blow could have come first said, the only way it could've happened is if...the blow came first and the strangling in 1 or 2 miuntes afterwards to cut off the artery and vien in and out of the head before it bled much.....WRONG...can't be! If she were hit in the head and then immediately cirumferentially strangled cutting off the bloods way into and out of her head, all the blood normally in her head would've been trapped there under great pressure and would have shot out of that hole in her skull like a geyser during the strangling.


Hey Watson,
How are you so sure of your theory #5 above? I have heard mds say that this is theoretically possible (major emphasis on 'theoretically')....of course the only way to prove it would be to run a clinical study, but that would be impossible (okay who wants to sign up for this study? Group A will have their heads bashed, then be garrotted. Group B will be garotted first, then bashed in the head. Then we'll do autopsies on all study participants and review the intracranial bleeding. Somehow I fear enrollment would be very low;) ).
So all anyone can do is speculate, and while I tend to agree with you that the strangulation was first, I don't think it is possible to say for sure that it couldnt have happened the other way around. Maybe she was bashed in the head, then immediately strangled...the cord acting somewhat as a tourniquet, thereby restricting arterial flow. Obviously venous flow would also be restricted and your theory is that the pressure of the ligature would have caused intracranial bleeding...BUT maybe the tissues covering the brain were still intact...perhaps the blow cracked her skull, but not the dura, pia etc. Then the pressure of the strangulation eventually caused the tissues around the brain to rupture (but at this point she was almost or already dead from strangulation) so once the tissues ruptured the bleeding into the brain was minimal. I know its a stretch and the most likely explanation was that she was strangled first, but since this case is not about what is most likely, but what is possible, I think that needs to be considered. jmo

[watson]

Hey Watson,
How are you so sure of your theory #5 above? I have heard mds say that this is theoretically possible (major emphasis on 'theoretically')....of course the only way to prove it would be to run a clinical study, but that would be impossible (okay who wants to sign up for this study? Group A will have their heads bashed, then be garrotted. Group B will be garotted first, then bashed in the head. Then we'll do autopsies on all study participants and review the intracranial bleeding. Somehow I fear enrollment would be very low;) ).
So all anyone can do is speculate, and while I tend to agree with you that the strangulation was first, I don't think it is possible to say for sure that it couldnt have happened the other way around. Maybe she was bashed in the head, then immediately strangled...the cord acting somewhat as a tourniquet, thereby restricting arterial flow. Obviously venous flow would also be restricted and your theory is that the pressure of the ligature would have caused intracranial bleeding...BUT maybe the tissues covering the brain were still intact...perhaps the blow cracked her skull, but not the dura, pia etc. Then the pressure of the strangulation eventually caused the tissues around the brain to rupture (but at this point she was almost or already dead from strangulation) so once the tissues ruptured the bleeding into the brain was minimal. I know its a stretch and the most likely explanation was that she was strangled first, but since this case is not about what is most likely, but what is possible, I think that needs to be considered. jmo
************************************************** ******
Hi Elvislives, welcome back......
Re: your post about finding the phrase 'fully developed' in medical literature, I too after an extensive search have not found this anywhere either except in one lab report concerning an experiment with a rat, where the abstract 'mentioned' a 'fully developed burn' on the rat without further explanation. In terms of the Ramsey case the only place I can find the phrase 'fully developed' is in Lawrence Schillers book and the words are his. I think like so much of his book this is 'his' word choice, and non specific, a never uttered 'paraphrase' of something he once read or heard or believed someone else read or heard.
As to my point #5 above, it's really taken out of context of refuting an argument point someone else came up with to somehow 'save' the head blow first theory. It was first floated as a theory to explain the lack of bleeding from the head wound (as far as I know) over on Forums for Justice in their 5-05 discussion of the medical evidence NP linked to us in this thread. What got me is that it's just made up by posters as a debating tool, from Schillers book p. 434 where Schiller (again the words are his) mentions in 1 sentance only a 'tourniquet' around the neck (cleary this word is schillers I"m sure no MD would talk of 'tourniqueting' a neck). At any rate it wasn't even used by Schiller to try to explain the lack of bleeding in JB's head, but ONLY to explain the actual cause of death.....that the cause of death was (as Meyer found) the flow of blood being cut off into and out of her head. No one, in Schillers book even suggests this as a reason for non bleeding in the head. But some smart poster seeing the Schiller word 'tourniquet', took it out of context (and in 'tourniquets' common meaning) and then offered it as expert medical 'proof' of why the head wound did not bleed. Which certainly it was not, not even in Schillers book.
I ust wanted to refute it and say no medical person in fact ever suggested this and it also seems to defy common sense as it would trap a full volume of blood in the head under pressure, but no I don't want to try it out.

[watson]

Hey Watson,
I know its a stretch and the most likely explanation was that she was strangled first, but since this case is not about what is most likely, but what is possible, I think that needs to be considered. jmo
************************************************** **
I would have to disagree with your last statement (above). Trying to understand Black Holes or the rings of Saturn is about what is 'possible', theroretical physics and the like. The study of human biengs and what they do (including crimes) involves the 'probable'.
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes (or Sir Aurthur Conan/Doyle) when you've eliminated the probable (possible) is the only time to consider the barely possible (impossible). 90% of all crimes involve the probable, only the rare 10% (or less) fit into what's just possible.

[thewhitewitch1]

Wow, Patsy said she was worried it would leave a scar on her trophy girl and need plastic surgery to hide it? I did not know that.
I thought she would have been more concerned that JB was all right then worried about her cosmetic appearance. I guess I've been biased on my opinion of Patsy.


Shill....sometimes it's so hard to tell when you are being sarcastic and when you aren't. :shrug:

[Results]

This is a quote from FW and the reason I am using her quote it shows you where the forum for Roxanne is, "The aunt of Roxanne Paltauf an Austin teenager missing since July is posting as aperry58 on the "Missing/Found" forum in the Missing Children's section. Renee's family has been helping them and I am certain they could use whatever support is possible for all of you."

Roxanne's Birthday is Today if you could please go post a Happy Birthday on her forum I would appreciate it. Also, please be sure to read Roxanne's Mother's Happy Birthday post to her daughter because this woman truly needs our support. Please pass the word because she doesn't have her daughter today to celebrate but we can try to get as many people as possible to post a Happy Birthday post to show her that she is not alone and people do actually care.

Thank you for your time and sorry for disturbing your forum.

[elvislives]

************************************************** **
I would have to disagree with your last statement (above). Trying to understand Black Holes or the rings of Saturn is about what is 'possible', theroretical physics and the like. The study of human biengs and what they do (including crimes) involves the 'probable'.
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes (or Sir Aurthur Conan/Doyle) when you've eliminated the probable (possible) is the only time to consider the barely possible (impossible). 90% of all crimes involve the probable, only the rare 10% (or less) fit into what's just possible.

I think this case is almost as mysterious as black holes and the rings around saturn. And if you want to go with what's probable, the theory of Patsy accidentally killing JB, then staging the rest is the winning scenario, since she had the motive the means and the opportunity. JMO of course, but I think this case is one of the rare few that will fit into what is possible.

[rashomon]

It couldn't of course, have anything to do with the fact that most killers do at some point tell someone and Patsy had probably been told this fact by someone like Smit or Douglas.

But a terrorist group is constituted of several people, who exactly know what each member is doing. So there's no need for a member to 'confide in one person'. That's absurd.
Patsy Ramsey's talk was clearly about the killer being ONE person: the alleged
sexual predator.

And from such talk I infer that not even the Ramseys believed in the existence of the 'small foreign faction'.
But why would a sexual predator write a faked ransom note? That's one of the biggest obstacles for every IDI theory.
Lou Smit failed to answer this question too. Since the 'small foreign faction' did not fit into his lone sexual predator scenario, he completely disregarded the ransom note.
You said that Smit might have suggested the lone sexual predator theory to Patsy. But wasn't Patsy's statement on TV made way before Lou Smit entered the case?

My post btw was an answer to Shill who wrote:

If there is anything to be learned from USA's occupation in Iraq, it is; Muslims like to strike revenge on Holy holidays, and beheading and defiling of a daughter is a method of revenge known to them. In a religion that women are to cover their bodies with a burka to not tempt man, JB would be as blasphemes to this religion as could be.
Since Shill seems to believe in the existence of the small foreign faction, just curious:
- do you other IDIs too believe that a real small foreign faction wrote the note?
For from what I have read on other JBR forums, not even die-hard IDIs believe that this foreign faction ever existed, i. e they too acknowledge that the ransom note was faked.

[rashomon]

Oh, please!
Would you please explain what exactly you were referring to with your "Oh, please" comment in your # 151 post? Thanks.

[elvislives]

But why would a sexual predator write a faked ransom note? That's one of the biggest obstacles for every IDI theory.
[/U].


Hey Rash, I dont know anyone who really believes a small foreign faction was involved in the Ramsey case. But IF a sexual predator wrote the note, it wouldn't be the first time a sexual predator wrote a bogus ransom note. There was that case in Chicago where a pervert kidnapped a 6 year old from her bed, then killed her. Then he went back to the home and wrote a bogus ransom note asking for $20,000. He was later caught and explained that he wanted to "confuse the police".
There was another guy in the southeast (US) who raped and murdered women and left bogus "ransom" notes.

[Louisadelmar]

But a terrorist group is constituted of several people, who exactly know what each member is doing. So there's no need for a member to 'confide in one person'. That's absurd.
Patsy Ramsey's talk was clearly about the killer being ONE person: the alleged
sexual predator.

And from such talk I infer that not even the Ramseys believed in the existence of the 'small foreign faction'.
But why would a sexual predator write a faked ransom note? That's one of the biggest obstacles for every IDI theory.
Lou Smit failed to answer this question too. Since the 'small foreign faction' did not fit into his lone sexual predator scenario, he completely disregarded the ransom note.
You said that Smit might have suggested the lone sexual predator theory to Patsy. But wasn't Patsy's statement on TV made way before Lou Smit entered the case?

My post btw was an answer to Shill who wrote:


Since Shill seems to believe in the existence of the small foreign faction, just curious:
- do you other IDIs too believe that a real small foreign faction wrote the note?
For from what I have read on other JBR forums, not even die-hard IDIs believe that this foreign faction ever existed, i. e they too acknowledge that the ransom note was faked.

May 1, 1997:
"We feel like there are at least two people on the face of this earth that know who did this. And that is the killer, and someone that that person may have confided in."

Do I think there was a 'foreign faction'? No. I think it was either someone who worked for the Ramseys or knew someone who worked for the Ramseys. I don't even think sex was the motive for this crime. Although leaving the ransom note does not preclude the possibility of a sexual predator. FBI agent Lanning? Lanner? had quite an interesting article about killers who can't admit to themselves their motive is to kill so they kidnap and then whoops! the victim does something that 'forces' him to kill them.

I believe Smit started on the case in March, 1997. They had consulted with Douglas even earlier. I don't think I said anything about a 'lone sexual predator'. I merely said 'most killers'. A detective I know once said a lot more killers would get away with it if they would just not feel the need to tell someone about what they did. Whether from guilt or bragging.

It sounded to me like Patsy had been told something similar. I was merely suggesting Smit or douglas as possible sources of that information. But it could have been any one of a number of people.

[shill]

My post btw was an answer to Shill who wrote:


Since Shill seems to believe in the existence of the small foreign faction, just curious:
- do you other IDIs too believe that a real small foreign faction wrote the note?
For from what I have read on other JBR forums, not even die-hard IDIs believe that this foreign faction ever existed, i. e they too acknowledge that the ransom note was faked.
I don't believe there was a small foreign faction, and I know I never said that this was done by a SFF. I was saying that there are clues pointing to a style of terrorism and hate seen in this crime, common to what we have seen in the Muslim way of life. I believe the killer has a Muslim background and has been exposed to and knowledgeable of this way of life.(1996 is before Americans were exposed to this kind of Muslim behavior as daily news events)
The wording in the note is terrorism. It crime resembles a style of revenge used by Muslims. You do not need to be a small foreign faction to be a terrorist. One person can be a terrorist.
And I wouldn't rule out that the killer may be suffering from multiple personality disorder and thinks he is a SFF.

[thewhitewitch1]

I don't believe there was a small foreign faction, and I know I never said that this was done by a SFF. I was saying that there are clues pointing to a style of terrorism and hate seen in this crime, common to what we have seen in the Muslim way of life. I believe the killer has a Muslim background and has been exposed to and knowledgeable of this way of life.(1996 is before Americans were exposed to this kind of Muslim behavior as daily news events)
The wording in the note is terrorism. It crime resembles a style of revenge used by Muslims. You do not need to be a small foreign faction to be a terrorist. One person can be a terrorist.
And I wouldn't rule out that the killer may be suffering from multiple personality disorder and thinks he is a SFF.


The wording in the note reads like a bad crime novel. I don't see "terrorist" in it at all. IMO

[rashomon]

[Elvislives]Hey Rash, I dont know anyone who really believes a small foreign faction was involved in the Ramsey case. But IF a sexual predator wrote the note, it wouldn't be the first time a sexual predator wrote a bogus ransom note. There was that case in Chicago where a pervert kidnapped a 6 year old from her bed, then killed her. Then he went back to the home and wrote a bogus ransom note asking for $20,000. He was later caught and explained that he wanted to "confuse the police".
Elvislives, so this sexual pervert went back to the victim's home, entered the home and wrote a ransom note inside the house?
Could you post a link to this case? I'd really like to read more about it, for I find it strange that no IDI living in the Chicago area has never mentioned it so far.

[rashomon]

[B]
And I wouldn't rule out that the killer may be suffering from multiple personality disorder and thinks he is a SFF.
This reminds me of a poster's sarcastic remark on Websleuths who wrote that a 'small foreign faction' in Patsy's thwarted mind had driven her to kill JonBenet and that she 'didn't mean for this to happen'.
And if memory serves, this was also the poster who had witnessed Patsy having a hysterical and aggressive fit in the Boulder post office because a parcel hadn't been delivered correctly.

[bullmoose]

Rashoman: the Chicago case goes back to the 1940's I believe; I used to have a crime book that dealt with it, as it was a very bizarre case; I'll see if I can find it; if I do I'll give info to you about it. As to the note in this case, what a strange, strange note it is; but one designed, IMO, to throw suspicion on the parents, which it has. Whoever wrote it really wanted to ruin the lives of the Ramseys, but I don't claim to know who it was.

[bullmoose]

You would think that if someone had witnessed Patsy Ramsey having a hysterical, aggressive fit in the Boulder Post Office in actuality, then others would certainly have seen and reported it in the past ten years. If the poster claiming this was there, then as many as a dozen postal workers would have reported it. My sister and brother-in-law work for the Post Office; the Postal Service keeps a record of such incidents, to forestall violence against their employees. The fact that this is the first time I've heard anything about this supposed incident makes me think that it is a bald-faced lie. a convenient fabrication to bolster the credability of the poster claiming it as a fact. If it ever happened, which I do not believe it did, then where has the story been languishing all this time, when the tabloids would have paid big money to have such a story to run?:no:

[Louisadelmar]

It wasn't a Post office. Supposedly the poster LinasK saw Patsy get angry iin an apartment office because a package hadn't been delivered. This poster says nothing about whether someone had promised to deliver the package when it arrived, what was in it (medicines?, info on the murder? painkillers?) or in fact exactly what Patsy said. But clearly it makes Patsy a killer.

[shill]

Congratulations on who ever was the crybaby tattletale, it worked, I've been warned by CrimeLibrary. For people who like to debate, there sure are a lot of thin skinned posters.

[Miss Marple]

4 MIKE KANE: Did you know anything
5 about JonBenet having dumbbells in her room?
6 Did she work out or anything like that?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't think so.
8 How big were they? Were they -- Burke might
9 have had some, Patsy had some, she was
10 recovering from cancer, she used to ride her
11 bicycle and work these dumbbells. They were
12 usually -- they usually were in the TV room. I
13 am not sure they were there when she was works
14 out, but those were the dumbbells that we had
15 around.

This issue now is being discussed on other forums as if it were "new" news. FWIW, I have checked all the Boulder search warrants and there is no reference to any dumbbells being taken as evidence. I can't explain why this question was raised, but if a dumbbell were under serious consideration as a murder weapon, it would seem likely that police would have taken it as evidence and checked it for forensic material etc.
Best wishes,
Miss Marple

[Sharon]

Congratulations on who ever was the crybaby tattletale, it worked, I've been warned by CrimeLibrary. For people who like to debate, there sure are a lot of thin skinned posters.

Ha, you better watch out!!!! (j/k)

I recently got an infraction for telling someone that they just wont drop something, ever, and I gave an analagy which I wont repeat but it was pretty mild, to do with mans best friend..........anyway, I have to laugh when I see others saying the same thing about learning to drop something and move on.

I think its the way you say things that count!

[Sharon]

************************************************** *****
I strongly beg to differ my dear NP......The words 'fully developed' concerning the head wound are only those of book writer Lawrence Schiller (PMPT p.433) and no one else. As we've seen before in fact the actual evidence of the autopsy report indicates just the opposite 'a fresh hemorrahage with no evidence of organization' (AR p.7). Schiller got it wrong, but then Schiller never claims to be quoting Spitz or anyone directly. He doesn't even claim on p.433-434 (where he's relating a private verbal interview between Bolder detective Weinheimer, Spitz, and a Colorado MD in Preventative Medicine back in Schiller says Nov. 1997), that anyone used these words exactley, and of course Schiller and no one other was there, nor is there a transcript, report, recording of the interview etc. as ususal in his book he is para phrasing in his own words what he's heard or read or copied from other printed media reports,(some from the Globe and National Enquirer, see Schillers copyright page), and his own research...it's no more than rumour.
I can't understand, why some of you smart folks are so wedded to this head blow first theory. IMHO (in my humble opinion) you guys are going way off on a tangent in this case, right out of the starting blocks with this misapprehension, which you can only get to by twisting and spinning the evidence to fit it. There is nothing in the opening evidence of this case to indicate a head blow first, so why even go there?
And yes, of course it's possible for a full size adult to strangle a healthy 6 year old without leaving defensive wounds and signs of much struggle....by the size and stength difference alone, and especially if done in a bare basement room (what signs of struggle could there be), very quickly by surprise from behind, as the slipped down, zip type noose-garotte arrangement from behind indicates it was done. And yes, you could strangle an unconscious victim laying face down on the floor, but why the heck would you want to? Why this 'reach'. And why use this, what appears to be zip type noose-garrote? If victims unconscious why not turn them face up and smother them, or strangle them? Why use a garrote at all if the victims unconscious and near dead? As staging? A garotte is not necessary for staging a strangling, and why 'stage' a strangling if your plan is to 'stage' a kidnapping??? I'm not really asking these for you to answer I"m sure you could by some string of unlikely but possible or barely possible extrapalations, by why all this 'reaching' to still fit the IMHO the misguided early media and police theory of head blow first. Isn't it a lot easier to say the kid was taken to that dark, bare, basement room and surprised from behind by a quick zip noose strangling then hit in the head to make sure she was dead, as the evidence so easily indicates?

Ive always seen the crime happening in that order! I think the head bash first just evolved in trying to fit the crime on to the parents. imo

[andU]

Rashoman: the Chicago case goes back to the 1940's I believe; I used to have a crime book that dealt with it, as it was a very bizarre case; I'll see if I can find it; if I do I'll give info to you about it. As to the note in this case, what a strange, strange note it is; but one designed, IMO, to throw suspicion on the parents, which it has. Whoever wrote it really wanted to ruin the lives of the Ramseys, but I don't claim to know who it was.


Which case was this? I have racked my brain trying to remember and/or find it... I can't remember the little girl's name, but I remember as a child being told about it by my mother and grandmother.

[Evening2]

Which case was this? I have racked my brain trying to remember and/or find it... I can't remember the little girl's name, but I remember as a child being told about it by my mother and grandmother.

Williams Heirens was the killer but I can't remember the little girl's name. Oh yes, it was Suzanne Degnan, she was six years old.

[andU]

Williams Heirens was the killer but I can't remember the little girl's name. Oh yes, it was Suzanne Degnan, she was six years old.


Thank you! No, I finally remember the names of the girls that my mother used tell all five of her daughters about and even sang the songs to us that had been written for them: Marian Parker & Mary Fagin

[Evening2]

Thank you! No, I finally remember the names of the girls that my mother used tell all five of her daughters about and even sang the songs to us that had been written for them: Marian Parker & Mary Fagin

I think there is a Lifetime movie about the murder of Mary Fagin. I've seen it a couple of times - it was excellent. She worked in a small factory and her employer was accused and convicted of her murder.

[andU]

I think there is a Lifetime movie about the murder of Mary Fagin. I've seen it a couple of times - it was excellent. She worked in a small factory and her employer was accused and convicted of her murder.

Yeah, a pencil factory - her father also worked there. she was employeed to clean up, I think.

[Evening2]

Yeah, a pencil factory - her father also worked there. she was employeed to clean up, I think.

That's right, andU, pencils! The majority of the townspeople worked there. Mary didn't clean up I don't think, she actually worked "with" the pencils. :) I don't know what people do in a pencil factory.:shrug:

[andU]

That's right, andU, pencils! The majority of the townspeople worked there. Mary didn't clean up I don't think, she actually worked "with" the pencils. :) I don't know what people do in a pencil factory.:shrug:

They make pencils, E2! This was before any technology at all; everything was done manually...well, I'm sure they had some machinery, but no robots!

[andU]

A link to the Mary Phagan (Fagan) murder:

http://www.ilstu.edu/~ftmorn/cjhistory/casestud/phagan.html

[Evening2]

A link to the Mary Phagan (Fagan) murder:

http://www.ilstu.edu/~ftmorn/cjhistory/casestud/phagan.html

Thanks for the link, andU.

~Evening2

[Eagle1]

You would think that if someone had witnessed Patsy Ramsey having a hysterical, aggressive fit in the Boulder Post Office in actuality, then others would certainly have seen and reported it in the past ten years. If the poster claiming this was there, then as many as a dozen postal workers would have reported it. My sister and brother-in-law work for the Post Office; the Postal Service keeps a record of such incidents, to forestall violence against their employees. The fact that this is the first time I've heard anything about this supposed incident makes me think that it is a bald-faced lie. a convenient fabrication to bolster the credability of the poster claiming it as a fact. If it ever happened, which I do not believe it did, then where has the story been languishing all this time, when the tabloids would have paid big money to have such a story to run?:no:

Bullmoose and LouisadelMar, I had the very same instinctive reaction, that the RDI forum always claims a normal temper, which PR did NOT seem to have enough of, can prove her to be a killer. I don't think you can ever convince them it's not a bit logical.

Glad to see you posting.

[Melungeon]

Bullmoose and LouisadelMar, I had the very same instinctive reaction, that the RDI forum always claims a normal temper, which PR did NOT seem to have enough of, can prove her to be a killer. I don't think you can ever convince them it's not a bit logical.

Glad to see you posting.

Wasn't it Atlanta where the witnesses claimed Patsy had temper tantrums.

More than one person has thrown a temper tantrum in the post office. There's no way to tell if the postal employee(s) who observed the tantrum actually knew the person and could remember that person after months gone by (if not years). Postal customers wouldn't necessarily know the person either. The same would likely apply to an event in any public location.

It would be almost non-human to be forty years old and claim to have never lost one's temper, in my opinion, especially for someone who left a video record that shouts "Go back to the damn drawing board."

[andU]

Wasn't it Atlanta where the witnesses claimed Patsy had temper tantrums.

More than one person has thrown a temper tantrum in the post office. There's no way to tell if the postal employee(s) who observed the tantrum actually knew the person and could remember that person after months gone by (if not years). Postal customers wouldn't necessarily know the person either. The same would likely apply to an event in any public location.

It would be almost non-human to be forty years old and claim to have never lost one's temper, in my opinion, especially for someone who left a video record that shouts "Go back to the damn drawing board."

I admit to parental anger: When my oldest daughter had been accosted at her summer job by an undesirable young man in high school I followed him in his car and chased him down. He finally pulled off the road and I pulled him out of his car by attachng my fingernails to his cheeks. He promised he would never bother my daughter again - and he didn't.

[Louisadelmar]

Wasn't it Atlanta where the witnesses claimed Patsy had temper tantrums.

More than one person has thrown a temper tantrum in the post office. There's no way to tell if the postal employee(s) who observed the tantrum actually knew the person and could remember that person after months gone by (if not years). Postal customers wouldn't necessarily know the person either. The same would likely apply to an event in any public location.

It would be almost non-human to be forty years old and claim to have never lost one's temper, in my opinion, especially for someone who left a video record that shouts "Go back to the damn drawing board."

I don't remember that Patsy claimed never to have lost her temper. The only thing along those lines that burbles up is the "blonde *****" conversation with John and he said something like - she didn't use that sort of language.

Here is a link to the original post about Patsy getting angry about the package. I was wrong. LinAsk reposted the story first posted by concernedperson at WS.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=506661&highlight=met+Patsy+Ramsey+real+estate+office#post 506661

[shill]

It would be almost non-human to be forty years old and claim to have never lost one's temper, in my opinion, especially for someone who left a video record that shouts "Go back to the damn drawing board."Did they edit out the part where Patsy then takes the detective and slams his head into something, because I'm not seeing it in the video?

[Solace]

Wasn't it Atlanta where the witnesses claimed Patsy had temper tantrums.

More than one person has thrown a temper tantrum in the post office. There's no way to tell if the postal employee(s) who observed the tantrum actually knew the person and could remember that person after months gone by (if not years). Postal customers wouldn't necessarily know the person either. The same would likely apply to an event in any public location.

It would be almost non-human to be forty years old and claim to have never lost one's temper, in my opinion, especially for someone who left a video record that shouts "Go back to the damn drawing board."

It was John who said on Larry King Live that he only saw Patsy lose her temper once. He said it with that perrennial smile on his face, the one where we are all supposed to silently agree with him with tears in our eyes.

[Louisadelmar]

It was John who said on Larry King Live that he only saw Patsy lose her temper once. He said it with that perrennial smile on his face, the one where we are all supposed to silently agree with him with tears in our eyes.

I believe that was in connection with the cancer. I don't think he was talking about over a lifetime. But without the original quote...

[Solace]

I believe that was in connection with the cancer. I don't think he was talking about over a lifetime. But without the original quote...


what you believe and what John said are two different things. He said on LKL that the only time he saw Patsy get angry was this one time.

[Louisadelmar]

what you believe and what John said are two different things. He said on LKL that the only time he saw Patsy get angry was this one time.

Is this what you're talking about?

J. RAMSEY: She was amazing, an amazing person. She really was.

KING: Through the whole ordeal of JonBenet she was unbelievable.

J. RAMSEY: Yes, absolutely.

KING: Stronger than you sometimes.

J. RAMSEY: Oh, totally. No question. No question about that. And even through cancer battle. I only saw her cry twice and through that whole ordeal. Otherwise she was tough, strong and let's get it done.

[Solace]

Is this what you're talking about?

J. RAMSEY: She was amazing, an amazing person. She really was.

KING: Through the whole ordeal of JonBenet she was unbelievable.

J. RAMSEY: Yes, absolutely.

KING: Stronger than you sometimes.

J. RAMSEY: Oh, totally. No question. No question about that. And even through cancer battle. I only saw her cry twice and through that whole ordeal. Otherwise she was tough, strong and let's get it done.



Nope, John has his usual grin and he is talking about Patsy getting angry about a report and he says - The only time I ever saw Patsy get angry was this time - . And yes he has his idiotic smile on his face as if to say "hey all you morons out there, are you buying this too".

IMO, that is what John is thinking. Is that okay Freshwater?

[Solace]

Is this what you're talking about?

J. RAMSEY: She was amazing, an amazing person. She really was.

KING: Through the whole ordeal of JonBenet she was unbelievable.

J. RAMSEY: Yes, absolutely.

KING: Stronger than you sometimes.

J. RAMSEY: Oh, totally. No question. No question about that. And even through cancer battle. I only saw her cry twice and through that whole ordeal. Otherwise she was tough, strong and let's get it done.


IMO, IT TAKES A VERY STRONG PERSON TO PULL OFF THIS CRIME. Hey, did John say that Patsy cried only twice through the cancer ordeal. and that she was otherwise tough, strong and lets get it done.

I bet Patsy was all of the above. Yep that is my opinion alright.:biggrin:

[Athena]

I admit to parental anger: When my oldest daughter had been accosted at her summer job by an undesirable young man in high school I followed him in his car and chased him down. He finally pulled off the road and I pulled him out of his car by attachng my fingernails to his cheeks. He promised he would never bother my daughter again - and he didn't.

Good for you andU! :beer:

I can honestly say in my "many years" on this earth, the ONLY few times I have lost my temper in public were incidents over something involving my children. I believe when it comes to PROTECTING our children, there are very thin boundaries -- and probably the only line I wouldn't cross for my children is murder or physical violence unless they were being threatened with bodily injury then no boundaries would exist for me. Your child was being accosted and IMO you did what you had to do to protect her.

As far as Patsy's outburst in the video where she says "go back to the drawing board"; I would have been worse had I been accused of something I know I did not do. It would be a person that did not react with anger that I would question. JMHO

[Athena]

Is this what you're talking about?

J. RAMSEY: She was amazing, an amazing person. She really was.

KING: Through the whole ordeal of JonBenet she was unbelievable.

J. RAMSEY: Yes, absolutely.

KING: Stronger than you sometimes.

J. RAMSEY: Oh, totally. No question. No question about that. And even through cancer battle. I only saw her cry twice and through that whole ordeal. Otherwise she was tough, strong and let's get it done.



You know, even in some close marriages, a person doesn't see the real "inner" person. I am described by many as being a very strong person but I cry alone and in private. :(

[Solace]

Good for you andU! :beer:

I can honestly say in my "many years" on this earth, the ONLY few times I have lost my temper in public were incidents over something involving my children. I believe when it comes to PROTECTING our children, there are very thin boundaries -- and probably the only line I wouldn't cross for my children is murder or physical violence unless they were being threatened with bodily injury then no boundaries would exist for me. Your child was being accosted and IMO you did what you had to do to protect her.

As far as Patsy's outburst in the video where she says "go back to the drawing board"; I would have been worse had I been accused of something I know I did not do. It would be a person that did not react with anger that I would question. JMHO

AndU,

You are the best and your daughter is very lucky. She will probably turn out to be as strong as you are also.

But I do not think we are talking about that here. I think we were talking about John's saying that Patsy never got angry, which I happen to disagree with, his opinion I mean.

I think John presented this image of Patsy to dissuade anyone from believing that she could get so angry that she would push her 6 year old child and fatally wound her.

Your story was great though and I enjoyed reading it.:biggrin:

[nuisanceposter]

Nope, John has his usual grin and he is talking about Patsy getting angry about a report and he says - The only time I ever saw Patsy get angry was this time - . And yes he has his idiotic smile on his face as if to say "hey all you morons out there, are you buying this too".

IMO, that is what John is thinking. Is that okay Freshwater?

Was this in the same LKL interview where JR said JonBenet was a "sparkplug", "a handful", and "100% Patsy"?

[andU]

AndU,

You are the best and your daughter is very lucky. She will probably turn out to be as strong as you are also.

But I do not think we are talking about that here. I think we were talking about John's saying that Patsy never got angry, which I happen to disagree with, his opinion I mean.

I think John presented this image of Patsy to dissuade anyone from believing that she could get so angry that she would push her 6 year old child and fatally wound her.

Your story was great though and I enjoyed reading it.:biggrin:

Thanks, Solace. You are right, different circumstances. The point I was making (not necessarily in Patsy's defense nor as a finger pointing at her) is that I am a person that is slow to anger, but when I lose it - I lose it big time.

[Solace]

Thanks, Solace. You are right, different circumstances. The point I was making (not necessarily in Patsy's defense nor as a finger pointing at her) is that I am a person that is slow to anger, but when I lose it - I lose it big time.

Your daughter is very very lucky. ;)

[andU]

Your daughter is very very lucky. ;)

Thank you so much, Solace! She is grown with her own 'brood' and is a wonderful mother! She has the spirit of Miss Jane Pitmann, an admirable trait!

[Solace]

Thank you so much, Solace! She is grown with her own 'brood' and is a wonderful mother! She has the spirit of Miss Jane Pitmann, an admirable trait!


I am not surprised.:seeya:

[shill]

Nope, John has his usual grin and he is talking about Patsy getting angry about a report and he says - The only time I ever saw Patsy get angry was this time - . And yes he has his idiotic smile on his face as if to say "hey all you morons out there, are you buying this too".

IMO, that is what John is thinking. Is that okay Freshwater?
To bad your opinion of John's facial expressions is pre-biased and it appears you see what you want to see IMO.

I wonder how many cases have been solved by police detectives based on someones smile or grin?
My guess is zero.

And it's not alright to call the posters here "morons"

Jayelles you may want to take note, since you were asking earlier for examples of RDI insulting IDI.

[Solace]

To bad your opinion of John's facial expressions is pre-biased and it appears you see what you want to see IMO.

I wonder how many cases have been solved by police detectives based on someones smile or grin?
My guess is zero.

And it's not alright to call the posters here "morons"

Jayelles you may want to take note, since you were asking earlier for examples of RDI insulting IDI.


Shill,

I said John was calling the audience Morons. I never said the posters. However, if you feel that I am calling you a moron, that is your problem.

As far as solving a case by someone's smile, I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking about John's idiotic perennial smile that he uses to blow smoke up and around his "unsuspecting" audience.

But let me give you an example of insults. I can direct you to your replies to Mel regarding the freudian slip post. You were extremely insulting, but that did not surprise me.

Are we straight now or do you find me uncivil. Freshwater do you find this post uncivil. That would be an infraction, no?

[Athena]

Thank you so much, Solace! She is grown with her own 'brood' and is a wonderful mother! She has the spirit of Miss Jane Pitmann, an admirable trait!

Indeed, the spirit of Jane Pittman is most admirable. I could probably venture to guess correctly -- you definitely have some of it too! :rose:

[Jayelles]

To bad your opinion of John's facial expressions is pre-biased and it appears you see what you want to see IMO.

I wonder how many cases have been solved by police detectives based on someones smile or grin?
My guess is zero.

And it's not alright to call the posters here "morons"

Jayelles you may want to take note, since you were asking earlier for examples of RDI insulting IDI.

I'm taking note that you have either misinterpreted Solace's post or that you are deliberately twisting what she said:-

And yes he has his idiotic smile on his face as if to say "hey all you morons out there, are you buying this too".


Solace is clearly describing her impression of what John Ramsey was thinking. Solace is not calling any posters here "morons".

[Solace]

I'm taking note that you have either misinterpreted Solace's post or that you are deliberately twisting what she said:-



Solace is clearly describing her impression of what John Ramsey was thinking. Solace is not calling any posters here "morons".

Thank you Jayelles. You are right and I appreciate the fact that you noticed what Shill is doing.

Freshwater, is it allowed to deliberately twist what someone is saying?

[shill]

I'm taking note that you have either misinterpreted Solace's post or that you are deliberately twisting what she said:-



Solace is clearly describing her impression of what John Ramsey was thinking. Solace is not calling any posters here "morons".
You're showing your true colors Jayelles.

Solace opinion on John Ramsey; as if to say "hey all you morons out there, are you buying this too".

There is no twisting or misinterpretation this.

Solace might think this is a clever way of insulting IDI indirectly, but it is blatantly obvious and you choose to not see it.

Well if no other IDI feel this way, then she won't have to worry about others reporting this insult.

So if an IDI said, "The tabloid trash rags think their readership are going to believe the Ramseys killed there daughter because their readers are a bunch of morons", is that going to be acceptable for now on?

[Jayelles]

You're showing your true colors Jayelles.

Solace opinion on John Ramsey; as if to say "hey all you morons out there, are you buying this too".

There is no twisting or misinterpretation this.

Solace might think this is a clever way of insulting IDI indirectly, but it is blatantly obvious and you choose to not see it.

Well if no other IDI feel this way, then she won't have to worry about others reporting this insult.

So if an IDI said, "The tabloid trash rags think their readership are going to believe the Ramseys killed there daughter because their readers are a bunch of morons", is that going to be acceptable for now on?

I'm not interested in playing this game Shill. I'm here to discuss the case, not other posters.

[shill]

I'm not interested in playing this game Shill. I'm here to discuss the case, not other posters.
I thought you had stated a while back that RDI do not insult IDI and asked for references. I must have been mistaken, sorry.

[Jayelles]

I thought you had stated a while back that RDI do not insult IDI and asked for references. I must have been mistaken, sorry.

No I didn't say that at all. If it's important, I suggest you look back and see what I actually did post and why I posted it. However, your statement above is not an accurate representation or interpretation of what I posted.

I detest this "side" stuff. We should be able to discuss the case and evidence without being attacked for our opinions being slanted to one side or another. I think that suppresses free discussion.

[andU]

Indeed, the spirit of Jane Pittman is most admirable. I could probably venture to guess correctly -- you definitely have some of it too! :rose:

You betcha! I used to get long winded 'chats' from my mother verses her just telling me not to do something - she knew that was the very thing that I would do if I were told not to! I have to know 'why' and what the results may be. 'Don't' isn't enough.

[Solace]

I thought you had stated a while back that RDI do not insult IDI and asked for references. I must have been mistaken, sorry.

Apology accepted Shill. :biggrin:

[Solace]

Shill says: "Well if no other IDI feel this way, then she won't have to worry about others reporting this insult".

Shill, have you been reporting me. I am shocked. Just shocked. :biggrin:

[Melungeon]

...I detest this "side" stuff. We should be able to discuss the case and evidence without being attacked for our opinions being slanted to one side or another. I think that suppresses free discussion.

I would agree with you on this Jayelles. I think differing opinions encourage good discussion. As I told Solace yesterday in reply to his/her comments that he/she got tired of seeing Steve Thomas attacked, personal attacks offer no positive reinforcement nor add to an intelligent discussion of the facts. I don't expect everyone to agree on any particular point but I stand by my comment about personal attacks and denigrating comments for anyone in disagreement. I think the "Ignore Poster" option should be used more often than our keyboards. :beer:

[aussiesheila]

I don't remember that Patsy claimed never to have lost her temper. The only thing along those lines that burbles up is the "blonde *****" conversation with John and he said something like - she didn't use that sort of language.

Here is a link to the original post about Patsy getting angry about the package. I was wrong. LinAsk reposted the story first posted by concernedperson at WS.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=506661&highlight=met+Patsy+Ramsey+real+estate+office#post 506661I always believed this poster and I think I said so in a number of posts. However I don't think this incident was an indication that Patsy could lapse into a blind rage and therefore was a potential murderer, rather I saw it as a fake rage that she turned on to get her own way. I mean did she do this with her friends, or was this something she reserved for people she felt superior to and thought she could get away with with them? I am inclined to think it was the latter and I took from it that there was quite a nasty side to Patsy's personality, a rather hard, calculating side.

[starlite]

Very good points, Watson!
Sometimes questions that don't require answers will find them... we need more questions, more 'trouble-shooting' ... we need to share with each other by using this as a 'sounding board' instead of attacking each other's opinions. I know I get caught up in my own personal feelings with this case, the same as other posters and forget objectivity...
Why Christmas night?

''Looking back, I guess I always thought if someone wanted to hurt this family christmas time would be the time to do it.''-----Bill McReynolds words .PMPT

JMO

[Sharon]

''Looking back, I guess I always thought if someone wanted to hurt this family christmas time would be the time to do it.''-----Bill McReynolds words .PMPT

JMO

Interesting that a person would come out and say those words about hurting this family. A normal person might think that `any` day would pretty much have the same result if ones child was to be murdered! Maybe Santa thinks that having Christmas ruined is right up there with having your child murdered.... or maybe he`s literally advising that Christmas is the ideal time and opportunity to carry out these types of crimes for those that need to know???. imo

[Evening2]

Interesting that a person would come out and say those words about hurting this family. A normal person might think that `any` day would pretty much have the same result if ones child was to be murdered! Maybe Santa thinks that having Christmas ruined is right up there with having your child murdered.... or maybe he`s literally advising that Christmas is the ideal time and opportunity to carry out these types of crimes for those that need to know???. imo

Bill certainly DOES have a peculiar way of thinking about death. First he thinks death is not "celebrated" enough and then he thinks the celebration of Christmas or lack thereof is more important than the pain of losing one's child. Don't know if I've made sense at all - I find it difficult to wrap my mind around what it is I actually want to say - it's just SO bizarre and SO telling. IMO

~Evening2

[Sharon]

Bill certainly DOES have a peculiar way of thinking about death. First he thinks death is not "celebrated" enough and then he thinks the celebration of Christmas or lack thereof is more important than the pain of losing one's child. Don't know if I've made sense at all - I find it difficult to wrap my mind around what it is I actually want to say - it's just SO bizarre and SO telling. IMO

~Evening2

E2, even assuming that Santa is totally innocent...right.....well, what we can gather from what he says and the way he talks in the interviews is that he is totally self centred. He cannot genuinely say one thing about the R. and their loss that is humble and heartfelt. No, everything has to lead back to him as the centre of attension.....so we have to hear from him about what he is planning when he dies, what his relationship was with the R. and JBR, and about how he really thinks it was spot on to have murdered JBR on Christmas because that sounds about right to him if one wanted to hurt the R.

He has no real substance, he has nothing deep or meaningful to say and thats because he did not knoe JBR, the relationship was a figment of his imagination. He was not a warm friend, he was a paid worker.

Now, you can assume he was involved, and you will still come away with a similar analysis. In the end, Santa was the central character in the story not JBR. He was the one who stared in the interviews while everyone else sort of melts into the background. I think Santa was very into himself and arrogant. And this is seen in its hight when he takes it upon himself to get up and talk, and once again, he is the central character in the speech, at her memorial. That takes some nerve imo. And he didnt say a few short meaningful words in her memory, no it was all about himself. I think he has alot to answer for. I believe people who were there were shocked at the speech. imo

[Melungeon]

Bill certainly DOES have a peculiar way of thinking about death. First he thinks death is not "celebrated" enough and then he thinks the celebration of Christmas or lack thereof is more important than the pain of losing one's child. Don't know if I've made sense at all - I find it difficult to wrap my mind around what it is I actually want to say - it's just SO bizarre and SO telling. IMO

~Evening2

Morning E2 - it's as confusing as the Christian who wants to go to heaven but doesn't want to die. ;)

[Sharon]

Morning E2 - it's as confusing as the Christian who wants to go to heaven but doesn't want to die. ;)

I love that one!!!!!

[Evening2]

Morning E2 - it's as confusing as the Christian who wants to go to heaven but doesn't want to die. ;)

Yes, Mel, it sure is and that's a great analogy, :). We really don't know if Bill fears death, embraces it, or simply believes he is immortal no matter what the state of his "body"! IMO

~Evening2

[thewhitewitch1]

Yes, Mel, it sure is and that's a great analogy, :). We really don't know if Bill fears death, embraces it, or simply believes he is immortal no matter what the state of his "body"! IMO

~Evening2

Well, one thing is for sure. He sure doesn't "fear" it anymore.

[Evening2]

Well, one thing is for sure. He sure doesn't "fear" it anymore.


Do we KNOW that for a fact? :eek:

~Evening2

[starlite]

E2, even assuming that Santa is totally innocent...right.....well, what we can gather from what he says and the way he talks in the interviews is that he is totally self centred. He cannot genuinely say one thing about the R. and their loss that is humble and heartfelt. No, everything has to lead back to him as the centre of attension.....so we have to hear from him about what he is planning when he dies, what his relationship was with the R. and JBR, and about how he really thinks it was spot on to have murdered JBR on Christmas because that sounds about right to him if one wanted to hurt the R.

He has no real substance, he has nothing deep or meaningful to say and thats because he did not knoe JBR, the relationship was a figment of his imagination. He was not a warm friend, he was a paid worker.

Now, you can assume he was involved, and you will still come away with a similar analysis. In the end, Santa was the central character in the story not JBR. He was the one who stared in the interviews while everyone else sort of melts into the background. I think Santa was very into himself and arrogant. And this is seen in its hight when he takes it upon himself to get up and talk, and once again, he is the central character in the speech, at her memorial. That takes some nerve imo. And he didnt say a few short meaningful words in her memory, no it was all about himself. I think he has alot to answer for. I believe people who were there were shocked at the speech. imo

I agree, I think he thought he was superior to every one. I read somewhere, but can't remember where, that he was a member of MENSA. Does anyone else recall that?

I also wondered if maybe for some reason John could have made him feel inferior,and maybe he didn't like John. JMO

[LadyFisher]

Yes, Mel, it sure is and that's a great analogy, :). We really don't know if Bill fears death, embraces it, or simply believes he is immortal no matter what the state of his "body"! IMO

~Evening2

He thought he was Santa....of course he believed he was immortal! :rolleyes: jmo

[LadyFisher]

I agree, I think he thought he was superior to every one. I read somewhere, but can't remember where, that he was a member of MENSA. Does anyone else recall that?

I also wondered if maybe for some reason John could have made him feel inferior,and maybe he didn't like John. JMO

I don't remember that, star....perhaps he was! I still cannot help but think JBs murder was somehow connected to John's employment although E2 has made an excellent case against the BigMcs....and they are still up there on my suspect list....the real perp imho has been under the radar somehow! jmho

[starlite]

I don't remember that, star....perhaps he was! I still cannot help but think JBs murder was somehow connected to John's employment although E2 has made an excellent case against the BigMcs....and they are still up there on my suspect list....the real perp imho has been under the radar somehow! jmho

I understand where you're comming from LadyFisher.While the McReynolds are high on my suspect list,there are other possibilities.IMo,and going by what Lou said in his resignation letter, there were some suspects that were not thoughly investigated.

I do agree with EVE2, that Bill has a way with words and it's like he is saying catch me if you can. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Do we KNOW that for a fact? :eek:

~Evening2


I suppose you could find out where he is buried and go dig him up. :shrug:

[andU]

I suppose you could find out where he is buried and go dig him up. :shrug:


I'd still like to know if he was buried or cremated per his wishes and his ashes scattered..

[thewhitewitch1]

I'd still like to know if he was buried or cremated per his wishes and his ashes scattered..

According to E2, we could always try to find him and ask him. :biggrin:

[andU]

According to E2, we could always try to find him and ask him. :biggrin:


Oh yeah, I forgot...

[Evening2]

Oh yeah, I forgot...

You guys are mean!!! :( :( :(

~Evening2

[Sharon]

You guys are mean!!! :( :( :(

~Evening2

Yes!!!!:D

But just a little!

[shill]

''Looking back, I guess I always thought if someone wanted to hurt this family christmas time would be the time to do it.''-----Bill McReynolds words .PMPT

JMOIf Janet McR was pure evil, what better time to take down her husbands infatuation with a little girl then Christmas time IMO.

[starlite]

If Janet McR was pure evil, what better time to take down her husbands infatuation with a little girl then Christmas time IMO.

I have always wondered how Janet felt about Bills feelings of JB.Didn't he want to be cremated and have the fairy dust JB gave him, mixed with his ashes? Wonder how she felt about that? My point is most married couples that have been together for years, wish to be buried side by side.Jmo

[andU]

You guys are mean!!! :( :( :(

~Evening2

How? To whom? I didn't intend to be mean to anyone.

[andU]

Do we KNOW that for a fact? :eek:

~Evening2

Are you saying that you think he may still be alive?

[Evening2]

I have always wondered how Janet felt about Bills feelings of JB.Didn't he want to be cremated and have the fairy dust JB gave him, mixed with his ashes? Wonder how she felt about that? My point is most married couples that have been together for years, wish to be buried side by side.Jmo

Well, IF she didn't like him the first 40, why would she want to spend eternity with him? :confused:

~Evening2

[thewhitewitch1]

Well, IF she didn't like him the first 40, why would she want to spend eternity with him? :confused:

~Evening2


Geeze, people. My parents were married for over 40 years when my dad passed away. He was cremated and his ashes are in Florida. My mom is here in Mich. and when she passes, she is going to be buried or cremated here. She loved my dad. What difference does it make that the McRs aren't going to be buried next to each other? How does that indicate that Janet "didn't like" Bill?
"Spend an eternity with him"....that cracks me up. As if two dead bodies lying side by side in a grave are going to be conscious of each other. What'd ya think they were going to do in there....have conversations or sumpthin'? :biggrin:

[Louisadelmar]

Geeze, people. My parents were married for over 40 years when my dad passed away. He was cremated and his ashes are in Florida. My mom is here in Mich. and when she passes, she is going to be buried or cremated here. She loved my dad. What difference does it make that the McRs aren't going to be buried next to each other? How does that indicate that Janet "didn't like" Bill?
"Spend an eternity with him"....that cracks me up. As if two dead bodies lying side by side in a grave are going to be conscious of each other. What'd ya think they were going to do in there....have conversations or sumpthin'? :biggrin:

I agree with you but I remember how much flack the Ramseys got on the boards for moving away from JonBenet's grave.

[thewhitewitch1]

I agree with you but I remember how much flack the Ramseys got on the boards for moving away from JonBenet's grave.

You never saw me giving them any flack about it. :)

[Louisadelmar]

You never saw me giving them any flack about it. :)

Absolutely not! You're much to 'classy' a poster to do that. :)

[starlite]

Sorry if my post,up thread,about couples being buried side by side seems ridiculous, but IMO, there is a possibility that Bills feelings about JB could have created some feelings of jeolousy. I don't know if Janet liked Bill or not, I just assumed she did since they were married for 40 yrs.JMO

[Evening2]

Geeze, people. My parents were married for over 40 years when my dad passed away. He was cremated and his ashes are in Florida. My mom is here in Mich. and when she passes, she is going to be buried or cremated here. She loved my dad. What difference does it make that the McRs aren't going to be buried next to each other? How does that indicate that Janet "didn't like" Bill?
"Spend an eternity with him"....that cracks me up. As if two dead bodies lying side by side in a grave are going to be conscious of each other. What'd ya think they were going to do in there....have conversations or sumpthin'? :biggrin:

TWW, I hope you noticed my confusion on my post. I wasn't necessarily sure how other people felt about being separated at death. But, I'm with you. My parents were married 43 years when my father died and then, some ten years later, I convinced my mother and her sister to move just down the street from us in another state, where she lived, with her sister, until she passed away some 14 years later. My sister and I lived on either side of my aunt and mom's house. My aunt and mom bought burial plots next to each other where both of them are now buried. It has nothing to do with how much you loved your spouse, or child, or parents, or siblings, so I agree with your post completely. Sorry if my original post lead to confusion. :)

~Evening2

[LindaA]

TWW, I hope you noticed my confusion on my post. I wasn't necessarily sure how other people felt about being separated at death. But, I'm with you. My parents were married 43 years when my father died and then, some ten years later, I convinced my mother and her sister to move just down the street from us in another state, where she lived, with her sister, until she passed away some 14 years later. My sister and I lived on either side of my aunt and mom's house. My aunt and mom bought burial plots next to each other where both of them are now buried. It has nothing to do with how much you loved your spouse, or child, or parents, or siblings, so I agree with your post completely. Sorry if my original post lead to confusion. :)

~Evening2

I think it depends on the inidividuals. For my parents, it was very important to be buried side-by-side.

[Jayelles]

I think it depends on the inidividuals. For my parents, it was very important to be buried side-by-side.

I think it does depend on the individuals. My in-laws were very specific about wanting their ashes scattered together at a particular spot but my own parents who had a really happy 55 years of marriage, never expressed any wishes whatsoever. My MIL was very insistent that I gave her a hearing about who was to get what of her possessions too and after she died, we found written instructions from her about other stuff. It was terribly upsetting for my husband because she had been so organised and brave.

I scattered my father's ashes at his favourite fishing spot and I think my mother probably just assumes I'll do the same for her, but she's never mentioned it. She doesn't like to discuss death or dying at all - she's quite superstitious about it.

I think everyone is just different. I mean - what happens if one partner re-marries? For example - if John Ramsey remarried, would he be buried with Patsy or with his new wife? Or supposing John and his new wife decided to be buried together and he died first and was put in their plot.... then the new wife remarried and decided she was going to be buried with her NEW husband ..... Oh the complications :-)

ETA - we also tend to have shared plots here. An entire family can go into the same plot. If they'd lived here, Patsy would have gone in along with JonBenet inside of just nearby.

[Eagle1]

Sorry if my post,up thread,about couples being buried side by side seems ridiculous, but IMO, there is a possibility that Bills feelings about JB could have created some feelings of jeolousy. I don't know if Janet liked Bill or not, I just assumed she did since they were married for 40 yrs.JMO

I've said several times, though certainly not accusing Janet or Bill of killing anyone, there surely would have been some jealousy of JonBenet and the other kids on the harp!

And it's rather odd for a woman to be away on a 40th or 50th anniversary, I would think. As far as I know, nobody's said if she had some urgent business or why this happened, when Bill was found dead. (At his computer? In a TV program about two heart patients, they were both energized after their transplants or whatever procedure, felt brand new, long walks, etc., but one was found dead at his computer, one night when he was alone, pacemaker battery probably died. Something was mentioned about those being a bit difficult to replace, or they didn't give a long enough warning or something. )

[thewhitewitch1]

I've said several times, though certainly not accusing Janet or Bill of killing anyone, there surely would have been some jealousy of JonBenet and the other kids on the harp!

And it's rather odd for a woman to be away on a 40th or 50th anniversary, I would think. As far as I know, nobody's said if she had some urgent business or why this happened, when Bill was found dead. (At his computer? In a TV program about two heart patients, they were both energized after their transplants or whatever procedure, felt brand new, long walks, etc., but one was found dead at his computer, one night when he was alone, pacemaker battery probably died. Something was mentioned about those being a bit difficult to replace, or they didn't give a long enough warning or something. )

I don't understand what it has to do with JBs murder that Bill and Janet didn't spend an anniversary together. :confused:
Why would Janet be jealous over names on a harp? I don't get it. IMO

[LadyFisher]

I don't understand what it has to do with JBs murder that Bill and Janet didn't spend an anniversary together. :confused:
Why would Janet be jealous over names on a harp? I don't get it. IMO

Who really knows concerning that woman...why in the world would she write such a "dark" play like she did? That's not saying she murdered JonBenet....but this family was strange! JMHO