Has John Ramsey remarried?

[Nuisanceposter]

What if the parent who had attacked her in a rage was convinced that JB was dead or as good as dead?

That's the question I keep wondering about. We have no way to know that the Rs knew JonBenet was still alive after she'd been wounded that seriously on the head. It's extremely possible that her heart rate and breathing were so shallow as to not have registered on a panicked parent, and that the ligature was intended as staging on a dead child, not a barely live comatose one.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

So do you reckon that the staged sexual assault was attenuated and hidden because they intended it not to play any further part in the staging?

I doubt if intention (in the sense of calculation) played a part here. Imo the stager simply could not bring herself to proceed any further, stopped and wiped JB down. I believe the whole staging business was done in a total panic, with the Ramseys' minds functioning merely on some kind of auto-pilot.

 

[Solace]

That's the question I keep wondering about. We have no way to know that the Rs knew JonBenet was still alive after she'd been wounded that seriously on the head. It's extremely possible that her heart rate and breathing were so shallow as to not have registered on a panicked parent, and that the ligature was intended as staging on a dead child, not a barely live comatose one.

I always thought that also, but for a wound that is 8 1/2 inches in circumference, there is no way they did not feel it. They had to have felt her head and felt that the skull was split, almost completely Nuisance. I can feel every ridge in my head when I feel it closely. Patsy throws her and a loud crack is heard and then she goes and checks her out, etc. etc. If you can feel a bump in your head, you can feel a split in your head.

And, just for argument sake, if they did not feel the crack, they had to have felt the rectangular piece that is missing in the back of her head - it is completely loose. They had to have felt that kind of injury.

 

[Ames]

From the Bonita papers:

"Small dark blue fibers, consistent with a cotton towel, were recovered from the vaginal area."

This seem to be the fibers from the cloth with which JB was wiped.

They were different from the black wool fibers from John's shirt which were found in the crotch area of JB's underpants. I believe the shirt fibers got there when John, helping Patsy to stage the scene, put the size 12 underwear on JB.

See, now this is just another thing that goes against the intruder did it theory. So an intruder is going to take the time needed for the head wound, the garotting, the ransom note, the paintbrush insertion, the redressing...etc...not necessarily in that order...AND he is going to risk looking for a towel or wash cloth to wipe her down with. Yeah right...

 

[Ames]

rashomon,

You know full well that the phrase accident theory is generic, and covers all the variations of Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage.

And I have also compared JonBenet's death with a lust murder or that of someone enraged sexually.

So I am aware that a rage attack is neither a planned murder nor an accident.

Someone deliberately sexually assaulted JonBenet, whacked her over the head, and asphyxiated her, she was intended not to live!

That I consider to be murder plain and simple.


.

Yes, and as you posted earlier....they chose Christmas to kill her, because she was out of school. How thoughtful of them to wait until her Christmas break to deliberately sexually assault their daughter, whack her over the head, and asphyiate her.

 

[Ames]

I always thought that also, but for a wound that is 8 1/2 inches in circumference, there is no way they did not feel it. They had to have felt her head and felt that the skull was split, almost completely Nuisance. I can feel every ridge in my head when I feel it closely. Patsy throws her and a loud crack is heard and then she goes and checks her out, etc. etc. If you can feel a bump in your head, you can feel a split in your head.

And, just for argument sake, if they did not feel the crack, they had to have felt the rectangular piece that is missing in the back of her head - it is completely loose. They had to have felt that kind of injury.

For sure. I know that I am not the only parent that has done this....when both of my kids have fallen and bumped their heads.....whats the first thing that I do? I grab them up and feel of their head, to see if there is a bump or not....or to check and see if the skin is broken and it is bleeding. So we are supposed to believe that after Patsy threw JB into the corner of the sink or tub, and heard the loud crack....and knocked JB unconsious...that she didn't feel of her head? Yeah right...and I am 100 percent sure that John would have felt of it too.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Technically since we know that JonBenet's death was not accidental then it was a homicide now due to the denial of medical assistance to JonBenet and either the asphyxiation or head injury, whichever finally killed her, you choose, all this makes her death intentional, and I reckon 1st degree murder, maybe there is wiggle room there for a good attorney to plead on a degree or two, but her death was intended.

An unintentional rage attack would be Patsy losing her patience with JonBenet, say over a bedwetting incident.

UKGuy,

Imo the word 'know' should only be used when it comes to case facts backed up by the documented record. Therefore technically speaking, all we 'know' is that the autopsy report says the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.

How we put the puzzle together is another story. The denial of medical assistance does not automatically "make JonBenet's death intentional".
Suppose it had come to trial: the prosecution has the burden of proof, but imo no prosecutor in the world could have proved to the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the Ramseys knew JonBenet was not yet dead when they staged the scene. The "in dubio pro reo" principle applied, the verdict probably would have been 'only' reckless manslaughter followed by obstrucion of justice.

 

[Solace]

UKGuy,

Imo the word 'know' should only be used when it comes to case facts backed up by the documented record. Therefore technically speaking, all we 'know' is that the autopsy report says the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.

How we put the puzzle together is another story. The denial of medical assistance does not automatically "make JonBenet's death intentional".
Suppose it had come to trial: the prosecution has the burden of proof, but imo no prosecutor in the world could have proved to the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the Ramseys knew JonBenet was not yet dead when they staged the scene. The "in dubio pro reo" principle applied, the verdict probably would have been 'only' reckless manslaughter followed by obstrucion of justice.

I agree.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

Imo the word 'know' should only be used when it comes to case facts backed up by the documented record. Therefore technically speaking, all we 'know' is that the autopsy report says the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.

How we put the puzzle together is another story. The denial of medical assistance does not automatically "make JonBenet's death intentional".
Suppose it had come to trial: the prosecution has the burden of proof, but imo no prosecutor in the world could have proved to the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the Ramseys knew JonBenet was not yet dead when they staged the scene. The "in dubio pro reo" principle applied, the verdict probably would have been 'only' reckless manslaughter followed by obstrucion of justice.

rashomon,

But we do know dont we, JonBenet's death was not accidental, she did not fall down the stairs and injure her skull, she did not try to commit suicide by hanging herself, someone asphyxiated her, her death was not a natural one, so the only option left is that it was a homicide, this can be confirmed by the lack of any communication requesting medical assistance for JonBenet e.g. she was intentionally left to die, if she was not already dead, someone wanted JonBenet silenced.

As you point out the autopsy report says the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma. which to any person with common sense does not suggest either a Natural, Accidental, or Suicidal death.

So it was a homicide, and the forensic evidence tells you it was also intentional.

.

 

[Ames]

rashomon,

But we do know dont we, JonBenet's death was not accidental, she did not fall down the stairs and injure her skull, she did not try to commit suicide by hanging herself, someone asphyxiated her, her death was not a natural one, so the only option left is that it was a homicide, this can be confirmed by the lack of any communication requesting medical assistance for JonBenet e.g. she was intentionally left to die, if she was not already dead, someone wanted JonBenet silenced.

As you point out the autopsy report says the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma. which to any person with common sense does not suggest either a Natural, Accidental, or Suicidal death.

So it was a homicide, and the forensic evidence tells you it was also intentional.

.

an unintentional homicide....

http://www.allawny.com/homicide-manslaughter.html

"Involuntary Manslaughter – An unintentional homicide due to criminal negligence."

 

[IrishMist]

rashomon,

But we do know dont we, JonBenet's death was not accidental, she did not fall down the stairs and injure her skull, she did not try to commit suicide by hanging herself, someone asphyxiated her, her death was not a natural one, so the only option left is that it was a homicide, this can be confirmed by the lack of any communication requesting medical assistance for JonBenet e.g. she was intentionally left to die, if she was not already dead, someone wanted JonBenet silenced.

As you point out the autopsy report says the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma. which to any person with common sense does not suggest either a Natural, Accidental, or Suicidal death.

So it was a homicide, and the forensic evidence tells you it was also intentional.

.

I disagree, UK. (and have plenty of common sense, btw)
If the head bashing occurred during a rage, I consider that accidental.
JonBenét may have appeared to be dead at that point, and was unwittingly finished off with the staged strangulation.

When I'm leaning toward a RDI, what I picture is JonBenet being slung around by her shirt, or strangled by the angry parent, and her head getting slammed into something solid. (could be a kitchen countertop, tub faucet, bed post, any number of things)

This would leave marks that had to be explained, and the garrotte was an attempt to do that. (with the bonus of pointing at an intruder.)

With marks and wounds like that, it's going to be pretty difficult to convince the medical personnel that JB just fell down and got a boo-boo.

Nope. Self-preservation kicked in for the murdering family member. (which, IMO, is more likely to be Patsy than not)

 

[DeeDee249]

Once upon a time, there was a theory about the Ramsey garage doors and whether there could have been an accident which caused the head injury.

Last week I was at a House and Home Exhibition and there was a stand with automatic garage doors. The first question I asked was whether they could be dangerous and the saleswoman happily showed me what would happen if someone stood under the garage door - they stopped, rest and went back up again as soon as they touched her!

WOuld this have been the case in 1996?

Possiby- it depends when the doors were installed. All garage doors manufactured after a certain date (and I do not know that date) are requuired to have that safety feature. When I moved into my house in 1987 the 2 garage door openers did not have that feature. They would have crushed anything underneath. But in 1997 I shopped for new doors and they all had it.

 

[Toltec]

Patsy hit JonBenet over the head with the flashlight...or she slammed her against something. She heard the loud crack of her skull and JonBenet was rendered unconcious. She may or may not have shaken her to try to revive her.

Patsy realized what she had done in that split second and instantly knew that she was going to prison. So she staged a kidnapping scenario.

 

[DeeDee249]

With JR's help.

 

[Ames]

Patsy hit JonBenet over the head with the flashlight...or she slammed her against something. She heard the loud crack of her skull and JonBenet was rendered unconcious. She may or may not have shaken her to try to revive her.

Patsy realized what she had done in that split second and instantly knew that she was going to prison. So she staged a kidnapping scenario.

Yep, thats what happened...imo. With John doing the staging...

 

[Ames]

I disagree, UK. (and have plenty of common sense, btw)
If the head bashing occurred during a rage, I consider that accidental.
JonBenét may have appeared to be dead at that point, and was unwittingly finished off with the staged strangulation.

When I'm leaning toward a RDI, what I picture is JonBenet being slung around by her shirt, or strangled by the angry parent, and her head getting slammed into something solid. (could be a kitchen countertop, tub faucet, bed post, any number of things)

This would leave marks that had to be explained, and the garrotte was an attempt to do that. (with the bonus of pointing at an intruder.)

With marks and wounds like that, it's going to be pretty difficult to convince the medical personnel that JB just fell down and got a boo-boo.

Nope. Self-preservation kicked in for the murdering family member. (which, IMO, is more likely to be Patsy than not)

I totally agree that this is what happened.

 

[JMO8778]

See, now this is just another thing that goes against the intruder did it theory. So an intruder is going to take the time needed for the head wound, the garotting, the ransom note, the paintbrush insertion, the redressing...etc...not necessarily in that order...AND he is going to risk looking for a towel or wash cloth to wipe her down with. Yeah right...

or,well,Mr Intruder could always just go upstairs and get JR's shirt while he was sleeping.
ok,I know it was said they had a laundry chute,maybe one of them grabbed it out of the dirty clothes in the basement?that would make sense.it would also mean that JR was undressed and likely in bed when the assault on JB occured(?) or,at least he had gotten undressed and ready for bed by then.

 

[UKGuy]

I disagree, UK. (and have plenty of common sense, btw)
If the head bashing occurred during a rage, I consider that accidental.
JonBenét may have appeared to be dead at that point, and was unwittingly finished off with the staged strangulation.

When I'm leaning toward a RDI, what I picture is JonBenet being slung around by her shirt, or strangled by the angry parent, and her head getting slammed into something solid. (could be a kitchen countertop, tub faucet, bed post, any number of things)

This would leave marks that had to be explained, and the garrotte was an attempt to do that. (with the bonus of pointing at an intruder.)

With marks and wounds like that, it's going to be pretty difficult to convince the medical personnel that JB just fell down and got a boo-boo.

Nope. Self-preservation kicked in for the murdering family member. (which, IMO, is more likely to be Patsy than not)

IrishMist,
An accidental death occurs if an invdividual dies due to unforeseen sequence of events, e.g. a plane crash, falling down stairs, some sudden illness etc.

A homicide occurs when an individual dies at the hands of a 2nd party, and clearly JonBenet's injuries tell you this was a homicide.

Now the aspect of her death that exercises many people is was it intentional?

You speculate:

was unwittingly finished off with the staged strangulation.

Well thats murder plain and simple, and it cannot be unwittingly since it need not have taken place, this demonstrates that JonBenet was intended to die.

When I'm leaning toward a RDI, what I picture is JonBenet being slung around by her shirt, or strangled by the angry parent, and her head getting slammed into something solid. (could be a kitchen countertop, tub faucet, bed post, any number of things)

Yes I agree it may be any of those things.

With marks and wounds like that, it's going to be pretty difficult to convince the medical personnel that JB just fell down and got a boo-boo.

Nope. Self-preservation kicked in for the murdering family member. (which, IMO, is more likely to be Patsy than not)

Denial of medical assistance to JonBenet turns her death from something involuntary to something intentional.

Thats before we start speculating about the motivation for killing her, which may be sexual in nature?


.

 

[UKGuy]

or,well,Mr Intruder could always just go upstairs and get JR's shirt while he was sleeping.
ok,I know it was said they had a laundry chute,maybe one of them grabbed it out of the dirty clothes in the basement?that would make sense.it would also mean that JR was undressed and likely in bed when the assault on JB occured(?) or,at least he had gotten undressed and ready for bed by then.

JMO8778,

There are far too many inconsistencies in the Patsy lost it theory for it to be true.

The supporters of this theory are having to dream up exceptions to explain away the inconsistencies.

Patsy was there, no she just fetched the materials, Patsy started to sexually assault JonBenet then stopped, JonBenet was wiped down for aesthetic reasons, John was wearing a shirt, no someone else fetched it, JonBenet wet the bed, so they left her wearing urine-soaked longjohns, and her soiled pants were lying on open view in her bathroom, yet they say the wine-cellar was staged to hide the toileting incident. JonBenet was sexually assaulted to fabricate a motivation for her death, yet this was cleaned up and buried beneath layers of clothing and blankets, JonBenet had her size-6 underwear changed or was redressed in clean size-12 underwear, why bother if an intruder killed her?

All because Patsy lost it?

It does not add up, that is before we factor in any speculation regarding prior sexual molestation.


.

 

[Solace]

Possiby- it depends when the doors were installed. All garage doors manufactured after a certain date (and I do not know that date) are requuired to have that safety feature. When I moved into my house in 1987 the 2 garage door openers did not have that feature. They would have crushed anything underneath. But in 1997 I shopped for new doors and they all had it.

No, because then they WOULD HAVE sought medical treatment. All three would have seen it.