Patsy Ramsey

[ScarlettScarpetta]

How was it obvious? The head wound couldn't be seen! The cops didn't know about it until the autopsy.

Exactly.. so there is no need to try and strangle her. At best she was knocked out. There was no blood. So they would not know what kind of damage was done so there is no need to cover up.

They would have just called 911 and got her help.

 

[bettybaby00]

The point is no one knows so to assume the crazy story instead of the more reasonable with a family who has no history of abuse, is just out there.

Judge Judy.. If it doesn't make sense, It just isn't true.

What?????!!!!!!

:scared:

 

[CherCher]

The point is no one knows so to assume the crazy story instead of the more reasonable with a family who has no history of abuse, is just out there.

Judge Judy.. If it doesn't make sense, It just isn't true.

No the point is...to assume that an unknown culprit decides to digitally rape a little girl and write a ransom note (pretending to write like Patsy pretending to write like Patsy) and then kill the little girl, and not kidnap her after all, THAT is the "crazy story".

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No the point is...to assume that an unknown culprit decides to digitally rape a little girl and write a ransom note (pretending to write like Patsy pretending to write like Patsy) and then kill the little girl, and not kidnap her after all, THAT is the "crazy story".

No it really isn't. There are criminals that write fake ransom notes. There are many killers who break into homes and have taken or killed children. There are people who molest kids and kill them.

This is crazy but factual accounts.

What is crazy is to believe a family with no history of abuse or neglect, No history of violence or criminality has a child who gets hurt and then decides to stage a molestation/ strangling to cover that up.

It is just beyond what is reasonable to deduce.

That along with the DNA that does not belong to any Ramsey, kind of says it all.

 

[CherCher]

No it really isn't. There are criminals that write fake ransom notes. There are many killers who break into homes and have taken or killed children. There are people who molest kids and kill them.

This is crazy but factual accounts.

What is crazy is to believe a family with no history of abuse or neglect, No history of violence or criminality has a child who gets hurt and then decides to stage a molestation/ strangling to cover that up.

It is just beyond what is reasonable to deduce.

That along with the DNA that does not belong to any Ramsey, kind of says it all.

You can't be that naive. No history of abuse or neglect means parents couldn't be involved in a child's death? And because they were upper middle class and popular means even more, right?

 

[CherCher]

When Freud studied "female hysteria" he found that most of his female patients (who were solidly upper middle class) were victims of incest.

He was roundly abused by colleagues who could not accept that people of high stature and social standing would do such a thing.

Isn't that what you are doing by refusing to believe that any of the Ramsey family could be guilty of dirty deeds?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You can't be that naive. No history of abuse or neglect means parents couldn't be involved in a child's death? And because they were upper middle class and popular means even more, right?

Has nothing to do with it. This kind of planning or crime by a parent suggests a history, an escalation. That is not what we have here. WE have normal parents by all accounts, that would have had to go way beyond the normal infanticide to try and be masterminds..

It just does not fit.

 

[DeDee]

Once the nylon cord was placed tightly around JonBenét's tiny neck, there was no way to explain a possible accident to anyone, in any office, no matter the personal or political connection.

Anatomy and physiology tells us the head injury was severe. In layman's terms, the pressure of the brain swelling would prevent her autonomic functions of a beating heart and breathing lungs from performing efficiently without immediate emergency intubation of O2 care and appropriate drugs. With excellent, immediate medial care, the child may have lived only long enough to become an organ donor.

IOW, she was about to die from the blow to her head. Her pupils immediately dilated. She could no longer blink her eyes. She could no longer speak, even if tape was not on her mouth. Voluntary actions were no longer possible for her brain's function.

So, why not just leave her, as is, with a fatal head injury, if IDI? Why bother with white bindings and white blankets and pink Barbie nightgowns and Barbie dolls and size 12 Bloomies and locking the concrete windowless room?

The AR evidence indicates more than one attempt at strangulation; therefore, my interpretation is the binding was already in place, without complete occlusion, when the head injury occurred.

Either parent on purpose and with intention of "finishing her off" after a head blow that displaces a chuck of skull, by tying a cord tightly about her neck with an attached broken paintbrush stick is a preposterous idea. Their daughter was alive when she was digitally infiltrated [raped]. She was alive until that cord was finally and intentionally tightened, with constant pressure, for about three long minutes.

This was a crime perpetrated by a member of the immediate family as sexual punishment and not sexual satisfaction. That excludes JR [only] from the acute sexual injuries. That leaves a possible PR or BR responsible for the acute trauma.

JBs labia bruise and inner injuries indicate a jealously that grew into hatred for her femininity, and perhaps her popularity at home, until it manifested itself into the nasty rape with a digit that left splinter evidence inside.

JonBenét was above the normal intelligence. She felt trouble was brewing. How do we know this? From her own tearful words: On December 23rd, during a Christmas Party hosted by her parents, where Santa Claus appeared and gingerbread houses were decorated, she sat on the steps leading down from the kitchen to the Butler's Kitchen. JonBenét cried while saying that she did not feel pretty just two days before her death.

This was a beautiful child, a privileged child who dressed as if her fabulous clothing came from Paris. She was given private dance, drama, violin, piano and voice lessons. She had a personal seamstress and costume designer.

JonBenét also had dyed hair because apparently her mother did not approve of her natural brunette shade. What else did she not approve of?


Patsy did not know she could bluff LE or the DA office when the horrific offenses were committed but she did know her well-connected, multimillionaire husband could hire the finest attorneys-at-law possible for them.

From Kolar's informative book:

When Patsy was being fingerprinted at the BPD on the 27th, she said, "I didn't kill my baby." Her lawyer leaned forward, whispered into her ear. She remained silent thereafter and until exiting the building.

LE noted that no one had asked Patsy if she had killed her baby.

 

[CherCher]

Has nothing to do with it. This kind of planning or crime by a parent suggests a history, an escalation. That is not what we have here. WE have normal parents by all accounts, that would have had to go way beyond the normal infanticide to try and be masterminds..

It just does not fit.

By ALL accounts? No not ALL accounts.I don't even pretend to know what kind of pressures and stressors the Ramsey family were under and feeling on Christmas night. And believe you me, rich people under stress have it a lot easier and are less prone to any kind of scrutiny under the law. Especially those who lawyer up a day after their little girl has been found dead and refuse to cooperate with LE.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

No it really isn't. There are criminals that write fake ransom notes. There are many killers who break into homes and have taken or killed children. There are people who molest kids and kill them.

This is crazy but factual accounts.

What is crazy is to believe a family with no history of abuse or neglect, No history of violence or criminality has a child who gets hurt and then decides to stage a molestation/ strangling to cover that up.

It is just beyond what is reasonable to deduce.

That along with the DNA that does not belong to any Ramsey, kind of says it all.

BBM. I believe the FBI said there had never been a case of a ransom note and a body in the same place.

There are families that molest and abuse there own children and are able to hide it.
The most likely perpetrator of a child's murder is someone they know, usually a family member.
It is agreed upon by experts who have studied the case that there was prior vaginal penetration.

I am not saying that any of this proves without a doubt that RDI but your statements don't make it less likely.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

By ALL accounts? No not ALL accounts.I don't even pretend to know what kind of pressures and stressors the Ramsey family were under and feeling on Christmas night. And believe you me, rich people under stress have it a lot easier and are less prone to any kind of scrutiny under the law. Especially those who lawyer up a day after their little girl has been found dead and refuse to cooperate with LE.

Yes by all accounts. There is no history of abuse. No reports, no DCF, No police, no reports nothing.. that is by all accounts.

 

[gramcracker]

IT is just not factual or plausible. There is no history of abuse or mistreatment. None.

link?

Sorry, this is ridiculous. You know if someone is alive or dead. All you have to do is put your head to their chest. You don't need fancy equipment just an ear..

If this was the case there would be a lot of people murdered to cover up knocks on the head..

speculation and opinion. it was MUCH more than "a knock on the head"

Also have a medical background. My family has a history of heart conditions.. I have often put my head to a chest to check a beat. Just like they did it before fancy stethoscopes.

This has nothing to do with you and your patients. This has to do with the reasonability of a parent finding their child knocked out and assuming they are dead. That is just not how it works. Not even close.

This is not science fiction. Knocked out or not, She would have have just said.. Okay .. well lets just then strangle her..

It defies logic in any regard.

She did survive the blow. Maybe she would not have in 48 hours but she did that night because she had to be strangled to die. That is just fact.

Has nothing to do with it. This kind of planning or crime by a parent suggests a history, an escalation. That is not what we have here. WE have normal parents by all accounts, that would have had to go way beyond the normal infanticide to try and be masterminds.

It just does not fit.

speculation and opinion. nothing more

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

link?



speculation and opinion. it was MUCH more than "a knock on the head"







speculation and opinion. nothing more

You can not link to something that does not exist. There are no abuse reports. Nothing that shows a history of abuse or neglect.

 

[Meara]

It struck me last night that what we're all really up against in this thread is a logic problem. This is going to be a long post, but I'll do my best to make it worth your time and hope you will read on. Who knows? The information may be useful for something later.

It's been a while since college but, far as I can tell, the argument that the matching unidentified DNA found in two different places on JBR's clothing proves that she was killed by an intruder is a logical fallacy.

In deductive reasoning, an argument is valid when both premises are true, and it is not possible for the conclusion to be false when both premises are true. The most famous example is:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The one you'll remember from high school if you didn't have algebra right after lunch is:
If A = B
and B = C
then A = C


Assuming for a moment that the two DNA samples of interest here absolutely match, it is logically valid to say, for instance:

1. Unidentified DNA matching the same profile was found in two different places on JBR's clothing. (True)
2. The DNA of JBR's family members is known. (True)
3. Therefore, the unidentified DNA described belongs to someone who is not a Ramsey.(Valid)


It is not logically valid to say (for example):

1. The unidentified DNA described did not come from the Ramseys. (True)
2. It has been proved that the unidentified DNA described was deposited at the time of the murder. (False)
3. Therefore, the unidentified DNA described belongs to JBR's killer. (Invalid)

OR

1. It is proven fact that the DNA described could only have come from JBR's killer. (False)
2. It is proven fact that said DNA did not come from the Ramseys. (True)
3. Therefore, none of the Ramseys killed JBR. (Invalid)


OR Construct your own argument:

1. No one here but BlueBottle knows for sure who killed JBR. (True)
2.
3. Therefore,


Just razzin' you, BB : ) :seeya:


Moving right along.... There is a second type of argument using inductive reasoning. This is the type we use every day. One advantage of the inductive argument is that the logic is less rigorous so it's easier to construct. One disadvantage is that it is more prone to fallacy. This means that even the strongest inductive argument can never be the foolproof, all-other-bets-off-the-table creature that a valid deductive argument is.

Here's an inductive argument:
Since the beginng of recorded time, the sun has risen in the east. Therefore, it will continue to rise in the east.

Pretty strong.

Here's another one:
Our unspayed outdoor cat has never had kittens. Therefore, she will probably never have kittens.

Surprise!


Below are two examples of inductive arguments specific to the Ramsey case, and those of you who have stuck it out this far can decide how strong or weak they are and how they compare.

1. In the overwhelming majority of cases where a minor child is found violently killed in the home, one or both parents had a role in, or have knowlege of, the child's death. Since JonBenet was found violently killed in her own home, there is a very high probability that her parents, who were at home at the time of the murder, were involved in her death or know who was.

2. The increasingly sophisticated science of DNA mapping and identification continues to solve cold cases, sometimes for murders that occurred even 40 years before. Unidentified DNA matching the same profile was found in two different places on JBR's clothing, and the profile has been entered into CODIS. Although no identification has been made so far, there is a very high probability that the DNA will one day be ID'd, and we will then know who killed JonBenet Ramsey.


So where I am going with all of this? Here's the wrap-up:

-- Deductive arguments can be good or bad (well constructed, poorly constructive), but all are either valid (airtight) or invalid (open to further argument).

-- Inductive arguments can be strong or weak, but even the strongest inductive argument is never airtight ; i.e., it cannot prove something to a certainty, only to a degree of probability.

-- A valid deductive argument is always superior to an inductive argument. (the "A Smith & Wesson beats four aces." principle).

-- An inductive argument cannot become a deductive argument or carry the vaildity of one.

-- A string of facts alone does not constitute a logical argument.


It is a logical fallacy, then, to claim that an inductive argument makes an absolute case. And, while it is possible to do, it is not nice to beat fellow Inductivites over the head with a logical fallacy. As long as one is in Inductionland, the matter remains arguable - period, end of story ; ) This is not a matter of opinion. It is a principle of logic.

 

[gramcracker]

You can not link to something that does not exist. There are no abuse reports. Nothing that shows a history of abuse or neglect.

then it is opinion and speculation. nothing more

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Great post Meara.
I believe that is the problem when arguing over the DNA. IDI often uses it as proof that there was an intruder there that night and therefore it can't be RDI. All the DNA proves is that there was unidentified DNA found at the scene.

If it is ever identified that is when the investigation starts not ends. You have to discover how it got there and if there is any reason for it to be there, beyond it belongs to the killer. It is not until there is other evidence tying the identified person to the murder that the DNA counts. It is just one more nail in the coffin not a "smoking gun" (if a link is discovered).

As I said before both "sides" use probability and likelihood in their arguments but it seems to me it is often held against RDI more.

 

[CherCher]

Yes by all accounts. There is no history of abuse. No reports, no DCF, No police, no reports nothing.. that is by all accounts.

I see that you mean no "official accounts" such as CPS or DCF etc. In that you are correct.

By the way, do you think I'm a fat person who has it in for Patsy because I'm jealous of her? Just wondering because of your thumbs up for a post that suggested that theory.

 

[bettybaby00]

I see that you mean no "official accounts" such as CPS or DCF etc. In that you are correct.

By the way, do you think I'm a fat person who has it in for Patsy because I'm jealous of her? Just wondering because of your thumbs up for a post that suggested that theory.

It's amazing to me that despite the pages & pages of stats showing how often there is unreported molestation perpetrated by family members there still remains denial that it happens.

 

[lawstudent]

When respiration is slow and shallow and the killer is a lay person in a panic, it is my opinion the respiration may not be recognized especially if the subject is unconscious. JonBenet was unconscious and close to death shortly after the head trauma occurred, imo.

BBM. Sounds like you agree so I don't know what point you are trying to make.

My point was that the typical person who leaves someone mistakenly thinking they are dead is a man in a sexual or rage crime who runs or throws away the body almost instantly upon the lack of response. I rarely if ever hear such a suspect say that he or she repeatedly looked for a pulse or breathing - the lack of reaction seems to be what leads to the assumption of death. If you accidentally whacked your child too hard, you would presumably try over and over again to see if you could hear the breathing. Additionally, if they were moving around the body in full light, touching it, wiping it down, strangling it, etc., you'd think they would notice the breath. It's just not as easy to make that mistake with your own child and with two adults involved if that is believed.

I also in no way believe this is a crime committed by a sexual sadist, but I don't really know what that indicates. I do not believe the Ramseys were sexual sadists and believe suggestions otherwise to be bizarre, because I think that would have been uncovered by now. Most child predators are not sadists - very few people are aroused by inflicting pain, which is why most predators do not torture or kill their victims or kill them in a panic, not as part of the fantasy. She wasn't repeatedly beaten or injured in that way.

To me, it is crazy to think the Ramseys just did this, but it's equally crazy to blame it on some psychopath. Very few people out there are that crazy - there's always some rationality to their actions. The really crazy ones usually get caught. It's possible this is some nut, but I see that being as likely as it is the Ramseys, despite their lack of history of abuse. I need a decent explanation, but I'm sure most abusive parents are never reported to DCF, and many of higher status are never even suspected.

As for cases with made up ransom notes or other cases where parents cooperate based on a child's body being found in the home, how many cases are there for comparison? There's really no way to generalize, because it so rarely happens. The ransom note thing to me suggests, though of course not definitively, someone older. You don't hear about that stuff anymore in the U.S. It's associated with Lindberg and some older crimes, or kidnappings in other countries, but it really is not a way to cover a crime here and hasn't been for some time.

 

[DeeDee249]

This must have been addressed many times, so forgive me for not knowing better, but why was this stuff not subpoenaed? The police being afraid to be aggressive with the Ramseys? Worried about lack of probable cause?

The clothing, phone records, and medical records thing is quite odd to me, but I'd like to know a bit more about the timing of those requests etc. as there seems to be some debate.
.

The DA would not allow these things to be subpoenaed. As you know, it is the DA and not the police, who issues subpoenas or warrants. The DA could have asked a judge for a warrant to obtain many things that would have helped the investigation, but refused. Wasn't much the police could do about it. They were accused of being TOO aggressive with the Rs- the DA wanted them treated with kid gloves- and they were allowed to get away with a lot that anyone else would not have. The police wanted to arrest the parents that day- and question them separately. The DA would not allow it.
As for the phone records -in a related case, someone tried to impersonate the Rs and try to obtain credit card and other records. During THAT trial, the trial judge ordered the phone records sealed and would not allow investigators in the R case to have them.