Patsy Ramsey

[Meara]

We have to deal in proof. If this family had any history we would know it. It would be out there. There is no way in the world that all the book writers in this case would not have paraded that out for all to see.

There is no proof and no even accusations of abuse. No DCF reports, nothing.

To get to this escalation there would be.

If this was a simple case of finding a child with a closed head wound and them lying about how that happened, I would be on board but you are trying to say that two parents who have no history then decided to make this the most gruesome of deaths for their child. To have their child shamed and left to be talked about and dissected.

To strangle the life out of their child with no previous abuse.

It is just not plausible.

We have to deal in proof.
What kind of proof do you mean? Absolute proof? Hard to come by. Extremely high probability? Do you agree the sealed medical records could possibly contain such proof?

There is no proof and no even accusations of abuse. No DCF reports, nothing.
You know the principle, right? - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Meara]

Your post triggered some other thoughts about JB's death and some considerations about PR, the cancer and PR's behavior within the children’s pageantry circuit.

A good friend who survived a brain aneurism in Africa, and a long recovery, commented in a blog how “these ‘encounters’, which come to all of us eventually, bring fear, suffering, and sorrow. But they can also help us to focus on what matters most and nudge us towards seeing our lives from a bigger perspective than our day to day "to-do's" that so often dominate our attention.” PR’s life was also under a death sentence and her reactions were significant for other reasons.

PR’s response to the recovery from cancer was to embrace her Christian faith thereafter. However, more ominously, there was a secondary response which was very prominent. As JR and some of PR’s friends described, the cancer caused PR to virtually run at life. So much “busyness” that it’s evident even PR’s folks observed that the kids were not receiving the structure they required and gave PR child rearing self-help books.

Further, the cancer seemed to enflame a competitive drive for success, especially in the pageant world through her daughter. Anyone here who’ve attended a competitive sport has viewed either “tiger moms” or overly vociferous “sports dads.” Some time back in 2013 Time printed an article about Stage Moms/Sports Dads. The article described a study of this phenomena and its effects on a mom or dad and child. (I’ll use the mom analogy since this thread is in regard to PR.) Interestingly, the study showed that a mom could resolve her own issues by pushing a child to succeed where the mom’s life ambitions had not succeeded (Miss America, e.g.) Basking in children’s reflected glory, parents’ feelings of regret and disappointment may gradually resolve and make way for pride and fulfillment.

The effects of that resolution on a child (resolving a parent's need to succeed), however, may not be so positive. They may protest in conspicuous ways which disrupt the family dynamic. Unforgettable are JR’s words on LKL when asked what JBR would have been like as a teenager. (BTW, BR was standing off stage during this conversation.) Instead of saying something like, JB would have been popular, succeeded in high school theater or succeeded in her academic studies, JR said, “She would have been a handful.”

Obviously, the ‘family dynamic’ dam broke on Christmas 1996. Someone within the family dealt with “that child” in a violent way. All mho.

Very insightful, qft. Very.

 

[TaylurRose02]

I was under the impression the palm print was traced to Melinda Ramsey?

Yes! Sorry ignore that part :blushing:

 

[Anti-K]

I see that there are a few people who think that the DNA does not count until it is traced to a source. That simply isn’t true. It isn’t true in this case and it isn’t true in any case.
In fact, it’s pretty easy to find instances in which persons convicted of a crime have been later exonerated because of DNA being found in an incriminating location. Often that DNA is not sourced or identified; it doesn’t include anybody, but it excludes the convicted.

DNA is used to exonerate people and it is used to eliminate persons as suspects and it is used to direct investigations. This is all simply and factually true, and it is nonsense to claim otherwise.
This is true because the presumption – always – is that trace evidence found in incriminating locations was transferred by the perpetrator.

Yes, sometimes trace evidence can be traced to innocent transfer, but innocent transfer is what must be demonstrated; not the opposite! If your DNA is found in an incriminating location than you are going to have to prove that it got there through some innocent means.

Now, we have an interesting situation here, because we know that the DNA in question was compared to 200+ persons, including persons associated with the investigation and the autopsy, and no match was found. This strengthens the original presumption.

In the beginning of all investigations trace evidence is of unknown origin. No one knows who transferred it, but no one ever sits down and says, “Gee, I dunno where this trace evidence came from. It must be meaningless.” The only way this evidence can become meaningless is if an innocent explanation for it is discovered, or if it is otherwise disproved. So far, neither of these things has happened.

Sorry for turning this into another DNA discussion.
...

AK

 

[Frigga]

By Michael Naughton* and Senior Lecturer, School of Law and School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies (SPAIS), University of Bristol
Gabe Tan** Research Assistant, School of Law, University of Bristol


DNA evidence; Low Copy Number; Partial DNA profiles; Mixed DNA profiles


The LCN DNA process ‘facilitates the examination of a whole new range of evidence types that previously could not be analyzed because of the very low amounts of DNA recoverable from the sample’.10 But this sensitivity is accom- panied by a range of risks as it can mislead crime investigations and/or lead to possible wrongful convictions. First, the number of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)11 cycles has to be substantially increased to obtain LCN DNA profiles, which inevitably magnifies the risk of contamination and inaccurate results from ‘stochastic effects’, random statistical anomalies.12 Secondly, even if a DNA profile is accurately yielded, there are difficulties associated with the propositions and interpretations that can be drawn from LCN DNA results. Since LCN DNA profile can stem from the cells of a single touch by an unconnected innocent individual prior to the crime, a phenomenon commonly termed ‘adventitious transference’can occur.13 Thirdly, low levels of DNA may also result from secondary transfer. For instance, if the perpetrator who is a poor DNA shedder had casual contact with an innocent individual who is a good DNA shedder prior to committing the crime, the perpetrator may leave behind DNA of the innocent individual whilst not shedding any of his or her own cells.14

 

[Anti-K]

The strongest DNA found in the case is only 10 markers even after replication, making it only a partial profile. The amount is what makes me question it coming from an intruder. If an intruder carried JB from her bed all the way to the wine cellar and forcefully bashed in the back of her head, strangled her, and sexually assaulted her I believe there would be more DNA evidence. Many IDI's have linked the unknown palm print on the door to an intruder, so that would mean he or she wasn't wearing gloves. If they left enough of a trace for a palm print, why wouldn't they have left more tdna? The amount of movement involved for said intruder to pull off the heist is hefty and presumably would have caused an increased amount of deposited skin cells. AK, you've proposed that the fibers from PR's clothing that night ended up all over the scene of the crime based on person to person to person transfer. I can't understand how fibers from her mother's outfit would have been transferred that much, and the intruder's dna (skin cells, sweat, etc...) wouldn't have. "You can't have it both ways."

By the way, the DNA does not exclude the Ramsey's. It's a fallacy to assume a partial profile is exonerating to other suspects in the case. The DNA doesn't answer any questions surrounding the Ramsey's.

The strongest DNA evidence is more than simply 10 markers (it is meaningless to say, “even after replication.” All DNA is replicated), it is 10 markers commingled with a victim’s blood found on the inside crotch of her panties, and it is two separate tDNA samples found on both hip areas on the outside of her leggings.

The killer’s DNA could be all over the place, but no one looked all over the place. They only look for DNA in very specific locations, and, it would be senseless to do otherwise.

The fibers can be provisionally traced, but since they were traced to the home it becomes difficult to determine their value. The DNA has not been traced, and attempts to do so have all met with failure. One by one the innocent explanations fall away while the presumption remains.

And, yes, the DNA does exclude the Ramseys just as it excludes everyone that it does not match; everyone.

And, of course the DNA can’t tell us anything about the Ramseys. That’s a strange expectation. The DNA is (presumed) just trace evidence left in incriminating locations. It can be used to exclude persons as the source. There may be other reasons to keep a person on the suspect list, but the DNA will be an asterisk beside that suspect’s name.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

By Michael Naughton* and Senior Lecturer, School of Law and School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies (SPAIS), University of Bristol
Gabe Tan** Research Assistant, School of Law, University of Bristol


DNA evidence; Low Copy Number; Partial DNA profiles; Mixed DNA profiles


The LCN DNA process ‘facilitates the examination of a whole new range of evidence types that previously could not be analyzed because of the very low amounts of DNA recoverable from the sample’.10 But this sensitivity is accom- panied by a range of risks as it can mislead crime investigations and/or lead to possible wrongful convictions. First, the number of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)11 cycles has to be substantially increased to obtain LCN DNA profiles, which inevitably magnifies the risk of contamination and inaccurate results from ‘stochastic effects’, random statistical anomalies.12 Secondly, even if a DNA profile is accurately yielded, there are difficulties associated with the propositions and interpretations that can be drawn from LCN DNA results. Since LCN DNA profile can stem from the cells of a single touch by an unconnected innocent individual prior to the crime, a phenomenon commonly termed ‘adventitious transference’can occur.13 Thirdly, low levels of DNA may also result from secondary transfer. For instance, if the perpetrator who is a poor DNA shedder had casual contact with an innocent individual who is a good DNA shedder prior to committing the crime, the perpetrator may leave behind DNA of the innocent individual whilst not shedding any of his or her own cells.14

That’s all fine and dandy, but it has no relevance here as LCN was not used in this case. BODE claims that the tDNA was processed in the usual fashion. And, of course, no one – posters aside - has ever claimed that the CODIS sample resulted from LCN! So, even if the tDNA was processed in such a way, the CODIS sample would confirm the LCN results.

Listen to Dr Krane on Tricia’s radioblog. He discusses this exact question, and he confirms that if BODE’s claim is true then the tDNA should have been of sufficient quantity to generate reliable results.

I have more to say about LCN, but as far as we know LCN was not used in this case, so there’s not much sense in saying anything more.
...

AK

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

The Ramseys weren't involved. Only Patsy.

 

[DeDee]

Scarlett,

Since none of us where there that is interesting. Interesting opinion or speculation but not fact. Her head wound being a closed head wound would not automatically slow her heart.

Pardon me while I take a second look at your post.

Her head wound being a closed head wound would not automatically slow her heart.

Closed-head injuries are a type of traumatic brain injury in which the skull and dura mater remain intact.
~ Wikipedia


Head Injury

A head injury is any trauma that leads to injury of the scalp, skull or brain, according to the U.S. Library of Medicine. There are two types of traumatic head injury: open head injury and closed head injury.

An open head injury occurs when the cranium is fractured and/or the membranes that surround the brain (dura mater) are breached; in contrast, a closed head injury does not cause damage to the dura mater or skull.

Symptoms:
headache
dizziness
nausea
slurred speech
vomiting


We know JonBene't presented with fixed, dilated pupils according to her AR.

Head Injury Symptoms

Patients who have sustained a head injury may experience several symptoms, including loss of consciousness, concussion, memory loss, headache, dizziness, confusion, nausea and dilated pupils. Patients who suffer an open head injury may experience bleeding, swelling and bruising on the surface of the head. Signs of serious brain injury include convulsions, seizures, vomiting, loss of consciousness and paralysis. Because symptoms may reveal themselves immediately or even days or weeks after the incident, it is imperative that head injury patients seek immediate medical attention.

http://www.allabouttbi.com/head-injury/

Just one or two more references on head injuries:

When the skull is pierced, bone fragments from the skull may hit sensitive brain tissue and cause further damage. In contrast, in a closed head injury, the skull isn’t broken.

Another possible result of an open head brain injury is intracranial hematoma or bleeding in brain. [JB had this symptom.]

Other possible open head injury complications may be:


•Dementia
•Paralysis
•Seizures
•Coma
•Death


http://www.braininjuryinstitute.org/Brain-Injury-Types/Open-Head-Injury.html


In patients with bilateral FDPs favourable outcomes were only seen with delays of less than 90 minutes. No patient survived better than a vegetative state with only one pupil showing reaction to light immediately after treatment and no patient survived with persisting bilateral FDPs.

http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/71/2/175.full


Why does IDI attempt to downplay the tremendous tortuous injuries JonBenét suffered before dying?

 

[gramcracker]

:goodpost: :gthanks:

 

[Mama2JML]

Why does IDI attempt to downplay the tremendous tortuous injuries JonBenét suffered before dying?

I don't think Scarlett's intent was to minimize the suffering JonBenét endured. It seems the point was lost...

 

[bettybaby00]

Thanks DeeDee for compiling all that info.

I'm going to repost this b/c it's really difficult to understand how anyone could fail to grasp the severity of the head blow she received despite the fact there was no "visible" damage, and why she could have easily been mistaken for dead.

There had initially been no outward appearance of an injury to JonBenét’s head. No trace of blood had been observed in her hair, and the scalp did not reveal signs of any type of injury. So as Dr. Meyer began his internal examination, investigators were surprised to learn that she had suffered a severe blow to the upper right side of her skull. A linear fracture covered the entire length of the upper right side of her head, from the parietal to occipital bones of her skull. The injury was rectangular in shape measuring approximately eight and one half inches (8 ½&#8221 in length by one and three quarters (1 ¾&#8221 to one and one- half inches (1 ½&#8221 in width, and fractured bone from the skull had caused extensive damage to the brain below. Fresh subdural hematoma was apparent as well as subarachnoid hemorrhaging. There was cerebral edema (brain swelling) observed.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

The swelling was actually minimal. No brain stem swelling was noted in the autopsy. That statement was taken from a geeral desription of brain injuries and was not specific to the Ramsey case.

 

[Mama2JML]

Thanks DeeDee for compiling all that info.

I'm going to repost this b/c it's really difficult to understand how anyone could fail to grasp the severity of the head blow she received despite the fact there was no "visible" damage, and why she could have easily been mistaken for dead.

There is no misunderstanding with regard to the severity of the head blow...

Perhaps, IF JonBenét was struck prior to any attempted strangulation, signs of life may have been incredibly minimal. However, basic human instinct would have either failed to "kick in" or it would have been entirely ignored by one or both parents. The use of "the garrote", for any theoretical staging, does not provide a plausible explanation for the extensive skull fracture.

RDI & IDI theories in which the head blow was the coup de grâce seem better suited to fit the evidence.

 

[Mama2JML]

The swelling was actually minimal. No brain stem swelling was noted in the autopsy. That statement was taken from a geeral desription of brain injuries and was not specific to the Ramsey case.

True. Wecht elaborates on this topic in Mortal Evidence...

&

Cerebral edema is presented in cases of death via asphyxiation.

 

[lawstudent]

The head injury was incredibly severe, no denying that. But that does not equal appearing dead in terms of breathing and other signs. She would have been unresponsive, but to stay alive for a period of time, she was breathing. A head injury doesn't necessarily result in extremely shallow or imperceptible breathing. It's not like a drug overdose where your brain activity keeps shutting down until your breathing stops. A head injury usually results in certain parts of the brain being destroyed, like cognitive function, but your ability to breathe and regulate your heart can stay intact until brain death or significant blood loss.

ETA: One thing I learned recently, which makes sense but had just never occurred to me, is that for practicality reasons, they only take swabs from a few particular areas. Under fingernails, genital area, areas where it looks like the person was grabbed/strangled, blood located in areas that indicate it may be the killer's if there was a knife involved. They do not search the whole body because it's just too much. They look for where they think they have the best chance at incriminating evidence, and test. That has a lot of different implications for both sides, but it needs to be kept in mind.

 

[noneareworthy]

Let's say the head injury caused convulsions...death rattle...they could see it would result in death or severe brain damage. They just want to make it stop. You'd think they would smother--not garrote. Since she was nonresponsive it would be easy.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

There was no "they" and there was no garrote.
There was only Patsy and posing.
There was an initial strangulation which caused the bruising below the ligature.
The ligature was repositioned (if it was used for the initial strangulation) to pose the body/torso along with the wrist ligatures which were used to pose the arms upraised.
The head blow was just before or just after the raising of the arms as a symbolic sending off to the next world.
The pigtails appear to have been fashioned in preparation for the head blow.

All of this is my (learned) opinion of course.

 

[lawstudent]

The head blow was just before or just after the raising of the arms as a symbolic sending off to the next world.

This is just so crazily speculative, though.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

The head injury was incredibly severe, no denying that. But that does not equal appearing dead in terms of breathing and other signs. She would have been unresponsive, but to stay alive for a period of time, she was breathing. A head injury doesn't necessarily result in extremely shallow or imperceptible breathing. It's not like a drug overdose where your brain activity keeps shutting down until your breathing stops. A head injury usually results in certain parts of the brain being destroyed, like cognitive function, but your ability to breathe and regulate your heart can stay intact until brain death or significant blood loss.

ETA: One thing I learned recently, which makes sense but had just never occurred to me, is that for practicality reasons, they only take swabs from a few particular areas. Under fingernails, genital area, areas where it looks like the person was grabbed/strangled, blood located in areas that indicate it may be the killer's if there was a knife involved. They do not search the whole body because it's just too much. They look for where they think they have the best chance at incriminating evidence, and test. That has a lot of different implications for both sides, but it needs to be kept in mind.

Holy cow! Isn't this exactly what I've been saying for the last 15+ years! Yes, yes, it is. Nice to see someone finally catching on.
...

AK