Poll: was Patsy involved?

[k-mac]

Really guys? Come on now.

there you go

 

[sedndun]

I do not see her strangling JB, either. I am 100% convinced that that was JR. Strangulation is ugly. It takes time and force and I do not see Patsy as being able to hold the cord tight for even the 2-3 minutes that it might take. A split second blow to the head, or a yank on JB's clothing that caused her to spin and hit her head against something, yes. A calculated strangulation, no. I think JR did the dirty work in the basement while Patsy cleaned the bedroom and wrote the note.

By many accounts, John was severely affected by the death of his first daughter Beth. I'm not sure that of the two parents he's the one more likely to have done the ligature.

As for strength, I don't believe that was really an issue. This wasn't applied while fighting off a victim. There's debate on the marks around the cord that some think are from her fingernails, but even if that were true, she was a concussed six year old. The stick was used to tighten and hold the cord around the neck by twisting it which is why the hair is caught up in it. I don't believe there was any need for constant pressure from the one applying the cord. Remember, the cord stayed on tight long after.

 

[BBB167893]

I do not personally put much stock in the 'PR had never abused her children before, so she couldn't have done it that night' argument. Susan Smith had not previously abused he boys before drowning them. Diane Downs had not abused her children before shooting them. Darlie Routier had not abused her boys before stabbing them to death. Even Casey Anthony had not been known to abuse Caylee before the child's death. You never know what is happening behind closed doors, not in any family.

Very well said. It's a weak argument, to be polite.

 

[Intheamadhouse]

By many accounts, John was severely affected by the death of his first daughter Beth. I'm not sure that of the two parents he's the one more likely to have done the ligature.

As for strength, I don't believe that was really an issue. This wasn't applied while fighting off a victim. There's debate on the marks around the cord that some think are from her fingernails, but even if that were true, she was a concussed six year old. The stick was used to tighten and hold the cord around the neck by twisting it which is why the hair is caught up in it. I don't believe there was any need for constant pressure from the one applying the cord. Remember, the cord stayed on tight long after.

Sorry, by strength I meant the mental/emotional strength to carry it out, not the physical. I agree that any of the three of them would have had the physical strength required. While I think JR was very affected by the death of his other daughter, I also think that by the time the strangulation of JB occurred, he considered her as good as dead already, and possibly even thought of it as a mercy killing.
Patsy was rather a Southern Belle, and she always struck me as the type to let her man fly to her rescue and do the down and dirty work while she took on the comparably 'clean' work of writing the note and disposing of any evidence in the bedroom/bathroom. While I think she may have provided some of the supplies for the downstairs cover up (given JR the paintbrush and grabbed the oversized panties to replaces soiled ones), I do not think she was present for the actual deed.

 

[EtherealMoonRose]

For me, the thought that PR might have lost it over JBR having wet the bed lost any traction it might have ever had once I saw the photos of the clothes JB was wearing when she died.

JB obviously had a full bladder when she was murdered.

In total agreeance with this.

I was PDI for ages until things just didn't (and still) don't add up.

Someone on here actually said that JB didn't wet the bed that night. Wish I could find that post.

 

[icedtea4me]

BBM - My point is that only two of the four true bills were made public. Common sense says that the other two likely involved Burke, likely for sexual assault and homicide. If that were true, then the charges against the parents would be based on the fact that they helped Burke evade justice. My legal stance to that would be "prove that Burke did it", because without that you cannot prove that the parents assisted him. The whole situation is further complicated by the fact that Burke cannot be named. You are correct in that there is precedence for someone being prosecuted as an accessory after the fact, however in this case I don't think it would work.

Where is it indicated on two of these four forms that they were true bills?

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/li...025_092257_John & Patsy Ramsey indictment.pdf

 

[EtherealMoonRose]

Very well said. It's a weak argument, to be polite.

In all those cases all children were harmed/killed. Why was Burke never abused? Serious question...

 

[icedtea4me]

Sorry, by strength I meant the mental/emotional strength to carry it out, not the physical. I agree that any of the three of them would have had the physical strength required. While I think JR was very affected by the death of his other daughter, I also think that by the time the strangulation of JB occurred, he considered her as good as dead already, and possibly even thought of it as a mercy killing.
Patsy was rather a Southern Belle, and she always struck me as the type to let her man fly to her rescue and do the down and dirty work while she took on the comparably 'clean' work of writing the note and disposing of any evidence in the bedroom/bathroom. While I think she may have provided some of the supplies for the downstairs cover up (given JR the paintbrush and grabbed the oversized panties to replaces soiled ones), I do not think she was present for the actual deed.

I seem to remember Patsy having written in DoI that she, when looking at a religious medal(?) of Mary, (paraphrased) "had an immediate empathy with Mary because she watched them kill her child".

 

[BoldBear]

In total agreeance with this.

I was PDI for ages until things just didn't (and still) don't add up.

Someone on here actually said that JB didn't wet the bed that night. Wish I could find that post.

"Detective Lou Smit said while fibers from JonBenét’s night clothing had been found on her bed sheets— indicating that those particular sheets hadn’t been changed during the night— no urine was found on them. Other sheets were found in the dryer next to JonBenét’s room, and the Ramseys’ housekeeper said she 'believed she last changed JonBenét’s sheets that Monday before Christmas.'"

Woodward, Paula. We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Locations 1819-1822). Easton Studio Press, LLC. Kindle Edition.

 

[EtherealMoonRose]

Thanks BoldBear.

 

[Userid]

its all well and good to believe what ever you want.
but don't belittle PDIs because your a staunch BDI.
There are some very intelligent well read people on the JBR case forum who do think PATSY did it including some very well respected police officers who were there.
put your BDI forward how you wish but don't insult the intelligence of others who have their own reasons for coming to their RDI .
its becoming very suffocating around here lately.
just would like to see a but of respect to posters we are all on jon benet side.

there is plenty of evidence of patsy involvement. more so than anybody else for the record.
jmo

Completely agree. There is zero evidence connecting BR, but there is both fiber and hair (beaver) evidence connecting PR; that is actual, physical evidence, found that day. If I remember correctly, there is also fiber evidence that connects JR also. How would parents leave such evidence, but a nine year old boy, who supposedly did this in all but the heat of the moment, doesn't?

 

[Userid]

"Detective Lou Smit said while fibers from JonBenét’s night clothing had been found on her bed sheets— indicating that those particular sheets hadn’t been changed during the night— no urine was found on them. Other sheets were found in the dryer next to JonBenét’s room, and the Ramseys’ housekeeper said she 'believed she last changed JonBenét’s sheets that Monday before Christmas.'"

Woodward, Paula. We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Locations 1819-1822). Easton Studio Press, LLC. Kindle Edition.

In other words, it's inconclusive either way (whether she wet the bed that night or not)? The sheets could have been in the ones in the dryer. We know that someone, that night, was in that very area -- because of the halfway-pulled box of diapers hanging out of the shelf in the laundry area. We also know that, someone, that night, was packing -- because JAR's room was a pig sty of clothes on top of his bed and a suitcase. We also know that, that night, PR didn't change her clothes and that her side of the bed looked all but untouched.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Completely agree. There is zero evidence connecting BR, but there is both fiber and hair (beaver) evidence connecting PR; that is actual, physical evidence, found that day. If I remember correctly, there is also fiber evidence that connects JR also. How would parents leave such evidence, but a nine year old boy, who supposedly did this in all but the heat of the moment, doesn't?

BBM: Because the staging aspect of the crime did not only serve the purpose of pointing towards an intruder. It was also used to conceal the involvement of the actual perpetrator, for example, wiping JBR down.

 

[Intheamadhouse]

In all those cases all children were harmed/killed. Why was Burke never abused? Serious question...

Luck of the draw. I don't mean to sound flippant here, but that's all it was. Darlie Routier did have a 3rd son, but he was upstairs asleep in his own room. If he had been downstairs with the others, he may have died as well. If Susan Smith had only had one child in the car that night, she would have drowned that boy only.

I don't think any of those women truly planned out the murders, as in 'On *advertiser censored* date I will kill my child/children'. I do think that it was on their minds, at least in the case of Darlie and Susan, but they just snapped up an opportunity that presented itself. I can not even begin to fathom what was going through the mind of Casey Anthony.

I also don't think that there was any intent for JB to die that night, nor that she had been physically abused in the past. The head injury took seconds to happen, and without intent for it to be as bad as it was. It's why I go back and forth on whether or not Patsy or Burke caused it.

And, again, we do not know whether or not Burke was ever abused. If Patsy did cause the fatal injury to her daughter, the horror of that act could well have caused her to never raise a hand to Burke again. Look what had happened in the split second she lost it. Or possibly she did abuse him, though not to the point of death/serious injury. Strange things happen behind closed doors.

 

[Userid]

BBM: Because the staging aspect of the crime did not only serve the purpose of pointing towards an intruder. It was also used to conceal the involvement of the actual perpetrator, for example, wiping JBR down.

Right, but that's irrelevant. My point was, the parents went out of their way to cover up for their son, yet they forgot to cover up for themselves by leaving beaver hair and fiber evidence on the body. They did such a terrible job covering up their own evidence, yet somehow, they were miraculously able to cover for every piece of evidence (microscopic, such as hair/fiber, or otherwise) a 9 year old would leave who committed this murder in the heat of the moment. That alone makes no sense to me.

If BR committed this crime, he would have left evidence; evidence that even JR/PR wouldn't have been able to catch, as evidenced by the evidence they themselves left.

 

[OliviaG1996]

Right, but that's irrelevant. My point was, the parents went out of their way to cover up for their son, yet they forgot to cover up for themselves by leaving beaver hair and fiber evidence on the body. They did such a terrible job covering up their own evidence, yet somehow, they were miraculously able to cover for every piece of evidence (microscopic, such as hair/fiber, or otherwise) a 9 year old would leave who committed this murder in the heat of the moment. That alone makes no sense to me.

If BR committed this crime, he would have left evidence; evidence that even JR/PR wouldn't have been able to catch, as evidenced by the evidence they themselves left.

I disagree that the wiping of JBR is irrelevant to the discussion. As you say, if, "the parents went out of their way," to protect their son, what makes you think PR especially was worrying about her own fibers, beaver-haired boots, or handwriting? IMO, she would've been trying to erase any trace of her son being linked in any way to the murder, even if it meant getting herself blamed for it.

We don't know that no DNA from BR was found anywhere on his sister's body. They lived in the same house as did their parents, so it's likely it wouldn't have been reported. That BR "would have left evidence" is not a fact, again because JBR was cleaned by someone.

 

[BoldBear]

I believe the purpose for wiping her down was to remove any possible blood. I believe the original intent was to remove her body from the home. If seen by someone on the street, blood would have been a danger sign. They could have believed that she was asleep, but all of those details needed to be taken care of before removing her from the home. Her removal from the home was obviously scrapped.

 

[kanzz]

Question: What little forensic evidence we have is from the staging and not the actual murder, right? If the flashlight is the murder weapon, it revealed no identifiable fingerprints. If the paintbrush was used to sexually assault JB, there was no evidence revealed from it to our knowledge. The ligature cord produced nothing. Right? And we don't know for a fact if the paintbrush was used in the course of the strangulation or if it is part of the staging. Am I missing something? If so, forgive me, I've had a really bad week.

 

[andreww]

I believe the purpose for wiping her down was to remove any possible blood. I believe the original intent was to remove her body from the home. If seen by someone on the street, blood would have been a danger sign. They could have believed that she was asleep, but all of those details needed to be taken care of before removing her from the home. Her removal from the home was obviously scrapped.

I think that the wiping was done to remove any trace of a sexual assault, specifically Burke's DNA. I think it is possible that the paintbrush was used, possibly whilst playing doctor, and this might have been what precipitated the head bash. Just a theory though, based on the cellulose material and the missing end of the paintbrush. They obviously wiped blood from her, makes sense that they would remove the bloodied end of the paintbrush as well.

 

[Userid]

I disagree that the wiping of JBR is irrelevant to the discussion. As you say, if, "the parents went out of their way," to protect their son, what makes you think PR especially was worrying about her own fibers, beaver-haired boots, or handwriting? IMO, she would've been trying to erase any trace of her son being linked in any way to the murder, even if it meant getting herself blamed for it.

We don't know that no DNA from BR was found anywhere on his sister's body. They lived in the same house as did their parents, so it's likely it wouldn't have been reported. That BR "would have left evidence" is not a fact, again because JBR was cleaned by someone.

No, I'm not saying the wiping is irrelevant. I was saying that your point that the cover-up was both to conceal what exactly occurred and to conceal who exactly performed it was irrelevant to my point that a 9 year old kid would have left evidence either way; evidence that his parents wouldn't have caught. That's the point. Whether the cover-up was enacted to conceal the act, the perpetrator, or both, is irrelevant to that point (that a nine year old would leave evidence that his parents wouldn't catch, considering they themselves left evidence).

BR, being 9 years old, would have to have been a murderous mastermind to have not left a shred of his own evidence -- be it hair, fingerprints, DNA, fiber, etc -- while committing this crime. There's not only zero evidence that he was such a mastermind; there's zero physical evidence he was involved in this crime at all, be it the actual assault/murder or the cover-up -- that's simply fact. Now, you can believe that the R's got every single shred of microscopic evidence of BR's off the victim, while leaving copious amounts of their own microscopic evidence from their clothes -- that's your prerogative, but certainly not mine. Also, you'd also have to believe that PR is truthful when she says she went to bed that night, and re-dressed herself in the clothes she wore the night before when she awoke the next morning -- because if she was up the entire night, BR would not have been able to commit this crime.

It almost sounds like you're saying that the R's left evidence from themselves on purpose. Is that what you're saying?