Poll: was Patsy involved?

[Userid]

I think it's far fetched to think an intruder would break in to a house, abduct a child from her bed, rape, strangle and bludgeon her before ten o'clock. And this isn't even taking in to account that she still had to cleanse Burke from the crime scene and then lie in bed all night waiting to discover her.

Patsy had all night to think about what she was going to do, and the more she thought, the more her over the top drama came out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everything is this case is farfetched, if you honestly think about it. I mean, we're discussing if a nine year old child was capable of all this without leaving any evidence behind. We're discussing if parents would immediately begin covering up the death of one of their children without at least tending the body first to see if she was indeed actually deceased. As a matter of fact, an intruder breaking in and doing this in an hour -- or waiting in the house, until everyone went to sleep and committing the act in an hour -- is the least far-fetched thing about it, ironically. All she would have had to say was, "we got home at nine; we were all in bed by 9:15."

If she had all night, I doubt she wouldn't have changed clothes, particularly after doing all of this staging. Time was of the essence. If she had all night, why call the cops at 6 AM. Why not give yourself some more time and call at 8 AM, and take a shower? Then again, I suppose you could ask why they didn't do this regardless (if the murder occurred in the morning or the night before). Would it have been any less convincing if the call was made at 8 AM either way? The only reason would be because they had to meet their other grown children.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

They had a seven am flight out of Boulder, and were to meet up with JAR , Melinda and her fiancee in Milwaukee and then fly to Charlevoix for a second Christmas. IIRC it was a thirty minute drive to the airport. Pasty didn't want to make the trip.

 

[Userid]

^ In that case, they waited as long as as they could to call the cops; just an hour before. To me, that shows they were stretched for time.

 

[kanzz]

kanzz,

No. Read more on this subject in my reply to Miz Adventure. here:


From it , quite possibly yes, i.e. birefringent material, and of course PR's fibers.

The real question is was JonBenet both digitally and instrumentally assaulted?

If it was all staging why remove the missing piece or wipe JonBenet down?

Also on the night of the autopsy Coroner Meyer returned to the morgue with Dr Andrew Sirotnak, Professor of Pediatrics. They both physically reexamined JonBenet's genitals and confirmed Meyer's earlier finding of vaginal injury.

So two people who examined JonBenet thought she had been sexually assaulted.

Basically a good argument can be made for both instrumental and digital sexual assault.

The rest being staging.

.

Thanks, UKGuy.

I so didn't make myself very clear in my original post. Apologies. (Did I say I'd had a bit of a bad time earlier this week?) I'll try to clarify. When I said, "forensic evidence", I really should have said, "evidence that links this to anyone in particular".

And my question about the ligature cord - I'm just wondering about the cord alone. When you say, "embedded into the knotting on the ligature and paintbrush", does that apply just to the knot around the paintbrush and not to the knot that was around the noose end of the ligature.. or do we know for sure? - Because I think that's pertinent, if you follow me. What I'm saying is, I still don't think we know whether or not the paintbrush was actually used to pull the cord in the act of the murder or if it was applied later as a part of the staging. Get me?

I think I'll always wonder about what role the paintbrush played in all of this. If it was used in the sexual assault. If it was used to pull the ligature or not. When it was broken - that night or before. If it was broken that night, where's that other piece? And then there's that question of digital &/or mechanical penetration. Could be either.. could be both.
:sigh:

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks, UKGuy.

I so didn't make myself very clear in my original post. Apologies. (Did I say I'd had a bit of a bad time earlier this week?) I'll try to clarify. When I said, "forensic evidence", I really should have said, "evidence that links this to anyone in particular".

And my question about the ligature cord - I'm just wondering about the cord alone. When you say, "embedded into the knotting on the ligature and paintbrush", does that apply just to the knot around the paintbrush and not to the knot that was around the noose end of the ligature.. or do we know for sure? - Because I think that's pertinent, if you follow me. What I'm saying is, I still don't think we know whether or not the paintbrush was actually used to pull the cord in the act of the murder or if it was applied later as a part of the staging. Get me?

I think I'll always wonder about what role the paintbrush played in all of this. If it was used in the sexual assault. If it was used to pull the ligature or not. When it was broken - that night or before. If it was broken that night, where's that other piece? And then there's that question of digital &/or mechanical penetration. Could be either.. could be both.
:sigh:

kanzz,

does that apply just to the knot around the paintbrush and not to the knot that was around the noose end of the ligature.. or do we know for sure?

We do not know for certain. An absence of red jacket fibers in the noose knots would not demonstrate anything, since they are present in the knotting around the paintbrush.

If the case is BDI All, as per Kolar, then we do not need a fancy device to asphyxiate JonBenet, hands, pillow, or ligature will do fine.

We can assume BR ligature asphyxiated JonBenet noose, or no noose?

Along comes Patsy and breaks the paintbrush, possibly removing one end, as it is blood stained, she ties a noose at one end and knots the other end to the broken paintbrush, then places it around JonBenet's neck, then tightens to simulate an asphyxiation?

This is the staging part along with the cleanup and removal of any incriminating evidence e.g. blood stained end of the paintbrush, barbie nightgown, etc?

It looks like JonBenet was sexually assaulted by someone's finger, i.e. Digital Penetration, q.v. Coroner Meyer, and also by using the whole, complete paintbrush?

This is why I reckon Coroner Meyer requested a second opinion from Dr Andrew Sirotnak, who confirmed there was vaginal intrusion and injury, and that some of her internal injuries were not caused by a finger?

Here is how I interpret the evidence, assuming Kolar's BDI All, BR both digitally and instrumentally sexually assaulted JonBenet, this resulted in JonBenet bleeding.

The parents wish to hide all this so remove blood stains from JonBenet's groin, fashion a ligature and paintbrush device which they attach to JonBenet's neck, they remove the blood stained size-6 underwear and the blood stained end of the paintbrush, then write a RN, then they dial 911?

Another scenario consistent with the above is BR only manually ligature asphyxiates JonBenet. The parents do the rest including instrumental internal assault, to stage an intruder crime-scene?

If the object of the parents, or even BR himself were to fake a sexual assault using the paintbrush, why remove the blood stained end, why wipe JonBenet down, why bother redressing her in size-12's?


ETA: Rather than focusing upon fibers it might be better to consider is BR's touch dna on the ligature, or is PR's or both?

Another perspective is that the use of the paintbrush in the ligature is the rationale behind removing the blood stained broken piece, i.e. everyone concentrates on the garrote and forgets about the missing blood stained piece?




.

 

[AndHence]

The only forensic evidence we ever hear about regarding Burke are his fingerprints on the Barbie nightgown and the bowl of pineapple/glass of iced tea. You would think if he had used the ligature his fibers/prints would be all over it. Were his clothes from that night ever taken by police? I know it took John and Patsy a year to turn in their clothes from that night, so it's doubtful police looked at Burke's clothes.

 

[1mtroyal]

I think the 118,000 in the Ramsey eeeeee Ramson note does refer to Psalm 118 (put bindings around the neck of your sacrifice to heaven). Did anyone notice that at the funeral, Patsy suddenly went down the aisle with her hands in the air as if sending JonBenet on her way to heaven? I think Patsy killed JonBenet, but was probably in a trance of some sort. Patsy could not remember giving JonBenet the pineapple, could not remember giving JonBenet the larger underwear and days after the incident, could not remember what she had done the day before.

 

[kanzz]

The only forensic evidence we ever hear about regarding Burke are his fingerprints on the Barbie nightgown and the bowl of pineapple/glass of iced tea. You would think if he had used the ligature his fibers/prints would be all over it. Were his clothes from that night ever taken by police? I know it took John and Patsy a year to turn in their clothes from that night, so it's doubtful police looked at Burke's clothes.

Burke was taken out of the house at approx 0700. Nobody knows what he was wearing that night, if anything at that point. Maybe something made of brown cotton? Who knows?
As Kolar says, not all evidence has been revealed to the public.

 

[AndHence]

Burke was taken out of the house at approx 0700. Nobody knows what he was wearing that night, if anything at that point. Maybe something made of brown cotton? Who knows?
As Kolar says, not all evidence has been revealed to the public.

Exactly. This is why BDI will always remain an incomplete theory -- we have a lack of forensic and medical history evidence to go on. Maybe Burke's medical history reveals behavioral issues. Maybe Burke's DNA/fingerprints were found on JonBenet's clothes that night. If LE was protecting Burke due to his age, why did we even hear about the Barbie nightgown or the prints on the bowl/glass?

 

[kanzz]

Exactly. This is why BDI will always remain an incomplete theory -- we have a lack of forensic and medical history evidence to go on. Maybe Burke's medical history reveals behavioral issues. Maybe Burke's DNA/fingerprints were found on JonBenet's clothes that night. If LE was protecting Burke due to his age, why did we even hear about the Barbie nightgown or the prints on the bowl/glass?

BBM
to the bolded: Just speculating - but maybe because these were not directly related to the murder?

And imo, any RDI theory will always remain incomplete.

 

[sedndun]

"Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, please raise my baby!"

This line from Patsy, shouted to the heavens was dramatic, but was it the first time she said it that day?

Many wonder why Patsy wouldn't call 911. I think her first instinct may have been to do so, but there had to be something that would at least give her pause. There had to be dire ramifications in doing the right and logical thing and so things were being weighed pro and con before committing to a choice. But maybe it wasn't Patsy's choice to make (nor John, nor Burke.) Patsy had someone better than any doctor, better than any authority. Patsy was saved by the cross (though in her battle with cancer she had the best medical care and was put into an experimental treatment as well.) I don't know to what level she truly believed that divine intervention saved her life, but that has to effect one's outlook on reality. If her reality involved holy powers as active participants in life, than that also meant there were others out there as well. Evil had come into her home that night- and from her perspective- the devil himself may have been the true intruder. (I'll go more into that aspect another time.)

With fears and doubts Patsy likely resorted to prayer- looking beyond herself for guidance. What might she have heard in her head and heart? What biblical choices needed to be made that night? Would this be seen as her own actions, or would she just be give herself over to a higher authority?

When all was done, and poor JonBenet lay lifeless and soiled in that basement, looking like a victim of an intrusion gone awry, what then? The body was not taken away. Nor was it hidden... but it was moved.

The so-called wine cellar was at best, a bit more out of sight. Many have said that if an intruder was truly trying to make a statement, the body would have been left under the Christmas tree (where oddly, Linda Arndt ended up placing her.) For a hiding spot, there were many more places in that big house where a small body could have been placed if the goal was to have her remain unseen. But in that cellar room, she was laid out right in the middle of the floor- what should have been an obvious find during any decent search.

Was this a body in hiding, or a body in wait? "Wrapped like a papoose," as John put it. A burial shroud may have been more the intent.

I think if it was Patsy who did the staging, then many of those hours were spent in tearful prayer. "Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, please raise my baby."

But neither Jesus nor Lazarus were raised in open view. No, their bodies were placed in cold, earthen, windowless spaces that were sealed from the outside. Tombs. As it happened, the Ramsey home had something quite similar.

"Jesus, you raised Lazarus from the dead, please raise my baby." One last prayer from a true believer. Would she really believe such a thing possible? Pulled from the clutches of certain death by cancer, she may have at least thought it worth a shot. She may have been out of her literal mind from what had happened that night. There was a plan A- the staging and the ransom note, but perhaps this was a plan B in the back of her mind. Ever watchful as the day went on and others descended down below. How her heart might have leapt when Fleet rushed up shouting for an ambulance. Had she been blessed with a second miracle?

An out-there theory to be sure, but the more I read of Patsy's religious experiences the more I feel they probably played a significant role in the decisions she made that night/day.

 

[AndHence]

Patsy's language in the immediate aftermath of the crime has always struck me as odd. On the 911 call she says, "I'm the mother." This is something you'd say to a funeral director or hospital after your child had died. It's also in the passive voice. One would normally say, "I'm HER mother," but Patsy does not. This is consistent with the rest of the 911 call (and ransom note) in that it never mentions JonBenet. Patsy also says, "There's a note left and our daughter is gone." While a technically correct statement, it is not a natural one. If you were making an emergency call you'd be more apt to say, "There's a note left and MY daughter is gone," but Patsy continues to use distancing language here.

What I found to be the most bizarre statement made by Patsy is from the January 1st interview with CNN, just five days after JonBenet's death. When asked if they take comfort in knowing JonBenet is in a better place Patsy, following John's answer, says, "She'll never have to know the loss of a child . She will never have to know cancer or death of a child." This is a peculiar statement that suggests an almost rationalization for her death. Her death is OK because she won't have to know the sufferings of adult life -- in particular the burdens Patsy had to face (cancer, child death). While one might see this as a Christian parent taking consolation in the fact that her child is now in a place where there is no suffering, this kind of reflection just five days after her death is odd. Why isn't Patsy thinking about the life (joy as well as suffering) that JonBenet would have had? There is a resignation here by both parents (John with his statement about forgiveness) that is extremely unsettling given the short passage of time. Both Patsy and John seemed detached from the investigation from the very start, uninterested in its resolution (beyond clearing their names), and content to maintain that their daughter's death was an insoluble mystery.

 

[Userid]

^ Also, why say the word "gone"? Why not say "missing"?

I completely agree with your last 3 or so posts by the way. BR's fibers/prints would be all over the ligature; but I also think a nine-year-old would have left a treasure trove of evidence all around the house that wouldn't have been caught by his "protectors," and that would have been caught by police.

 

[UKGuy]

^ Also, why say the word "gone"? Why not say "missing"?

I completely agree with your last 3 or so posts by the way. BR's fibers/prints would be all over the ligature; but I also think a nine-year-old would have left a treasure trove of evidence all around the house that wouldn't have been caught by his "protectors," and that would have been caught by police.

Userid,

Ever considered why you do not know the answer to this one? Ever thought now is there any of BR's touch-dna on JoBenet's body, any on those size-12's?

They did the testing but they never told you, wonder why?

.

 

[EtherealMoonRose]

Userid,

Ever considered why you do not know the answer to this one? Ever thought now is there any of BR's touch-dna on JoBenet's body, any on those size-12's?

They did the testing but they never told you, wonder why?

.

Touche.

 

[BoldBear]

Patsy's language in the immediate aftermath of the crime has always struck me as odd. On the 911 call she says, "I'm the mother." This is something you'd say to a funeral director or hospital after your child had died. It's also in the passive voice. One would normally say, "I'm HER mother," but Patsy does not. This is consistent with the rest of the 911 call (and ransom note) in that it never mentions JonBenet. Patsy also says, "There's a note left and our daughter is gone." While a technically correct statement, it is not a natural one. If you were making an emergency call you'd be more apt to say, "There's a note left and MY daughter is gone," but Patsy continues to use distancing language here.

What I found to be the most bizarre statement made by Patsy is from the January 1st interview with CNN, just five days after JonBenet's death. When asked if they take comfort in knowing JonBenet is in a better place Patsy, following John's answer, says, "She'll never have to know the loss of a child . She will never have to know cancer or death of a child." This is a peculiar statement that suggests an almost rationalization for her death. Her death is OK because she won't have to know the sufferings of adult life -- in particular the burdens Patsy had to face (cancer, child death). While one might see this as a Christian parent taking consolation in the fact that her child is now in a place where there is no suffering, this kind of reflection just five days after her death is odd. Why isn't Patsy thinking about the life (joy as well as suffering) that JonBenet would have had? There is a resignation here by both parents (John with his statement about forgiveness) that is extremely unsettling given the short passage of time. Both Patsy and John seemed detached from the investigation from the very start, uninterested in its resolution (beyond clearing their names), and content to maintain that their daughter's death was an insoluble mystery.

I always hear those things that Patsy said as something someone was telling her. You know, when you're sitting across from someone who just lost a child and you try to come up with any little glimmer of hope, anything to latch onto that can help the person who is suffering. "She'll never know the pain of...." Where do you go when you're powerless to help someone who's hurting so bad? What do you grasp onto? You say that she'll always be young, full of energy and happy. She'll never have to suffer through the pain of her first broken heart. She'll make it to heaven because children are innocent and will not be turned away. She'll be with you, full of love and watching over you for the rest of your days. And you'll meet up in heaven. There will be joy in her heart and all the sadness and pain will be gone.

I'll never respect Patsy referring to her daughter as 'that child'. The phrase shows distance it's also has connotations of contempt. That's not good for someone suspected of killing her daughter.

Of course, these are my opinions.

 

[Cranberry]

like in Steel Magnolias - another movie reference

 

[ameliak]

Userid,

Ever considered why you do not know the answer to this one? Ever thought now is there any of BR's touch-dna on JoBenet's body, any on those size-12's?

They did the testing but they never told you, wonder why?

.

Hi! Been a long time lurker and love to read everyone's opinions, but haven't really posted much. In the book "Listen Carefully" there is a copy of the actual Bode Technology laboratory report. Sorry if this has been mentioned anywhere before. Of sample # 2S07-101-05B (exterior top left of long johns), it says that "The profiles associated with Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey cannot be included or excluded from the mixture DNA profile obtained from 2S07-101-05B." JR, MR and JAR were excluded. It is also mentioned that they had the ligatures from neck and wrist, the broken paintbrush and the Wednesday panties, but that they "were not processed at this time".Why on earth not??? Was someone scared of what they might reveal???

 

[Userid]

Userid,

Ever considered why you do not know the answer to this one? Ever thought now is there any of BR's touch-dna on JoBenet's body, any on those size-12's?

They did the testing but they never told you, wonder why?

.

You're doing nothing here but inventing evidence out of thin air. You have absolutely zero proof. Have you ever pondered that?

We know the answer: there was none.

I know why they did the testing and never told me: because in every single police investigation, they keep certain things from the public in order to not compromise the investigation, period. You're trying to insert BR in there, but again, it's by your own doing and nothing else.

 

[icedtea4me]

^ Also, why say the word "gone"? Why not say "missing"?*snip*

Why say the word "gone"? Because she was gone, as in dead.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/dead?s=t