Poll: was Patsy involved?

[icedtea4me]

Pinkland,
You completely fail to substantiate your case.


Sexual assault with maladaptive behavior.


This is the case. Not just for BR, but for JR and PR, e.g. no mention of touch dna, or fibers on JonBenet, other than JR's shirt.

if the case is BDI, then Colorado statutes kick in.


Redundant assumption, i.e. it's the same in all RDI theories.


The same reason people in other homicide cases cover crimes up.


No you do not. Help can come to the murderer. We are discussing a millionaire family.


This is the preferred location for the staging, it likely began elsewhere in the house.

BR's touch dna on the barbie nightgown, his penknife, his footprint, his long johns, his fingerprints on the pineapple bowl and tea glass in the breakfast bar all link him to JonBenet's death.


This excludes the possibility BR's touch dna is on the ligature, or on JonBenet's body or the size-12's.

BPD have done the analysis but they have never made the results public except for the mythical Intruder's dna.

.

BBM- Burke has Hi-Tec on the bottom of his foot?

Oh, by the way, provided that it was from his boot, I guess you don't realize that the poon print could have been made without him wearing it.

 

[TeaTime]

The GJ did not need to prove First Degree Murder, or anything else for that matter.

The wording of the indictments points to an unknown third person.

Unknown to us, but not to the Rs. The indictment was clear that they assisted the murderer whom they knew to be the murderer.

 

[UKGuy]

Again...your making flat assumptions on what the Ramsey family would do.

You have no evidence of Burke sexually assaulting anyone. It could have easily been John or Patsy.

Most of the evidence you bring up has Patsy directly tied to them as well. Pineapple bowl, barbie outfit, underwear that was bought and wrapped by Patsy, a knife that only Patsy knew the location of.

What you fail to have is anything physically tying Burke to the body of JBR. No fibers on the garrote, tape, or ligature; and yet Patsy is tied to the body.

Where I come from, you go on what evidence you have. If it is not provided or released; you cannot make assumptions that any such evidence exists. Just like in court, if such evidence isn't presented it is not considered.

All that grand jury finding reveals is that they did not find proof of an intruder.

Furthermore, it would be extremely hard for a 9 year old to physically move an unconscious body to redress it; let alone redressing it without leaving physical evidence behind. That is a hard task to accomplish even for an adult. Yet, I have yet to hear this brought up at all.

When I look at what we do know, PDI is the only scenario that easily checks off evidence that we have access to without having to go on basically pure speculation for 90% of the theory IMO.



Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

Pinkland,

All that grand jury finding reveals is that they did not find proof of an intruder.

BBM: So who does that leave?

Furthermore, it would be extremely hard for a 9 year old to physically move an unconscious body to redress it; let alone redressing it without leaving physical evidence behind. That is a hard task to accomplish even for an adult. Yet, I have yet to hear this brought up at all.

How about a 9 year old dragging a body, have you ever seen children pulling other children about by the arms. Maybe there is physical evidence which has not been made public, we do not know about?

When I look at what we do know, PDI is the only scenario that easily checks off evidence that we have access to without having to go on basically pure speculation for 90% of the theory IMO.

Good luck with that, when even the GJ indicate the case is BDI !

Absence of evidence does not mean there is evidence of absence.

This is an old fallacy normally trotted out by politicos when they wish to deny what is in their face.

.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM- Burke has Hi-Tec on the bottom of his foot?

Oh, by the way, provided that it was from his boot, I guess you don't realize that the poon print could have been made without him wearing it.

icedtea4me,
Yes, I know BR has a poon on the underside of his foot, LOL. It was shorthand for the hi-tec boot print, like a politico, I misspoke,

I am aware and suggest elsewhere the case might really be PDI with PR deliberately redressing JonBenet in BR's long johns and the niece's size-12's, and of course making the boot print?

That's a long shot given that the GJ reckon it was the person who did it?

.

 

[Pinkland]

Pinkland,

BBM: So who does that leave?


How about a 9 year old dragging a body, have you ever seen children pulling other children about by the arms. Maybe there is physical evidence which has not been made public, we do not know about?


Good luck with that, when even the GJ indicate the case is BDI !

Absence of evidence does not mean there is evidence of absence.

This is an old fallacy normally trotted out by politicos when they wish to deny what is in their face.

.

The grand jury did not put forth a BDI arguement. You do realize that John and Patsy would have been tried and charged separately?

That simply means John knew who murdered JBR. It could have been Patsy, Burke, or an invited guest.

The same follows for Patsy.

The grand jury ruled the way it did most likely so they could put the parents on trial. Nothing more, nothing less. They believed them to be involved with the crime.

Again your reading more into something, and reaching.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

The grand jury did not put forth a BDI arguement. You do realize that John and Patsy would have been tried and charged separately?

That simply means John knew who murdered JBR. It could have been Patsy, Burke, or an invited guest.

The same follows for Patsy.

The grand jury ruled the way it did most likely so they could put the parents on trial. Nothing more, nothing less. They believed them to be involved with the crime.

Again your reading more into something, and reaching.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

Pinkland,
So why has JR or PR never been charged? Why bother with excluding both parents from Murder 1 charges if you know one of them is responsible?

The GJ stated in black and white that a person other than the parents, sexually assaulted and killed JonBenet.

There is nothing in Colorado law to prevent either parent or both from being cited in the True Bill for homicide. see, CBS Special.

What I'm reading into it, is just what the GJ published no more, no less.

According to them the case is BDI !

.

 

[icedtea4me]

Pinkland,
So why has JR or PR never been charged? Why bother with excluding both parents from Murder 1 charges if you know one of them is responsible?

The GJ stated in black and white that a person other than the parents, sexually assaulted and killed JonBenet.

There is nothing in Colorado law to prevent either parent or both from being cited in the True Bill for homicide. see, CBS Special.

What I'm reading into it, is just what the GJ published no more, no less.

According to them the case is BDI !

.

What do you think is on count I for John and for Patsy?

 

[Pinkland]

Pinkland,
So why has JR or PR never been charged? Why bother with excluding both parents from Murder 1 charges if you know one of them is responsible?

The GJ stated in black and white that a person other than the parents, sexually assaulted and killed JonBenet.

There is nothing in Colorado law to prevent either parent or both from being cited in the True Bill for homicide. see, CBS Special.

What I'm reading into it, is just what the GJ published no more, no less.

According to them the case is BDI !

.

Again...we do not know what other charges were brought against the Ramseys so the point is moot.

The DA chose not to press charges. Could be he felt he didn't have enough proof to get a verdict. Best not to press charges then over or undercharge. Usually you only get one chance at trial.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Pinkland]

Just wanted to add...the BDI felt it had more than enough evidence on Patsy to make an arrest...without having to go to a Grand Jury.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Pinkland]

Just wanted to add...the BDI felt it had more than enough evidence on Patsy to make an arrest...without having to go to a Grand Jury.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

I'm sorry. I meant BPD. Sometimes my brain and ABC check are out of sync[emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

Again...your making flat assumptions on what the Ramsey family would do.

You have no evidence of Burke sexually assaulting anyone. It could have easily been John or Patsy.

Most of the evidence you bring up has Patsy directly tied to them as well. Pineapple bowl, barbie outfit, underwear that was bought and wrapped by Patsy, a knife that only Patsy knew the location of.

What you fail to have is anything physically tying Burke to the body of JBR. No fibers on the garrote, tape, or ligature; and yet Patsy is tied to the body.

Where I come from, you go on what evidence you have. If it is not provided or released; you cannot make assumptions that any such evidence exists. Just like in court, if such evidence isn't presented it is not considered.

All that grand jury finding reveals is that they did not find proof of an intruder.

Furthermore, it would be extremely hard for a 9 year old to physically move an unconscious body to redress it; let alone redressing it without leaving physical evidence behind. That is a hard task to accomplish even for an adult. Yet, I have yet to hear this brought up at all.

When I look at what we do know, PDI is the only scenario that easily checks off evidence that we have access to without having to go on basically pure speculation for 90% of the theory IMO.



Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

Completely agree, fantastic post.

 

[andreww]

The grand jury did not put forth a BDI arguement. You do realize that John and Patsy would have been tried and charged separately?

That simply means John knew who murdered JBR. It could have been Patsy, Burke, or an invited guest.

The same follows for Patsy.

The grand jury ruled the way it did most likely so they could put the parents on trial. Nothing more, nothing less. They believed them to be involved with the crime.

Again your reading more into something, and reaching.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

I think the GJ did say a lot more than that. Both parents were indicted because they "unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey". Now think about that. If PDI, why would John be charged with that? Because he allowed his daughter to be alone with her mother? And vice versa if John did it. What these indictments indicate was that there was a preexisting danger to JB that both parents were aware of. Couple that with what little we know about Burke, how he had struck her in the head with a golf club, the three books from the Paughs, and the Ramsey's not wanting to release his medical records. Also take in to account that we know JB had prior sexual assaults and that wee have statements of inappropriate behaviour between Burke and JB. I think that there is enough evidence to suggest that Burke was the "threat" that the GJ were referring to.

Then we look at Burkes behaviour after the crime. No remorse. No sadness. Just smiles and grins. And mere days after the murder Burke not only knows that JB's was hit in the head, despite the fact that this evidence has never been made public. He is also aware of a secondary attack, although he says it was a stabbing rather than strangling. He knows this was a two stage attack. How??

So I agree with your feeling that much of this case is PDI, but I also think that it was Burke that struck her, quite possibly in the act of some sort of sexual assault.

 

[Pinkland]

I think the GJ did say a lot more than that. Both parents were indicted because they "unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey". Now think about that. If PDI, why would John be charged with that? Because he allowed his daughter to be alone with her mother? And vice versa if John did it. What these indictments indicate was that there was a preexisting danger to JB that both parents were aware of. Couple that with what little we know about Burke, how he had struck her in the head with a golf club, the three books from the Paughs, and the Ramsey's not wanting to release his medical records. Also take in to account that we know JB had prior sexual assaults and that wee have statements of inappropriate behaviour between Burke and JB. I think that there is enough evidence to suggest that Burke was the "threat" that the GJ were referring to.

Then we look at Burkes behaviour after the crime. No remorse. No sadness. Just smiles and grins. And mere days after the murder Burke not only knows that JB's was hit in the head, despite the fact that this evidence has never been made public. He is also aware of a secondary attack, although he says it was a stabbing rather than strangling. He knows this was a two stage attack. How??

So I agree with your feeling that much of this case is PDI, but I also think that it was Burke that struck her, quite possibly in the act of some sort of sexual assault.

I can think of one reason off the top of my head. A known broken window posed a threat. If you have broken entryways...and do not fix them that puts your family in danger.

Again we are just making assumptions that mean nothing...we are assuming Burke was the threat. Again..the parents would have been charged separately. Thus John or Patsy could have been seen as the threat as well.

And again if the bash was accidental emergency help would have been called for.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

I can think of one reason off the top of my head. A known broken window posed a threat. If you have broken entryways...and do not fix them that puts your family in danger.

Again we are just making assumptions that mean nothing...we are assuming Burke was the threat. Again..the parents would have been charged separately. Thus John or Patsy could have been seen as the threat as well.

And again if the bash was accidental emergency help would have been called for.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

That doesn't make any sense. You said yourself that the GJ decided against the intruder theory, so why would a broken window present any danger to the child. The threat had to be in the home, dangerous, and known to both parents. I think that it is pretty obvious as to what they were getting at. Burke started it, Patsy finished it, and John has been covering it up ever since.

 

[andreww]

And again if the bash was accidental emergency help would have been called for.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

I don't believe this was an accident. Accidents don't crack someones skull in two pieces. In my opinion Burke lured JB in to the basement using the wrapped presents as bait. I believe that this is where he assaulted her and when she screamed he hit her with the flashlight. Patsy comes down and discovers her unresponsive and with her panties around her ankles and bleeding from her vagina. From there Burke is out of the picture and Patsy takes over.

 

[Pinkland]

That doesn't make any sense. You said yourself that the GJ decided against the intruder theory, so why would a broken window present any danger to the child. The threat had to be in the home, dangerous, and known to both parents. I think that it is pretty obvious as to what they were getting at. Burke started it, Patsy finished it, and John has been covering it up ever since.

It doesn't matter if an intruder used a window or a door or not at all. The point is by not fixing a known entryway you invite danger thus a threat and something to slap on the parents in terms of charges.

The grand jury wanted to charge the parents with as much as possible because they believed they were involved.

As for your scenario...I don't find it plausible. I disected aspects of that theory earlier in the thread. JMO.



Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

It doesn't matter if an intruder used a window or a door or not at all. The point is by not fixing a known entryway you invite danger thus a threat and something to slap on the parents in terms of charges.

The grand jury wanted to charge the parents with as much as possible because they believed they were involved.

As for your scenario...I don't find it plausible. I disected aspects of that theory earlier in the thread. JMO.



Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

You are grasping at straws. The GJ didn't want to charge anybody unless it was warranted. Use your common sense and it will be obvious what they were saying. Did they get it right? We may never know, but I think they did.

 

[Pinkland]

You are grasping at straws. The GJ didn't want to charge anybody unless it was warranted. Use your common sense and it will be obvious what they were saying. Did they get it right? We may never know, but I think they did.

I'm not grasping at anything. I am going on evidence. I don't care what the grand jury found, because it is irrelevant. No charges were ever pressed. And we have no idea what evidence or charges were found in totality.

Also BDI seems to act as if John and Patsy were to be charged together..which isn't the case. Thus the existence of a third party is moot. There would be a second party not a third.

My point is BDI is a theory that relies on assumptions. Lots of assumptions. BDI theorists turn even easy explanations into sinister assumptions without proof.

By the way...it was directly stated by JR...that the window had been broken for months. There is nothing to prove..it's a simple easy charge that could have been used for conviction.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

I'm not grasping at anything. I am going on evidence. I don't care what the grand jury found, because it is irrelevant. No charges were ever pressed. And we have no idea what evidence or charges were found in totality.

Also BDI seems to act as if John and Patsy were to be charged together..which isn't the case. Thus the existence of a third party is moot. There would be a second party not a third.

My point is BDI is a theory that relies on assumptions. Lots of assumptions. BDI theorists turn even easy explanations into sinister assumptions without proof.

By the way...it was directly stated by JR...that the window had been broken for months. There is nothing to prove..it's a simple easy charge that could have been used for conviction.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

I don't think you get how it works. The GJ recommended that the DA press the same two charges against both Patsy and John. There was no either/or option. And what you are getting at makes no sense. If you are trying to insinuate that the indictment against John was issued because he should have known Patsy was a threat, you are way way off base.

 

[andreww]

By the way...it was directly stated by JR...that the window had been broken for months. There is nothing to prove..it's a simple easy charge that could have been used for conviction.

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

The GJ was investigating the murder of JBR, not home repairs.