RDI Theorists

[rashomon]

Jayelles,

You are splitting hairs, its still a homicide, its not an accident!

Would your definition and interpretation still apply if instead of rage impelling the perpetrator it was lust?

I think it is the word 'accident' which causes some confusion. A homicide can be accidental in that it was not intended, i. e. the perpetrator did not mean to kill the person. Let's say Jim during an argument gets so angry at John that he pushes him, and John's head hurts a hard surface so badly that he dies from his brain injury. So this would also be a homicide, but not a premediated and planned homicide.

I believe this happened in the Ramsey case too. The accident was the unintentional death of the child following an attack of an enraged parent.
But 'accident' in that case does not mean that the parent was not guilty of anything. The parent's action was the cause for the unintentional ('accidental') death of the child. Therefore he/she would have been responsible for it, but JB's parent in the JBR case did not want to turn herself (believe it was Patsy) in to the police.

Re lust killings: if a person is aware that what he/she did to the child is regarded as a crime in society (i. e. if the person is not legally insane or temporarily insane), I can imagine that lust killings are almost always regarded as first-degree murders.

 

[UKGuy]

Have to add following consultation with a lawyer ... Voluntary manslaughter is when someone dies during the commission of another crime.

Re: Not Proven:- It's used when there exists insufficient evidence to convict someone who is probably guilty.

Jayelles,

mmm I would not relish being the defendent in a case where you were sitting on the jury.

People are deemed innocent in a court of law, it is the prosecutors job to demonstrate that the defendent is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

If the jury or judge considers that there is any reasonable doubt existing then the Not Proven verdict can be returned and this legally represents an acquittal and the defendent is not subject to double jeopardy.

Its social value can lie in exposing a poor investigation and highlighting the failings of an incompetent prosecutor.

Not Proven may also be employed when the State or Crown are patently pressing bogus indictments, these are normally used as an indirect method to pressure alleged criminals or unfriendly corporations, and of course some defendents may be fitted up or framed, here there may be evidence, but it is spurious.

A modern example of the Crown pursuing a bogus indictment is the Shirley Mckie case:

e.g check out http://www.clpex.com/McKie.htm
http://www.shirleymckie.com/

.

 

[UKGuy]

I think it is the word 'accident' which causes some confusion. A homicide can be accidental in that it was not intended, i. e. the perpetrator did not mean to kill the person. Let's say Jim during an argument gets so angry at John that he pushes him, and John's head hurts a hard surface so badly that he dies from his brain injury. So this would also be a homicide, but not a premediated and planned homicide.

I believe this happened in the Ramsey case too. The accident was the unintentional death of the child following an attack of an enraged parent.
But 'accident' in that case does not mean that the parent was not guilty of anything. The parent's action was the cause for the unintentional ('accidental') death of the child. Therefore he/she would have been responsible for it, but JB's parent in the JBR case did not want to turn herself (believe it was Patsy) in to the police.

Re lust killings: if a person is aware that what he/she did to the child is regarded as a crime in society (i. e. if the person is not legally insane or temporarily insane), I can imagine that lust killings are almost always regarded as first-degree murders.

rashomon,

There are four categories of death e.g.

Natural
Natural deaths arise from illness, old age, heart atacks etc.

Accidental
Accidental deaths arise from unplanned and unforseeable sequence of events. Plane crashes, falling over, home electrocutions are examples.

Suicidal
These are caused by the persons own hand e.g. Autoerotic Asphyxiation.

Homicidal
Homicides are deaths that occur by the hand of someone other than the dead person.

JonBenet's death patently falls into the last category, but I understand the point that you are wishing to make in that you consider it was not intentional?

.

 

[Jayelles]

Jayelles,

mmm I would not relish being the defendent in a case where you were sitting on the jury.

What is that supposed to mean? I didn't make the laws UKGuy. I did however, consult with a lawyer this afternoon as I wasn't 100% certain about what I had written about manslaughter.

People are deemed innocent in a court of law, it is the prosecutors job to demonstrate that the defendent is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

If the jury or judge considers that there is any reasonable doubt existing then the Not Proven verdict can be returned and this legally represents an acquittal and the defendent is not subject to double jeopardy.

Its social value can lie in exposing a poor investigation and highlighting the failings of an incompetent prosecutor.

Not Proven may also be employed when the State or Crown are patently pressing bogus indictments, these are normally used as an indirect method to pressure alleged criminals or unfriendly corporations, and of course some defendents may be fitted up or framed, here there may be evidence, but it is spurious.

A modern example of the Crown pursuing a bogus indictment is the Shirley Mckie case:

e.g check out http://www.clpex.com/McKie.htm
http://www.shirleymckie.com/

.

Shirley McKie wasn't on trial for murder - that was a perjury case.

I am not sure what your point (or agenda) is. As I see it, you started your post with a (albeit mild) personal attack against me and then proceeded to post nothing which contradicts what I posted above.

The "Not Proven" verdict is known to mean "We think you did it, but we can't prove it". I'm a Scot - I know this well known fact!

The Not Proven verdict states that the court believes the prosecution presented insufficient evidence of proof rather than that the person was not connected at all with the crime;

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Not_Proven

In Scotland, where the verdict has been used for centuries, "not proven" suggests a strong possibility of guilt, but insufficient grounds to convict.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=383597&in_page_id=1770

In Scotland there are essentially two verdicts which acquit.

 

[Jayelles]

Jayelles,

You are splitting hairs, its still a homicide, its not an accident!

Would your definition and interpretation still apply if instead of rage impelling the perpetrator it was lust?

.

I didn't say it WAS an accident, I said it wasn't INTENTIONAL homicide (as you claimed it to be).

It is possible to kill someone accidentally and still be guilty of manslaughter.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

There are four categories of death e.g.

Natural
Natural deaths arise from illness, old age, heart atacks etc.

Accidental
Accidental deaths arise from unplanned and unforseeable sequence of events. Plane crashes, falling over, home electrocutions are examples.

Suicidal
These are caused by the persons own hand e.g. Autoerotic Asphyxiation.

Homicidal
Homicides are deaths that occur by the hand of someone other than the dead person.

JonBenet's death patently falls into the last category, but I understand the point that you are wishing to make in that you consider it was not intentional?

Yes, that has been my point exactly.

 

[Toltec]

My guess is that Patsy would have been charged with manslaughter if she had not tried to cover up the crime.

I'm not quite sure of the name but it might have been called a crime of passion?

 

[Jayelles]

My guess is that Patsy would have been charged with manslaughter if she had not tried to cover up the crime.

I'm not quite sure of the name but it might have been called a crime of passion?

Crime passionelle. LOL I think that is only a verdict in La France!

 

[UKGuy]

What is that supposed to mean? I didn't make the laws UKGuy. I did however, consult with a lawyer this afternoon as I wasn't 100% certain about what I had written about manslaughter.

Jayelles,
Well it was meant to be more ironic than personal.

The "Not Proven" verdict is known to mean "We think you did it, but we can't prove it". I'm a Scot - I know this well known fact!

I might be pictish and have studied justinian jurisprudence, so I wont contradict you.

Some of that post was off topic so I apologise for offending you.

More than one theory can be constructed to explain JonBenet's death, these can be split into intentional or unintentional categories, most homicides fall into the former category, so until I have forensic evidence that conflicts with this position I'll assume JonBenet was intentionally killed.

I had favored an unintentional homicide but I find this difficult to square with all the staging that took place, imo multiple stagings, and their nature.

As per your remarks regarding hidden skeletons, phone records etc, which I consider probable and likely to be of a political nature given JR's status and business background, but these may only have allowed the R's to limit and hinder the investigation, rather than provide a motive for killing JonBenet, or staging her crime-scene.

It appears JonBenet was manually strangled, and I cannot reconcile the time taken to do this with the idea it was unintentional!


.

 

[luvbeaches]

None of the above. The small foreign faction inside Patsy did it and they didn't mean for it to happen.

LOL...That's good!

I believe it was accidental, and then a cover up followed. At the beginning, I thought John was somehow involved, but not now. I am a believer in what Steve Thomas had to say.

 

[rashomon]

My guess is that Patsy would have been charged with manslaughter if she had not tried to cover up the crime.

I'm not quite sure of the name but it might have been called a crime of passion?

I think they call crime of passion (crime passionnel) crimes of the type where adults in an erotic relationship are involved. For example, Claudine Longet killing her lover Spider Sabich some decades ago. BTW, if memory serves this was also in Boulder and Longet got a very mild sentence too (or was even acquitted).

 

[narlacat]

<< It appears JonBenet was manually strangled, and I cannot reconcile the time taken to do this with the idea it was unintentional!>>

How long does it take to strangle someone until they are dead??
I tried googling but got too urked, seems it could take 10 minutes or more??

 

[UKGuy]

<< It appears JonBenet was manually strangled, and I cannot reconcile the time taken to do this with the idea it was unintentional!>>

How long does it take to strangle someone until they are dead??
I tried googling but got too urked, seems it could take 10 minutes or more??

narlacat,

There are many variables to consider age , size etc, but I would think it would take a minimum of two to three minutes to asphyxiate JonBenet possibly more if she put up a struggle since she would be able to gulp air.

The abrasions on her kneck suggest she was violently strangled manually, and I find the time required to sustain the choking effect difficult to reconcile with the idea it was unintentional e.g. a consequence of rage.

Those that support an unintentional homicide might find this report of interest:
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2006/06/03/6_3_1A_Beaudoin_confession.html

In this latter case the unintentional aspect is less ambiguous than in JonBenet's homicide, also as I read it there was no staging and the child was taken to the hospital.

 

[Toltec]

I think they call crime of passion (crime passionnel) crimes of the type where adults in an erotic relationship are involved. For example, Claudine Longet killing her lover Spider Sabich some decades ago. BTW, if memory serves this was also in Boulder and Longet got a very mild sentence too (or was even acquitted).

In AMERICA....there is such a thing as a crime of passion. It means that in the heat of the moment...a person causes the death of another, hence the word "passion". It has nothing to do with sex.

Involuntary Manslaughter.

 

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by rashomon
I think they call crime of passion (crime passionnel) crimes of the type where adults in an erotic relationship are involved. For example, Claudine Longet killing her lover Spider Sabich some decades ago. BTW, if memory serves this was also in Boulder and Longet got a very mild sentence too (or was even acquitted).

In AMERICA....there is such a thing as a crime of passion. It means that in the heat of the moment...a person causes the death of another, hence the word "passion". It has nothing to do with sex.

Involuntary Manslaughter.

I just did a Google search on 'crime of passion', and the Wikipedia entry seems to confirm what I wrote in my prior post:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A crime of passion, in popular usage, refers to a crime in which the perpetrator commits a crime, specially assault or murder, against a spouse or other loved one because of sudden jealous rage or heartbreak rather than as a premeditated crime. A typical crime of passion, for example, might involve a jealous husband who discovers his wife has been cheating on him and proceeds to murder her and possibly the man she was involved with. While the concept of the crime of passion is not officially recognized in law, it is sometimes used by defense lawyers because of the fact that in popular opinion, if not in courts of law, the commission of murder or of grievous bodily harm is viewed more sympathetically when it is a crime of passion.

Societies in which honor forms a governing principle may react similarly to altercations caused by personal insults or may defer immediate action preferring to consult among family members and act in concert.

In some countries, notably France, crime passionnel (or crime of passion) is a valid defense during murder cases.

 

[sharpar]

Longet and Spider was Aspen .

 

[Rupert]

Longet and Spider was Aspen .

And so was Hunter S. Thompson who had a radio show "Hey Rube". Oh My God!
Baffles the brain, doesn't?

Justice up in them thar hills. I feel sorry for the Sabich family.

 

[Jayelles]

Results so far show that 64% of those who voted believe that one of the Ramseys murdered Jonbenet and that it was accidental followed by a cover-up.

Now just for a word of caution - the poll results say 64% of those who voted believe it was an accident. 3 members voted for intentional homicide and 7 for "none of the above". The poll for only intended to be for RDI theorists and we have no way of knowing if any of the "none of the above" voters are IDI theorists who voted by mistake or whether the "intentional homicide" voters were RST who wanted to sway the vote. As the forum only permits one vote per member, anyone who wished to sway the vote would only be able to sway it by one vote - their one and only vote. That was why I was keen for as many RDI members to vote as possible.


It would have been interesting if all voters had added a post of explanation but only some of the "accidental killing" posters did that - the exception being Paradox who would appear to be suggesting that Patsy did it but that she didn't know she did it (I think that is what Paradox is suggesting).

So far, the stats bear out my understanding that most of the RDIs/"BORG" do not believe the Ramseys were cold-blooded murderers as the RST would have the reading public believe.

As most of the members who explained their vote were RDIs who believed in accidental homicide - perhaps some of those who voted for intentional homicide or none of the above would add a note to explain why they did so - EVEN if it is to say that they are IDIs who voted accidentally.

 

[Becba]

I think the time it would take to be strangled would have to incorporate if the person is put in a sleeper hold where they go unconscious and do not struggle.

I, as other battered wives, was put in a sleeper hold. Thankfully after I passed out my spouse stopped because he became scared he had killed me. If he had not stopped I think death would have been swift as he would have had no resistance from me at all.

 

[aussiesheila]

Results so far show that 64% of those who voted believe that one of the Ramseys murdered Jonbenet and that it was accidental followed by a cover-up.

Now just for a word of caution - the poll results say 64% of those who voted believe it was an accident. 3 members voted for intentional homicide and 7 for "none of the above". The poll for only intended to be for RDI theorists and we have no way of knowing if any of the "none of the above" voters are IDI theorists who voted by mistake or whether the "intentional homicide" voters were RST who wanted to sway the vote. As the forum only permits one vote per member, anyone who wished to sway the vote would only be able to sway it by one vote - their one and only vote. That was why I was keen for as many RDI members to vote as possible.


It would have been interesting if all voters had added a post of explanation but only some of the "accidental killing" posters did that - the exception being Paradox who would appear to be suggesting that Patsy did it but that she didn't know she did it (I think that is what Paradox is suggesting).

So far, the stats bear out my understanding that most of the RDIs/"BORG" do not believe the Ramseys were cold-blooded murderers as the RST would have the reading public believe.

As most of the members who explained their vote were RDIs who believed in accidental homicide - perhaps some of those who voted for intentional homicide or none of the above would add a note to explain why they did so - EVEN if it is to say that they are IDIs who voted accidentally.

Sorry, I didn't realise this was for RDI's only and I am an IDI who voted like an idiot. So please take one off the 'none of the above' tally.