The complicity of Patsy in coverup.

[Let_Forever_Be]

Hello. This is my first post on these forums. Nice to meet you all. I look forward to your responses.
_____________________

I agree with Cyril Wecht's conclusions regarding the death of JonBenet -- namely that her death was a result of a "sex game gone awry". Further, the bludgeon to the head, by most likely the flashlight, was done after the strangulation.

However, if John Ramsey was the parent who was molesting JonBenet for example, why would Patsy be complicit with him when JonBenet died?

If we assume (like most experts do) that Patsy wrote the ransom note, we can all state with certainty that she was involved with the crime in as far as she was willing to make up the lie that an intruder killed her daughter.

But why would she be complicit with John if he killed her -- what dynamic in their relation would allow that to occur?


_____________

 

[SunnieRN]

Welcome to Websleuths Let Forever Be. I think there are as many answers to that question as there are posters.

My personal belief is that the R's covered up the actions of their one remaining child. They were in the cover up together. All three R's were guilty.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Welcome to Websleuths Let Forever Be. I think there are as many answers to that question as there are posters.

My personal belief is that the R's covered up the actions of their one remaining child. They were in the cover up together. All three R's were guilty.

Hello.

I'm familiar with the various theories that state the parents were protecting Burke. I've never believed them but some are pretty compelling. I suppose their son would be the one person they would coverup for.

But I excluded him as I believe the molestation, erotic asphyxiation device, depth of ransom note and its relationship to the crime precludes Burke.

 

[wonderllama]

You're assuming that the ropes etc were used as an erotic asphyxiation device.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

You're assuming that the ropes etc were used as an erotic asphyxiation device.

Many forensic pathologists agree that the ropes were used as an erotic asphyxiation device.

The fact that JonBenet's death was concluded to be strangulation and that she had both acute and chronic genital trauma implies a sexual nature to her death.

The ropes looked like they were used to 'restrain' her when the molester was doing their 'sex-game'.

 

[wonderllama]

The reason I question it (and I speak from no experience on the subject ), is that I was under the impression the receiver of the pleasure/arousal was the person being choked.

Seems unlikely in this instance.
As for control, pretty sure a blow to the head controlled her.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

The reason I question it (and I speak from no experience on the subject ), is that I was under the impression the receiver of the pleasure/arousal was the person being choked.

Seems unlikely in this instance.
As for control, pretty sure a blow to the head controlled her.

Normally a person using an erotic asphyxiation device does it for a perceived sense of pleasure.It's usually adults.

But clearly JonBenet was molested -- the genital trauma she received determines this. Thus, she was the recipient of 'sexual' treatment.

The person doing the EA to JonBenet could be getting pleasure watching her -- in a perverse, sick, twisted way.

The bludgeon to the head was done after she was accidentally strangled in my opinion -- it was a way to divert attention from the sinister nature of JonBenet's death and perhaps the shame of the person(s) who did it.

 

[UKGuy]

Many forensic pathologists agree that the ropes were used as an erotic asphyxiation device.

The fact that JonBenet's death was concluded to be strangulation and that she had both acute and chronic genital trauma implies a sexual nature to her death.

The ropes looked like they were used to 'restrain' her when the molester was doing their 'sex-game'.

Let_Forever_Be,

Hey there. Your questions are interesting.

JonBenet's hair was entwined into the ligature knotting so if it had been used as described it would have pulled JonBenet's hair out at the roots. This did not occur. Also the ligature ran over JonBenet's necklace which if used would have left a mark on her skin. There was no such mark. For completeness if JonBenet had been asphyxiated using the garrote you might expect her hyoid bone to be broken. Both it and her internal neck structure was found to be intact and no sign of trauma was noted.

The ligature and other rope restraints are staging, they are there to fake a crime-scene e.g. erotic asphyxiation device.

The erotic asphyxiation angle was a major plank in Lou Smit's intruder theory. He posited a perverted, psychotic pedophile kidnapped JonBenet so to engage in some kind of erotic asphyxiation game.

Sadly for the IDI people the crime-scene evidence does not support such a theory.

There are so many questions that need answered by an IDI theory. One alone is a major headache e.g.

Why did the intruder fake a crime-scene in the wine-cellar?

Another might be: Why bring a flashlight to the crime-scene then wipe it clean inside and out, then leave it behind instead of taking it with him along with the duct-tape and cord etc.


.

 

[wonderllama]

Let_Forever_Be, there are an awful lot of assumptions there unfortunately....

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,

Hey there. Your questions are interesting.

JonBenet's hair was entwined into the ligature knotting so if it had been used as described it would have pulled JonBenet's hair out at the roots. This did not occur. Also the ligature ran over JonBenet's necklace which if used would have left a mark on her skin. There was no such mark. For completeness if JonBenet had been asphyxiated using the garrote you might expect her hyoid bone to be broken. Both it and her internal neck structure was found to be intact and no sign of trauma was noted.

The ligature and other rope restraints are staging, they are there to fake a crime-scene e.g. erotic asphyxiation device.

The erotic asphyxiation angle was a major plank in Lou Smit's intruder theory. He posited a perverted, psychotic pedophile kidnapped JonBenet so to engage in some kind of erotic asphyxiation game.

Sadly for the IDI people the crime-scene evidence does not support such a theory.

There are so many questions that need answered by an IDI theory. One alone is a major headache e.g.

Why did the intruder fake a crime-scene in the wine-cellar?

Another might be: Why bring a flashlight to the crime-scene then wipe it clean inside and out, then leave it behind instead of taking it with him along with the duct-tape and cord etc.


.

Thanks for the reply.

I disagree however with a number of observations.

1.The EA device need not break the hyoid bone. Indeed, death can occur when the cartoid arteries are sufficiently oppressed.

2. The ligature need not pull out JonBenet's hair -- the fact it didn't yet she died is testament to the fact that the EA device killed her in such circumstances without pulling her hair out. Of course, this only makes sense if you accept the 'sex-game gone awry' theory like I do.

3.I disagree that the ropes were used as staging --JonBenet's body bore out the effects of the strangulation. Her brain had little blood in it (less than a teaspoon) thus many pathologists state she was strangled after her heart stopped beating and when she was dead/near death.Further, the ropes seem to be in keeping with the sexual nature of JonBenet's death.


Regarding the flashlight -- perhaps it was still in the house as there was no way of getting rid of it. There was snow outside and for whatever reasons, the perpetrator couldn't leave the house. Thus, it was cleaned -- that was the best they could do -- clean it to remove any trace of their DNA. The fact that the batteries were cleaned implies that the person cleaning them was also the person who put the batteries into the flashlight in the first place i.e one of the parents.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be, there are an awful lot of assumptions there unfortunately....

What assumptions?

JonBenet's cause of death was recorded as strangulation. I never made that up -- that's what the coroner said.

Further, JonBenet did have chronic and acute genital trauma -- a tore hymen, bleeding, bruising etc. These were facts recorded.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Welcome! Do you prefer "Let," "Forever," or "Be?"

Hello.

I'm familiar with the various theories that state the parents were protecting Burke. I've never believed them but some are pretty compelling. I suppose their son would be the one person they would coverup for.

But I excluded him as I believe the molestation, erotic asphyxiation device, depth of ransom note and its relationship to the crime precludes Burke.

BBM
Yes...in the cover-up. (The jury's still out on the "erotic asphyxiation device" being staged to be such).

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Welcome! Do you prefer "Let," "Forever," or "Be?"


BBM
Yes...in the cover-up. (The jury's still out on the "erotic asphyxiation device" being staged to be such).

Just call me whatever is easiest. All are fine!

 

[UKGuy]

Thanks for the reply.

I disagree however with a number of observations.

1.The EA device need not break the hyoid bone. Indeed, death can occur when the cartoid arteries are sufficiently oppressed.

2. The ligature need not pull out JonBenet's hair -- the fact it didn't yet she died is testament to the fact that the EA device killed her in such circumstances without pulling her hair out. Of course, this only makes sense if you accept the 'sex-game gone awry' theory like I do.

3.I disagree that the ropes were used as staging --JonBenet's body bore out the effects of the strangulation. Her brain had little blood in it (less than a teaspoon) thus many pathologists state she was strangled after her heart stopped beating and when she was dead/near death.Further, the ropes seem to be in keeping with the sexual nature of JonBenet's death.


Regarding the flashlight -- perhaps it was still in the house as there was no way of getting rid of it. There was snow outside and for whatever reasons, the perpetrator couldn't leave the house. Thus, it was cleaned -- that was the best they could do -- clean it to remove any trace of their DNA. The fact that the batteries were cleaned implies that the person cleaning them was also the person who put the batteries into the flashlight in the first place i.e one of the parents.

Let_Forever_Be,
Well your circular argument here does not support your case.

2. The ligature need not pull out JonBenet's hair -- the fact it didn't yet she died is testament to the fact that the EA device killed her in such circumstances without pulling her hair out. Of course, this only makes sense if you accept the 'sex-game gone awry' theory like I do.

As I mentioned before the EA angle was Lou Smits contribution to the IDI theory. This was put to bed a long time ago, since there is no forensic evidence to support it.


.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,
Well your circular argument here does not support your case.


As I mentioned before the EA angle was Lou Smits contribution to the IDI theory. This was put to bed a long time ago, since there is no forensic evidence to support it.


.

Lou Smit believed in the erotic asphyxiation angle with respect to an intruder. I manifestly disagree as stated in my opening post -- I don't accept the intruder theory. However, EA device theory was not put to rest long ago. Cyril Wecht and Michael Doberson both think it was the cause of death.

What 'circular' argument are you referring to -- could you elaborate please? My belief is that JonBenet was molested -- an EA was used on her which accidentally killed her. I believe her sexual trauma in her genital area are related to the sexual nature of her life. I believe the acute genital injuries are absolutely linked to the strangulation.

 

[wonderllama]

What assumptions?

JonBenet's cause of death was recorded as strangulation. I never made that up -- that's what the coroner said.

Further, JonBenet did have chronic and acute genital trauma -- a tore hymen, bleeding, bruising etc. These were facts recorded.

Well, the story changes if the blow to the head came first, and that is an area of conjecture.

Don't mistake "assumptions leading to a story" with "you're making facts up".

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Well, the story changes if the blow to the head came first, and that is an area of conjecture.

Don't mistake "assumptions leading to a story" with "you're making facts up".

It's certainly an area on which the whole case rests.

Strangulation first= perhaps a sex game gone wrong. Head bludgeon used to cover up etc.

Head bludgeon first= accident i.e bed wetting rage.


Of course, many experts support both theories.Like all on this forum, we are ultimately at the mercy of hopefully scientifically thorough investigators.

 

[Peepers]

If Jonbonet was molested and strangled, it adds more to the intruder theory (obviously my opinion). I dont think John molested Jonbonet or used her for erotic asphyxiation. I dont believe Patsy would have covered for him for that, and we have heard nothing ever that points to John molesting his own 6 year old daughter except speculation.
If John and Patsy staged the scene and a cover up, I think the only reason would be to protect Burke.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

If Jonbonet was molested and strangled, it adds more to the intruder theory (obviously my opinion). I dont think John molested Jonbonet or used her for erotic asphyxiation. I dont believe Patsy would have covered for him for that, and we have heard nothing ever that points to John molesting his own 6 year old daughter except speculation.
If John and Patsy staged the scene and a cover up, I think the only reason would be to protect Burke.

We know for a fact that JonBenet had acute and chronic genital trauma. The next question is then -- who caused it?

The reason I don't accept the intruder theory is that there just doesn't seem compelling evidence someone broke in. The points of entry are weak, lack of forensics, the whole logistics of sneaking around in a house with the parents inside. Further, for the intruder theory to be true, the ransom note has to be wrote by the intruder but most handwriting experts, certainly the ones who examined the original 73 suspects, could not rule out Patsy.

Therefore, I agree it was certainly someone in the house who did this. But who?

My original question was what dynamic would allow Patsy to cover for John if he did it?

 

[DeeDee249]

What assumptions?

JonBenet's cause of death was recorded as strangulation. I never made that up -- that's what the coroner said.


.

Welcome to the forum, LFB!

Yes he did. But what he said was "ligature strangulation associated with blunt force trauma to the head. Mayer was unable to determine which came first but both were listed as causes of death and both contributed to her death. Her autopsy determined that she was alive when she was strangled and also alive (for a brief time) after she was hit on the head.
IMO, her head bash came first, possibly to silence her after her scream. Then, when she collapsed (possibly into a coma- that was a VERY severe fracture), her death was seen as inevitable. But one problem- if they'd called 911 at that point, the head bash was the ONLY cause of death, and intended or not, whoever hit her would have been charged with either murder or manslaughter.
So the only "answer" was to provide a visible cause of death, and the ligature was very visible. Not being forensic specialists, they never thought about things like petechial hemorrhages or ligature furrows. It's one of the theories that makes sense to me, in any event.
The things I can't make fit are exactly what caused her to scream. And whether they thought she was dead when they applied the ligature. I can't see it being applied if they knew she was still alive. If she had been in a coma, her breathing may have been so shallow as to be undetectable, and shock would lower her body temp, not to mention she would be unresponsive and unable to be roused.