The complicity of Patsy in coverup.

[my_tee_mouse]

I personally don't think she swung the light. I do think she participated in (and helped botch) the staging to a great extent.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

The head wound was a closed-skin wound. That is one reason why it wasn't apparent. She died before there was significant swelling. The autopsy revealed a covering of blood over the dura mater and some bleeding into the sub-arachnoid space . There was mild flattening and narrowing of the sulci and gyri and if you can try to imagine a brain with all the lobes and little "valleys" between them- as the swelling develops, the little "valleys" get thinner as the space between them narrows and the lobes flatten as they spread out. Had she not died soon after, there would have been much more swelling. The fact that a rather large piece of her skull was punched out may have contributed to the mild swelling, as it relieved pressure in a way. Had there not been a hole (and the fracture line itself was a hole as well) the brain may have swollen more.
I believe the head bash was in reaction to her scream. So my problem is to figure out what caused the scream. I don't think she screamed during or in anticipation of the garrote application. I DO think she screamed because of whatever caused her to bleed from the vagina.

Great post.

The 'scream' is one of the most perplexing issues in this case. Is it possible that the neighbour made it up in order to interject into the story -- you know, the way some people lie about being involved in dramatic events?

But assuming the scream did occur at approximately midnight then the key question is what caused it? It was a harrowing scream heard across the street.A scream perhaps Burke heard too if he was asleep in his bedroom.

People usually scream through pain being inflicted onto them or in anticipation of something horrible -- in order to 'scare' off someone.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Wonder if it ever occured to anyone that the scream could have been from Patsy when she found JonBenet with her head bashed?

 

[otg]

I could very well go along with this if the head wound was readily visible. It obvioulsy wasnt made to look like the cause of death because it wasn't apparent. In my opinion, if the head wound was staging, it would have been a lot worse than it was. At the very least, her hair would have been arranged so that it would be visible. With the way she was found, her hair covered the head wound entirley and that makes no sense if the killer wanted the first on the scene to think "head wound" and not strangulation.

Beck, you know my opinion, but I'll add this: I wouldn't be surprised if, until it was discovered by the coroner, the only person who knew about the head wound was the person who caused it. It was not apparent, and it may not have been passed on.

IOW, I agree in that I don't believe the blow to the head was a part of the staging.
.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Wonder if it ever occured to anyone that the scream could have been from Patsy when she found JonBenet with her head bashed?

I have wondered if the scream was Patsy's.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Beck, you know my opinion, but I'll add this: I wouldn't be surprised if, until it was discovered by the coroner, the only person who knew about the head wound was the person who caused it. It was not apparent, and it may not have been passed on.

IOW, I agree in that I don't believe the blow to the head was a part of the staging.
.

Thanks, otg. It's my opinion that the head bash is the reason for the staging. I just can't make anything else make sense. Someone was most assuredly molesting JB, but I can't buy the "sex game gone wrong". For me, that's just too far out there and it's exactly what the Ramseys wanted the world to believe, just that they weren't a part of it.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Thanks, otg. It's my opinion that the head bash is the reason for the staging. I just can't make anything else make sense. Someone was most assuredly molesting JB, but I can't buy the "sex game gone wrong". For me, that's just too far out there and it's exactly what the Ramseys wanted the world to believe, just that they weren't a part of it.

If the "sex-game gone wrong" is just too out there, then why was, if you believe the garrotte was staging, used to imply a sex game gone wrong?

Could it be that JonBenet was being molested (objective fact she was) and the person doing it was using the garrotte as a sex game a la an erotic asphixiation device. However, it went wrong -- the poor little girl suffered a vagal reflex, couldn't be resuscitated and thus was dead.

The perpetrator then had two options 1. phone the police and hand themselves in or 2. Stage something to help deter the police from their actions.

If a little girl is lying dead then the options are limited. Thus, perhaps the only reasonable thing was to make it look like an intruder did it. How to make an abused girl who died via an EA device look like she died because of an intruder -- hit her over the head to simulate an intruder attack.

The Ransom note then gave the narrative to the intruder -- a hatred against John Ramsey and a kidnapping of the daughter. This could also be used to justify the sexual nature of the crime -- the intruder, as evidenced by his reference to John Ramsey's daughter in the ransom note was perhaps a paedophile too.Thus, JonBenet was cleaned down to remove the evidence of the family from her.

Perhaps the onset of the snow forced the Ramsey's to abandon any plans to dump the body from the house -- they were trapped in the house. Thus the body was placed in the most obscure room of the home, the basement back room with a awkwardly placed latch.

 

[otg]

The head wound was a closed-skin wound. That is one reason why it wasn't apparent. She died before there was significant swelling. The autopsy revealed a covering of blood over the dura mater and some bleeding into the sub-arachnoid space . There was mild flattening and narrowing of the sulci and gyri and if you can try to imagine a brain with all the lobes and little "valleys" between them- as the swelling develops, the little "valleys" get thinner as the space between them narrows and the lobes flatten as they spread out. Had she not died soon after, there would have been much more swelling. The fact that a rather large piece of her skull was punched out may have contributed to the mild swelling, as it relieved pressure in a way. Had there not been a hole (and the fracture line itself was a hole as well) the brain may have swollen more.
I believe the head bash was in reaction to her scream. So my problem is to figure out what caused the scream. I don't think she screamed during or in anticipation of the garrote application. I DO think she screamed because of whatever caused her to bleed from the vagina.

Wow, DD. I've never had the dynamics of the brain swelling explained better, and in a way that even I can understand. As far as I'm concerned, that should be the final word on the reason for the amount of brain swelling seen here.

I also agree with you on the scream, etc.
.

 

[otg]

Thanks, otg. It's my opinion that the head bash is the reason for the staging. I just can't make anything else make sense. Someone was most assuredly molesting JB, but I can't buy the "sex game gone wrong". For me, that's just too far out there and it's exactly what the Ramseys wanted the world to believe, just that they weren't a part of it.

But, Beck, if they wanted the world to believe that, why would they have cleaned up the evidence of it?
.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

But, Beck, if they wanted the world to believe that, why would they have cleaned up the evidence of it?
.

I think the hope was that the alleged intruder would be blamed for both -- the head-wound and sexual injuries.The sex injuries couldn't be undone so the parents cleaned them up to remove their forensics from it.

The Ramseys (if they did it) were distancing themselves from it.

It's quite perplexing that a supposed paedophilic intruder would do such heinous sex crimes to a little girl but then clean her up. In order to clean her up they were risking getting caught by not only placing their dna on her but also by spending too much time in the house that the parents may wake up.I just don't buy it.

 

[MurriFlower]

I think the hope was that the alleged intruder would be blamed for both -- the head-wound and sexual injuries.The sex injuries couldn't be undone so the parents cleaned them up to remove their forensics from it.

The Ramseys (if they did it) were distancing themselves from it.

It's quite perplexing that a supposed paedophilic intruder would do such heinous sex crimes to a little girl but then clean her up. In order to clean her up they were risking getting caught by not only placing their dna on her but also by spending too much time in the house that the parents may wake up.I just don't buy it.

Pedophiles usually say the love children, they don't do it because of hatred.

 

[joeskidbeck]

I think I misled you guys. In fact I know I did. I don't look at the staging as a "sex game gone wrong". I think the Ramseys wanted it to look like she was sexually assaulted and then strangled. I don't believe a sex game entered their minds at the time. They may have taken advantage of this after the opinions started flying, but I just don't think that was their "mission".

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Pedophiles usually say the love children, they don't do it because of hatred.

Yeah, but the logistics involved with sexualising a little girl, moving about a house to get a notepad and pen, redressing her, wiping her body down, cleaning the batteries of the flashlight etc just don't convince me that an intruder did this.

 

[MurriFlower]

Yeah, but the logistics involved with sexualising a little girl, moving about a house to get a notepad and pen, redressing her, wiping her body down, cleaning the batteries of the flashlight etc just don't convince me that an intruder did this.

Yep, it's that great 'totallity of evidence' rearing it's head again!

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Yep, it's that great 'totallity of evidence' rearing it's head again!

Indeed it is. Glad you agree.

 

[MurriFlower]

Indeed it is. Glad you agree.

Meanwhile dismissing DNA evidence that doesn't agree.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Meanwhile dismissing DNA evidence that doesn't agree.

I've not dismissed any dna. That's an invention of your brain.

What I have done, and many forumers seem to be in agreement, is not immediately say the new dna belongs to an intruder. Indeed, we have also questioned the nature of the dna and discussed the implications of touch,semen,saliva and blood dna on the case.

Hope that clarifies your misconstruing of my position.

 

[MurriFlower]

I've not dismissed any dna. That's an invention of your brain.

What I have done, and many forumers seem to be in agreement, is not immediately say the new dna belongs to an intruder. Indeed, we have also questioned the nature of the dna and discussed the implications of touch,semen,saliva and blood dna on the case.

Hope that clarifies your misconstruing of my position.

The owner of the DNA is just that -- a person whose DNA has been rubbed off on clothing.If we were to do a DNA test on new clothes we bought, we would find a plethora of other people's DNA on it -- from when it was handled in the warehouses/factories etc.

Oh dear, I misconstrue you an awful lot don't I? Must be my fault. Would the above quote fit into your definition of dismissing the DNA evidence?? Or would you like to argue about that too??

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Oh dear, I misconstrue you an awful lot don't I? Must be my fault. Would the above quote fit into your definition of dismissing the DNA evidence?? Or would you like to argue about that too??

You do seem to miscontrue me alot. And let it be shown that you have quoted me from yesterday. Hope you didn't exert yourself too much searching for my post.

And no-one is arguing except you.You seem to think you know more about my opinions/stances than I do which is rather perplexing to say the least.

But let me clarify for you my opinions and views because guess what MurriFlower, I'm the authority on what I say and what comes out of my mouth and you're not.

I said :

The owner of the DNA is just that -- a person whose DNA has been rubbed off on clothing.If we were to do a DNA test on new clothes we bought, we would find a plethora of other people's DNA on it -- from when it was handled in the warehouses/factories etc.

Touch dna centres around the transfer of skin cells. Thus, the owner of such dna is just that, a person's whose skin cells have rubbed off. It's always highly plausible that the touch dna came from a factory worker or indeed from anyone in contact with aforementioned items -- in general terms.I have also not ruled out the possibility that the dna came from an intruder. Well done for ignoring those posts but then again, I don't suppose it fitted in with your attempt to debase my words.

As has been explained multiple times to you.

Now, I understand that you are a little annoyed perhaps -- several people have corrected your supposed attempt to link the touch dna to an intruder.

But please, in the interest of the forum integrity, this obsession you have with constantly trying to misconstrue my words when I keep on explaining them to you is just a bit strange.

You've had them explained. Now please find some other target for your lttile forum antics because I want civil discussion.I'm glad to say that most people on this forum have been nothing short of welcoming to me and I appreciate that. Perhaps you're against new-comers -- I'm not sure?

Regards.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Oh dear, I misconstrue you an awful lot don't I? Must be my fault. Would the above quote fit into your definition of dismissing the DNA evidence?? Or would you like to argue about that too??

And to answer your question :the above quote would not dismiss dna evidence. It does however refer in general terms to how touch dna usually comes from a random source with which we know nothing of.

Now that you understand, feel free to make posts which do not concern a misconstruing of my posts which I have already at length explained to you. But for some reason, you just won't accept my answers.

I don't agree with your theories regarding the case and you'll just have to deal with that Murri. Regards.