The complicity of Patsy in coverup.

[wonderllama]

To me, it appears that IDI theorists use a lot more faith to come to that conclusion; that is, a belief that an intruder did it as opposed to concrete evidence for it.

We are a complex lot.

Isn't this how most people approach a fundamental aspect of their lives?
Religious beliefs.

It is clear to me that you will never get 100% of people believing one theory no matter what evidence is presented to them. Look at the OJ trial!
There are cases far more clear cut than this one where people refuse to accept the evidence.

We are a world conflicted by our seeming need for evidence in some instances and our blind acceptance (faith if you will) in other cases, either in spite of evidence to the contrary or simply when there is no evidence at all.

I'm big on evidence. I expect to see it to prove everything. It's one of the reasons I am a non religious person, faith doesn't work for me.

Having said all this, across these forums I see many many MANY people using God and religion in a lot of their posts....posts in threads in which they are seeking EVIDENCE in order to convict someone over the murder of a child.

We are a complex lot.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

We are a complex lot.

Isn't this how most people approach a fundamental aspect of their lives?
Religious beliefs.

It is clear to me that you will never get 100% of people believing one theory no matter what evidence is presented to them. Look at the OJ trial!
There are cases far more clear cut than this one where people refuse to accept the evidence.

We are a world conflicted by our seeming need for evidence in some instances and our blind acceptance (faith if you will) in other cases, either in spite of evidence to the contrary or simply when there is no evidence at all.

I'm big on evidence. I expect to see it to prove everything. It's one of the reasons I am a non religious person, faith doesn't work for me.

Having said all this, across these forums I see many many MANY people using God and religion in a lot of their posts....posts in threads in which they are seeking EVIDENCE in order to convict someone over the murder of a child.

We are a complex lot.

Very true.

But the premise of rationality is to prove things to be true. Not speculate or use suppositions to bolsters ideas you want to be true as opposed to what is really true!

From most of the things I have seen wrote regarding IDI theories, their argumentation generally seems based more on their own, relative feelings and what they hope,wish,conceive and dream to be true.

Most of the quantifiable evidence clearly indicates that this was an "inside job" i.e a Ramsey probably did it. Of course, there is debate over which one(s) but within the general providence of information we posses, it clearly favours the RDIs as opposed to the IDIs.

All this talk of the mythical Korean foreign-faction holding a grudge against John Ramsey is utter nonsense.

 

[joeskidbeck]

We are a complex lot, but for me, God and evidence are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to have a very strong faith and belief in God but still want to see the evidence prove who committed the crime. I would never allow my faith to be my guidance in a case such as this, for me, the evidence leads where it leads and that's straight to the Ramsey's door. It's the lack of evidence of an intruder that let's the intruder go free.

 

[Peepers]

I dont believe emphatically that an intruder did it, but it hasnt been proven to me that an intruder didnt do it either. Theres so many questions all the way around. I really dont like the labels though. ie IDI RDI. There is room for really good discussion here but sometimes people are a bit arrogant and rude and think their opinions are the only ones that make sense; and some people are so passionate about their "side" being right. Im not on either side, all things are plausible, well except the small foreign fraction and the koreans...I think thats a little far fetched, but Im not personally insulted that someone else thinks that. Im an educated woman. I have read alot about the case and I still dont have any concrete conclusion that I believe without a doubt Other people do believe they know what happened and stand by it..thats fine. I agree with you LetitBe that speaking for myself, when I lean towards IDI, it is because I cant see these parents doing this. Its so brutal a murder for a parent. I could be wrong, Im not afraid to admit that. the RN is an oddity..Doesnt really fit the IDI. There are many things that some RDI consider significant that I dont think is significant, its subjective.
I do like to discuss it here, I do like reading other peoples theories and opinions..its educating and interesting, but maybe we all can find a way to be a bit less snarky towards each other . Not all comments made here are meant to be inflammatory. Sometimes they are just comments.

 

[Peepers]

As far as proof gooes, I have never seen any PROOF that John Ramsey molested and killed Jonbonet. There isnt concrete proof, thats why the case is still open. One can choose to believe there are other reasons , but legally there was not enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter if it was IDI or RDI, there is no proof either way beyond a reasonable doubt..in the legal sense. Unfortunately it almost is the perfect murder.

 

[DeeDee249]

Doesn't all the redness and damage to the neck area yet lack of swelling in the brain prove that she was garrotted first then hit in the head. I can't figure out how she could have been lying down when hit in the head because it would have caused damage to her face with that much force and if standing unrestrained would have sent her flying. How did it happen without damaging the neck or spine? Could she have been sitting on something soft that cushioned the rest of the body or restrained from the impact? I haven't seen much discussion along those lines.

I don't think it has been proven that she was lying down when she was bashed. As a matter of fact, I don't think she was. The area of her skull that was hit indicated that someone was standing over her, and she would have had to be standing or sitting to have the bludgeon hit her in that spot.
We also don't know that the blow DIDN'T send her flying. It could have.At the very least, it would have knocked her down (and knocked her OUT) immediately.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

As far as proof gooes, I have never seen any PROOF that John Ramsey molested and killed Jonbonet. There isnt concrete proof, thats why the case is still open. One can choose to believe there are other reasons , but legally there was not enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter if it was IDI or RDI, there is no proof either way beyond a reasonable doubt..in the legal sense. Unfortunately it almost is the perfect murder.

The case wasn't conducted as well as it should have been for a start so the truth could not fully come out.Steve Thomas alludes to this.

We can say for definite that JonBenet did suffer genital trauma -- both acute and chronic.

The fact that the acute trauma happened near her death and that, as far as evidence goes, it is more likely that a family member did it, John Ramsey is a suspect with regards to the molestation that JonBenet received. Of course, that is not saying he did it for a fact but it is more than plausible, certainly when the alternative is a degenerate intruder which has no evidence for it thus cannot really be entertained to the same extent that RDI theories can.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I dont believe emphatically that an intruder did it, but it hasnt been proven to me that an intruder didnt do it either. Theres so many questions all the way around. I really dont like the labels though. ie IDI RDI. There is room for really good discussion here but sometimes people are a bit arrogant and rude and think their opinions are the only ones that make sense; and some people are so passionate about their "side" being right. Im not on either side, all things are plausible, well except the small foreign fraction and the koreans...I think thats a little far fetched, but Im not personally insulted that someone else thinks that. Im an educated woman. I have read alot about the case and I still dont have any concrete conclusion that I believe without a doubt Other people do believe they know what happened and stand by it..thats fine. I agree with you LetitBe that speaking for myself, when I lean towards IDI, it is because I cant see these parents doing this. Its so brutal a murder for a parent. I could be wrong, Im not afraid to admit that. the RN is an oddity..Doesnt really fit the IDI. There are many things that some RDI consider significant that I dont think is significant, its subjective.
I do like to discuss it here, I do like reading other peoples theories and opinions..its educating and interesting, but maybe we all can find a way to be a bit less snarky towards each other . Not all comments made here are meant to be inflammatory. Sometimes they are just comments.

What you are proposing is an illogical fallacy :How can I or anyone disprove an intruder who doesn't exist? That's like disproving Santa Claus -- first I'd have to prove him but that's impossible since he manifestly does not exist.

There's a famous Hebrew phrase : "the judge knows only what his eyes can see". That phrase is the premise of science too -- it means we should only accept things which we know for certain to be true.

Thus, when we evaluate the case, we analyse the evidence and understand it objectively. If the evidence suggests something objectively, that is what we must conclude.

To believe in the IDI requires inventing evidence : we need to speculate about how the intruder got in since there's no evidence of a breaking in; we need to speculate that the intruder was at the crime scene even though no intruder dna has been found (even the longjohn stuff doesn't prove this); we need to believe the ransom note at face value and accept it was wrote by an intruder who wanted revenge on capitalism, America and John Ramsey; we need to speculate about why an intruder would rummage through a house and clean a flashlight after he supposedly killed a child who by the way screamed.

I just simply cannot entertain any of that.

I can however accept that a family member killed John Benet. Either a sex-game gone wrong or 'accidental' death are in keeping with the evidence thus far.

 

[otg]

I dont believe emphatically that an intruder did it, but it hasnt been proven to me that an intruder didnt do it either. Theres so many questions all the way around. I really dont like the labels though. ie IDI RDI. There is room for really good discussion here but sometimes people are a bit arrogant and rude and think their opinions are the only ones that make sense; and some people are so passionate about their "side" being right. Im not on either side, all things are plausible, well except the small foreign fraction and the koreans...I think thats a little far fetched, but Im not personally insulted that someone else thinks that. Im an educated woman. I have read alot about the case and I still dont have any concrete conclusion that I believe without a doubt Other people do believe they know what happened and stand by it..thats fine. I agree with you LetitBe that speaking for myself, when I lean towards IDI, it is because I cant see these parents doing this. Its so brutal a murder for a parent. I could be wrong, Im not afraid to admit that. the RN is an oddity..Doesnt really fit the IDI. There are many things that some RDI consider significant that I dont think is significant, its subjective.
I do like to discuss it here, I do like reading other peoples theories and opinions..its educating and interesting, but maybe we all can find a way to be a bit less snarky towards each other . Not all comments made here are meant to be inflammatory. Sometimes they are just comments.

Peepers, you sound like you might be open to a new possible explanation that you didn't mention in your list. Not an intruder, not the parents, and not even a "brutal murder". I hate to bring it up, because it upsets so many to even talk about it. But if you have the time, [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5796846#post5796846"]this post[/ame] has links to a series of posts leading up to another possibility.

Personally, I would much rather discuss details with someone who disagrees with me but will discuss the facts in a logical manner and in a civil tone, than one who simply agrees with me because he/she wants to come to a predetermined conclusion.

And I agree with you about the "RDI/IDI" labels, especially when either of them is used to represent an entire group as a single person/single mind. But it's much simpler, people do it, you get used to it, and sooner or later it seems you catch yourself doing it. I don't think anyone really intends it to be demeaning.
.

 

[txsvicki]

I think it's possible that Patsy did it, but definitely don't believe that John was molesting JonBenet. But, I think it was an intruder, an inside job by someone with access to and cooperation with an insider not family related. The intruder could have been alone or the insider with him that night. The intruder could have even been the one molesting previously or it could have been another child not really in the circle of friends. I thought intruder before, but after reading a few things lately, the possible previous molestation, the viciousness of the crime, making sure JonBenet was dead, and dna make me 99% convinced, and really believe that this will soon be solved.

 

[Steely]

I dont believe emphatically that an intruder did it, but it hasnt been proven to me that an intruder didnt do it either. Theres so many questions all the way around. I really dont like the labels though. ie IDI RDI. There is room for really good discussion here but sometimes people are a bit arrogant and rude and think their opinions are the only ones that make sense; and some people are so passionate about their "side" being right. Im not on either side, all things are plausible, well except the small foreign fraction and the koreans...I think thats a little far fetched, but Im not personally insulted that someone else thinks that. Im an educated woman. I have read alot about the case and I still dont have any concrete conclusion that I believe without a doubt Other people do believe they know what happened and stand by it..thats fine. I agree with you LetitBe that speaking for myself, when I lean towards IDI, it is because I cant see these parents doing this. Its so brutal a murder for a parent. I could be wrong, Im not afraid to admit that. the RN is an oddity..Doesnt really fit the IDI. There are many things that some RDI consider significant that I dont think is significant, its subjective.
I do like to discuss it here, I do like reading other peoples theories and opinions..its educating and interesting, but maybe we all can find a way to be a bit less snarky towards each other . Not all comments made here are meant to be inflammatory. Sometimes they are just comments.

I'm like you except I lean towards RDI. Thanks so much for this post. Without seeing facial expressions and gestures it can lead to misunderstandings. I'm with you and I'm going to try to be less snarky.

 

[Peepers]

Peepers, you sound like you might be open to a new possible explanation that you didn't mention in your list. Not an intruder, not the parents, and not even a "brutal murder". I hate to bring it up, because it upsets so many to even talk about it. But if you have the time, this post has links to a series of posts leading up to another possibility.

Personally, I would much rather discuss details with someone who disagrees with me but will discuss the facts in a logical manner and in a civil tone, than one who simply agrees with me because he/she wants to come to a predetermined conclusion.

And I agree with you about the "RDI/IDI" labels, especially when either of them is used to represent an entire group as a single person/single mind. But it's much simpler, people do it, you get used to it, and sooner or later it seems you catch yourself doing it. I don't think anyone really intends it to be demeaning.
.

Yes otg..I actually think that if the someone in the family murdered Jonbonet, it wasnt Patsy or John..that leaves the other person in the house that night. Its the only plausible reason that the Ramsyes would stage such a scene (if they did). I dont know the rules of sounding accusatory in the forum and it seems Burke kind of gets a break because he was a kid. I know he was "ruled out", but maybe because the BPD couldnt see past Patsy.

 

[twinkiesmom]

JonBenets head injury would have most likely caused brain swelling and bleeding, had she lived longer after the injury.

One thing when she died that is possible with the injury she sustained is the leaking of cerebral spinal fluid in the nose, ears and mouth. This fluid can be clear, pink or bloody. I think this is what was draining from JonBenets nose.

Thank you for posting this...I agree with you in principle, but I also think the pink mucous could have resulted from capillaries bursting in her laryngeal mucosa due to the strangulation.

 

[madeleine]

Yes otg..I actually think that if the someone in the family murdered Jonbonet, it wasnt Patsy or John..that leaves the other person in the house that night. Its the only plausible reason that the Ramsyes would stage such a scene (if they did). I dont know the rules of sounding accusatory in the forum and it seems Burke kind of gets a break because he was a kid. I know he was "ruled out", but maybe because the BPD couldnt see past Patsy.

ITA.
to me the only thing that makes sense re PR writing that note (IF she did) is that she wanted to cover for her son.If this is what happened then I even feel sorry for her.really sorry.and I totally understand her,she was a mother.and if this is what happened then JR is a $%$#^ for allowing everybody to point fingers at her and trashing her,what for,only to cover for a kid with big personality problems?not worth it,sorry.imo

 

[DeeDee249]

I think it's possible that Patsy did it, but definitely don't believe that John was molesting JonBenet. But, I think it was an intruder, an inside job by someone with access to and cooperation with an insider not family related. The intruder could have been alone or the insider with him that night. The intruder could have even been the one molesting previously or it could have been another child not really in the circle of friends. I thought intruder before, but after reading a few things lately, the possible previous molestation, the viciousness of the crime, making sure JonBenet was dead, and dna make me 99% convinced, and really believe that this will soon be solved.

In your opinion, how did they get in and out of the house, and do all that was done, including making JB scream loud enough to be heard across the street, with the parents and sibling home?

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes otg..I actually think that if the someone in the family murdered Jonbonet, it wasnt Patsy or John..that leaves the other person in the house that night. Its the only plausible reason that the Ramsyes would stage such a scene (if they did). I dont know the rules of sounding accusatory in the forum and it seems Burke kind of gets a break because he was a kid. I know he was "ruled out", but maybe because the BPD couldnt see past Patsy.

BR wasn't ruled out because they couldn't see past Patsy- he was ruled out because in Colorado, a person under 10 cannot be accused, arrested, indicted, or implicated in a crime, even if they are known to be guilty. They cannot even MENTION his name in relation to the crime. He HAD to be ruled out because he could never be "ruled IN". Even if they knew he did it, even if he confessed.
AND if he had an accomplice who WAS over 10, that person also cannot be accused or arrested IF it would expose the involvement of the person under 10.
BR was only a few weeks shy of his 10th birthday....
In Colorado, ruling someone out doesn't mean they aren't known to be involved when that "someone" is under 10.

 

[Steely]

In your opinion, how did they get in and out of the house, and do all that was done, including making JB scream loud enough to be heard across the street, with the parents and sibling home?

Oh, my gosh. Thank you , DeeDee249 this post triggered the thought...What if that scream wasn't from JB? What if that scream WAS from the sibling? A little boy of 9 screaming could be mistaken for a girl, right? I've never thought of that...I assumed the scream was JB. Although frankly that comment the witness made of maybe feeling her "energy" (what was it she said?) made me wonder if she even heard a scream.

 

[Steely]

Thank you for posting this...I agree with you in principle, but I also think the pink mucous could have resulted from capillaries bursting in her laryngeal mucosa due to the strangulation.

Did you guys notice in the autopsy it mentioned mild chronic inflammation of the submucosa of the trachea? Did anyone else wonder if JB had undiagnosed mild recurrent asthma? I wonder if she had undiagnosed allergies...perhaps a gluten sensitivity or celiac. Sometimes bedwetting and soiling are presentations of undiagnosed celiac disease.

Does anyone know if she ever actually ATE any of the cracked crab? An allergy prone child eating crab makes me wonder if there was an anaphalaxis component here. What if the parents found JB dead...in her bed or bathroom and they assumed it was BR that killed her? Is this as far out as a KOREA connection?

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Did you guys notice in the autopsy it mentioned mild chronic inflammation of the submucosa of the trachea? Did anyone else wonder if JB had undiagnosed mild recurrent asthma? I wonder if she had undiagnosed allergies...perhaps a gluten sensitivity or celiac. Sometimes bedwetting and soiling are presentations of undiagnosed celiac disease.

Does anyone know if she ever actually ATE any of the cracked crab? An allergy prone child eating crab makes me wonder if there was an anaphalaxis component here. What if the parents found JB dead...in her bed or bathroom and they assumed it was BR that killed her? Is this as far out as a KOREA connection?

If JonBenet got up in the middle of the night because she wasn't feeling well due to the cracked crab, she might have gone into the bathroom. Could she of gone unconscious and then hit her head on the bathtub or the toilet? I just don't see how they would have assumed Burke did it. They would have just seen JonBenet lying on the floor unresponsive. Unless Burke heard JonBenet fall, ran into the bathroom, and yelled for his parents? But even then, I can't see how they would assume it was him, in that particular scenario. This might be a dumb question but if you have a severe allergic reaction to crab, would that also apply to lobster too since they are both seafoods? I'm asking because I remember Steve Thomas said in his book that JonBenet had a lobster dinner in NYC.

 

[Steely]

If JonBenet got up in the middle of the night because she wasn't feeling well due to the cracked crab, she might have gone into the bathroom. Could she of gone unconscious and then hit her head on the bathtub or the toilet? I just don't see how they would have assumed Burke did it. They would have just seen JonBenet lying on the floor unresponsive. Unless Burke heard JonBenet fall, ran into the bathroom, and yelled for his parents? But even then, I can't see how they would assume it was him, in that particular scenario. This might be a dumb question but if you have a severe allergic reaction to crab, would that also apply to lobster too since they are both seafoods? I'm asking because I remember Steve Thomas said in his book that JonBenet had a lobster dinner in NYC.

I agree...how would they think BR did anything? It doesn't add up. Allergies can be so variable. Anaphalaxis typically happens within the first three hours but not always. Usually there is swelling but not always. Someone allergic could react to crab but not lobster. You can eat a food a hundred times and then react to it. I had a child react to soy the first time he ate it and he had only had it before through nursing. I just threw that out there because of the finding of the chronic inflammation of the submucosa of the trachea...and hearing she might have eaten cracked crab and said she wasn't feeling well at the party. There wasn't any evidence of vomiting though, was there? And they are pretty sure it was PINEAPPLE in her stomach? Hmmm... I'm wondering if undiagnosed airway obstuction played into this at all. Would that make her more susceptible to a vasovagal reaction?