Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[mrseeker]

BR has a very, very thick cushion of protection surrounding him. It's green, and says "In God We Trust" on it.

What evidence do you have the youngest person alive in that house that morning is the killer? They all have money. I really don't understand the burke did it people. Patsy did it. it is all in the note.

 

[BOESP]

respectfully snipped for brevity ...

Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding the RGJ true bills?

Because the wording is ambiguous. For instance, if PDI, then John could have stepped in to prevent what happened and done more to assist JonBenet and vice versa, if JDI, Patsy could have stepped in and done the same. Since, according to what you've posted about Colorado law, both were implicitly involved thus both were equally culpable for indictment.

Iirc, some grand jury members and Linda Huffman-Pugh stated the grand jury couldn't decide who did what but believed both were responsible by failing to taken necessary steps to protect JonBenet.

It may be BDI but I just can't determine that by reading what was released. It should have been released in full.

As an aside, why would the Ramseys keep this before the public by writing books and making many public appearances in speaking engagements if they truly wanted to keep Burke's name out of things. "Let sleeping dogs lie " would be the route to take if one truly didn't want publicity.

As I've stated many times over the years, I lean toward PDI and still think so (based on what is known publicly).

And, yes, I am still a member of Densa.

 

[singularity]

otg- I complained about the wording and then did the same thing myself. BOESP said basically what I meant......its too ambiguous......hence "wiggle room". The GJ has no idea who did what and when. Like UK said, which Ramsey instigated it all? The GJ sure doesn't know, I'd like to know exactly how much evidence was presented to them.

THis is why I said Hunter "jumped for joy" about it. You're right....he buried it but had the GJ been a bit more specific, it would have made burying it a lot more difficult.

 

[UKGuy]

otg,

Anyone care to speculate why Count IV (a) did not fall into this reference to "paragraph (c) of this subsection (7)" ("the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the child")? Perhaps like so many of the pundits we see on TV, so many who post here and at other forums, and even many of the lawyers quoted in articles about it, we could simply say "it doesn't make any sense," "the grand jury must have been confused," or "maybe it was a compromise judgment."

Count IV probably does not fall under the cited paragraph (c) subsection (7), since the latter applies directly to a person whereas the former refers to a set of circumstances, i.e. unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be 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, a child under the age of sixteen.

As I read it one is death resulting from neglect and the other is direct assistance to the alleged killer?

.

 

[UKGuy]

Because the wording is ambiguous. For instance, if PDI, then John could have stepped in to prevent what happened and done more to assist JonBenet and vice versa, if JDI, Patsy could have stepped in and done the same. Since, according to what you've posted about Colorado law, both were implicitly involved thus both were equally culpable for indictment.

Iirc, some grand jury members and Linda Huffman-Pugh stated the grand jury couldn't decide who did what but believed both were responsible by failing to taken necessary steps to protect JonBenet.

It may be BDI but I just can't determine that by reading what was released. It should have been released in full.

As an aside, why would the Ramseys keep this before the public by writing books and making many public appearances in speaking engagements if they truly wanted to keep Burke's name out of things. "Let sleeping dogs lie " would be the route to take if one truly didn't want publicity.

As I've stated many times over the years, I lean toward PDI and still think so (based on what is known publicly).

And, yes, I am still a member of Densa.

BOESP,

Since, according to what you've posted about Colorado law, both were implicitly involved thus both were equally culpable for indictment.

But neither parent was cited for murder in the first degree, they were accused of child abuse via neglect, and

Count VII, Accessory to a Crime
On or about December 25, and December 26,1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and alternately Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

So if the GJ are saying someone other than the parents committed Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death. just who does that leave in the frame?

BTW something I just noted was both the GJ and Kolar are saying one person did it all!

.

 

[BOESP]

First, we only got to see part of the true bill. Remember John Ramsey demanded (whether sincerely or not is open to question) that the entire true bill should be released (which it wasn't). I don't remember his exact quote but at the time I read it, it sounded like posturing.

Per UKGuy's post, the indictment reads:

"But neither parent was cited for murder in the first degree, they were accused of child abuse via neglect, and Count VII, Accessory to a Crime.On or about December 25, and December 26,1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and alternately Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death. "



So if the GJ are saying someone other than the parents committed Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death. just who does that leave in the frame?

That sounds to me like both Patsy and John were suspected of murder, which stemmed from child abuse resulting in Death, because neither did anything to prevent the other from abusing JonBenet. :dunno:

 

[observation]

Great conversation especially related to the TB- In review of the indictment and charges- how did PR and JR not manage to receive any charges at all. Had they been signed- they were looking at some possible time esp. As accessory to a murderer in the first degree. What a mess!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

First, we only got to see part of the true bill. Remember John Ramsey demanded (whether sincerely or not is open to question) that the entire true bill should be released (which it wasn't). I don't remember his exact quote but at the time I read it, it sounded like posturing.

Per UKGuy's post, the indictment reads:



That sounds to me like both Patsy and John were suspected of murder, which stemmed from child abuse resulting in Death, because neither did anything to prevent the other from abusing JonBenet. :dunno:

BOESP,
For completeness here are the GJ True Bills:

1. John Ramsey Grand Jury
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinion_Docs/JRamsey Grand Jury.pdf

2. Patricia Ramsey Grand Jury
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinion_Docs/PRamsey Grand Jury.pdf

That sounds to me like both Patsy and John were suspected of murder, which stemmed from child abuse resulting in Death, because neither did anything to prevent the other from abusing JonBenet.

BBM:Child abuse by whom? Nowhere in the true bills does it cite either parent as a homicide suspect. Count IV is not stating that either parent enacted physical abuse resulting death, only that either parent did permit a child to be 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

It states in both counts that each parent did enact Count IV (a), Child Abuse Resulting in Death, i.e. neglect and that each parent did enact Count VII, Accessory to a Crime, i.e. postmortem after the fact staging.

otg was offered a legal opinion on Count VII, Accessory to a Crime:

BBM: emphasis mine.

The law of complicity is as you say, that the accomplice is guilty of the same crime as the principal.

In the old common-law language of the law of crimes, those who contributed to the commission of a crime ("aiders and abettors") were called accessories before the fact. Aiding and abetting included (and still does) not only material aid, but help with planning a crime or even mere encouragement of the crime. There were varieties of accessories before the fact, depending on whether they were present at the scene of the crime or not, but today these distinctions are unimportant and we treat them all as accomplices, whose guilt is equal to that of the principal. (There may be a few occasions, unimportant here, when the accomplice and the principal are guilty of different degrees of the crime, but no matter for our purposes).

But the GJ did not charge John and Patsy as accomplices to the actual killing. They are charged instead as accessories after the fact. (In Colorado this crime is called simply Accessory to Crime; the statute is CRS 18-8-105; you will see that its language matches the language of those counts of the indictment.) This is different from complicity, and carries different (and milder) penalties from the principal's crime. Being an accessory after the fact requires helping the principal criminal escape, or hide, or evade prosecution— things that happen after the crime is committed. Now if someone promises to provide these after-the-fact services with knowledge of the crime that is planned, then they may be accomplices (or in the old term, accessories before the fact), because by promising their post-crime aid they have contributed to the planning of the crime, or encouraged it. So the charge of accessory after the fact suggests that (the GJ believed) those who were charged with it (John and Patsy) had no advance knowledge that the crime was going to be committed, but once they learned of it, they took steps to protect the criminal from detection, prosecution, and conviction. Since it is unthinkable to me that the Ramseys would have done such a thing for a stranger or intruder, or indeed for anyone except their other child, I conclude that the GJ believed that the criminal whom the two adults took steps to protect was Burke.

Interestingly, the GJ says that the crime to which J&P were accessories after the fact was murder in the first degree. Putting aside highly unlikely forms of first-degree murder, I believe this means the GJ believed that the crime was either deliberate (planned) by Burke, or that it occurred while Burke was sexually assaulting his sister. (The latter seems to me much more likely.) Felony-murder (that is, killing while in the course of committing a felony) is first-degree murder in Colorado. There are a few felonies other than sexual assault that would support a felony-murder charge in theory (burglary, robbery), but none of them fits the facts as we (think we) understand them.

The GJ are basically saying the parents were aware or should have been that JonBenet was at risk of sexual abuse, that they ignored this, and that they assisted in postmortem staging.

The Person referenced in those true bill accounts is not either parent, so who is it?


.

 

[BOESP]

Well, just as those who say they can't understand why some of us don't understand the true bill means BDI, I don't understand how anyone say the unnamed person mentioned in the True Bill can not be Patsy or John. I agree the True Bill states John and Patsy were aware that some type of abuse was going on and they did nothing to stop it. However, the wording suggests to me that either Patsy or John, individually, possibly could be the unnamed person and under Colorado law the other (either John or Patsy) was guilty because they did nothing to help JonBenet.

I can see also that the unnamed person could be a third person but I can't say for sure who that person might be.

And, finally, we don't really know whether or not a fourth person was in the house -- not an uninvited intruder but, perhaps, a friend or another family member.

Iirc, Linda Pugh thought the Grand Jury was ready to indict Patsy but they couldn't decide who did what. Add-in what otg has told us about Colorado statutes and, imo, both husband and wife are equally culpable but imo that doesn't exclude either as the one physically responsible for the act(s) that led up to JonBenet's death.

I understand (or think I do) that some believe Burke did it and because neither Patsy or John rendered assistance they are guilty of murder under Colorado law.

Imo, based on public knowledge, Patsy did it and did not render assistance and because John did nothing to help JonBenet he is also guilty. Since neither adult called for emergency medical assistance nor rushed her to the emergency room, they are/were both negligent parents no matter who did it. Who doesn't seek help for their injured child no matter what?

We can agree to disagree. :seeya:

 

[Deadhead_Kay]

I was reading over the autopsy report and this probably has been discussed before, but I found it interesting that the coroner detected no sign of a head wound until he, i don't know how to put this lightly, cut into her head. I know many have theories that Burke had caused the initial head wound, and maybe i'm just really slow and not understanding the obvious but wouldn't any hit cause obvious discoloration and such on the outside? I'm thinking it had to be a pretty old wound for there to be no obvious signs of the injury on the outside. But the description of the damage to the skull seems like it would be a pretty bad blow. I really feel like i'm missing the obvious so i would not mind any of you correcting me ha.

 

[singularity]

Well, just as those who say they can't understand why some of us don't understand the true bill means BDI, I don't understand how anyone say the unnamed person mentioned in the True Bill can not be Patsy or John. I agree the True Bill states John and Patsy were aware that some type of abuse was going on and they did nothing to stop it. However, the wording suggests to me that either Patsy or John, individually, possibly could be the unnamed person and under Colorado law the other (either John or Patsy) was guilty because they did nothing to help JonBenet.

I agree 1000%. The GJ simply didn't know who did what, when, where, etc. and this is the best they could come up with. I am with you....the wording of these counts does not mean BDI although I can see why some may believe that to be the case.

They are charged instead as accessories after the fact.

Is it safe to assume this charge is due to the staging/coverup and the fact that JOhn and Patsy the only people likely to have participated in this? Even if they killed her which would be difficult to prove obviously, they could still be charged with this and it might actually stick(had Hunter played ball).

The GJ bills do not give John and Patsy a free pass.....it was simply the best they could come up with. ST thinks PDI, Kolar thinks BDI, LS thinks IDI, etc. Imagine how the GJ felt.

I was reading over the autopsy report and this probably has been discussed before, but I found it interesting that the coroner detected no sign of a head wound until he, i don't know how to put this lightly, cut into her head. I know many have theories that Burke had caused the initial head wound, and maybe i'm just really slow and not understanding the obvious but wouldn't any hit cause obvious discoloration and such on the outside? I'm thinking it had to be a pretty old wound for there to be no obvious signs of the injury on the outside. But the description of the damage to the skull seems like it would be a pretty bad blow. I really feel like i'm missing the obvious so i would not mind any of you correcting me ha.

Its impossible that it was an old wound considering the fact it would've been fatal had she not been strangled. At best, if taken to the hospital immediately after the injury, she would've been brain dead.

It is amazing that such a horrific blow to the head did not cause an open wound. The killer got 'lucky' in that regard. Had she bled out from the wound, god only knows how it would have changed the events that night.

 

[Tadpole12]

It is amazing that such a horrific blow to the head did not cause an open wound. The killer got 'lucky' in that regard. Had she bled out from the wound, god only knows how it would have changed the events that night.

Yes. It would have been a bloody mess.

 

[BOESP]

Yes. It would have been a bloody mess.

This is another reason I believe the wound suggests a high pressure/low velocity wound.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree 1000%. The GJ simply didn't know who did what, when, where, etc. and this is the best they could come up with. I am with you....the wording of these counts does not mean BDI although I can see why some may believe that to be the case.

Is it safe to assume this charge is due to the staging/coverup and the fact that JOhn and Patsy the only people likely to have participated in this? Even if they killed her which would be difficult to prove obviously, they could still be charged with this and it might actually stick(had Hunter played ball).

The GJ bills do not give John and Patsy a free pass.....it was simply the best they could come up with. ST thinks PDI, Kolar thinks BDI, LS thinks IDI, etc. Imagine how the GJ felt.


Its impossible that it was an old wound considering the fact it would've been fatal had she not been strangled. At best, if taken to the hospital immediately after the injury, she would've been brain dead.

It is amazing that such a horrific blow to the head did not cause an open wound. The killer got 'lucky' in that regard. Had she bled out from the wound, god only knows how it would have changed the events that night.

singularity,

They are charged instead as accessories after the fact.

Is it safe to assume this charge is due to the staging/coverup and the fact that JOhn and Patsy the only people likely to have participated in this? Even if they killed her which would be difficult to prove obviously, they could still be charged with this and it might actually stick(had Hunter played ball).

Yes its safe to assume, as per legal opinion:


But the GJ did not charge John and Patsy as accomplices to the actual killing. They are charged instead as accessories after the fact. (In Colorado this crime is called simply Accessory to Crime; the statute is CRS 18-8-105; you will see that its language matches the language of those counts of the indictment.) This is different from complicity ...


If either of the parents had been accomplices, one or both would have been charged with murder in the first degree, meaning this is before the fact behavior.

Neither were, so the GJ were satisfied that the parents had no advance knowledge of JonBenet's death, and patently took no part in her assault or death?

Apart from BDI, the only other interpretation seems to be a conspiracy between the R's and AH to minimize the charges and simply refer to the Person as JonBenet's killer, i.e. someone distinct from the parents?

The GJ's True Bills amend prior theories, since they are explicitly saying the parents had no fore-knowledge of events and were acting after the fact.

The wording of the accessory charge reflects this:

Count VII, Accessory to a Crime
On or about December 25, and December 26,1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey (and alternately Patricia Paugh Ramsey) did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.

What this means is that anyone who thinks the case is JDI or PDI have to conclusively demonstrate who the person being assisted is?

Otherwise their theories are simply old school RDI speculations based on erroneous evidence, failing to incorporate new information!


.

 

[otg]

Because the wording is ambiguous.

Hi, B. I didn’t mean to suggest there is only one way to look at this, and I certainly hope no one (especially you) took offence. I probably let my own frustration influence my words. I understand that there is still a great deal that contradicts my thoughts on it, and for the most part, those who speak about it publicly (newscasters, pundits, lawyers, "experts," etc.) don’t seem to see what I think is obvious -- or they aren’t willing to acknowledge the idea.

I’ll try to give you my thoughts on your post knowing full well that I won’t change your mind. (We’ve been here before -- see links at bottom of this post and read resulting discussions.) I just want you to see what leads me to my conclusions. (And no, I don’t believe you’re really you’re a member of Densa.)

For instance, if PDI, then John could have stepped in to prevent what happened and done more to assist JonBenet and vice versa, if JDI, Patsy could have stepped in and done the same. Since, according to what you've posted about Colorado law, both were implicitly involved thus both were equally culpable for indictment.

The disagreement have with this is that if either Patsy or John were responsible for actually doing something that would (or could) have caused her death, then that person should have been charged with M-1 (first degree murder). There are at least a few ways that the “first degree” part could be applied depending on the exact circumstances. For instance: if it was premeditated or intentional, if the death occurred during the commission of another crime (felony murder), or if the cause of her death was done by a person in a “position of trust” (certainly a parent qualifies for that). So if either one of the parents directly caused her death and the other parent acted with the other or participated in the act (IOW, accomplice before the fact), they are still equally responsible under the laws of CO, and there is no SoL. If OTOH one parent only helped the other cover it up (IOW, accessory after the fact), the GJ or the DA doesn’t have to tell a jury which one did what. As co-conspirators it doesn’t matter who is the principal and who is the accessory. They can still both be charged with murder and let the jury decide who to find guilty or not guilty, or guilty of a lesser charge. This is all according to CO statutes and it is the reason I’ve said there is no such thing as a “cross finger pointing defense.” (I challenge anyone to find another case where that term is even used.)

Yes, in such a case they would indeed both be indicted, but not as accessories. They would both be indicted for M-1 as accomplices. The RGJ instead only indicted them as “accessories (after the fact)” stating in the true bill that each of them “unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render(ed) assistance to a person (unnamed), with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person (unnamed) for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted (unnamed) has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.” Why did the RGJ in John’s indictment not name the other person as Patsy, and vice versa? That's what they did when they indicted Aaron Thompson naming Shely Lowe (his common-law wife) as the person to whom he rendered assistance. In that case, even thought the GJ didn't know what happened to his daughter (her body has never been found), they named her in his indictment as the person he assisted. Shely Lowe would most likely have also been indicted the same as Aaron but for the fact that she died while the GJ was convened. Again, remember the indictment doesn’t have to name who is the principal.

Notice also that count IV (a) is not for committing child abuse -- it is for “permit(ting) a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health.” Why else would neither parent have been named as committing the child abuse?

Iirc, some grand jury members and Linda Huffman-Pugh stated the grand jury couldn't decide who did what but believed both were responsible by failing to taken necessary steps to protect JonBenet.

LHP had no way of knowing what the RGJ was thinking or trying to decide. Her thoughts might well be prejudiced because of her own feelings. As for the grand juror who made that statement, I agree with it. Neither can I figure out who did exactly each part of the cover-up (except that we know Patsy wrote the RN). Did John tie the cord to the broken paint brush, or did Patsy do that because her sweater fibers were found in the knots? Who put the oversized panties on her, since neither parent’s t-DNA was found on them? Who wiped or cleaned up the blood that was found on her thighs? Again, these individual things don’t have to be proven to a jury for them to find guilt if both parents were involved -- and they WERE BOTH involved.

It may be BDI but I just can't determine that by reading what was released. It should have been released in full.

Agreed. And I think if it is ever challenged in court, it will have to be. The statutes say the entire indictment is an “official action” of the GJ and therefore it is information the public is entitled to. But someone with “standing” will have to challenge/appeal Judge Lowenbach’s ruling. (A question about that: Why would Lowenbach not release the indictment in full considering the CO Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Thompson?)

As an aside, why would the Ramseys keep this before the public by writing books and making many public appearances in speaking engagements if they truly wanted to keep Burke's name out of things. "Let sleeping dogs lie " would be the route to take if one truly didn't want publicity.

:dunno: Narcissism? Money? :dunno:

As I've stated many times over the years, I lean toward PDI and still think so (based on what is known publicly).

I know, and I understand why you and so many others continue to think so. Please forgive my frustrated post.

And, yes, I am still a member of Densa.

No, you’re not. Your card was revoked long ago. :giggle:


:findinglink:
Other discussions, same subject:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...t-about-all-these-3-s&p=10793663#post10793663
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?230052-Premeditated&p=10371398#post10371398
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?23827-Was-Burke-involved&p=10385499#post10385499


:lookingitup:
CO Supreme Court’s ruling that the entire indictment is an “official action” of the GJ and therefore must be release in its entirety with only the names of victims redacted:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2007/07SA339.pdf

 

[otg]

otg,


Count IV probably does not fall under the cited paragraph (c) subsection (7), since the latter applies directly to a person whereas the former refers to a set of circumstances, i.e. unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be 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, a child under the age of sixteen.

As I read it one is death resulting from neglect and the other is direct assistance to the alleged killer?

.

I think I agree. :thinking: It's only opinion -- that's why I was hoping someone else would see the same thing as me. I think it's because the parents are in a "position of trust," but didn't commit the murder. Can a person who is an "infant" by definition in the statutes be considered a person in a "position of trust?" Even if that were the case, that infant couldn't be charged. I do think though that the point might be argued by a good prosecutor that even permitting the situation of abuse violated the parents' "position of trust," and it could have therefore "upped" the charge. Oh, wait a minute -- Alex Hunter was the DA. Never mind.

 

[otg]

I was reading over the autopsy report and this probably has been discussed before, but I found it interesting that the coroner detected no sign of a head wound until he, i don't know how to put this lightly, cut into her head. I know many have theories that Burke had caused the initial head wound, and maybe i'm just really slow and not understanding the obvious but wouldn't any hit cause obvious discoloration and such on the outside? I'm thinking it had to be a pretty old wound for there to be no obvious signs of the injury on the outside. But the description of the damage to the skull seems like it would be a pretty bad blow. I really feel like i'm missing the obvious so i would not mind any of you correcting me ha.

DK, have you ever played croquet? Are you familiar with aligning two balls together and striking only one? What happens is the force is transferred from the first ball to the second sending it off into the distance while the struck ball remains. The same principle is used in playing billiards or pool. I think this action (along with other factors) is part of what caused the force to be transferred enough through her scalp to cause the depressed fracture.

 

[UKGuy]

I think I agree. :thinking: It's only opinion -- that's why I was hoping someone else would see the same thing as me. I think it's because the parents are in a "position of trust," but didn't commit the murder. Can a person who is an "infant" by definition in the statutes be considered a person in a "position of trust?" Even if that were the case, that infant couldn't be charged. I do think though that the point might be argued by a good prosecutor that even permitting the situation of abuse violated the parents' "position of trust," and it could have therefore "upped" the charge. Oh, wait a minute -- Alex Hunter was the DA. Never mind.

otg,
BBM: Sure is, but it's the After The Fact distinction that seals it for me, else why intend to level these specific statutes against the R's?

Also the GJ must have seen evidence we know nothing about. Since the R's said we all retired to bed, yet the GJ are claiming neglect via Count IV (a), Child Abuse Resulting in Death, so they must know something we do not?

The way I read it is the GJ are blaming the parents by neglect for JonBenet's death and assisting in the staging, and other members should note, as you have, that with no cross-pointing defense available in Colorado, the said Person cannot be either parent, so just who is this referenced Person mentioned in the True Bills?

.

 

[ozazure]

DK, have you ever played croquet? Are you familiar with aligning two balls together and striking only one? What happens is the force is transferred from the first ball to the second sending it off into the distance while the struck ball remains. The same principle is used in playing billiards or pool. I think this action (along with other factors) is part of what caused the force to be transferred enough through her scalp to cause the depressed fracture.

In this scenario, what sort of object is the struck ball?

 

[chlban]

The thing is, I have experienced a family in denial about escalating behaviour from a young boy. I would find it difficult to believe if I hadn't seen what that mother is capable of telling herself about it to minimise it, and the most important thing for her seems to be not accepting facts. A cover up would be as much for their selfish need to not be the parents of a child offender as protecting the child. Most parents find the emotional wear and tear of a troubled child damaging to their self worth and self-image, because despite their best efforts they often remain ineffective - this is aside from their fears for their child, which obviously dominate the healthy parent's concerns. Hard yards. The damage to a narcissist's self-image and public-image quickly becomes the number one priority, over the abuse of another child, over the obvious distress of a child offending. They stop trying to fix things because then they aren't ineffective, they live in denial and put energy into the surface appearance only. They get to the end game inch by inch, week by week ... and in the end the ongoing subterfuge is a refuge for their minds.

Very insightful and spot on. Patsy was all about image.