Why Patsy

[BBB167893]

But this is not about IDI or RDI HOTYH IMO.It's about a prosecutor being able to establish a timeline and build a case.If you have no idea what the COD or TOD was how can you do that.If you don't even have the murder weapon (IMO it was the garrote but it doesn't matter what I think,it matters what LE thinks or the DA).

Well done, maddy. There's a big difference between what HOTYH is saying and what it being said by the rest of us, RDI, IDI or in-between.

 

[madeleine]

I just realized something.I keep saying that IMO the garrote was the murder weapon only because I think it's strangulation that killed her.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that she was strangled with the garrote,could have been something else.I was thinking if for ex JR strangled her (sex game gone wrong,premeditation,etc)why on earth would he leave the garrote there(fibers,DNA,you can't make sure you got rid of everything on it).
Reminds me of the scarves talk,maybe LE thought she was initially strangled with something else as well.
This could explain the second ligature mark on her neck.And in this case the garrote is part of a staging indeed .

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I would disagree with those assertions, but not by much. You may be onto something, HOTYH.



All right, HOTYH!



I wonder. Misconstrued? Or just stated evasively? Either way, it doesn't do much good.

Please let me know when you've actually got something to say, and then I'll be more than happy to respond.

There's a big difference between what HOTYH is saying and what it being said by the rest of us, RDI, IDI or in-between.

I'll be taking this as a compliment, as I believe my theory is the only theory that does not start off by contradicting the core evidence, admitting evidence selectively, creating fiction wherever facts are not available, or just rides along with someone else's belief.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Please let me know when you've actually got something to say, and then I'll be more than happy to respond.



I'll be taking this as a compliment, as I believe my theory is the only theory that does not start off by contradicting the core evidence, or admitting evidence selectively.

Hi HOTYH. Have you posted your theory on the theories thread? I would be very interested in reading it if you have.
Thanks,
Becky

 

[DeeDee249]

What would've been a clear manner? Should he have stated PR and JR obviously deposited their lint on JBR's underwear, longjohns, and the garrote? That the older injuries were obviously caused by JR? That the DNA is obviously incidental?

Seriously, though: what should the coroner have stated more clearly, and in doing so further support RDI?

It wasn't up to the coroner to analyze or speculate about fiber or DNA evidence. Nor is it the coroner's job to speculate on the killer or who may have staged the crime scene. That is for LE to determine. But he should have been able to state a TOD and tried to be more clear about which of the two causes of death killed her.
He should have been clearer about what may have caused hymenal erosion, bruising, hyperemia and bleeding in the vaginal area of a 6-year old girl. Not that he had to state WHAT or WHO may have penetrated her, but those conditions are NOT naturally occurring. He should have been clearer about those conditions being CAUSED rather than simply being "noted". The "who" and "what" would be for LE to determine. But let's start with being less ambiguous about what was very likely sexual contact. NOT bruising and erosion from "bubble bath" or child masturbation (which, BTW, does not involve penetration, but rather rubbing of the external genital areas-little girls don't "penetrate" themselves for pleasure- some info for those with a propensity for imagining JB doing this to herself (to the point of bleeding and bruising)- it doesn't feel good to have ANYTHING stuck up your vagina at that age.). Let's call a spade a spade.
He should have been more thorough in his examination when first encountering the body in the living room that evening. And he should have used ten sterile nail clippers instead of a single unsterile nail clipper for the autopsy, thereby forever contaminating the results of that testing.

 

[BBB167893]

I just realized something.I keep saying that IMO the garrote was the murder weapon only because I think it's strangulation that killed her.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that she was strangled with the garrote,could have been something else.I was thinking if for ex JR strangled her (sex game gone wrong,premeditation,etc)why on earth would he leave the garrote there(fibers,DNA,you can't make sure you got rid of everything on it).
Reminds me of the scarves talk,maybe LE thought she was initially strangled with something else as well.
This could explain the second ligature mark on her neck.And in this case the garrote is part of a staging indeed .

That has been suggested.

 

[BBB167893]

Please let me know when you've actually got something to say, and then I'll be more than happy to respond.

I'll hold you to that promise.

I'll be taking this as a compliment, as I believe my theory is the only theory that does not start off by contradicting the core evidence, admitting evidence selectively, creating fiction wherever facts are not available, or just rides along with someone else's belief.

I could have sworn I heard thunder just now. Regardless, I wasn't talking about your theory, HOTYH. I was talking about what you said in regard to the wording of the autopsy report. And DD is right: he should have been able to state a TOD and tried to be more clear about which of the two causes of death killed her. Far as I can tell, nobody wants to "change" anything in the autopsy report's wording.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Far as I can tell, nobody wants to "change" anything in the autopsy report's wording.

Thats not what I'm reading here:

It wasn't up to the coroner to analyze or speculate about fiber or DNA evidence. Nor is it the coroner's job to speculate on the killer or who may have staged the crime scene. That is for LE to determine. But he should have been able to state a TOD and tried to be more clear about which of the two causes of death killed her.
He should have been clearer about what may have caused hymenal erosion, bruising, hyperemia and bleeding in the vaginal area of a 6-year old girl. Not that he had to state WHAT or WHO may have penetrated her, but those conditions are NOT naturally occurring. He should have been clearer about those conditions being CAUSED rather than simply being "noted". The "who" and "what" would be for LE to determine. But let's start with being less ambiguous about what was very likely sexual contact. NOT bruising and erosion from "bubble bath" or child masturbation (which, BTW, does not involve penetration, but rather rubbing of the external genital areas-little girls don't "penetrate" themselves for pleasure- some info for those with a propensity for imagining JB doing this to herself (to the point of bleeding and bruising)- it doesn't feel good to have ANYTHING stuck up your vagina at that age.). Let's call a spade a spade.
He should have been more thorough in his examination when first encountering the body in the living room that evening. And he should have used ten sterile nail clippers instead of a single unsterile nail clipper for the autopsy, thereby forever contaminating the results of that testing.

 

[BBB167893]

Thats not what I'm reading here:

I get what he maybe should have done. Question is, do we change it now? I don't know anyone who says yes.

It's a complicated issue. Like I said, he probably figured that he'd be called to testify in short order and maybe clarify some of these issues.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I get what he maybe should have done. Question is, do we change it now? I don't know anyone who says yes.

It's a complicated issue. Like I said, he probably figured that he'd be called to testify in short order and maybe clarify some of these issues.

If he were called to testify, how would he have clarified the report? What do you believe he would have said to further RDI's argument?

 

[DeeDee249]

If he were called to testify, how would he have clarified the report? What do you believe he would have said to further RDI's argument?

I don't know that it would bolster either RDI or IDI, but if he were testifying under oath, I'd have liked to see him questioned as to why he neglected to perform two simple procedures when first encountering the body that would have helped determine TOD. Then I'd like to see him questioned about his violation of protocol in using the same unsterile nail clippers and why that should remove from consideration anything found under her nails.
Then I'd like to see him asked if he could clarify what he felt was the cause of the hymenal erosion, bruising and small amounts of blood in the vaginal area as well as what he felt was the significance of the discovery that her thighs and pubic area had been wiped with a cloth. Basically, just giving his opinion as to how these injuries may have happened. Obviously, an opinion is all he has because, unlike some other murders where there is a sexual assault, this crime had no semen and may have been staged. So there is no direct link to a particular person at this time.

 

[BBB167893]

If he were called to testify, how would he have clarified the report? What do you believe he would have said to further RDI's argument?

Hard to say. He may have stated which fatal injury likely came first, talked about defensive injuries or lack thereof, or even talked about the vaginal injuries and what caused them.

 

[cosmo44]

it was the brother

 

[UKGuy]

Will you please make a list of things/evidence that makes you 100% that it was Patsy who killed JB and not JR,BR or JAR.
Thanks.

madeleine,

AFAIK there is no evidence to demonstrate that either Burke, Patsy, or John killed JonBenet. There is also no evidence to show an intruder was involved, particularly at the crime scene, but there is fiber evidence sourced at the crime scene implicating both John and Patsy.

.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I just realized something.I keep saying that IMO the garrote was the murder weapon only because I think it's strangulation that killed her.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that she was strangled with the garrote,could have been something else.I was thinking if for ex JR strangled her (sex game gone wrong,premeditation,etc)why on earth would he leave the garrote there(fibers,DNA,you can't make sure you got rid of everything on it).
Reminds me of the scarves talk,maybe LE thought she was initially strangled with something else as well.
This could explain the second ligature mark on her neck.And in this case the garrote is part of a staging indeed .

Totally agree!

IMO If the garrote was actually a real instrument of a seasoned wackadoo with an erotic asphyxiation fetish....it would have been brought along.,,,and if it was used by someone else in the home as part of a recurring bizarre sex game ....it would have been made better and not improvised like this one was. the wrist ties would have been tight. IMO It was placed there as an after the fact to hide what really happened, and I agree....she probably was strangled with something else first .....like a shirt for example...maybe even a turtleneck twisted tightly at the front of the neck.

 

[Linda7NJ]

it was the brother

Hello cosmo! Welcome to Websleuths! Why are you so sure? Care to elaborate? Do you believe he also staged the scence and wrote the RN?

 

[UKGuy]

Totally agree!

IMO If the garrote was actually a real instrument of a seasoned wackadoo with an erotic asphyxiation fetish....it would have been brought along.,,,and if it was used by someone else in the home as part of a recurring bizarre sex game ....it would have been made better and not improvised like this one was. the wrist ties would have been tight. IMO It was placed there as an after the fact to hide what really happened, and I agree....she probably was strangled with something else first .....like a shirt for example...maybe even a turtleneck twisted tightly at the front of the neck.

Linda7NJ,
Now that seems interesting.



.

 

[cosmo44]

the scene was staged by the parents ... i don't know who wrote the letter ... one of the parents. there was a swiss army knife found near the body and it was the brother's. the head trauma matched that of a swiss army knife to the head (without the blade). there was something going on with bed-wetting etc and the boy lost it. i don't think the parents knew the brother was doing things to JBR on the downlow, but i think the boy lost it one night due to jealousy, etc.
or they were "playing" and it went "south" and the sister was going to expose or this was something that couldn't be "hidden", so then the parents had to cover.
i think the cloud of secrecy was to protect the family, which i think is totally understandable. if i were the parents in this situation and my son killed my daughter (his younger sister) i would do the same thing ... regardless if the son goes to jail / mental institution, he/they would be paying for this the rest of their lives. i think it is also ironic that Patsy died not super long after ...

 

[joeskidbeck]

the scene was staged by the parents ... i don't know who wrote the letter ... one of the parents. there was a swiss army knife found near the body and it was the brother's. the head trauma matched that of a swiss army knife to the head (without the blade). there was something going on with bed-wetting etc and the boy lost it. i don't think the parents knew the brother was doing things to JBR on the downlow, but i think the boy lost it one night due to jealousy, etc.
or they were "playing" and it went "south" and the sister was going to expose or this was something that couldn't be "hidden", so then the parents had to cover.
i think the cloud of secrecy was to protect the family, which i think is totally understandable. if i were the parents in this situation and my son killed my daughter (his younger sister) i would do the same thing ... regardless if the son goes to jail / mental institution, he/they would be paying for this the rest of their lives. i think it is also ironic that Patsy died not super long after ...

Are you aware that BR could not have been prosecuted for this crime, no matter what the reason for it? It's Colorado law that you cannot prosecute anyone under the age of 14. Had the parents known that (and IF he is responsible in some way), there may have been a different outcome on this case.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,

AFAIK there is no evidence to demonstrate that either Burke, Patsy, or John killed JonBenet. There is also no evidence to show an intruder was involved, particularly at the crime scene, but there is fiber evidence sourced at the crime scene implicating both John and Patsy.

.

I know what you're saying.I guess my point is IF Patsy wrote the note that doesn't mean she killed JB like the DNA isn't necessarily the killer's,so I just wanna know why most people think PDI,why not JDI or BDI,JARDI,only because she wrote the note or had her part in the cover -up(fibers)?It's not enough IMO.
Why are people so sure that it was HER who KILLED JB,what's the evidence that points 100% at her being the KILLER,I guess this is what I wanna know.