Christmas Morning Picture of Burke and JB...

[UKGuy]

UkGuy,

The current discussion here is about the skull fracture and what could have caused it. A selected topic does not mean being selective about the evidence in terms of ignoring other evidence.

Aren't you projecting here, UKGuy?
For example, you insist that JonBenet's skull facture could only have been inflicted with 'murdeous intent' because you want it to match your theory the her death was a first-degree murder.

Domestic violence can result in domestic homicide. No contradiction here.

Yes we have been over this topic before, and I dont think you will find any doctor who will state that JonBenet's skull fracture can't have been the result of a rage attack (and this is what you were driving at I suppose).
The experts consulted on the case said JonBenet's head wound was the result of blunt force trauma, and as for the 'punched out' piece of skull bone, this depends on variables like the form and weight of the object wielded, the velocity, and the exact angle at which it was swung. In short, there are many physical variables to be taken into account which we just don't know about. I'll see if I can dig up what has been said about the wound in terms of physics and post it on the 'skull fracture' thread.

The key word here being "if".

I don't think anyone here is of the opinion that blind rage absolves the perpetrator of any responsibility.(??)
For example, if Jim in a blind fury whacks Joe over the head with a beer mug in bar room brawl, injuring him deadly, Jim will have to stand trial in court. But the justice system differs between 'manslaughter' and 'murder', I think these are the terms used in the UK, also in Germany ('Totschlag'/ 'Mord). The US justice system has more categories: voluntary manslaughter/ 2nd degree murder/, 1st degree murder.
First-degree murder is regarded as the most severe crime, since it involves premeditation.
So at trial, Jim would probably have been found guilty of manslaughter. If alcohol came into play, while this would count as mitigating circumstance, it would in no way "absolve him of any responsibility."
I believe Patsy killed JonBenet in a rage, and if she had turned herself in after the crime, her blood alcohol level would have been tested. If it was above the drunk driving limit, then no doubt her defense team at trial would have used this in their strategy as mitigating circumstance.
I suppose if Patsy had confessed, she would have been found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. If she had not confessed and stood trial in a circumstantial evidence case, it would probably have been voluntary manslaughter followed by obstruction of justice, with John as an accomplice in the obstruction of justice.


I've run these cogent alternatives through in my mind many times, but still always arrive back at Patsy being not only the main stager of the scene, but also the person who killed JonBenet in a rage.
I also have another theory (not posted yet) which takes possible sexual abuse by John into account, but it too is a rage attack theory.

But let's go through the cogent alternatives. Your theory is that JonBenet was whacked on the head to silence her for good. Who delivered the head blow? John? Please be specific, and don't just say "a person closely associated with the family".
What exactly happened on that night in your opinion? There is a 'members theories' thread on WS - if you would post your complete theory there including a time line, it woud be far easier to discuss it point per point. TIA.

jmo

rashomon,

The current discussion here is about the skull fracture and what could have caused it. A selected topic does not mean being selective about the evidence in terms of ignoring other evidence.

I stated that JonBenet's head injury was not typical of a domestic accident, or even a domestic violent event. You then wished to change the phrase domestic accident to something sounding more lethal e.g. domestic violence.

Both instances reflect your desire to make the percieved evidence match your rage theory, so it has nothing to do with projection on my part.

Following on from the latter, the fact that JonBenet's head injury was not typical of a domestic accident, and more akin to that of a car crash victim, allows the conclusion it was intentional, and in the context of a domestic homicide that has been staged it is not an unreasonable conclusion.

Yes we have been over this topic before, and I dont think you will find any doctor who will state that JonBenet's skull fracture can't have been the result of a rage attack (and this is what you were driving at I suppose).
The experts consulted on the case said JonBenet's head wound was the result of blunt force trauma,

Firstly I have never claimed that that JonBenet's skull fracture can't have been the result of a rage attack. Your use of the phrase blunt force trauma does not assist your case since it implies the trauma is the result of an an assault not an accidental impact. Normally in the case of unintentional impact injuries the term blunt trauma is used.

It is obvious that my theory has JDI as JonBenet's killer and that the crime was the result of an incestuous relationship.

.

 

[Albert18]

Coquet: to try to attract the attention and admiration of men for mere self-gratification; flirt.

Coquette: a woman who flirts lightheartedly with men to win their admiration and affection; flirt.

Flirt: to court triflingly or act amorously without serious intentions; play at love; coquet.

In other words, disgusting behavior.

I don't know what was going on but the look on JonBenet's face in some pictures is disturbing. It would be interesting to know from Cookie Phillips if that was something she turned on and off or if she showed an understanding of what she was doing.

 

[rashomon]

I don't know what was going on but the look on JonBenet's face in some pictures is disturbing. It would be interesting to know from Cookie Phillips if that was something she turned on and off or if she showed an understanding of what she was doing.

No doubt JonBenet was often dressed up to look sexy.
High heels for example are worn for the sole purpose of making the wearer sexually attractive, so when Patsy put JonBenet in those high heels, she knew what she was doing.
The same goes for the moves and gestures JB was taught (hip swings, shoulder moves, seductive look) - they are all sexual signals.
On YouTube, there are some video clips of JB's pageants, and in one of them she is wearing a long skirt which she then discards almost like a stripper would discard her skirt as an 'overture' of what is to follow afterward. Underneath the long skirt JonBenet was wearing a skimpy bathing suit type of outfit. I found this video pretty disturbing and I was thinking of Pam Grifffin's words, "you just don't do that to a six-year-old".

But like another poster said, JonBenet certainly was not the only girl dressed up in sexy outfits in the pageants.
I believe the mothers do this because they know "sex sells", and Patsy knew it too. Not that they would pimp their daughters to anyone, but to make an impression on the jury. I've seen men sitting on these juries to, and who knows how many latent pedophiles are among them ...

jmo

 

[Albert18]

In other words, disgusting behavior.

By the way, that was a joke.

You want breathtaking, Donna Reed in the 1945 film They Were Expendable.

 

[JMO8778]

I iave said it a thousand times resolved not prosecueted

I think it's possible she went into something called 'acute decompensation'.If that was the case,I'm pretty sure it could have been intentional at the moment.that's not to say she didn't later regret it.
If anyone here has any psych training,I'd really like to hear your opinion on that.

 

[coloradokares]

I think it's possible she went into something called 'acute decompensation'.If that was the case,I'm pretty sure it could have been intentional at the moment.that's not to say she didn't later regret it.
If anyone here has any psych training,I'd really like to hear your opinion on that.

I would hope to shout that there was regret later!! However all the staging and lying to me belies that regret or remorse were even a consideration compared to self preservation and saving of their own behinds. I know JMHO

 

[JMO8778]

as far as first degree,second degree,manslaughter,etc.,I don't recall if it was in PMPT,or ST's book,but someone said,after the review of evidence had taken place, 'looks like we got it...Murder One'.
Can someone help me out w. who said it and what book it's in,if you know rightoffhand ? thx.

 

[JMO8778]

I would hope to shout that there was regret later!! However all the staging and lying to me belies that regret or remorse were even a consideration compared to self preservation and saving of their own behinds. I know JMHO

I agree,JR has betrayed JB to this very day,Patsy till the day she died..even going so far as to throw their own dear friends under the bus,so to speak.It all reeks of desperation to appear innocent.If it was truly an accident,then the least JR could have done as an accomplice is to keep his mouth shut.Patsy as well,if there was no intenet to harm JB..but noooo,they just kept on and on and on,and the Karr fiasco was the icing on the cake.

 

[BOESP]

I think it's possible she went into something called 'acute decompensation'.If that was the case,I'm pretty sure it could have been intentional at the moment.that's not to say she didn't later regret it.
If anyone here has any psych training,I'd really like to hear your opinion on that.

JMO, are you asking if this might compare to what used to be called a "crime of passion" based on physiological changes from taking too much medication or withdrawal from prescription drugs, alcohol, etc., producing a temporary personality change? Altered brain chemistry and other physiological changes from drugs or withdrawal of drugs would produce psychological (or psychiatric) changes that allowed them to behave inappropriately. Have I understood what you are asking?

 

[BOESP]

I would hope to shout that there was regret later!! However all the staging and lying to me belies that regret or remorse were even a consideration compared to self preservation and saving of their own behinds. I know JMHO

CK, I'll stand with you on your opinion. I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[coloradokares]

CK, I'll stand with you on your opinion. I think you hit the nail on the head.

I think, truth be told we are in very very good company!

 

[rashomon]

[UKGuy]Following on from the latter, the fact that JonBenet's head injury was not typical of a domestic accident, and more akin to that of a car crash victim, allows the conclusion it was intentional, and in the context of a domestic homicide that has been staged it is not an unreasonable conclusion.

Of course this injury was intentional. But intentional doesn't have to mean it was planned. Rage attacks for example are intentional. For you can't 'unintentionally' attack someone in a rage.

Your use of the phrase blunt force trauma does not assist your case since it implies the trauma is the result of an an assault not an accidental impact. Normally in the case of unintentional impact injuries the term blunt trauma is used.

Wrong. "Blunt force trauma" (sometimes also simply called 'blunt trauma') is the technical medical term for this type of injury, regardless of whether it was caused by a car crash, an assault or something else.

It is obvious that my theory has JDI as JonBenet's killer and that the crime was the result of an incestuous relationship.

Your posts often sounded very cryptic, therefore who you think was her abuser was not obvious to me at all. For 'incestuous relationship' could also involve other family members.
So you believe John was JonBenet's killer. Do you think he delivered the head blow to her because she was going to tell Patsy about it?

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

Of course this injury was intentional. But intentional doesn't have to mean it was planned. Rage attacks for example are intentional. For you can't 'unintentionally' attack someone in a rage.

Wrong. "Blunt force trauma" (sometimes also simply called 'blunt trauma') is the technical medical term for this type of injury, regardless of whether it was caused by a car crash, an assault or something else.
Your posts often sounded very cryptic, therefore who you think was her abuser was not obvious to me at all. For 'incestuous relationship' could also involve other family members.
So you believe John was JonBenet's killer. Do you think he delivered the head blow to her because she was going to tell Patsy about it?

jmo

rashomon,

Blunt Trauma

In medical terminology, blunt trauma, blunt injury, non-penetrating trauma or blunt force trauma refers to a type of physical trauma caused to a body part, either by impact, injury or physical attack; the latter usually being referred to as blunt force trauma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_trauma

So you believe John was JonBenet's killer. Do you think he delivered the head blow to her because she was going to tell Patsy about it?

Either that or she was going to tell someone outside of the house, or John became enraged when JonBenet refused to co-operate. It is impossible to pin down the precise reason, but the acute and chronic sexual molestation are the biggest smoking gun in the case, since they provide motive, opportunity and a rationale for the staging, also it is consistent with the forensic evidence, unlike Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage Theory, imo Patsy was a willing accomplice and her previous participation and knowledge of JonBenet's prior molestation, locks her into a cover up, along with John, otherwise any other mother would have pointed her finger at her daughters killer.


.

 

[rashomon]

Blunt Force Trauma: Trauma caused by impact or force applied from a blunt object. Blunt force trauma is the most common type of injury sustained by humans, and is a broad term covering trauma like contusions, abrasions, lacerations, and bone fracture.
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/alive/dictionary/dictionary.html

[UKGuy]
Either that or she was going to tell someone outside of the house, or John became enraged when JonBenet refused to co-operate. It is impossible to pin down the precise reason, but the acute and chronic sexual molestation are the biggest smoking gun in the case, since they provide motive, opportunity and a rationale for the staging, also it is consistent with the forensic evidence, unlike Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage Theory, imo Patsy was a willing accomplice and her previous participation and knowledge of JonBenet's prior molestation, locks her into a cover up, along with John, otherwise any other mother would have pointed her finger at her daughters killer.

So you believe both John and Patsy sexually molested JonBenet? What exactly do you mean by 'previous participation' on Patsy's part?

jmo

 

[UKGuy]

So you believe both John and Patsy sexually molested JonBenet? What exactly do you mean by 'previous participation' on Patsy's part?

jmo

rashomon,

Yes one or both did, including , potenially, other members of JonBenet's extended family, hence the deafening silence!

Even if Patsy did not physically molest JonBenet she assisted in creating the cirumstances in which it could occur. Her sexualisation of JonBenet via the pageants is an example, her distancing John from any involvment via remarks about las vegas, or Nedra sleeping in JonBenet's bedroom. So she knew what may have been taking place, she was aware, be in no doubt, look at her response on being informed that the police had evidence of prior sexual molestation!

Then there are JonBenet's non-pageant photographs where she can be seen posing and pouting, wearing makeup and lipstick all at 5 or 6-years old.

So many people make excuses for Patsy's behaviour e.g. it was an accident, she was simply idealising JonBenet's beauty, she was mentally ill, she had been drinking the night of JonBenet's death etc etc.

Yet JonBenet was sexually molested, then asphyxiated and whacked on the head, and the autopsy yielded evidence of past and current sexual abuse, and after the evidence linking the residents to the crime-scene, still people wish to construct fanciful theories that do not match the forensic evidence.

JonBenet's death is what it appears to be: a case of incest gone wrong resulting in a homicide!

No accident requires her sexual assault to be covered up!


.

 

[BOESP]

Rash - below is your question followed by the response from my friend in child protective services, verbatim, except the last word, which I altered so it would survive the text filter.

Your question:

... BOESP, a question for your friend: does she think it possible that Patsy, on catching John molesting JonBenet, directed her rage against her daughter instead? Patsy often dressed up JonBenet in sexy women's clothes (the Las Vegas showgirl outfit for example), so could it be that she, seeing what was going on, reacted to JonBenet as if she were a female rival, snapping and losing it in a blind rage against her daughter?

Reply from Child Protective Services Officer:

"Sure, it could have happened like that, but probably not. I think the constant bed wetting was probably the trigger, and the dad tried to cover it up by making it look like sex abuse. The note and all other "evidence" were after the fact. And Patsy's dead now,too. Ain't Karma a b*tch?"

 

[coloradokares]

rashomon,

Yes one or both did, including , potenially, other members of JonBenet's extended family, hence the deafening silence!

Even if Patsy did not physically molest JonBenet she assisted in creating the cirumstances in which it could occur. Her sexualisation of JonBenet via the pageants is an example, her distancing John from any involvment via remarks about las vegas, or Nedra sleeping in JonBenet's bedroom. So she knew what may have been taking place, she was aware, be in no doubt, look at her response on being informed that the police had evidence of prior sexual molestation!

Then there are JonBenet's non-pageant photographs where she can be seen posing and pouting, wearing makeup and lipstick all at 5 or 6-years old.

So many people make excuses for Patsy's behaviour e.g. it was an accident, she was simply idealising JonBenet's beauty, she was mentally ill, she had been drinking the night of JonBenet's death etc etc.

Yet JonBenet was sexually molested, then asphyxiated and whacked on the head, and the autopsy yielded evidence of past and current sexual abuse, and after the evidence linking the residents to the crime-scene, still people wish to construct fanciful theories that do not match the forensic evidence.

JonBenet's death is what it appears to be: a case of incest gone wrong resulting in a homicide!

No accident requires her sexual assault to be covered up!


.

That is a possibility. I stop short of being totally convinced of this. I wish the evidence was clearer beween that which could not have been other than incest or that which could have been the result of corporal cleaning and those horiffic bathroom screaming sessions between Patsy and Jon Benet that LHP describes and Thomas all but spells out. Covered up by that last horrible act of staging. Or both!!! If only you would or could present your case clearly defining why it could not have been anything other than incest if you are so convinced of this and name the perpetrator of these horrible acts that resulted in the homicide of Jon Benet. Perhaps publically on a forum you feel you cannot present the concrete proof that would define once and for all why and who. That is fully understandable..Till then I for one am left undecided because I think either scenario carries credible weight and it needs to be proven beyond any shadow of doubt. There needs to be an outcry such as has never been heard before to solve this matter in a court of law. I am losing faith that will ever happen. We are left to despise the fact we cannot seem to once and for all have all the facts and the closure we all seek in the murder of Jon Benet.

 

[Toltec]

as far as first degree,second degree,manslaughter,etc.,I don't recall if it was in PMPT,or ST's book,but someone said,after the review of evidence had taken place, 'looks like we got it...Murder One'.
Can someone help me out w. who said it and what book it's in,if you know rightoffhand ? thx.

I believe it is in ST's book. He believes it went from manslaughter to first-degree due to the staging that took place afterwords, e.g. the strangulation and sexual assault.

 

[Toltec]

I think it's possible she went into something called 'acute decompensation'.If that was the case,I'm pretty sure it could have been intentional at the moment.that's not to say she didn't later regret it.
If anyone here has any psych training,I'd really like to hear your opinion on that.

If you look at Patsy's behavior before JonBenet was "found", that would explain if she was in any psychological state of mind, e.g. psychosis, neurosis.

Patsy cried most of the time. She was hysterical. She cried out for her daughter. She wanted to trade places with JonBenet. She even tried to comfort herself when she told LE that LHP could be the culprit but would never "harm" JonBenet. Patsy even managed to go up to the second floor and look through JonBenet's portfolio for a recent picture of her.

Her behavior:

Distraught mother - normal behavior.

Trade spaces - normal behavior.

Positive JonBenet would be safe with LHP - that's up in the air.

Helpful - Personally went upstairs to fetch a pic of JB for the Police.

This sounds like a Mother who is displaying normal behavior under the circumstances. Personally, I do not see any acute psychosis, acute neurosis, nothing that sticks out.

So if Patsy were in a, lets say, acute psychotic state when she killed JonBenet, than she would have still displayed those symptoms when Officer French appeared at her front door.

My belief is that JonBenet was struck by an enraged Patsy. A hair-trigger reaction to rage....pick up the thing closest to you and hit your target.

 

[BOESP]

I believe it is in ST's book. He believes it went from manslaughter to first-degree due to the staging that took place afterwords, e.g. the strangulation and sexual assault.

You know what, Toltec, that is an interesting observation. I have Thomas's book but forgot about the above. I can see there must be more than just the staging if they thought they had Murder One. It dawned on me when I read your post that maybe, just maybe, they have evidence that suggests the strangulation was purposeful (meaning mercy killing with the mitigating circumstances of sexual abuse, albeit staged to CYB) rather than pure staging on what the killer thought was an already dead child. That would also certainly explain Mark Fuhrman's statement that it was intentional. Mercy killing to them, Murder One to the justice system ... that does make sense.

I guess I have been in mule mode or had blinders on or senility is setting in, but I think it could just be that -- murder one (or maybe capital murder???).