rashomon,
You appear to be selective in the evidence you wish to use.
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.
You are also attempting to obsfucate and restate a fact to suit your personal definition obviously because it matches with your personal theory.
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.
No it is consistent with a domestic homicide.
Domestic violence can result in domestic homicide. No contradiction here.
Go do your research, iterate the types of head trauma typically presented at AE, and you will find JonBenet's is rare.
Simply because the types of domestic accident, and generally those involving domestic violence do not present the severity of injuries displayed by JonBenet. I'm not saying it never occurrs only that JonBenet's head injuries are not the result of a domestic accident, not even one following from rage, the childrens skulls may have hairline fractures, they may be concussed, unconcious etc, and the perpetrator is normally arrested, but JonBenet's skull injuries are in the most severe category, and I reckon you know this, since we have been over this topic before.
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.
It does if it is followed either by an asphyxiation or follows a sexual assault.
The key word here being "if".
Blind rage does not absolve the perpetrator of any responsibility, or of intent, otherwise we could all kill at will and cite a blind rage.
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.
Your theory appears to be blinding you to any cogent alternatives?
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
