Coincidences

[madeleine]

I'll try to explain what I mean with another example.

Let's take a violent husband who repeatedly beats up his wife.
The 100th time he hits her a bit harder ,she fells,hits her head and dies.
Yes maybe some call it an accident,he didn't mean to KILL her.
But her death is just the effect of long term abuse which could have been stopped and the death could have been prevented,if not by the poor wife,by family members or friends who probably saw the signs.
It's not like a loving normal husband gets up one morning and beats his wife to death.
These things have a history.
You just don't have rage attacks when you lose control so bad that you kill someone out of the blue.

IMO MOO JMO

 

[MurriFlower]

I'll try to explain what I mean with another example.

Let's take a violent husband who repeatedly beats up his wife.
The 100th time he hits her a bit harder ,she fells,hits her head and dies.
Yes maybe some call it an accident,he didn't mean to KILL her.
But her death is just the effect of long term abuse which could have been stopped and the death could have been prevented,if not by the poor wife,by family members or friends who probably saw the signs.
It's not like a loving normal husband gets up one morning and beats his wife to death.
These things have a history.
You just don't have rage attacks when you lose control so bad that you kill someone out of the blue.

IMO MOO JMO

Yes, I think I understand what you are saying and I agree.

A parent with no previous history does not, just out of the blue, become enraged over a trivial matter and cause an accidental injury and then follow it up with an unreal 'staged' murder/ kidnapping to cover it up and continue to do so till she dies.

I just wish we could get past this and onto something that helps solve the case.

 

[DeeDee249]

There is always a first time. IN EVERY abuse situation, there is a FIRST incident. I am not suggesting that Patsy had a history of hitting or physically hurting her daughter. It has been suggested that she DID have a temper that could flare up suddenly.
While the housekeeper (and I understand that some here discount whatever she says) has said she routinely heard screaming and crying when Patsy and JB were in the bathroom, I don't think the Rs slapped their kids around.
I think Patsy's friends knew about her temper, knew she was getting out of control as far as JB's "pageant persona" to the point that they were going to stage an intervention with Patsy about the "mega -JonBenet thing". I don't think any of them thought she was physically assaulting JB.
I do not think it can be stated as "coming home one night and just hitting her daughter with a hammer".
It is more complicated. I think Patsy came home that night tired, with still much to do to prepare for an early morning trip she really didn't want to make, followed by ANOTHER trip (the Disney cruise, where was also going to celebrate her 40th birthday). I think she'd been annoyed with JB all day (the issue with the MyTwinn doll which JB did not like, and the battle over what JB wanted to wear to the White's versus what Patsy wanted her to wear). I think Patsy had a few glasses of wine, which had an adverse effect on her because of the medications she was on (Klolopin was found in her medicine chest, and JR also said Patsy was on medication). I think when they got home that night something triggered an altercation between Patsy and JB, and in the process, Patsy bashed or slammed JB hard enough to fracture her skull and knock her out immediately, possibly putting her into a coma. I think at that point, she told JR and the rest of the events followed.
That's one of my theories.

 

[BBB167893]

If we are dealing with a disturbed person then it could have been avoided.I mean,if I live with a violent or unpredictable person I guess I could see it coming and I'd do something about it.

In this case IMO it's the other people's fault (family,friends) as well that it has come to something like this.I wouldn't call it accident,I'd call it an effect.And the cause could have been dealt with.People just don't arrive home X-mas night happy happy joy joy ,pick up a hammer and bash their child's skull.Something was wrong there and maybe it wasn't the first time it happened (violent outburst)if so.

Maddy, maybe we should move this over to the UMI thread.

 

[BBB167893]

I just wrote and deleted the RDI scenario!! Because I realised that regardless of how totally ridiculous it seems to me, there will be several prominent RDI enthusiasts who will say, "yep, that's pretty much how it happened pilgrim."

I don't know about that. But if you're willing, I'll discuss it with you.

 

[BBB167893]

A parent with no previous history does not, just out of the blue, become enraged over a trivial matter and cause an accidental injury and then follow it up with an unreal 'staged' murder/ kidnapping to cover it up and continue to do so till she dies.

1) Who says it was a "trivial" matter?

2) No previous history? Well, that's certainly an issue we're trying to explore. You may be right.

3) I'm curious as to how you (and it's not just you) can make a statement like that so confidently.

4) As for continuing the cover-up until she dies, it helps to remember that just about everyone in prison claims to be innocent. Kind of odd, don't you think?

I just wish we could get past this and onto something that helps solve the case.

So do I. Problem is, as I see it, it's one or the other: get past this, or solve the case. Can't be both.

 

[MurriFlower]

But Janet McReynolds would not provide a copy of Hey Rube, which won a 1976 Western States Arts Foundation regional prize and earned her a $7,500 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts the same year.
Despite winning acclaim, the play was never published. And a worldwide search conducted by a Denver Public Library reference librarian at the request of the News failed to produce a copy.
"It would sound very quaint now,'' Janet McReynolds said. "It was a '70s play. It was written for its time.''
In a local newspaper interview in 1977, Janet McReynolds said, "I've always been interested in the way victims very frequently seem to seek their own death, or to deliberately choose their own murderer.''
In the same interview, she said, "It seemed improbable to me that this girl would have permitted herself to be physically and psychologically tortured over a series of months unless there was part of her that wanted to die.''
The New York Times, in a June 1, 1978, review of a performance of the play at New York's Interart Theater, said, "It is not clear what the author intended to write.
"The play could be a psychological study of the killer, a sociological study of sexism, a sympathetic profile of the hapless victim, or a courtroom melodrama.''

 

[madeleine]

But Janet McReynolds would not provide a copy of Hey Rube, which won a 1976 Western States Arts Foundation regional prize and earned her a $7,500 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts the same year.
Despite winning acclaim, the play was never published. And a worldwide search conducted by a Denver Public Library reference librarian at the request of the News failed to produce a copy.
"It would sound very quaint now,'' Janet McReynolds said. "It was a '70s play. It was written for its time.''
In a local newspaper interview in 1977, Janet McReynolds said, "I've always been interested in the way victims very frequently seem to seek their own death, or to deliberately choose their own murderer.''
In the same interview, she said, "It seemed improbable to me that this girl would have permitted herself to be physically and psychologically tortured over a series of months unless there was part of her that wanted to die.''
The New York Times, in a June 1, 1978, review of a performance of the play at New York's Interart Theater, said, "It is not clear what the author intended to write.
"The play could be a psychological study of the killer, a sociological study of sexism, a sympathetic profile of the hapless victim, or a courtroom melodrama.''

"I've always been interested in the way victims very frequently seem to seek their own death, or to deliberately choose their own murderer.''
In the same interview, she said, "It seemed improbable to me that this girl would have permitted herself to be physically and psychologically tortured over a series of months unless there was part of her that wanted to die.''


WTH?!

Now this is creepy.This plus the way they are talking about JB's death on national tv............brrrrrrr

 

[madeleine]

I was just looking at the pictures in DOI.
I personally think the Santa's should be on that suspect list but did the Ramsey's really considered them suspects,cause I never would have put that pic with JB and Santa in my book if I thought Santa might have done it!Weird.

Another thing,there are pictures in DOI with the Paughs,Santa,Melinda,Burke and Beth (the entire family)but not one with JAR.Why?IMO it's weird.

 

[DeeDee249]

"I've always been interested in the way victims very frequently seem to seek their own death, or to deliberately choose their own murderer.''
In the same interview, she said, "It seemed improbable to me that this girl would have permitted herself to be physically and psychologically tortured over a series of months unless there was part of her that wanted to die.''


WTH?!

Now this is creepy.This plus the way they are talking about JB's death on national tv............brrrrrrr

It IS creepy. And utterly disgusting for her to make statements like that. To suggest that ANYONE (let alone a child) WANTS to be tortured and murdered and so chooses their assailant is so repugnant to me that if she were standing in front of me, I'd slap her. I wonder what she would have said if it had been her own daughter who had been tortured and killed. Maybe that's what SHE wanted (to torture and kill her daughter). The entire Santa family is creepy to me, and it is one of the dilemmas I face in this case, because I feel the Rs DO know what happened that night and because I feel Patsy wrote the note and I don't feel the parents would cover up for Santa or his family.

But if I ever fell off on the IDI side of the fence, I'd land right on them first.

 

[cynic]

Yes, I think I understand what you are saying and I agree.

A parent with no previous history does not, just out of the blue, become enraged over a trivial matter and cause an accidental injury and then follow it up with an unreal 'staged' murder/ kidnapping to cover it up and continue to do so till she dies.

I just wish we could get past this and onto something that helps solve the case.

Unfortunately, there are numerous cases of violent crime committed by those without a prior history of violence or diagnosed mental illness.

Here are just three examples, and I’ve limited the examples to violence against children.

Police: Mom Slashed 2-Year-Old Boy's Throat
No Reason Yet Given To Explain Child's Death

PINECREST, Fla. -- A man whose wife is accused of slashing the throat of their son said Monday that he never saw any warning signs of any problems with her.

Police said that Danqiong Yang slashed 2-year-old Alexander Ma's throat in their apartment at 6757 S.W. 88th St. in Pinecrest on Sunday.
Miami-Dade police on Monday charged Yang with first-degree murder.
The police report said that Yang was at home with the 2-year-old and the child's 4-month-old brother when the incident occurred at about 5:20 p.m. Police said Danqiong Yang called her husband, Qi-ma Yang, and told him there was an emergency at home.
Police said when Qi-ma Yang and a friend reached the house, he found the toddler with his throat cut, covered with a blanket, with the knife lying next to him on a bed.
The police report indicated that Danqiong Yang was on the phone with a 911 operator when her husband arrived at the apartment.
According to the police report, Qi-ma Yang grabbed his son and ran outside to wait for paramedics.
Ma was pronounced dead at Baptist Children's Hospital.
Danqiong Yang, 33, refused to speak to investigators, "but we do have the 911 tapes where she told the operator she had stabbed the baby, and there was blood on her," Miami-Dade police spokeswoman Nelda Fonticiella said.
The police report indicated that Yang had blood on her clothing and appeared to have dried blood under her nails. The report also said that Yang had money in her pants pocket that appeared to be moist with blood.
Ma's father, who is a biomedical researcher at the University of Miami, was not charged. Police said Qi-ma Yang had nothing to do with Ma's death.
Neighbors said the family moved into the apartment in September. Prior to relocating to Miami, Qi-ma Yang, who hold a doctorate, had been at Duke University in Chapel Hill, N.C.
Qi-ma Yang was in court Monday afternoon petitioning for the court to release his 4-month-old son into his custody. In the event of a crime such as this, it is normal procedure for the court to hold a dependency hearing even when police believe the parent was not involved in the crime.
The judge awarded custody of the infant to Qi-ma Yang.
Yang said he saw no signs that anything was wrong with his wife.
"She was always a very loving person," he said. "I never saw this coming."
Ma's third birthday would have been Dec. 14.
http://www.justnews.com/news/10456425/detail.html




Judge reduces jury's sentence in child's death
A Tulsa County judge handed a lightened prison term Thursday to a man whom a jury had sentenced to life in prison for killing a child who had been left in his care.
District Judge William Kellough suspended all but 12 years — with credit for more than a year already served — of Larry Neeley's sentence during an emotional hearing Thursday morning.
Neeley, 36, was found guilty of first-degree murder in October in the death of Jason Joseph "J.J." Hall, who was just shy of 20 months old when he died from blunt force trauma and a lacerated liver.
The jury sentenced Neeley to life with the possibility of parole, which equates to more than 38 years in prison.
Kellough lessened that term, citing Neeley's remorse and lack of previous crimes.
"This death was not caused by rage," the judge said. "There was no intention or malice demonstrated."
Neeley's defense attorney, Larry Edwards, has said in court filings that his client is a former Marine who had no history of mistreating children.
Prosecutors allege that Neeley jerked the child off a bunk-bed ladder, knocking him into a dresser at a home in the 6300 block of East 26th Place North on Aug. 19, 2008.
The impact split the boy's liver and caused him to bleed to death.
Assistant District Attorney Jake Cain, joined by District Attorney Tim Harris, lobbied the judge to accept the sentence chosen by the jury.
Cain noted that jurors had the opportunity to convict Neeley of second-degree manslaughter but instead found him guilty of murder.
Cain also said that Neeley changed his story as the investigation unfolded after first claiming that the boy's injuries were unintentional.
"If this was truly such an accident then you would tell it to begin with," he said.
"We've never seen this type of injury except for people who've been in severe car accidents, stabbings and shootings."
Defendants who are convicted in jury trials of violent crimes such as murder don't often receive lighter punishments when they are sentenced by Tulsa County judges.
As the hearing began, Kellough warned spectators to keep their emotions under control, citing a disturbance after an earlier court proceeding.
A handful of the child's family members stormed out of the courtroom after the judge announced the sentence.
Cain said Thursday evening that he was disappointed and believed that "J.J.'s life deserves more than 12 years in the Department of Corrections."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20091204_11_A1_ATlaCu620474




Accused accepts he killed child
A former soldier accused of murdering an infant today accepted in court that he had killed the child, 18-months old Oisin Reilly-Murphy

When he took the stand, the accused man, John Reilly was asked: "Have you accepted with certainty that you killed Oisin?"
"Yes" he replied.
Defence counsel Mr Patrick Marrinan SC then asked if there was any reason "deep down" as to why he had killed Oisin.
"No" Mr Reilly replied. Asked how he felt about Oisin, he said: "As I would about any child, that they are children...that they ought to be raised properly, protected."

Mr Reilly told the jury he had great respect for the child's parents, his cousin, Mr Tommy Reilly, and partner Ms Grainne Murphy, for the way they had coped since Oisin's death.
"Their ability to talk to me...to look at me. They're solid people," he said.
The court has heard that the infant was stabbed to death in the sitting room of Mr Hugh Reilly's house (Tommy Reilly's brother).
The accused and the child's parents had stayed overnight there and had spent the evening drinking and playing cards.

John Reilly was home on leave from Iraq, where he had been working as a UN sanctions inspector.
Some years earlier, he completed two tours of duty in the Lebanon while a member of the Irish Army Rangers wing.
In direct evidence, the accused told the jury he could not remember seeing Oisin "at all" that evening.
He arrived at Hugh Reilly's house close to midnight on July 4 2000 and joined Oisin's parents, Hugh Reilly and his wife Siobhan in the kitchen.
He recalled having a couple of cans of beer after which he thought he had a can of cider.
Hugh Reilly then produced a bottle of Poitin and offered a glass to him and Tommy, he said but he could not say exactly how much he drank.
Asked what the atmosphere was like, he replied: "Nice. Just us sitting around together."
Mr Reilly said he remembered walking from the kitchen to the hallway.
Asked if he recalled lying down on the sitting room couch, he said he did not remember specifically getting onto the couch.
The next thing he remembered was standing in the sitting room the next morning "looking down" and hearing crying all around him.
"Hearing Tommy and Grainne crying, about Oisin had been killed... and Hughie and Siobhan trying to understand what had happened."

He told the jury he remembered seeing his knife lying in an extended position on the sitting room floor, picking it up and closing it before throwing it back onto the floor.
Siobhan had told him to "leave it down -leave it there."
He said he remembered standing in the kitchen "trying to keep her at arm's length...to clear space and try to get to grips with it."
"Which was what?" counsel asked.
"Which was Oisin's death," the accused replied.
He recalled, amongst the "crying, the anger and the confusion", the others looking at him "in a way that said to me 'it's your fault'."
It was not until later that evening in the garda station during a visit from his brother it began to dawn on him that he could be responsible, the accused said.
Asked how he felt then, Mr Reilly replied: "Sick. I felt I was somehow in the category of people who could do that to kids." He added that he felt "shame".
When asked how he would cope with the knowledge that he could be responsible for killing Oisin, he said he would "just live. I don't know. Cope?...there's nothing...I'll just be myself and that's how I'll get through this."

The defence is that of sane automatism, whereby a person with no history of psychiatric disturbance commits a purposeless act of which there is no memory.
Earlier, an expert medical witness told the court that sleepwalking, night terrors or a combination of both may have caused Mr Reilly's actions.
The sleep disorders could have been trigged by heavy amounts of alcohol.
Dr Hugh Staunton, neorologist and lecturer at the College of Surgeons, said there could be an overlap of these type of behaviours.
It was also possible that someone sleepwalking could carry out complicated acts, such as getting a knife out of one's pocket, he told the jury.
Dr Staunton said that in sane automatism, the act is done automatically, as though the person was on auto-pilot.
"One would not perform a purposeless act if one were in full control of one's senses," he added.
Cross examined by the prosecution on the possible effects of alcohol, Dr Staunton said there was no evidence of "heightened level of aggression" in the accused before going to bed on the night of the murder.
Having gone placidly to bed, one does not suddenly spring into action and commit a homicide, he told the jury.
The witness added, however, that there is increasing evidence that alcohol triggers sleep disorders, such as night terrors and sleep walking.
He referred to documented cases of murders committed during sleep walking, but said "this is the first time I have seen a case of homicide" linked to such.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2002/0509/ireland/eysnojaumh/

 

[Ames]

There is always a first time. IN EVERY abuse situation, there is a FIRST incident. I am not suggesting that Patsy had a history of hitting or physically hurting her daughter. It has been suggested that she DID have a temper that could flare up suddenly.
While the housekeeper (and I understand that some here discount whatever she says) has said she routinely heard screaming and crying when Patsy and JB were in the bathroom, I don't think the Rs slapped their kids around.
I think Patsy's friends knew about her temper, knew she was getting out of control as far as JB's "pageant persona" to the point that they were going to stage an intervention with Patsy about the "mega -JonBenet thing". I don't think any of them thought she was physically assaulting JB.
I do not think it can be stated as "coming home one night and just hitting her daughter with a hammer".
It is more complicated. I think Patsy came home that night tired, with still much to do to prepare for an early morning trip she really didn't want to make, followed by ANOTHER trip (the Disney cruise, where was also going to celebrate her 40th birthday). I think she'd been annoyed with JB all day (the issue with the MyTwinn doll which JB did not like, and the battle over what JB wanted to wear to the White's versus what Patsy wanted her to wear). I think Patsy had a few glasses of wine, which had an adverse effect on her because of the medications she was on (Klolopin was found in her medicine chest, and JR also said Patsy was on medication). I think when they got home that night something triggered an altercation between Patsy and JB, and in the process, Patsy bashed or slammed JB hard enough to fracture her skull and knock her out immediately, possibly putting her into a coma. I think at that point, she told JR and the rest of the events followed.
That's one of my theories.

Yes, Patsy DID have wine at the White's Christmas party, although...some IDI's...not all...will argue that this is not true. EVEN THOUGH....John Ramsey said so in his interview. And I have lived with someone that has mixed Alcohol and Klonopin....many times...and it AIN'T pretty. I have had to call 911, more than once. Thank God...he doesn't do it anymore.

 

[claudicici]

maddie,what is DOI? I would really like to see the pictures you mention.

 

[madeleine]

maddie,what is DOI? I would really like to see the pictures you mention.

Death of innocence-the Ramsey book

 

[claudicici]

I do think I understand what she's saying but I feel like she's the only one that seems to feel that way yet she is saying that WE (as a collective community of people that are not affluent) are guilty of thinking JB deserved to die because she was beautiful,rich,somehow corrupt ( in JMcR'seyes) JMcR sees people feel that way as an undercurrent but I can't imagine anyone but her feeling that way ?

 

[madeleine]

I do think I understand what she's saying but I feel like she's the only one that seems to feel that way yet she is saying that WE (as a collective community of people that are not affluent) are guilty of thinking JB deserved to die because she was beautiful,rich,somehow corrupt ( in JMcR'seyes) JMcR sees people feel that way as an undercurrent but I can't imagine anyone but her feeling that way ?

Sorry,wanted to edit the post and deleted it instead.Will post it one more time...

J. MCREYNOLDS: The basic thrust and the parallel that I am now seeing with the JonBenet case is that the victim, in my play, was a scapegoat for the sins of the community.

J. MCREYNOLDS: I feel that she has been made a scapegoat. Exactly, that she is being punished for the sins of the global village, that people are heaping on her the sins that perhaps they themselves feel. And she's being made a scapegoat.

Sometimes I don't get her twisted mind,sorry.

 

[claudicici]

...since JMcR feels vanity and materialism are sins she feels people were jealous of JB and her lifestyle yet convicted her for these sins and made her a scapegoat.
She said everytime she sees a beauty peagant video or beauty pageant picture of JB she feels she is being murdered over and over again....

 

[madeleine]

I do think I understand what she's saying but I feel like she's the only one that seems to feel that way yet she is saying that WE (as a collective community of people that are not affluent) are guilty of thinking JB deserved to die because she was beautiful,rich,somehow corrupt ( in JMcR'seyes) JMcR sees people feel that way as an undercurrent but I can't imagine anyone but her feeling that way ?

Dunno but she for sure says "she deserved" a lot........Maybe I am wrong but it sounds like she's saying "she asked for it" or the ones who turned her into a beauty queen (her parents) asked for it as well.
Anyway IMO THIS is the real JMc.....she's acting IMO when she keeps talking about how lovely and pretty and beautiful JB was.I think she hated JB and this family

JMO MOO

:twocents:

 

[madeleine]

...since JMcR feels vanity and materialism are sins she feels people were jealous of JB and her lifestyle yet convicted her for these sins and made her a scapegoat.
She said everytime she sees a beauty peagant video or beauty pageant picture of JB she feels she is being murdered over and over again....

and maybe she enjoys it....


:twocents::twocents::twocents:JMO

 

[claudicici]

I agree....she's saying these things as if OTHER people feel JB deserved to die but IMO she's the only one that feels that way.