Could Patsy's Cocktails Have Played A Part In Her Rage Attack?

[Ames]

Wrong. Three loops plus garrote around the neck is manipulation, not rage. Sexual attack.

You wanted me to use the QUOTE BUTTON...so I did. If you didn't mean that three loops were around her neck..then what exactly are you talking about? And maybe you should have used a comma...."Three loops, plus garrote around the neck is manipulation, not rage. Sexual attack. " Because, the way that it reads (Three loops plus garrote....) makes it sound like three OR MORE loops.

 

[Ames]

I said three loops plus garrote. I meant three loops [from the 2nd ligature] plus the garrote together are part of a manipulation/sexual assault crime, not a rage crime.

Just because the 'wrist ligature' was found on her wrist, doesn't mean you know how it was used. That it was only used on JBR's wrists is an assumption. Thats why I call it the '2nd ligature' and not the 'wrist ligature'.

What do you mean? I am having a hard time following you, here. SOOOOO...you think that the wrist ligatures could have been used for something else besides wrist ligatures? LIKE WHAT?

 

[Solace]

I said three loops plus garrote. I meant three loops [from the 2nd ligature] plus the garrote together are part of a manipulation/sexual assault crime, not a rage crime.

Just because the 'wrist ligature' was found on her wrist, doesn't mean you know how it was used. That it was only used on JBR's wrists is an assumption. Thats why I call it the '2nd ligature' and not the 'wrist ligature'.

The rage crime is the blow to the head which I believe came first and the rest is staging.

 

[Solace]

You're putting words into my mouth again. Quote where I said 'wrapped three times'. My point is and has been: This is a manipulation/control attacker, not a rage attacker. The perp had this garrote and this three-looped 2nd ligature which would have been effective at controlling an adult. The idea it was only a prop seems far fetched and reaching.

Holdon: The sexual "assault" is staging, the garrotte did kill her yes, but the assault with the paint brush is staging and yes there were splinters found inside of her. The so called ligatures or loops are staging to throw police off into believing that an intruder did this. The parents are involved up to their ears.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon: The sexual "assault" is staging, the garrotte did kill her yes, but the assault with the paint brush is staging and yes there were splinters found inside of her. The so called ligatures or loops are staging to throw police off into believing that an intruder did this. The parents are involved up to their ears.

The sexual assault is real. There's evidence to prove it, including JBR's injuries and unidentified male DNA.

The combination of garrote and headbash is what killed JBR. Its a MO (Bob Crane and many others killed by combination strangulation and headbash)

The parents are involved only to the extent they are JBR's parents, and thats it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What do you mean? I am having a hard time following you, here. SOOOOO...you think that the wrist ligatures could have been used for something else besides wrist ligatures? LIKE WHAT?

The three loops in the 2nd ligature, combined with the garrote, would provide a lot of control even over an adult. Its a lot of weapon for a prop, doncha think?

 

[Credence]

That Crimelibrary article is totally biased toward Ramsey innocence. Hardly surprising, for didn't the Ramseys once sue CourtTV? Seems CTV is afraid to be sued again ...

Do you know if there is anything to dispute that they did in fact sign documents to release medical records? One of the biggest issues I have with this case is that if RDI or IDI seems everything is slanted to fit whichever side you are on including this poll. This poll clearly opines that a rage attack occurred and no room for disagreement other than if alcohol played a part? Stupid question I'm sure but are there are any forums with primarily FS's? Oh well....

 

[BBB167893]

Is it popular consensus on the board that Patsy killed JB in a fit of rage and then staged it to look like a murder/kidnap?

I'm afraid so.

complete control device that would be effective on an adult, and yet its only a prop?

HOTYH, I'll play your game.

Werner Spitz talked about this on "The Lineup." His analysis was the same as mine. So I ask you: Why would you make a garrote like that, completely inefficient for your needs, where you have to wrap it around your arm a few times just to get enough tension in the cord to pull it tight, making a handle superfluous, when it would be much better to wrap the cord completely around the neck, then tie both ends to the stick, where you'd get much greater control?

In fact, this is one question I've asked the IDI side many times:

Well, would you camp out in a stranger's home, all but impossible to navigate in the dark, capable of being spotted at any time, feed your victim pineapple, wait two more hours for it to digest, lead them to the basement, tie up their hands in a way that wouldn't restrain an infant, molest her so it only scratches the interior of the vagina, which you would need three arms to do because you have to pull the cord with one hand and hold her down with the other, using a cord with the wrong knot for your purposes, put tape on her mouth AFTER she's dead when that makes no sense (if you were worried about her screaming, you'd gag her first), sneak into the parents' room, steal their clothing, drip fibers in five areas (not even on the body), go back up, put the clothes back exactly the way you found them, redress the body (when leaving her naked under the tree would be so much better), put her favorite nightgown in the blanket with her, then write a ransom note that really says nothing, knowing you won't get any money, then leave bold as brass, only leaving a speck of DNA that couldn't have been left that night because it was so much older than JB's DNA...

WHEN it would be so much simpler to grab her when she's alone (playing in the yard, coming home from school, etc.,) take her to a place where you feel safe where there's no rush and you have her at leisure (like David Westerfield, Alejandro Avila, Dennis Dechaine et al have done)?

So far, nothing.

I'm a realist, and I know the garrote and 2nd ligature are more the trappings of a real sexual predator than a prop spontaneously designed and built by a rage filled parent.

I think you misunderstood: the garrote was not the act of rage, the head blow was.

Stupid question I'm sure but are there are any forums with primarily FS's?

I have yet to find one.

 

[BlueCrab]

LOL..thats okay...yeah, it is obviously intended for people that think that Patsy was involved. You could have checked...."What do you mean? Patsy never drank alcohol"...though...because nobody has voted for that one, yet.

Ames,

I can't vote either, because I'm convinced Patsy didn't kill JonBenet even though the family is covering up for someone. And "Never drank alcohol" doesn't fit. Patsy liked her Chardonnay.

BlueCrab

 

[Solace]

The sexual assault is real. There's evidence to prove it, including JBR's injuries and unidentified male DNA.

The combination of garrote and headbash is what killed JBR. Its a MO (Bob Crane and many others killed by combination strangulation and headbash)

The parents are involved only to the extent they are JBR's parents, and thats it.

Holdon,

Unidentified male DNA is older than JB's DNA and therefore was there before this murder took place, most likely by a handler. This has been discussed over and over again. I am afraid you are misinformed. The information re the nonsourced DNA is basic. Only those who are unfamiliar with the case would be shocked by the DNA information and believe it is from an intruder. Once the research is done on it, it is realized that this is older DNA and nothing to do with the murder. That is it. Period.

 

[Ames]

Ames,

I can't vote either, because I'm convinced Patsy didn't kill JonBenet even though the family is covering up for someone. And "Never drank alcohol" doesn't fit. Patsy liked her Chardonnay.

BlueCrab

Thats okay, BC. I enjoy reading your posts, so thanks for joining in on my thread.

 

[coloradokares]

Thats okay, BC. I enjoy reading your posts, so thanks for joining in on my thread.

Ditto on what Ames said I enjoy reading your posts BlueCrab it never hurts to examine all possibilites however remote. And you speak with passion and I know you truly do believe what your saying.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon,

Unidentified male DNA is older than JB's DNA and therefore was there before this murder took place, most likely by a handler. This has been discussed over and over again. I am afraid you are misinformed. The information re the nonsourced DNA is basic. Only those who are unfamiliar with the case would be shocked by the DNA information and believe it is from an intruder. Once the research is done on it, it is realized that this is older DNA and nothing to do with the murder. That is it. Period.

CBS news sure tells a different story, by stating that the DNA was MIXED IN with JBR's blood. What do you have to say about that?

From the article:

"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."

The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name.

 

[coloradokares]

CBS news sure tells a different story, by stating that the DNA was MIXED IN with JBR's blood. What do you have to say about that?

Do you believe everything on the news. To say mixed in does not mean that it was DNA that was mixed in the process of crime. Only that artifact and degraded DNA was present then JonBenets fresh blood comingled with that old degraded artifact and non consequential DNA that was most likely saliva from a sneeze from a underwear factory worker.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Do you believe everything on the news. To say mixed in does not mean that it was DNA that was mixed in the process of crime. Only that artifact and degraded DNA was present then JonBenets fresh blood comingled with that old degraded artifact and non consequential DNA that was most likely saliva from a sneeze from a underwear factory worker.

From the article:

"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."

The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name.

 

[Solace]

CBS news sure tells a different story, by stating that the DNA was MIXED IN with JBR's blood. What do you have to say about that?

From the article:

"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA profile.

He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation to have that DNA matched to an individual."

The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his name.

I have this to say about that:

"…It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child."

The very same scientist who conducted the DNA testing in the Denver Police Department’s DNA lab contradicts the above statement.

Rocky Mountain News, May 18, 2004, Charlie Brennan
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...2893675,00.html
text version backup

A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

"That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used. It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist.

"You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist said. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

"It is only a sample," he said. "You need a match, and that will help you get a name. And then that gives you somebody to talk to. But that person might be alibied-out, or there might be some other explanation for why it's there."


Without knowing if a sample was left by blood, saliva, or some other material, it could be "unknown cellular material sloughed off by somebody's hand," the source said. "You're in an area that is very gray, and it can be very confusing, as to the interpretive value of it."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Why not say the DNA was staged? Planted there to divert attention?

RDI, has used the 'staging' eplanation to displace the ransom note, garrote, and the injuries to JBR's body from the case evidence, because they all suggest an intruder. Then, departing from this theme, instead claims the DNA was from a 'factory worker', having the same effect of displacing intruder evidence from the crime.

It does appear that RDI goal #1 is to displace all intruder-suggesting evidence, doesn't it? You'll need a DNA match, handwriting match, from a known child kidnapper/killer with a signed confession, I guess.

 

[Solace]

Why not say the DNA was staged? Planted there to divert attention?

RDI, has used the 'staging' eplanation to displace the ransom note, garrote, and the injuries to JBR's body from the case evidence, because they all suggest an intruder. Then, departing from this theme, instead claims the DNA was from a 'factory worker', having the same effect of displacing intruder evidence from the crime.

It does appear that RDI goal #1 is to displace all intruder-suggesting evidence, doesn't it? You'll need a DNA match, handwriting match, from a known child kidnapper/killer with a signed confession, I guess.

Holdon. The DNA is older of an inferior quality, does not have all the markers. This is simply a fact. We are looking at the evidence at hand. If this DNA was as fresh as Jon Benet's and not attributable to any one in the house, of course it would be something to look at. BUT IT IS NOT. There is not one shred of physical evidence left by an intruder and in a crime this horrific, there should be something. I believe Patsy did the staging and left fibers from her sweater. I am sure she was extremely careful and yet there are 4 tiny fibers inside the tape over JB's mouth from her sweater and in the garrote and in the paint box. My point is that the intruder would have done the same, somewhere. There is nothing.

Also, Holdon. I would like nothing more than to believe that Patsy was not involved. She comes across to me as a likable person. Most do not like her. I think she must have been very strong and charasmatic. I think this was an accident and she paid very harshly for it in that I believe she did love JonBenet and she killed her. That has to be horrible to live with. JonBenet paid with her life though. It is most definitely not an even trade.

Ames posted a while back something that absolutely swayed me 100%. I always felt she did it, but there is always that lingering doubt. But Ames posted something I had known about but did not give it the thought I should have. When John found the body, he picked her up and Fleet was heard shouting call 911, call an ambulance. Patsy did not move. She sat on the couch. Her two friends came running though. I just read this over again, last night.

Now, if you are in this much pain over the "kidnapping" of your daughter and are waiting to hear from someone on the phone, and then you hear call an ambulance, you have HOPE and maybe this pain will end and maybe you will find JB and she will be okay. It is a natural instinct you to come running wildly. She did not move.

She knew that JonBenet was dead or she was terrified that she was still alive. Either way, she is involved up to her ears. Sadly.

 

[rashomon]

Ames,
And "Never drank alcohol" doesn't fit. Patsy liked her Chardonnay.

BlueCrab

Do you know the source for that, BlueCrab?

 

[coloradokares]

Why not say the DNA was staged? Planted there to divert attention?

RDI, has used the 'staging' eplanation to displace the ransom note, garrote, and the injuries to JBR's body from the case evidence, because they all suggest an intruder. Then, departing from this theme, instead claims the DNA was from a 'factory worker', having the same effect of displacing intruder evidence from the crime.

It does appear that RDI goal #1 is to displace all intruder-suggesting evidence, doesn't it? You'll need a DNA match, handwriting match, from a known child kidnapper/killer with a signed confession, I guess.

Do you honestly think Patsy and John just conveniently had degraded old DNA just sitting around to stage with on hand. Lets at least make sense. I mean I could say it appears that the IDI goal is to suggest that the murderer/intruder to care to visit the crime scene at least months in advance knowing he was going to intrude and kill on Christmas night and wanted what DNA he left behind to be artifact and highly degraded.....DUH. Why didn't I think of that earlier ... I think the evidence was there and the crime has been solved not prosecuted. You don't obviously agree and I am okay with that. What we can agree on is that we both hope in our lifetimes this matter is resolved and I am hopeful that will happen. They keep parading fake suspects across the playing field and I guarantee they will get their special prosecutor. There was an outcry back here over Karr like you can't believe. And if its done again for amusement at the taxpayer expense eventually someone is going to get the notion to fight City Hall so to speak. JMHO.