Grand Jury True Bills John & Patsy Discussion thread

[Tawny]

I believe he was referring to the RN when he asked what did you find, because he wasn't aware a staging was in progress. JMO

 

[chlban]

I believe he was referring to the RN when he asked what did you find, because he wasn't aware a staging was in progress. JMO

Yes, that's what I think as well.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, that's what I think as well.

chlban,
BR has been written out of the script, how do we know he read the RN, or am I getting it wrong?

 

[lawstudent]

The whole "well they knew he couldn't be charged" argument kind of baffles me. Obviously that improved the situation from their standpoint, but if that was what happened, it was still an atrocious situation that would have easily seemed life-ruining. It's like asking why one spouse killed the other when they could just get a divorce, or why they hid the body if it was a heat of passion assault. Yes, most people would get a divorce or call 911 in such a situation, but a large number of people would rather make the situation way worse with the hope they could get away without that stain on their reputation for life. They don't want to face the fall, and do stupid things. I don't really believe Burke did it, but I certainly believe parents might cover for a child in that situation even without criminal charges being possible. People do crazy things to cover up infidelity or financial issues even where there's no chance of being criminally prosecuted - losing respect can seem more daunting.

 

[DeeDee249]

We will never really know who did what as far as the cover up. Yes, there were fibers in the panties that point to JR. And Patsy's fibers were also found in incriminating places, like the inside of the tape over her mouth, entwined in the cord knot, and in the paint tote. I feel BOTH parents did the coverup. I do not feel BR played any part in the coverup at all. I think he bashed her. I think he had been abusing her. I do not think he meant to kill her- he just wanted to shut her up when she screamed. I think the GJ's wording lays it out pretty clearly that the parents were guilty of allowing her to be in a situation where abuse resulted in her death, and conspired to prevent the killer from being identified. It couldn't be spelled out any clearer if they had been able to actually NAME the killer. There is no other option in my mind.
And with both parents involved with a coverup, it really doesn't matter who did what legally. They are both guilty if they were both involved.

 

[Chelly]

We will never really know who did what as far as the cover up. Yes, there were fibers in the panties that point to JR. And Patsy's fibers were also found in incriminating places, like the inside of the tape over her mouth, entwined in the cord knot, and in the paint tote. I feel BOTH parents did the coverup. I do not feel BR played any part in the coverup at all. I think he bashed her. I think he had been abusing her. I do not think he meant to kill her- he just wanted to shut her up when she screamed. I think the GJ's wording lays it out pretty clearly that the parents were guilty of allowing her to be in a situation where abuse resulted in her death, and conspired to prevent the killer from being identified. It couldn't be spelled out any clearer if they had been able to actually NAME the killer. There is no other option in my mind.
And with both parents involved with a coverup, it really doesn't matter who did what legally. They are both guilty if they were both involved.

DeeDee249: Nicely summarized imo. Thank you.

 

[otg]

DeeDee249: Nicely summarized imo. Thank you.

Agreed, Chelly. And well done, DeeDee.

 

[elannia]

It is just hard to believe anyone could do something like this to children (or anyone). Exactly like the GJ indictment says they put her in that situation and then covered up for someone(no one but BR) even JAR said the killer deserved forgiveness. Now I believe he was talking about B(being his half brother and all) and B was their son so I can understand them covering for him. But... I couldnt do it. I just dont think I could. (Would anyone on here be able to do that, if you were in that situation? You find out(or suspected or even knew your son was molesting your daughter)and then he hits her on the head maybe just to quiten her but really hurts her, so instead of calling 911 or taking her to the hospital they stage this whole thing. IF it were me she would have been taken to the hospital or 911 called... I just could not finish her off. So I wonder if they knew how bad the head injury was, and maybe they thought she was already gone so thats why they set it up like that. But like I said I could not have done it.

 

[questfortrue]

~RSBM~ (Would anyone on here be able to do that, if you were in that situation? You find out(or suspected or even knew your son was molesting your daughter)and then he hits her on the head maybe just to quiten her but really hurts her, so instead of calling 911 or taking her to the hospital they stage this whole thing. IF it were me she would have been taken to the hospital or 911 called...

:heartbeat: Agree.
This head strike event seems to indicate an act of rage or desperation. Add in the True Bill, and it looks like BR was considered to be responsible (though none of us know this for a fact.) But proceeding from that hypothesis, then the following thoughts: Children with SBP, if BR did indeed have that syndrome, are not known to cause the death of their siblings. That in itself presents an extremely rare event. Once upon a time when I was looking at incidence of this, I discovered there are plenty of kids molesting siblings. There’s also incidence of young kids killing other kids (not siblings) with anger, bullying or general cruel motivation. While the internet is not notorious for accuracy, I only found one case of the grouping of both molesting and causing death of a sibling, and this was from a 13 year old. It would have been incomprehensibly difficult to deal with the situation, but, imo, they didn’t do right by BR with a lesson of responsibility, let alone not doing right and witnessing for their deceased daughter. Moo

Actually, Elannia, I couldn’t agree more with you. Who wouldn’t call for an ambulance, upon finding a child mortally injured or even a child who has died. You call 911.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It is just hard to believe anyone could do something like this to children (or anyone). Exactly like the GJ indictment says they put her in that situation and then covered up for someone(no one but BR) even JAR said the killer deserved forgiveness. Now I believe he was talking about B(being his half brother and all) and B was their son so I can understand them covering for him. But... I couldnt do it. I just dont think I could. (Would anyone on here be able to do that, if you were in that situation? You find out(or suspected or even knew your son was molesting your daughter)and then he hits her on the head maybe just to quiten her but really hurts her, so instead of calling 911 or taking her to the hospital they stage this whole thing. IF it were me she would have been taken to the hospital or 911 called... I just could not finish her off. So I wonder if they knew how bad the head injury was, and maybe they thought she was already gone so thats why they set it up like that. But like I said I could not have done it.

No. I know with every fiber of my being that I would not and could not do it.....If one of my children killed his sibling.

I've thought about this a lot over the years. I've wondered if my own child killed a stranger, could I /would I help him to conceal it by providing a false alibi or hiding the body....I honestly don't believe I would or could regardless of the circumstances.

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chlban]

I am not sure I understand the question? I think that if Burke inflicted the head wound, then I think that would have been the extent of his involvement. I certainly don't think he wrote the RN. There is not a question in my mind that the RN was part of the staging and I really don't believe Burke was involved in the staging.

So I read the fact that we hear Burke saying "what did you find" one of two ways. 1. He had absolutely nothing to do with the injury or the staging and was asking a legitimate and logical question when he heard his mother on the phone, or 2. He inflicted the head wound, it was serious enough that she may have been seizing, which I personally witnessed not long ago and would have sworn the injured girl was not ever going to recover (she did, quickly and seemingly with no lingering effects) or she may have been completely unresponsive. Either way, I think at that point one or both parents sent him to bed and proceeded with the staging. In that event, his question was triggered when he heard Patsy telling 911 that they had found a note. He still would have known nothing about the note prior to that, so I still see the question as quite logical.

However, I am not completely sold on the BDI. In fact I still tend to lean toward PDI. The things that make me most inclined to think Burke was involved is the fact that the parents lied about him being asleep, and since he spoke to them, and John answered, we know that was a lie, not just a mistake. The other thing that has never felt right to me is sending him away that morning. Even if PDI, I would think she would tend to cling to her remaining child. After all, she had to at least consider that she might be taken into custody. OTOH, if John did it, which I don't believe, but for the sake of argument. If John did it, and Patsy was innocent, I still think with one child misisng she would cling to the other child, and that if there was even an inkling in either parents mind that there was an actual kidnapping of JB then no way would they let Burke out of the their sight.

OTOH, if BDI, then sending him away with a trusted friend and instructions to keep his mouth shut about all events, makes total sense.

 

[chlban]

The whole "well they knew he couldn't be charged" argument kind of baffles me. Obviously that improved the situation from their standpoint, but if that was what happened, it was still an atrocious situation that would have easily seemed life-ruining. It's like asking why one spouse killed the other when they could just get a divorce, or why they hid the body if it was a heat of passion assault. Yes, most people would get a divorce or call 911 in such a situation, but a large number of people would rather make the situation way worse with the hope they could get away without that stain on their reputation for life. They don't want to face the fall, and do stupid things. I don't really believe Burke did it, but I certainly believe parents might cover for a child in that situation even without criminal charges being possible. People do crazy things to cover up infidelity or financial issues even where there's no chance of being criminally prosecuted - losing respect can seem more daunting.

This is so true. Lately I seem to have been on an unintentional roll with reading several books about Husbands killing their wives (or in one case wife and sons, Christopher Coleman). In every case I find myself thinking, among other things I cannot type here, "what was he thinking?". They are so obvious even OJ's jury couldn't have acquitted these guys, and hasn't anyone heard of divorce??? Oh right, they don't want to ruin their lives or careers or reputations with divorce so instead they become known as murderers???

Yet, it just keeps happening. Jeffrey MacDonald, Christopher Coleman (who may be even more evil than Jeffie as he planned it way ahead of time) , David Temple, Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson (2 wives!), Mark Hacking, etc. etc. etc.

So, indeed, why do people do stupid things like murder instead of divorce, or cover up the fact that one child killed or severly injured another, or that the parent themselves reacted in a fit of rage that would permanently destroy their reputation if they admitted it, which they would have to do if they sought medical help?

Good questions, all of them.

 

[chlban]

This is so true. Lately I seem to have been on an unintentional roll with reading several books about Husbands killing their wives (or in one case wife and sons, Christopher Coleman). In every case I find myself thinking, among other things I cannot type here, "what was he thinking?". They are so obvious even OJ's jury couldn't have acquitted these guys, and hasn't anyone heard of divorce??? Oh right, they don't want to ruin their lives or careers or reputations with divorce so instead they become known as murderers???

Yet, it just keeps happening. Jeffrey MacDonald, Christopher Coleman (who may be even more evil than Jeffie as he planned it way ahead of time) , David Temple, Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson (2 wives!), Mark Hacking, etc. etc. etc.

So, indeed, why do people do stupid things like murder instead of divorce, or cover up the fact that one child killed or severly injured another, or that the parent themselves reacted in a fit of rage that would permanently destroy their reputation if they admitted it, which they would have to do if they sought medical help?

Good questions, all of them.

Just edited to add, because sometimes we need to lighten the mood. My husband once asked me, with a sllght grin, "why do like to read so many books about spouses killing each other?" I grinned back and said "Research".

 

[elannia]

This is so true. Lately I seem to have been on an unintentional roll with reading several books about Husbands killing their wives (or in one case wife and sons, Christopher Coleman). In every case I find myself thinking, among other things I cannot type here, "what was he thinking?". They are so obvious even OJ's jury couldn't have acquitted these guys, and hasn't anyone heard of divorce??? Oh right, they don't want to ruin their lives or careers or reputations with divorce so instead they become known as murderers???

Yet, it just keeps happening. Jeffrey MacDonald, Christopher Coleman (who may be even more evil than Jeffie as he planned it way ahead of time) , David Temple, Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson (2 wives!), Mark Hacking, etc. etc. etc.

So, indeed, why do people do stupid things like murder instead of divorce, or cover up the fact that one child killed or severly injured another, or that the parent themselves reacted in a fit of rage that would permanently destroy their reputation if they admitted it, which they would have to do if they sought medical help?

Good questions, all of them.

Right... why not "call 911, hurry shes hurt" etc. Instead they chose to fashion this garrote and SA her. It has been stated that the head blow would have eventually killed her but they didnt even want to try to get her help. There must have been some bad stuff wrong and going on with that family for them to not get her help and also end her life.

 

[DeeDee249]

I do not think I could do what they did either. But no one REALLY knows what they would do if they were in that situation. We know what we THINK we would or would not do, but to be in that moment and have to make decisions under highly stressed circumstances can cause parents to do unthinkable things. They kind of went into an adrenaline-feuled autopilot. All they could think of was how to protect the remaining family members, including themselves. And I honestly feel it was as simple as this: BR molested and bashed her, causing irreparable damage resulting in her death (with or without the strangulation). The parents had no idea how long it would take her to die and she may have seemed dead to them if she was comatose, with suppressed respiration and drop in body temperature, both common in coma or shock. So to protect the one responsible, they constructed the kidnap scenario, complete with RN which threatened to kill her if they called police and spoke to anyone else. So all they had to do was CALL police and other people and with that RN they had a built-in explanation as to why she was killed- because they DID call police and a bunch of other people too. It was like "we disobeyed them so they killed her". Of course, she was already dead so it was kind of "reverse engineering" in a way. I really feel is was that simple- and they thought they'd get away with it - and obviously they were right. I don't mean that no one figured it out- many did, including the GJ. But as far as avoiding prosecution or accountability, they got away with it.

 

[andreww]

Back when this all happened I always thought that BR might have been responsible. However, since then I have raised a couple of children of my own and through experience, I have come to be of the opinion the BR probably had nothing to do with it. First of all, after a long day and a night out, at 10 years old my kids would have wanted nothing more than to get their heads on to their own pillows upon returning home late. In fact one of them would have certainly have been sleeping in the car. Certainly neither of them would have been wide awake and thinking of sexual assault. Just doesn't make sense. Secondly, if you subscribe to the BDI theory, then you would wonder why J&P wouldn't have sought immediate help for JBR? As a parent I certainly would be thinking of absolutely nothing else at that point. Dealing with the consequences of BRs actions in the aftermath would have been far simpler and less risky that killing her to cover up an assault. After all, it seems like PR was reliving her childhood through JBR, I don't think she would kill her simply to protect BR.

As I get older I look at J&P as being responsible. I believe that there was a sexual assault that night by JR, possibly a Christmas gift from PR (reminds me of Karla Homolka's gifting her little sister to Paul Bernardo on Christmas). I believe JBR screamed and either JR or PR cracked her over the head. That would be the only scenario that would explain why an otherwise loving parent wouldn't seek medical attention for their dying daughter. After that it was all about the coverup. All IMO of course.

 

[Mama2JML]

If a Ramsey sexually assaulted and murdered JonBenét one would expect to find Ramsey DNA in incriminating locations. Instead, we have unsourced, male DNA in the victim's underwear, on her long johns, under her fingernails, and on the ligature cord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rpgman]

If a Ramsey sexually assaulted and murdered JonBenét one would expect to find Ramsey DNA in incriminating locations. Instead, we have unsourced, male DNA in the victim's underwear, on her long johns, under her fingernails, and on the ligature cord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That unsourced DNA could have been anyone helping JonBenet with her bathroom issues... She was known to ask anyone for help when she used the bathroom... Just an idea.

Plus there were fibers from JR's sweater in her underwear... How that get there?

 

[dgfred]

Just edited to add, because sometimes we need to lighten the mood. My husband once asked me, with a sllght grin, "why do like to read so many books about spouses killing each other?" I grinned back and said "Research".

Haha... my wife asked me if we had any anti-freeze last night. I said yes I think I have some in the shed, why, is your car low?

Then I looked up and saw the grin on her face and that she was watching Investigative Discovery. Uh oh.

 

[Mama2JML]

That unsourced DNA could have been anyone helping JonBenet with her bathroom issues... She was known to ask anyone for help when she used the bathroom... Just an idea.

Plus there were fibers from JR's sweater in her underwear... How that get there?

I don't believe Mr. Ramsey's sweater fibers were actually found in JonBenét's underwear, but there were fibers found in the in her pubic region that have not been sourced.

If the foreign, male DNA profile belongs to someone who had helped JonBenét in the bathroom, then there is no acceptable reason for the evidentiary DNA to remain unsourced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk