Poll: was Patsy involved?

[EtherealMoonRose]

I have a VERY difficult time believing that PR bludgeoned JBR with a flashlight over bed wetting. However, not because it is PR and she is too refined for such things, but because I can't imagine ANYONE killing a child over soiled sheets. But, they are killed for this and less, everyday, all over this country and around the world.

Yes, you are 100% correct. But Patsy, from what I can gather, wasn't the abusive kind. I can't see her just snapping one day and killing her daughter when there were no prior signs of abuse.

 

[TeaTime]

Yes, you are 100% correct. But Patsy, from what I can gather, wasn't the abusive kind. I can't see her just snapping one day and killing her daughter when there were no prior signs of abuse.

I just don't believe she is the one that struck JBR on the head. There were at least 3 other beds for JBR to sleep in if changing the wet one was going to be too much for a tired woman. This wasn't her first rodeo with wet beds and she didn't beat her kids over it. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[andreww]

Yes, you are 100% correct. But Patsy, from what I can gather, wasn't the abusive kind. I can't see her just snapping one day and killing her daughter when there were no prior signs of abuse.

Yes but we do have word from LHP that Patsy had taken JBR in to the bathroom to change her and that she heard screaming. People do lose their temper, and after a Christmas that seemed to be less than spectacular and with an early wake up ahead for a trip she didn't want to go on, Patsy may have been at the end of her rope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

andreww,
ITA. Its presumptive, since we have to start somewhere. The True Bills look like a good place, after all they have seen and heard evidence we can only dream about.

I'm not 100% on BDI, more 90%, it could be PDI, or even JDI with JR fitting BR up, by telling him what his role was to be?

The GJ might have got it wrong, but not indicting the parents on murder 1 is pretty revealing.

I do have the impression that Kolar has left a lot out of his book as regards BR, he has dropped hints about BR's behavior by referencing those self-help medical books.

I reckon for fear of litigation he cannot say what he thinks was going on in the killers mind, no apparent motive, but a premeditated homicide with subsequent staging.

That's pretty good for a 9-year old.

.

I believe it was in Kolar's AMA that he said that most of the evidence is out there, so I don't get the feeling that the GJ heard much more than we already know. In order to prosecute the true bills against John & Patsy they would first need to prove that BDI. Not sure how they ever figured that was going to happen? The evidence simply isn't there. Burke, to this day, still has not been investigated as a possible suspect. Maybe that was the Rs plan all along, make the parents the obvious targets and let LE waste their efforts focusing on them whilst Burke hides in the shadows?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

First degree murder. The parents assisted the murderer, whom they KNEW to be the murderer, to escape the consequences of having committed first degree murder. So, the GJ thought it was intentional after the jurors saw all the evidence and heard all the witnesses.

I have a VERY difficult time believing that PR bludgeoned JBR with a flashlight over bed wetting. However, not because it is PR and she is too refined for such things, but because I can't imagine ANYONE killing a child over soiled sheets. But, they are killed for this and less, everyday, all over this country and around the world.

In all honesty, either scenario is, for all intents and purposes, "unbelievable." It is more unbelievable to believe that PR killed JBR over bed-wetting; or is it more unbelievable to believe that a nine year old kid was capable of sexually assaulting his sister, killing her, strangling her (with a garrote-like device of all things -- I won't call it a garrote, I'll say "garrote-like" for the nit-pickers out there), re-dressing her, etc.? Both are equally "unbelievable," but I think it's safe to say that one of these things did actually happen (if not a combination).

 

[Userid]

Yes but we do have word from LHP that Patsy had taken JBR in to the bathroom to change her and that she heard screaming. People do lose their temper, and after a Christmas that seemed to be less than spectacular and with an early wake up ahead for a trip she didn't want to go on, Patsy may have been at the end of her rope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree. There was so much commotion around the house that night, particularly with the packing that was taking place in JAR's room right across the way; having to wake up early. It seemed like PR was still packing that very night, if JAR's room is any indication. There was a suitcase and clothes on his bed, right? I could almost see PR packing in JAR's room when JBR comes out and tells her she had an accident, and she flips because she's trying to do one thing and that comes up. She had been desperately trying to correct the problem, but it still persisted -- there were no maids around to help with the packing, etc., which PR was not accustomed to, and the stress just overwhelmed her.

 

[Miz Adventure]

Agree. There was so much commotion around the house that night, particularly with the packing that was taking place in JAR's room right across the way; having to wake up early. It seemed like PR was still packing that very night, if JAR's room is any indication. There was a suitcase and clothes on his bed, right? I could almost see PR packing in JAR's room when JBR comes out and tells her she had an accident, and she flips because she's trying to do one thing and that comes up. She had been desperately trying to correct the problem, but it still persisted -- there were no maids around to help with the packing, etc., which PR was not accustomed to, and the stress just overwhelmed her.

But wait a minute.....stress overwhelmed her so....she pushed JBR causing her head to connect with a hard object - is that what you're saying? If so, then that is possible.

JBR falls down unconscious - right? At this point PR would not know how extensive the skull injury is. It is possible that she may assume that JBR is temporarily unconscious and will recover.

In this above scenario the most likely thing would be for the R's to call 911. And I am sure that is precisely what they WOULD have done if the above scenario happened that way.

Parents are hardly likely to strangle their child to death if they simply think she has concussion, are they? And remember....the strangulation came up to one hour after the skull fracture.

This is why I think BR did all of it - the blow to the head followed later (for reasons of his own) by the strangulation.

 

[BOESP]

An adult pushing their child hard enough, even accidentally, to cause a concussion (let alone a skull fracture) is child abuse and an arrestable offense where I live.

 

[andreww]

The skull fracture was not accidental. Kids smack their heads all the time, it doesn't crack their skull in half. This was a hard hit, more than what result from banging her head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Userid]

But wait a minute.....stress overwhelmed her so....she pushed JBR causing her head to connect with a hard object - is that what you're saying? If so, then that is possible.

JBR falls down unconscious - right? At this point PR would not know how extensive the skull injury is. It is possible that she may assume that JBR is temporarily unconscious and will recover.

In this above scenario the most likely thing would be for the R's to call 911. And I am sure that is precisely what they WOULD have done if the above scenario happened that way.

Parents are hardly likely to strangle their child to death if they simply think she has concussion, are they? And remember....the strangulation came up to one hour after the skull fracture.

This is why I think BR did all of it - the blow to the head followed later (for reasons of his own) by the strangulation.

No -- I'm not saying anything; you are.

I was simply hypothesizing how it all started and the mindset of PR, according to the evidence and the fact that she was packing all the way up until this attack occurred. What led to PR possibly striking JBR with a blunt-force object is as unknown and/or possible as to what led BR to do the same. Also, in the BR scenario, you'd call the cops also if you found one of your children struck the other, so that point is moot.

 

[Intheamadhouse]

I don't personally see a scenario where Patsy is not involved in the cover-up to some degree. I go back and forth abut whether I think she is responsible for the head injury, or whether Burke was. In either case, I don't feel that the intent was to kill JB with the blow, or that it was planned.
I do not see her strangling JB, either. I am 100% convinced that that was JR. Strangulation is ugly. It takes time and force and I do not see Patsy as being able to hold the cord tight for even the 2-3 minutes that it might take. A split second blow to the head, or a yank on JB's clothing that caused her to spin and hit her head against something, yes. A calculated strangulation, no. I think JR did the dirty work in the basement while Patsy cleaned the bedroom and wrote the note.

ETA: I do not personally put much stock in the 'PR had never abused her children before, so she couldn't have done it that night' argument. Susan Smith had not previously abused he boys before drowning them. Diane Downs had not abused her children before shooting them. Darlie Routier had not abused her boys before stabbing them to death. Even Casey Anthony had not been known to abuse Caylee before the child's death. You never know what is happening behind closed doors, not in any family.

 

[questfortrue]

I believe it was in Kolar's AMA that he said that most of the evidence is out there, so I don't get the feeling that the GJ heard much more than we already know. In order to prosecute the true bills against John & Patsy they would first need to prove that BDI. Not sure how they ever figured that was going to happen? The evidence simply isn't there. Burke, to this day, still has not been investigated as a possible suspect. Maybe that was the Rs plan all along, make the parents the obvious targets and let LE waste their efforts focusing on them whilst Burke hides in the shadows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's one question whether AH SHOULD have signed the True Bills and asked for a dismissal in court. IMO, he should have been open that the GJ had voted to indict.

It is another question whether the case SHOULD have gone to court. We've differing opinions on this based more on our sensibilities vs. letter of the law.

However, it is not true that the case couldn't have been taken to court. Neither is it accurate to claim that they would have to prove BDI in order to take it to court. An attorney can simply state accessory after the fact to a homicide by a person or persons unknown ( Roberts v. People, Supreme Court of Colorado)

As some may recall the Rs stated on numerous occasions that they did not discuss the homicide with BR. Only once did PR admit she asked BR about it. This was intentional on their part, of course. So, the prosecutor would have had to prove that the Rs knew there was no Intruder. If one believes Patsy wrote the note, then a conclusion that PR would not have written a note for an Intruder is logical.

Much of the indication that the attorneys were attempting to build a case that the Rs knew there was no intruder is contained in the year 2000 interviews.

Regards the child abuse charge, a prosecutor can develop and introduce several theories of the case, and it isn't necessary that the judgment of a jury rely on one specific theory. The Midyette case illustrates this.

 

[UKGuy]

It's one question whether AH SHOULD have signed the True Bills and asked for a dismissal in court. IMO, he should have been open that the GJ had voted to indict.

It is another question whether the case SHOULD have gone to court. We've differing opinions on this based more on our sensibilities vs. letter of the law.

However, it is not true that the case couldn't have been taken to court. Neither is it accurate to claim that they would have to prove BDI in order to take it to court. An attorney can simply state accessory after the fact to a homicide by a person or persons unknown ( Roberts v. People, Supreme Court of Colorado)

As some may recall the Rs stated on numerous occasions that they did not discuss the homicide with BR. Only once did PR admit she asked BR about it. This was intentional on their part, of course. So, the prosecutor would have had to prove that the Rs knew there was no Intruder. If one believes Patsy wrote the note, then a conclusion that PR would not have written a note for an Intruder is logical.

Much of the indication that the attorneys were attempting to build a case that the Rs knew there was no intruder is contained in the year 2000 interviews.

Regards the child abuse charge, a prosecutor can develop and introduce several theories of the case, and it isn't necessary that the judgment of a jury rely on one specific theory. The Midyette case illustrates this.

questfortrue,
Informative post, thanks. BBM: That's your confirmation for a conspiracy theory right there.

AH was underhand wrt True Bills, why would he do that? Years ago I thought the RST had bought AH and his buddies out.

Hopefully, more pragmatically, I reckon AH was attempting to shield the person referenced in those True Bills from publicity.

Because said person was beneath the age of criminal responsibility on the night of JonBenet's death?

AH still maintains his silence, on the CBS show he cited GJ secrecy rules.

Basically the case is BDI with the parents arriving late at the crime-scene which they then dismantled and removed any obvious incriminating evidence.

Then they sat down and dreamed up the RN and abduction scenario with an escape plan if it all worked, e.g. airplane flight out of Colorado, ASAP!

So how I see it at present with the evidence that's available is that its BDI All, with the parents cleaning up and adding some staging?

Curiously I don't know what the motive was though?


.

 

[andreww]

It's one question whether AH SHOULD have signed the True Bills and asked for a dismissal in court. IMO, he should have been open that the GJ had voted to indict.

It is another question whether the case SHOULD have gone to court. We've differing opinions on this based more on our sensibilities vs. letter of the law.

However, it is not true that the case couldn't have been taken to court. Neither is it accurate to claim that they would have to prove BDI in order to take it to court. An attorney can simply state accessory after the fact to a homicide by a person or persons unknown ( Roberts v. People, Supreme Court of Colorado)

As some may recall the Rs stated on numerous occasions that they did not discuss the homicide with BR. Only once did PR admit she asked BR about it. This was intentional on their part, of course. So, the prosecutor would have had to prove that the Rs knew there was no Intruder. If one believes Patsy wrote the note, then a conclusion that PR would not have written a note for an Intruder is logical.

Much of the indication that the attorneys were attempting to build a case that the Rs knew there was no intruder is contained in the year 2000 interviews.

Regards the child abuse charge, a prosecutor can develop and introduce several theories of the case, and it isn't necessary that the judgment of a jury rely on one specific theory. The Midyette case illustrates this.

BBM - My point is that only two of the four true bills were made public. Common sense says that the other two likely involved Burke, likely for sexual assault and homicide. If that were true, then the charges against the parents would be based on the fact that they helped Burke evade justice. My legal stance to that would be "prove that Burke did it", because without that you cannot prove that the parents assisted him. The whole situation is further complicated by the fact that Burke cannot be named. You are correct in that there is precedence for someone being prosecuted as an accessory after the fact, however in this case I don't think it would work.

 

[UKGuy]

BBM - My point is that only two of the four true bills were made public. Common sense says that the other two likely involved Burke, likely for sexual assault and homicide. If that were true, then the charges against the parents would be based on the fact that they helped Burke evade justice. My legal stance to that would be "prove that Burke did it", because without that you cannot prove that the parents assisted him. The whole situation is further complicated by the fact that Burke cannot be named. You are correct in that there is precedence for someone being prosecuted as an accessory after the fact, however in this case I don't think it would work.

andreww,
BBM: Yup that's why AH isn't talking, and all the BPD employees have had parts of their books redacted.

The case is BDI all day long.

.

 

[questfortrue]

BBM - My point is that only two of the four true bills were made public. Common sense says that the other two likely involved Burke, likely for sexual assault and homicide. If that were true, then the charges against the parents would be based on the fact that they helped Burke evade justice. My legal stance to that would be "prove that Burke did it", because without that you cannot prove that the parents assisted him. The whole situation is further complicated by the fact that Burke cannot be named. You are correct in that there is precedence for someone being prosecuted as an accessory after the fact, however in this case I don't think it would work.

I understand your reasoning and point. But the prosecutor Michael Kane, well-versed in Colorado law, would not develop charges for a BDI, since he couldn't be charged. Anyway, we're talking about these specific True Bills, not what we imagine is contained in the other charges not brought forward. IMO these released True Bills either illustrate a BDI, or they had to be devised to be the 'lowest common denominator', so to speak, including all of them if they weren't sure who did what - the conjecture of attorney Recht.

Kane was responsible for developing the various charges which the GJ then voted upon. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether he developed these True Bills without understanding the law and what he needed to go to court. Again, I’ve no firm answer whether this case should have been prosecuted. I’m simply putting some legal definition to this discussion.

Some may not know that AH sat in on all the GJ meetings. Some also may not know that AH thought he had to 'prove a murderer,' and otherwise the case could not be taken to court. It's generally agreed by other legal minds, that he did not understand the law in this regard. So, depending on one’s viewpoint AH was either involved in a conspiracy to obstruct justice (this was the viewpoint of some of the FBI), was ignorant about how the laws are applied (the viewpoint of some other lawyers), or simply believed the protection of (pick your favorite perp BR/PR/JR) overrode justice for JB. They “didn’t mean for this to happen.”

 

[kanzz]

For me, the thought that PR might have lost it over JBR having wet the bed lost any traction it might have ever had once I saw the photos of the clothes JB was wearing when she died.

JB obviously had a full bladder when she was murdered.

 

[EtherealMoonRose]

Sorry I'm still not buying the story of 'Patsy lost her **** and yanked on JBs collar causing her to hit her head rendering her unconcious'. Nope. Over something as trivial as wetting the bed (which was pretty routine in that house). If such accident did occur you'd call an ambulance. Not go on to strangle her and write a three page ransom note. Really guys? Come on now.

 

[k-mac]

Sorry I'm still not buying the story of 'Patsy lost her **** and yanked on JBs collar causing her to hit her head rendering her unconcious'. Nope. Over something as trivial as wetting the bed (which was pretty routine in that house). If such accident did occur you'd call an ambulance. Not go on to strangle her and write a three page ransom note. Really guys? Come on now.

its all well and good to believe what ever you want.
but don't belittle PDIs because your a staunch BDI.
There are some very intelligent well read people on the JBR case forum who do think PATSY did it including some very well respected police officers who were there.
put your BDI forward how you wish but don't insult the intelligence of others who have their own reasons for coming to their RDI .
its becoming very suffocating around here lately.
just would like to see a but of respect to posters we are all on jon benet side.

there is plenty of evidence of patsy involvement. more so than anybody else for the record.
jmo

 

[EtherealMoonRose]

its all well and good to believe what ever you want.
but don't belittle PDIs because your a staunch BDI.
There are some very intelligent well read people on the JBR case forum who do think PATSY did it including some very well respected police officers who were there.
put your BDI forward how you wish but don't insult the intelligence of others who have their own reasons for coming to their RDI .
its becoming very suffocating around here lately.
just would like to see a but of respect to posters we are all on jon benet side.

there is plenty of evidence of patsy involvement. more so than anybody else for the record.
jmo

Belittle and insult the intelligence of PDIs? And how exactly did I do that?