RDI Theorists

[aussiesheila]

I think the time it would take to be strangled would have to incorporate if the person is put in a sleeper hold where they go unconscious and do not struggle.

I, as other battered wives, was put in a sleeper hold. Thankfully after I passed out my spouse stopped because he became scared he had killed me. If he had not stopped I think death would have been swift as he would have had no resistance from me at all.

Becba, is this true? That is horrible!

 

[Jayelles]

Sorry, I didn't realise this was for RDI's only and I am an IDI who voted like an idiot. So please take one off the 'none of the above' tally.

Sorry, I thought I had made that clear in my first post:-

RDI Theorists
Do you think the Ramseys killed Jonbenet with malice aforethought or that it was an accidental killing with a cover-up?

 

[narlacat]

Becba, is this true? That is horrible!

fgs Aussie, why would Becba bring it up if it weren't true?
That question was even less thought out than your theory on this case.

 

[rashomon]

Results so far show that 64% of those who voted believe that one of the Ramseys murdered Jonbenet and that it was accidental followed by a cover-up.

Now just for a word of caution - the poll results say 64% of those who voted believe it was an accident. 3 members voted for intentional homicide and 7 for "none of the above". The poll for only intended to be for RDI theorists and we have no way of knowing if any of the "none of the above" voters are IDI theorists who voted by mistake or whether the "intentional homicide" voters were RST who wanted to sway the vote. As the forum only permits one vote per member, anyone who wished to sway the vote would only be able to sway it by one vote - their one and only vote. That was why I was keen for as many RDI members to vote as possible.


It would have been interesting if all voters had added a post of explanation but only some of the "accidental killing" posters did that - the exception being Paradox who would appear to be suggesting that Patsy did it but that she didn't know she did it (I think that is what Paradox is suggesting).

So far, the stats bear out my understanding that most of the RDIs/"BORG" do not believe the Ramseys were cold-blooded murderers as the RST would have the reading public believe.

As most of the members who explained their vote were RDIs who believed in accidental homicide - perhaps some of those who voted for intentional homicide or none of the above would add a note to explain why they did so - EVEN if it is to say that they are IDIs who voted accidentally.

This would interest me very much too: why in the opinion of the RDI posters who voted intentional homicide, the Ramseys planned and premeditated the murder of their daughter (I suppose that is what you meant by intentional homicide, Jayelles: a first-degree murder).
Or how a 'none of the above scenario' would have looked like according to the RDIs who voted it.

 

[UKGuy]

This would interest me very much too: why in the opinion of the RDI posters who voted intentional homicide, the Ramseys planned and premeditated the murder of their daughter (I suppose that is what you meant by intentional homicide, Jayelles: a first-degree murder).
Or how a 'none of the above scenario' would have looked like according to the RDIs who voted it.

rashomon,

JonBenet's homicide need not be premeditated or planned for it to be intentional!

The crime-scene staging was premeditated and planned though.

Excluding JonBenet, one of three people in the Ramsey household may have separately murdered JonBenet, or all three, or as the current forensic evidence suggests, some form of collusion between Patsy and John.

The why may be more complicated e.g. the suspects may have mixed motives.

The simplest explanation is that JonBenet was silenced this may be what motivated someone to manually strangle her.

Possibly JonBenet had decided pageant practise, a strict clothing code, and other domestic impositions were too much so she was going to complain?

Or she told someone who was sexually abusing her that she was going to tell a 3rd party?

If you consider Burke strong enough to strangle JonBenet then possibly BDI followed by a naive coverup, later on Patsy re-organises this coverup and includes a ransom note.

Now the inclusion of the ransom note, must mean that at some point JonBenet's corpse was to be dumped away from the house, you can speculate who may have done this and how? But it appears to be an important and integral part of one the stagings.

I would speculate Patsy was going to dump JonBenet's corpse, but that John vetoed this for some reason, it may have been the snowfall, but I doubt this since not removing her body would result in them becoming prime suspects, which then defeats the purpose of constructing a ransom note.

JonBenet's killer may have had minimal influence on this decision since he/she was now reliant on collusion.

Any combination of the above suspects could yield some answers.

imo it is the stagings that offer the clues to who may have killed JonBenet, for those who consider that it was just an accident, and here I suspect there might be a gender split on which theory predominates, they have to explain why it was necessary to wipe down JonBenet, and probably change her underwear? Bear in mind her longjohns were wet with urine when discovered?

So the stagings and the removal of forensic evidence possibly strongly suggest other motives beyond that of an accident.


Given the accidental death and a PDI theory, then with JonBenet's corpse still in the house its difficult to explain why John should collude, if he is innocent as some suggest, why does he implicate himself in a homicide, the outcome of which he cannot predict. With JonBenet's body lying close by any involvement could lead to conspiracy to murder charges?

 

[narlacat]

<<I would speculate Patsy was going to dump JonBenet's corpse, but that John vetoed this for some reason, it may have been the snowfall, but I doubt this since not removing her body would result in them becoming prime suspects, which then defeats the purpose of constructing a ransom note>>

The other day, on another thread, I said [in response to something you said] that it was most probably Patsy who vetoed this and I'm sure you agreed lol.

Anyway.....in this instance what would be the reason ,besides the snow that John didn't want to risk removing JonBenets body?

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
JonBenet's homicide need not be premeditated or planned for it to be intentional!

Even if the perp cold-bloodedly decided to 'silence' JonBenet so that she would not talk, this would also be thought of as a 'premeditated' act, and therefore a first-degree murder. It does not play a role how long it took the perp to come to that decision. He/she could have decided this very quickly in this situation.

I think it is is the word 'intentional' which causes some confusion, for on the other hand, an intentional homicide can also be 'only' a second-degree murder when it is done in a rage.

Example: John and Jim get into a heated argument. Suddenly Jim storms into his house in a fury, comes back with his gun , shouts at John "How dare you provoke me like that - I'll kill you, you SOB!!", and fires at him in blind rage. At that moment Jim had indeed 'intended' to kill John, but since he was in a blind rage when firing the shots, this would not have been a first-degree murder, but 'only' second-degree murder.

It is the state of mind the perp is in which plays a role. How could-blooded did he act (=first-degree murder)? Or was the perp in a rage or in a panic (=second-degree murder or maybe only voluntary manslaughter)?
Do you think the person who killed JB acted in cold blood or in a panic? this would interest me very much.

I believe the question in the poll meant whether JB's murder had been planned beforehand for quite some time. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Jayelles).

And I believe that virtually every RDI poster would vote that this was not the case.

 

[UKGuy]

Even if the perp cold-bloodedly decided to 'silence' JonBenet so that she would not talk, this would also be thought of as a 'premeditated' act, and therefore a first-degree murder. It does not play a role how long it took the perp to come to that decision. He/she could have decided this very quickly in this situation.

I think it is is the word 'intentional' which causes some confusion, for on the other hand, an intentional homicide can also be 'only' a second-degree murder when it is done in a rage.

Example: John and Jim get into a heated argument. Suddenly Jim storms into his house in a fury, comes back with his gun , shouts at John "How dare you provoke me like that - I'll kill you, you SOB!!", and fires at him in blind rage. At that moment Jim had indeed 'intended' to kill John, but since he was in a blind rage when firing the shots, this would not have been a first-degree murder, but 'only' second-degree murder.

It is the state of mind the perp is in which plays a role. How could-blooded did he act (=first-degree murder)? Or was the perp in a rage or in a panic (=second-degree murder or maybe only voluntary manslaughter)?
Do you think the person who killed JB acted in cold blood or in a panic? this would interest me very much.

I believe the question in the poll meant whether JB's murder had been planned beforehand for quite some time. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Jayelles).

And I believe that virtually every RDI poster would vote that this was not the case.

rashomon,

To premeditate or plan a homicide requires a measure of time beyond that of a homicide that proceeds from either rage or panic, also the state of mind is calculated!

JonBenet's killer's state of mind would be fearful, possibly with some degree of panic, but there was forethought in choosing to strangle JonBenet and to continue doing so until she expired.

If JonBenet's homicide had been planned and premeditated then more attention would have been given to the method by which she died, and less forensic evidence would have been left behind e.g. no corpse!

Its highly likely that someone throttled and strangled JonBenet until her body slumped and sagged, then she was allowed to collapse onto the floor, with her head hitting either the floor or some other item of household furniture, thereby causing the head trauma. This secondary injury was probably entirely missed by her killer, her lifeless body would appear to be as the result of the asphyxiation. Even Dr John Meyer did not realise there was a head injury until he did an internal examination.


.

 

[UKGuy]

<<I would speculate Patsy was going to dump JonBenet's corpse, but that John vetoed this for some reason, it may have been the snowfall, but I doubt this since not removing her body would result in them becoming prime suspects, which then defeats the purpose of constructing a ransom note>>

The other day, on another thread, I said [in response to something you said] that it was most probably Patsy who vetoed this and I'm sure you agreed lol.

Anyway.....in this instance what would be the reason ,besides the snow that John didn't want to risk removing JonBenets body?

narlacat,

Yes possibly I did, but in the above I am more speculating or playing the devil's advocate, since there are many permutations, and if you pay careful attention to the staging this may help to exclude specific combinations.

Assuming the above I would speculate John wanted a Get Out of Jail Card, that is he was trying not to become directly involved, and allowing JonBenet's body to be dumped would mean participation of some sort.

Personally I feel the risk taken in dumping the body would outweigh that of it being discovered in the house, the consequences of which are self-evident.

One other possibility is foreknowledge of how the authorities might proceed, and an agreed plan of action along with a staged crime-scene. I'm not entirely convinced of this, but its difficult to simply explain away the last staging, ie the wine-cellar, as a Ramsey response to Law Enforcement ineptitude.

.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
To premeditate or plan a homicide requires a measure of time beyond that of a homicide that proceeds from either rage or panic, also the state of mind is calculated!

Not always. People are known to have committed first-degree murders deciding within a very short time that they had to kill a person (for example to silence a witness). 'Premeditation' does not always mean long-term planning, but calculation. Calculation can set in after someone's rage has cooled down and the person sudddenly realizes what he has done.
Jeffrey MacDonald for example had killed his wife and elder daughter in a rage. He didn't want to turn himself in to the police but decided to stage a Charles-Manson-like intruder scene, and to make this scenario more plausible he stabbed his youngest daughter too who was lying asleep in her bed. All this happened within a short time. MacD was found guilty of two second-degree murders and one first degree murder.

IMO it boils down to the question: was JonBenet's death a first-degree murder, a second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter?

 

[UKGuy]

Not always. People are known to have committed first-degree murders deciding within a very short time that they had to kill a person (for example to silence a witness). 'Premeditation' does not always mean long-term planning, but calculation. Calculation can set in after someone's rage has cooled down and the person sudddenly realizes what he has done.
Jeffrey MacDonald for example had killed his wife and elder daughter in a rage. He didn't want to turn himself in to the police but decided to stage a Charles-Manson-like intruder scene, and to make this scenario more plausible he stabbed his youngest daughter too who was lying asleep in her bed. All this happened within a short time. MacD was found guilty of two second-degree murders and one first degree murder.

IMO it boils down to the question: was JonBenet's death a first-degree murder, a second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter?

rashomon,

Well I dont really wish to put a stopwatch on you, and each persons timeframe tends to be subjective, so you decide.


.

 

[ssiegmund]

<< It appears JonBenet was manually strangled, and I cannot reconcile the time taken to do this with the idea it was unintentional!>>

How long does it take to strangle someone until they are dead??
I tried googling but got too urked, seems it could take 10 minutes or more??

It takes 4 minutes to choke to death so I'd guess strangulation is the same, although you'd pass out before that time.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Well I dont really wish to put a stopwatch on you, and each persons timeframe tends to be subjective, so you decide.

My point was that first-degree murders don't always need long-term planning. I don't believe that JB's death was a first-degree murder though. I think the head bash by an enraged parent came first.
But for the sake of the discussion - even if the manual strangulation had come first, this doesn't automatically imply that it was a first-degree murder. Remember what Becba said in her #39 post:

I, as other battered wives, was put in a sleeper hold. Thankfully after I passed out my spouse stopped because he became scared he had killed me. If he had not stopped I think death would have been swift as he would have had no resistance from me at all.

Strangulations/chokings done in a rage are not that uncommon in domestic violence cases, as this post shows. [so sorry to hear about your ordeal, Becba!], This husband stopped because he became scared, but others are in such a rage that they don't stop. I once had a colleague whose husband strangled her in a blind rage, (interesting that this happened also on Christmas) - she escaped death by a hair's breadth, and was in a coma for three days.

Now couldn't something similar have happened in the JB case too? That an enraged parent strangled her manually (without killing her) and then, still in a rage, yanked her body against a hard object?

 

[narlacat]

<<Now couldn't something similar have happened in the JB case too? That an enraged parent strangled her manually (without killing her) and then, still in a rage, yanked her body against a hard object?>>

Rashomon hi
What degree murder do you regard that?

 

[UKGuy]

Now couldn't something similar have happened in the JB case too? That an enraged parent strangled her manually (without killing her) and then, still in a rage, yanked her body against a hard object?

rashomon,

Yes something similar may have occurred.

but

The arguments you are putting forward are inductive.

More broadly they are generalisations from similar circumstances.

I reckon many other people will agree with you.

Although it may turn out that this is what took place, its possible that like the Lou Smit Intruder Theory, its flawed or misguided, and its general acceptance forecloses other theories.

.

 

[rashomon]

<<Now couldn't something similar have happened in the JB case too? That an enraged parent strangled her manually (without killing her) and then, still in a rage, yanked her body against a hard object?>>

Rashomon hi
What degree murder do you regard that?

I'm no legal expert, and the justice sytem in Germany is also a bit different, but basically I think if the killing was done in a rage this would be a second-degree murder. Even if the enraged perp would scream at the victim "I'll kill you!", still it would not be a first-degree murder because the 'malice aforethought' aspect would not be there.
I think first-degree murders imply that the perp says to himself: "this person has got to die to serve my purpose."
Which is why I found Jayelles' poll so interesting, and would like to hear the RDI posters' explanations who had voted 'first-degree murder'.
So according to them a Ramsey decided that JonBenet would have to die.
This does not mean that the decison was made long beforehand; it could be made on the spur of the moment, but the the perp must have wanted JB to die because he/she would profit from the situation.
A classic first-degree murder would be if for example JB was killed because one of her parents wanted to silence her as a witness.
Or if the Ramseys had known JB was still alive when staging the garrote scene, but then strangled her to death because they did not want to be saddled with a permanently brain-damaged (from the head-bash) child.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Yes something similar may have occurred.

but

The arguments you are putting forward are inductive.

More broadly they are generalisations from similar circumstances.

I reckon many other people will agree with you.

Although it may turn out that this is what took place, its possible that like the Lou Smit Intruder Theory, its flawed or misguided, and its general acceptance forecloses other theories.

That's the danger with every theory: that it is flawed and misguided, and since there are probably as many theories as there are posters, this is to be kept in mind with every theory presented here.

But imo the different RDI theories presented by the posters here are far less flawed that Lou Smit's intruder fantasy.

Has Lou Smit ever commented on the ransom note? Did he explain how it fitted his intruder scenario? Did he have an explanation why the perp left the body in the house together with the RN? Has he ever tried to present a conclusive time line of the events on that fatal night, including everything, from the pineapple to the note pad used? It is easy to focus on a beaver hair and scream 'intruder', but at the same time leaving out all the other incriminating evidence. What Smit did (although he was hired by the DA's office) was basically what defense lawyers do all the time: they focus on isolated items to weaken the prosecution's case, but avoid looking at the overall picture, which often screams that their client is guilty.

Whereas the different RDI theories make far more sense imo. There is simply too much evidence which points to the Ramseys. And the discussion here at the moment seems to be whether one of them killed JB with malice aforethought (first-degree murder), or if one of them snapped and lost it and then tried to cover it up. There is also some discussion whether the head-bash or some manual strangulation came first.
But whatever came first - JB was still alive when the injury to her vagina was inflicted, therefore a possible preceding manual strangulation (or head-bash) had not killed her, although she probably was nearing death.

Which raises the crucial question: did the Ramseys know that JB was still alive when putting the ligatures around her hands and neck, or did they think she was already dead? For if they knew she was still alive when they put the cord around her neck, they would have committed a first-degree murder.

But in a hypothetical trial, the defense's strategy - in order to avoid a first-degree murder conviction - would course have been that the Ramseys believed JB was already dead.

 

[UKGuy]

But in a hypothetical trial, the defense's strategy - in order to avoid a first-degree murder conviction - would course have been that the Ramseys believed JB was already dead.

rashomon,

Or a mercy killing !


Lou Smit made up his explanations as the evidence rolled in, faced with the pineapple residue, he suggested JonBenet consumed it in her bedroom, prior to being abducted! I think he referred to a tupperware bowl found beside her bed?

Its doubtful if the garrote played any part in killing JonBenet her hyoid bone was still intact, if it did then any asphyxiation by a ligature, other than hanging, is a homicide.

I think they thought she was dead, if it was your daughter would you not check for signs of life?

It seems pretty obvious she was manually strangled then suffered serious head trauma, the latter not visible, so her death would have been assumed to have followed from her asphyxiation.

I was going to comment on how out of character it seems for Patsy to develop such a rage she kills her own child. Also it occurred to me surely with it being Xmas-Day, and JonBenet and Burke likely to be drinking coke and eating cookies, would Patsy not be expecting some kind of bedwetting to happen?

.

 

[narlacat]

<<I think they thought she was dead, if it was your daughter would you not check for signs of life?>>

I think they checked for signs of life with the flashlight, 'hence' the flashlight having being wiped down, including the batteries.
I don't think it was the murder weapon.

 

[LinasK]

I think first-degree murders imply that the perp says to himself: "this person has got to die to serve my purpose."
Which is why I found Jayelles' poll so interesting, and would like to hear the RDI posters' explanations who had voted 'first-degree murder'.
So according to them a Ramsey decided that JonBenet would have to die.
This does not mean that the decison was made long beforehand; it could be made on the spur of the moment, but the the perp must have wanted JB to die because he/she would profit from the situation.
A classic first-degree murder would be if for example JB was killed because one of her parents wanted to silence her as a witness.
Or if the Ramseys had known JB was still alive when staging the garrote scene, but then strangled her to death because they did not want to be saddled with a permanently brain-damaged (from the head-bash) child.

Or... because the embarassment of an emergency room visit would be too great of negative PR, too many questions asked, so a cover-up and staging to look like an intruder did it was socially preferable in the Ramsey's warped minds.