Was Burke Involved # 5

[UKGuy]

uk guy
your desperation to involve BDI to the evidence has become non sensical.
its as pathetic as IDI .
as ive said before I thank you for pushing me to PDI /JDI

bottom line.
it is not likely for a mother to cover up the murder of her daughter to protect a vicious killer incriminating herself.
it is very likely for a mother to cover up the vicious murder of her daughter that she is responsible for.
there is no implanting herself into the crimescene to protect burke. that is absurd. they tried very hard to eliminate themselves but weren't smart enough to think of everything.

its PDI / JDI all day long ;-)

k-mac,
If Patsy was some drugged out herioin addict staging the crime-scene in a stupor, I could accept PDI. Patsy was intelligent, university educated, no dumbo.

For her to think, you know what I'll stage a kidnapping, yeah that's the answer, only to leave her fingerprints all over the very thing she is attempting to disassociate herself from, with the breakfast bar left uncleaned, then claim JonBenet was put to bed immediately, and to use her Own Paint Brush like the size-12's or the long johns, she has a host of alternatives available, which do not point to her, yet she selects her own paintbrush!

The case is BDI with the parents staging it as best they could.

.

 

[icedtea4me]

k-mac,
If Patsy was some drugged out herioin addict staging the crime-scene in a stupor, I could accept PDI. Patsy was intelligent, university educated, no dumbo.

For her to think, you know what I'll stage a kidnapping, yeah that's the answer, only to leave her fingerprints all over the very thing she is attempting to disassociate herself from, with the breakfast bar left uncleaned, then claim JonBenet was put to bed immediately, and to use her Own Paint Brush like the size-12's or the long johns, she has a host of alternatives available, which do not point to her, yet she selects her own paintbrush!

The case is BDI with the parents staging it as best they could.

.

What if Patsy's guilt wouldn't allow her to clean up the evidence?

 

[UKGuy]

What if Patsy's guilt wouldn't allow her to clean up the evidence?

icedtea4me,
So why bother with all the staging? A guilt trip seems like an outlier to me, not impossible but not an obvious explanation.

.

 

[otg]

otg,
mmm, Meyer had no problem slipping Birefringment Material in. Maybe he does not want us to know stuff? I would agree with your analysis that the TBI led to the CSF, and hence likely blood in her nostrils?

I don’t think Meyer was trying to obscure information by not mentioning some things, or that he was slipping something in when he described “birefringent foreign material.” That term is just like the “tan mucous material,” or even the “yellow metal.” They are each simply his objective observations of what he saw during the autopsy. When he did it, I don’t think he could have imagined that this case would ever get international headlines like it did, or that anyone besides those involved in the case would ever even read the AR. When the press wanted a copy of it, he even went to court to try and keep it sealed.

Which suggests Boulder Police were eliminating a blood source, e.g. prior nose bleed, and locking Patsy into a position where an explanation for the bloodstain on her pillow could be confidently sourced to her nostrils, thereby placing JonBenet in her bedroom when she was whacked on the head?

That might have been their reasoning. OTOH, maybe they were just trying to find out if she had nosebleeds. Actual blood would look different from the blood-tinged CSF, and both could be analyzed to determine their source (I would think).

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Yes, that's how I see it. Of course some of BR's presence was left behind, the parents were not 100% successful, e.g. penknife, or the breakfast bar.

I'll bet BR never told them everything otherwise it would have been cleaned up. PDI has a dilemma: Patsy staged a crime-scene to mask her involvement in her daughters death, but nearly everything she did advertised her direct participation. So how does that pass any smell test?

.

It passes the smell test because it's obvious that PR wasn't skilled enough to hide her own evidence left behind, let alone that of a nine year old, who would have left even more evidence behind.

 

[UKGuy]

I don’t think Meyer was trying to obscure information by not mentioning some things, or that he was slipping something in when he described “birefringent foreign material.” That term is just like the “tan mucous material,” or even the “yellow metal.” They are each simply his objective observations of what he saw during the autopsy. When he did it, I don’t think he could have imagined that this case would ever get international headlines like it did, or that anyone besides those involved in the case would ever even read the AR. When the press wanted a copy of it, he even went to court to try and keep it sealed.


That might have been their reasoning. OTOH, maybe they were just trying to find out if she had nosebleeds. Actual blood would look different from the blood-tinged CSF, and both could be analyzed to determine their source (I would think).

otg,
I doubt birefringent foreign material was his personal objective observation. To arrive at birefringent foreign material you need spectral analysis to confirm what you have, not unless he knew in advance, so was intending to be opaque?

That might have been their reasoning. OTOH, maybe they were just trying to find out if she had nosebleeds. Actual blood would look different from the blood-tinged CSF, and both could be analyzed to determine their source (I would think).

I reckon they were wanting to lock Patsy into that answer. They probably already had the lab results, else why bother with the question?

1998 BPD Patsy Interview Excerpt

9 TRIP DEMUTH: Here are more shots of the bed.

20 I don't know if you would look at the mattress or the

21 bed spread. That is 121. Is this surprising to see a

22 video by the bed in picture 121 or was that normal?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: She watched videos a lot and

24 there was a camera. I don't know what it is. I don't

25 know.

0374

1 I was looking at the bed spread to see if

2 that was on the right way.

3 TOM HANEY: 124 is a little closer. Two,

4 three, four, it looks like five are all of the bed.

5 Why don't you look those over.

6 PATSY RAMSEY: This looks like it is on

7 right. This is kind of strange. It kind of went out

8 and there is a flap that came down over the pillow.

9 TRIP DEMUTH: When you look at 125 you can

10 see the blanket in that.

11 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I cannot.

12 TRIP DEMUTH: Let me ask you about this in

13 125.

14 PATSY RAMSEY: That is the (inaudible).

15 TRIP DEMUTH: Is that unusual to be hanging

16 over the door?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. Usually they are kind

18 of tucked back.

19 TRIP DEMUTH: Five and four.

20 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

21 TOM HANEY: That is the material that pulls

22 the drapery, it pulls it back.

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Right. I don't see any blood

24 or anything, do you?

Curiously Patsy replies with her absence of blood remark before she is asked does JonBenet have nose-bleeds? Did she had advance indication some questions might relate to blood? Is Patsy trying to suggest, no blood, so nothing happened in her bedroom?

The absence of blood was patently important to Patsy, BPD never seemed to take any notice.

.

 

[UKGuy]

It passes the smell test because it's obvious that PR wasn't skilled enough to hide her own evidence left behind, let alone that of a nine year old, who would have left even more evidence behind.

Userid,
Why would Patsy use her own paintbrush to asphxiate JonBenet? Why was JonBenet wearing her brothers long johns? It's a homicide staging, why select stuff that links to family members, why not select neutral items?

It's not like its just one weird mistake but a number, that seem to defeat the purpose of staging?

.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
Why would Patsy use her own paintbrush to asphxiate JonBenet? Why was JonBenet wearing her brothers long johns? It's a homicide staging, why select stuff that links to family members, why not select neutral items?

It's not like its just one weird mistake but a number, that seem to defeat the purpose of staging?

.

Because that was all she had at her disposal. What did you want her to do, run to the clothing/general store in the middle of the night? No item in that house could be considered "neutral."

 

[BBB167893]

Sure, yet it appears this is the position of most PDI proponents, i.e. on this occasion they are mutually exclusive.

I can buy a naive PDI since it solves the case, particularly the bedwetting scenario.

"Naive?" Not a word I would apply to my PDI theory, UKGuy.

Assuming JonBenet was assaulted and incapacitated around midnight, that leaves Patsy 6-hours to get the staging right.

Yet if you check out the wine-cellar crime-scene, from a PDI perspective its a mess.

Why? Because Patsy has left forensic evidence which identifies her, she even uses Her Own paintbrush to asphyxiate JonBenet. Add in the Ransom Note and its a slam dunk Patsy is up for Prime Suspect. Then in a postmortem interview Patsy states she put the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer for her own personal use. Yet BPD investigators found none in the house?

The Pink Barbie Nightgown is a red flag, its inconsistent with Patsy's version of events.

Remnants of the pineapple snack were left in the breakfast bar, contradicting Patsy's version of events, e.g. JonBenet was placed directly in bed.

JonBenet was found wearing hair-ties that dressed her hair in ponytails, again contradicting Patsy's version of events, e.g. JonBenet was placed directly in bed.

What's wrong with this? Well it's meant to be a crime-scene staging in which Patsy is aiming to write herself out of the script. Yet she does the opposite.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, UKGuy. I've never stated that Patsy was stupid. What I'm saying is you don't have to be stupid to mess up like this. There's a difference between knowledge and wisdom. To put it another way, being smart is not the same as knowing what you're doing.

You wouldn't hire an accountant to fix your plumbing, right? So why would you expect a wealthy stage mother to get it right with no advance planning? All criminals screw up. If they didn't, they'd never get caught.

So for Patsy to succeed in her crime-scene staging all she has to do is serve up a plain vanilla style staging, e.g. JonBenet wiped clean, dressed in her Pink Barbie Nightgown and asphyxiated with only the ligature cord, or even just manually, i.e. no paintbrush.

So we know there is a question mark hanging over the size-12's. How about Burke Ramsey's long johns? JonBenet has a drawer full of pajamas, yet when Patsy selects bedtime wear for JonBenet, she selects an old pair of Burke Ramsey's long johns, neglecting all her normal pajamas, thereby injecting Burke directly into the case. Usually this would not matter as nobody else would see what JonBenet wore to bed, but this is a detail in a crime-scene being staged, so it does matter.

Patsy does not really benefit either from authoring the Ransom Note or staging the wine-cellar crime-scene, she would have been better off leaving JonBenet posed gratuitously in her bedroom, hence minimizing her forensic profile.

I agree. But that's not my point. It's very easy to say all that from the safety of your computer chair with 20 years hindsight.

So on the mutually exclusive point, it cannot be Patsy made a mess of the crime-scene staging because she was dumb, patently she had a good SATS score.

I think I said that!

Some of the details that are glaringly wrong are elementary mistakes, not in commission, but in execution, e.g. hair-ties, size-12's, breakfast bar, etc.

Particularly the breakfast bar, since for a consistent PDI, Patsy should have cleaned up the breakfast bar.

We can pass over Patsy's fiber deposits in the wine-cellar, granting her forensic ignorance on this topic.

So why would an intelligent woman, who is fabricating a crime-scene which she hopes will mask her involvement in the death of her daughter, get so many important, yet mundane details wrong?

You said it yourself: "forensic ignorance."

Maybe from a PDI point of view you could explain all these anomalous details whereby Patsy entangles herself deeper into JonBenet's homicide with her amateur staging in the context of a consistent PDI?

I can try, but since mind-reading isn't one of my superpowers, I don't know how effective I'd be.

 

[BBB167893]

Because that was all she had at her disposal. What did you want her to do, run to the clothing/general store in the middle of the night? No item in that house could be considered "neutral."

That would be the obvious answer, Userid.

 

[UKGuy]

"Naive?" Not a word I would apply to my PDI theory, UKGuy.



Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, UKGuy. I've never stated that Patsy was stupid. What I'm saying is you don't have to be stupid to mess up like this. There's a difference between knowledge and wisdom. To put it another way, being smart is not the same as knowing what you're doing.

You wouldn't hire an accountant to fix your plumbing, right? So why would you expect a wealthy stage mother to get it right with no advance planning? All criminals screw up. If they didn't, they'd never get caught.



I agree. But that's not my point. It's very easy to say all that from the safety of your computer chair with 20 years hindsight.



I think I said that!



You said it yourself: "forensic ignorance."



I can try, but since mind-reading isn't one of my superpowers, I don't know how effective I'd be.

"Naive?" Not a word I would apply to my PDI theory, UKGuy.

I'm sure you wouldn't. In terms of comprehension the RDI theories can range from the uncomplicated to the complicated or complex. It was in this sense I was using naive, i.e. from the naive to the sophisticated. It wasn't intended as an ad hominem remark.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, UKGuy. I've never stated that Patsy was stupid. What I'm saying is you don't have to be stupid to mess up like this. There's a difference between knowledge and wisdom. To put it another way, being smart is not the same as knowing what you're doing.

I think we both agree here.

You wouldn't hire an accountant to fix your plumbing, right? So why would you expect a wealthy stage mother to get it right with no advance planning? All criminals screw up. If they didn't, they'd never get caught.

ITA, but there is a twist here: the wine-cellar staging.

I agree. But that's not my point. It's very easy to say all that from the safety of your computer chair with 20 years hindsight.

Sure but it was stuff directly, at hand, available to Patsy, no Forensic Science Degree required.

You said it yourself: "forensic ignorance."

Sure but even if Patsy was that aware, she might have decided, I'll deposit fibers regardless what I wear?

Crime Classification Manual, Douglas John, et al. Excerpt

Offenders who stage crime scenes usually make mistakes because they arrange the scene to resemble what they believe it should look like. In so doing, offenders experience a great deal of stress and do not have the time to fit all the pieces together logically.

Seems like Douglas agrees about your wealthy stage mother making mistakes.

Staging, Undoing, and Personation at the Crime Scene, Douglas J, et al

Forensic Red Flags

Do the injuries fit the crime?

Forensic results that do not fit the crime should cause the investigator to think about staging. The presence of a personal-type assault using a weapon of opportunity when the initial motive for the offense appears to be for material gain should raise suspicion. This type of assault also includes manual or ligature strangulation, facial beating (depersonalization), and excessive trauma beyond that necessary to cause death (overkill).

Generally, the more evidence there is of overkill, the closer the relationship
is between the victim and the offender. Sexual and domestic homicides demonstrate forensic findings of this type: a close-range, personalized assault. The victim (not money or goods) is the primary focus on the offender. This type of offender often attempts to stage a sexual or domestic homicide to appear motivated by criminal enterprise.

This does not imply that personal-type assaults never happen during the commission of a property crime, but usually the criminal enterprise offender prefers a quick, clean kill that reduces time at the scene. Any forensic red flags should be placed in context with victimology and crime scene information after careful analysis.

...

One aspect of the wine-cellar staging that is atypical is JonBenet's body being moved.

.

 

[Eclipse]

So, if JB was found by her parents with a head injury but still alive, why wouldn't they call an ambulance immediately and try to figure out what happened later? Why stage the scene and actually kill her?

 

[Cottonstar]

So, if JB was found by her parents with a head injury but still alive, why wouldn't they call an ambulance immediately and try to figure out what happened later? Why stage the scene and actually kill her?

They didn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

So, if JB was found by her parents with a head injury but still alive, why wouldn't they call an ambulance immediately and try to figure out what happened later? Why stage the scene and actually kill her?

Eclipse,
It depends on who you think did it. Many PDI protagonists reckon Patsy did it all, and faked the wine-cellar along with the ransom note. There are similar variants for JDI.

I reckon the case is BDI and the parents chose an alive Burke over a comatose JonBenet. Although the wine-cellar has been staged, JonBenet's body has been moved, In a staged crime-scene this is unusual, normally the staging is built up around the body.

What we regard as amateur mistakes were really those of Burke, since neither parent would choose size-12's or Burke's long johns as appropriate staging clothing for a homicide. Leaving the breakfast bar in place whilst claiming JonBenet was put immediately to bed, is another avoidable detail as is her hair-ties.

Patsy using her own paintbrush to fashion a garrote whilst staging a crime-scene appears a curious decision. I reckon many of these details were forced on the parents as they rushed to stage JonBenet's death.

If the case is PDI then all Patsy needed to do was redress JonBenet in the Pink Barbie Nightgown and leave her asphyxiated lying on her bed in her bedroom, and blame it all on an intruder. Nobody could prove otherwise.

This suggests the primary crime-scene might have been in Burke's bedroom, or elsewhere that incorporated some kind of command and control theme that involved the use of a ligature and paintbrush?

.

 

[Eclipse]

They didn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who do you think strangled JB with the garrote?

In various articles I see people suggesting that BR killed her in a fit of rage by hitting her over the head- but that's not the cause of death listed on her autopsy- it was the strangulation. So, is it thought that BR did all that as well?

Some say that the parents staged the latter part in the basement to protect BR, but that doesn't make sense in the way any parent would think- as that was contributing to her death.

 

[Cottonstar]

Eclipse,
It depends on who you think did it. Many PDI protagonists reckon Patsy did it all, and faked the wine-cellar along with the ransom note. There are similar variants for JDI.

I reckon the case is BDI and the parents chose an alive Burke over a comatose JonBenet. Although the wine-cellar has been staged, JonBenet's body has been moved, In a staged crime-scene this is unusual, normally the staging is built up around the body.

What we regard as amateur mistakes were really those of Burke, since neither parent would choose size-12's or Burke's long johns as appropriate staging clothing for a homicide. Leaving the breakfast bar in place whilst claiming JonBenet was put immediately to bed, is another avoidable detail as is her hair-ties.

Patsy using her own paintbrush to fashion a garrote whilst staging a crime-scene appears a curious decision. I reckon many of these details were forced on the parents as they rushed to stage JonBenet's death.

If the case is PDI then all Patsy needed to do was redress JonBenet in the Pink Barbie Nightgown and leave her asphyxiated lying on her bed in her bedroom, and blame it all on an intruder. Nobody could prove otherwise.

This suggests the primary crime-scene might have been in Burke's bedroom, or elsewhere that incorporated some kind of command and control theme that involved the use of a ligature and paintbrush?

.

Or more precisely, a broken, whittled, wooden stick with Boy Scout camping cord tied around it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eclipse]

Eclipse,
It depends on who you think did it. Many PDI protagonists reckon Patsy did it all, and faked the wine-cellar along with the ransom note. There are similar variants for JDI.

I reckon the case is BDI and the parents chose an alive Burke over a comatose JonBenet. Although the wine-cellar has been staged, JonBenet's body has been moved, In a staged crime-scene this is unusual, normally the staging is built up around the body.

What we regard as amateur mistakes were really those of Burke, since neither parent would choose size-12's or Burke's long johns as appropriate staging clothing for a homicide. Leaving the breakfast bar in place whilst claiming JonBenet was put immediately to bed, is another avoidable detail as is her hair-ties.

Patsy using her own paintbrush to fashion a garrote whilst staging a crime-scene appears a curious decision. I reckon many of these details were forced on the parents as they rushed to stage JonBenet's death.

If the case is PDI then all Patsy needed to do was redress JonBenet in the Pink Barbie Nightgown and leave her asphyxiated lying on her bed in her bedroom, and blame it all on an intruder. Nobody could prove otherwise.

This suggests the primary crime-scene might have been in Burke's bedroom, or elsewhere that incorporated some kind of command and control theme that involved the use of a ligature and paintbrush?

.

Thanks for your reply- I didn't see it before I made my post above.

 

[Cottonstar]

Who do you think strangled JB with the garrote?

In various articles I see people suggesting that BR killed her in a fit of rage by hitting her over the head- but that's not the cause of death listed on her autopsy- it was the strangulation. So, is it thought that BR did all that as well?

Some say that the parents staged the latter part in the basement to protect BR, but that doesn't make sense in the way any parent would think- as that was contributing to her death.

Here's a hint. The cord was most likely around her neck when the head blow occurred.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eclipse]

Here's a hint. The cord was most likely around her neck when the head blow occurred.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think BR did everything except for the ransom letter?

 

[Cottonstar]

Do you think BR did everything except for the ransom letter?

No. I believe the parents did almost 100% of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk