The complicity of Patsy in coverup.

[UKGuy]

I've put my answers in red.

Let_Forever_Be,

And you're welcome to your beliefs. Please don't say the "sex-game gone wrong" is a buried theory just because you don't accept it.Evidently, it's not a buried theory when a world renowned forensic pathologist believes it is what happened.

I cited facts from the autopsy report not second party opinions being promoted as facts. Coroner Meyer conducted the autopsy, Cyril Wecht did not. Coroner Meyer was physically present, Cyril Wecht was not.

Coroner Meyer cites hypoxia as the cause of death. Cyril Wecht offers his opinion e.g. vagal reflex which is fine. But there is no supporting evidence.

conjecture rooted in some degree of fact. Wecht is a forensic pathologist. He's not an idiot. He knows more than you or I do regarding the case.The fact that the coroner at the time could not say what came first, the neck trauma or the head wound is testament to how perplex this case has become -- even to so called professionals.

What fact? Its his take on the death of JonBenet. He never conducted and was not present at the autopsy. No wonder he is perplexed or confused by the complexity of the case.

You cannot infer from a lack of knowledge regarding whichever event occurred first that Cyril Wecht's opinions must supercede other peoples?


Cyril Wecht is undoubtedly an intelligent professional, he has an interesting theory, in parts it fits some of the evidence in others its contradicted thats why nobody, these days, takes it seriously.


.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I could very well go along with this if the head wound was readily visible. It obvioulsy wasnt made to look like the cause of death because it wasn't apparent. In my opinion, if the head wound was staging, it would have been a lot worse than it was. At the very least, her hair would have been arranged so that it would be visible. With the way she was found, her hair covered the head wound entirley and that makes no sense if the killer wanted the first on the scene to think "head wound" and not strangulation.

Interesting answer.

I certainly have thought about that -- why wouldn't the head wound be more visible.

But remember, at the stage that the head-wound was inflicted (according to my theory) there was little blood thus it would not have been any bloodier had the head been smashed in more.Also, the parents (if they did this) are not medical experts -- they would just hot the head sufficiently to cause damage -- I can't imagine some morbid scenario where they feel the cranium and discuss that it's not broken enough. I think one lethal swipe was all that could be mustered.

Further, just the logistics of the event would make it hard to make a more gruesome crime -- if the parents did this, it would be really hard for them to harm their child so violently.

Also, the snow on the ground outside I have always felt precluded the parents (if they did it) from dumping the body. They were left with a body in their house thus had to try and develop a narrative which best deflected attention from them to some alien source - the intruder.

The fact that JonBenet's body was wrapped in a blanket when she died shows that there was love towards the little girl.

 

[UKGuy]

I could very well go along with this if the head wound was readily visible. It obvioulsy wasnt made to look like the cause of death because it wasn't apparent. In my opinion, if the head wound was staging, it would have been a lot worse than it was. At the very least, her hair would have been arranged so that it would be visible. With the way she was found, her hair covered the head wound entirley and that makes no sense if the killer wanted the first on the scene to think "head wound" and not strangulation.

joeskidbeck,

I agree , also what is this neck injury that is mentioned, is it cited in the autopsy report?


.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Interesting answer.

I certainly have thought about that -- why wouldn't the head wound be more visible.

But remember, at the stage that the head-wound was inflicted (according to my theory) there was little blood thus it would not have been any bloodier had the head been smashed in more.Also, the parents (if they did this) are not medical experts -- they would just hot the head sufficiently to cause damage -- I can't imagine some morbid scenario where they feel the cranium and discuss that it's not broken enough. I think one lethal swipe was all that could be mustered.

Further, just the logistics of the event would make it hard to make a more gruesome crime -- if the parents did this, it would be really hard for them to harm their child so violently.

Also, the snow on the ground outside I have always felt precluded the parents (if they did it) from dumping the body. They were left with a body in their house thus had to try and develop a narrative which best deflected attention from them to some alien source - the intruder.

The fact that JonBenet's body was wrapped in a blanket when she died shows that there was love towards the little girl.

The very reasons that you feel the strangulation came first are the reasons I feel the head bash came first. It wasn't apparent. They had a near dead child who had been sexually molested. Their first thoughts had to be on how to draw attention away from them. Make this look like some killer pedophile came into their home and did these horrible things to their daughter. It worked for a time since the head bash wasn't even discovered till the autopsy. I hold Cyril Wecht in high regard but I think he fell for the Ramsey drama hook, line, and sinker. The only thing different being he felt they were responsible and not some intruder.

 

[wonderllama]

The fact that JonBenet's body was wrapped in a blanket when she died shows that there was love towards the little girl.

That's a very 'Profiler' answer.

I don't think it shows love, I think it shows an element of familiarity.
Love doesn't enter into this in my books....

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,

What fact? Its his take on the death of JonBenet. He never conducted and was not present at the autopsy. No wonder he is perplexed or confused by the complexity of the case.

You cannot infer from a lack of knowledge regarding whichever event occurred first that Cyril Wecht's opinions must supercede other peoples?


Cyril Wecht is undoubtedly an intelligent professional, he has an interesting theory, in parts it fits some of the evidence in others its contradicted thats why nobody, these days, takes it seriously.


.

I never said Cyril Wechts opinion superceded people's -- just that I agree with it. It was a relative statement. Just like when you said the erotic asphxiation device scenario "was put to rest" because forumers or people in the case don't promote it that much -- that was a relative opinion.

And Wecht's opinion is not lacking fact -- his analysis of the genital trauma is spot on. JonBenet was molested. That's a fact.His analysis more than makes sense to me -- it's the most sensible one I've read on the case which require least speculation.

And people do take Cyril Wecht's opinion on the JonBenet case -- I do. Thus the "thats why nobody, these days, takes it seriously" is another hyperbolic statement.Truth is not a popularity contest -- thus I don't subscribe to theories based on sheer numbers.

As for the coroner -- he was unable to determine what came first -- the garrotte neck injury or the head-wound.I personally believe, as does Dr Michael Doberson for example, that the head-wound came after the neck injury. Thus explains the lack of blood. It also explains the genital trauma in relation to the garrote and subsequent accidental death.

 

[joeskidbeck]

That's a very 'Profiler' answer.

I don't think it shows love, I think it shows an element of familiarity.
Love doesn't enter into this in my books....

I have to agree, wl. I think, though, that shame is what it shows. Shame and covering what was done so that they at least didn't have to look at it after the fact.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

That's a very 'Profiler' answer.

I don't think it shows love, I think it shows an element of familiarity.
Love doesn't enter into this in my books....

I think it shows a tenderness (and shame too). Why else wrap a body in a blanket?

I don't think the death was deliberate. I do think JonBenet was loved.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

The very reasons that you feel the strangulation came first are the reasons I feel the head bash came first. It wasn't apparent. They had a near dead child who had been sexually molested. Their first thoughts had to be on how to draw attention away from them. Make this look like some killer pedophile came into their home and did these horrible things to their daughter. It worked for a time since the head bash wasn't even discovered till the autopsy. I hold Cyril Wecht in high regard but I think he fell for the Ramsey drama hook, line, and sinker. The only thing different being he felt they were responsible and not some intruder.

If the head-wound came first why was there so little blood?I personally think that the lack of blood seems to be consistent with the fact that she was already dead once her head was struck.

Why would a parent bash in JonBenet's head? There's no reason for it. The bed-wetting rage scenario is pure speculation.Why couldn't it just be that like we know, JonBenet was being molested, a sex game was done on her which went wrong and then subsequently a coverup was done hence the head-wound.

 

[joeskidbeck]

If the head-wound came first why was there so little blood?I personally think that the lack of blood seems to be consistent with the fact that she was already dead once her head was struck.

Why would a parent bash in JonBenet's head? There's no reason for it. The bed-wetting rage scenario is pure speculation.Why couldn't it just be that like we know, JonBenet was being molested, a sex game was done on her which went wrong and then subsequently a coverup was done hence the head-wound.

I am obviously RDI, but I don't believe the head bash was ever meant for JonBenet to begin with. I believe it was meant for the man who was caught molesting her. It's my opinion that she was in the way when he dodged the flashlight, or bat or whatever was used. By man, I am not locked into the fact that it was John Ramsey. There are two other men in this family that the only way to clear them would be absolute proof that they were not in Boulder that night. Nothing that I've read so far in this case leads me to believe that has been proved.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

I am obviously RDI, but I don't believe the head bash was ever meant for JonBenet to begin with. I believe it was meant for the man who was caught molesting her. It's my opinion that she was in the way when he dodged the flashlight, or bat or whatever was used. By man, I am not locked into the fact that it was John Ramsey. There are two other men in this family that the only way to clear them would be absolute proof that they were not in Boulder that night. Nothing that I've read so far in this case leads me to believe that has been proved.

Could you expand on your theory? I'm genuinely intrigued to hear it.

 

[UKGuy]

I never said Cyril Wechts opinion superceded people's -- just that I agree with with it. It was a relative statement. Just like when you said the erotic asphxiation device scenario "was put to rest" because forumers or people in the case don't promote it that much -- that was a relative opinion.

And Wecht's opinion is not lacking fact -- his analysis of the genital trauma is spot on. JonBenet was molested. That's a fact.His analysis more than makes sense to me -- it's the most sensible one I've read on the case which require least speculation.

And people do take Cyril Wecht's opinion on the JonBenet case -- I do. Thus the "thats why nobody, these days, takes it seriously" is another hyperbolic statement.Truth is not a popularity contest -- thus I don't subscribe to theories based on sheer numbers.

As for the coroner -- he was unable to determine what came first -- the garrotte neck injury or the head-wound.I personally believe, as does Dr Michael Doberson for example, that the head-wound came after the neck injury. Thus explains the lack of blood. It also explains the genital trauma in relation to the garrote and subsequent accidental death.

Let_Forever_Be,

It was a relative statement. that was a relative opinion.

Truth is not a popularity contest

Just possibly relative to whomever promotes it?

thus I don't subscribe to theories based on sheer numbers.

Neither do most of the members on this board, they suscribe and decide on the basis of the evidence.

I personally believe, as does Dr Michael Doberson

Good for Dr Michael Doberson a fine fellow I'm sure, but its evidence we need not beliefs.

Many people used to believe that the earth was flat, that the earth lay at the center of the universe, that the earth was about 6,000 years old, based on biblical chronology, that all swans are white etc etc, ad infinitum.


.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,




Just possibly relative to whomever promotes it?



Neither do most of the members on this board, they suscribe and decide on the basis of the evidence.


Good for Dr Michael Doberson a fine fellow I'm sure, but its evidence we need not beliefs.

Many people used to believe that the earth was flat, that the earth lay at the center of the universe, that the earth was about 6,000 years old, based on biblical chronology, that all swans are white etc etc, ad infinitum.


.

Indeed it is evidence we need. Hence why I'm not saying "I believe in such and such because I just sense it may be right...".

Wherever and whenever possible, I am citing facts.I disagree that everyone on this forum uses evidence -- if that were the case then people wouldn't speculate on events which have no facts.

And of course a relative statement is predicated upon whoever promotes it. Hence why it is relative.Due to the fact that this case is not solved, all our theories are relative to some degree -- evidently, some people's will be more correct than others.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Could you expand on your theory? I'm genuinely intrigued to hear it.

First of all, I believe that PR thought JB was being molested for quite a while; hence all the visits to Dr. Beuf. Although he didn't do an internal exam on her (which would have locked in the abuse), it's quite possible that he could not rule it out for Patsy. Then, the party on the 23rd, where JB was spotted sitting on the stairs crying because she didn't feel pretty. The 911 call made that night is very suspicious and I don't believe we ever heard the real reason for that call. Then we have Mr. Barnhill saying he saw JAR at the Ramsey home on Christmas day even though he produced movie ticket stubs and a blurry atm photo to prove he was in Atlanta that night (this may have been good enough for LE at the time, not for me today) and lastly we have Don Paugh who had his own condo in Boulder. Nedra made it clear that he flew home stand by on Christmas Eve, this is also not enough proof for me that he wasn't in Boulder that night. So, after everyone is bed that night, Patsy takes the flashlight and decides it's time to find out if someone really is abusing JB. When she walks in JB's room and catches him in the act, it would have been instinctual (for me, anyway) to swing that flashlight fast and hard. All the man had to do, was fall away and little JB caught it in the head. Didn't mean to make this post so long, but that's the gist of my theory. I'm not locked into it, there are others that make just as much sense to me, but this just feels right for me.

 

[UKGuy]

Indeed it is evidence we need. Hence why I'm not saying "I believe in such and such because I just sense it may be right...".

Wherever and whenever possible, I am citing facts.I disagree that everyone on this forum uses evidence -- if that were the case then people wouldn't speculate on events which have no facts.

And of course a relative statement is predicated upon whoever promotes it. Hence why it is relative.Due to the fact that this case is not solved, all our theories are relative to some degree -- evidently, some people's will be more correct than others.

Let_Forever_Be,

And of course a relative statement is predicated upon whoever promotes it. Hence why it is relative.

The question was about the truth, and I'm certain you are not suggesting truth is relative?

Speculation is fine as long as it is not dressed up as fact, regardless of the authority cited.

.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

First of all, I believe that PR thought JB was being molested for quite a while; hence all the visits to Dr. Beuf. Although he didn't do an internal exam on her (which would have locked in the abuse), it's quite possible that he could not rule it out for Patsy. Then, the party on the 23rd, where JB was spotted sitting on the stairs crying because she didn't feel pretty. The 911 call made that night is very suspicious and I don't believe we ever heard the real reason for that call. Then we have Mr. Barnhill saying he saw JAR at the Ramsey home on Christmas day even though he produced movie ticket stubs and a blurry atm photo to prove he was in Atlanta that night (this may have been good enough for LE at the time, not for me today) and lastly we have Don Paugh who had his own condo in Boulder. Nedra made it clear that he flew home stand by on Christmas Eve, this is also not enough proof for me that he wasn't in Boulder that night. So, after everyone is bed that night, Patsy takes the flashlight and decides it's time to find out if someone really is abusing JB. When she walks in JB's room and catches him in the act, it would have been instinctual (for me, anyway) to swing that flashlight fast and hard. All the man had to do, was fall away and little JB caught it in the head. Didn't mean to make this post so long, but that's the gist of my theory. I'm not locked into it, there are others that make just as much sense to me, but this just feels right for me.

Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. I'm genuinely intrigued by people's opinions.

My only issue would be that during the 911 call, Patsy didn't say someone was molesting her daughter. The fact that she was not very sure of what was going on and not forthcoming to say someone was in her house is quite perplexing.

The only way I could see your theory making sense was if John Ramsey was doing the molesting. Or even Burke.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. I'm genuinely intrigued by people's opinions.

My only issue would be that during the 911 call, Patsy didn't say someone was molesting her daughter. The fact that she was not very sure of what was going on and not forthcoming to say someone was in her house is quite perplexing.

The only way I could see your theory making sense was if John Ramsey was doing the molesting. Or even Burke.

Yeeeessssssssss......

 

[DeeDee249]

The head wound was a closed-skin wound. That is one reason why it wasn't apparent. She died before there was significant swelling. The autopsy revealed a covering of blood over the dura mater and some bleeding into the sub-arachnoid space . There was mild flattening and narrowing of the sulci and gyri and if you can try to imagine a brain with all the lobes and little "valleys" between them- as the swelling develops, the little "valleys" get thinner as the space between them narrows and the lobes flatten as they spread out. Had she not died soon after, there would have been much more swelling. The fact that a rather large piece of her skull was punched out may have contributed to the mild swelling, as it relieved pressure in a way. Had there not been a hole (and the fracture line itself was a hole as well) the brain may have swollen more.
I believe the head bash was in reaction to her scream. So my problem is to figure out what caused the scream. I don't think she screamed during or in anticipation of the garrote application. I DO think she screamed because of whatever caused her to bleed from the vagina.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Yeeeessssssssss......

Either or is quite possible; however from my point of view, Patsy would never have swung that light at Burke, so my theory just went out the window and like I said earlier, I'm not locked into it. If she did swing that light, she now has to participate in the cover-up as well.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Let_Forever_Be,


The question was about the truth, and I'm certain you are not suggesting truth is relative?

Speculation is fine as long as it is not dressed up as fact, regardless of the authority cited.

.

No, truth by definition is objective. It is not speculative. 1+1=2 is a mathematical fact. We couldn't say, well, I believe that 1=1 may =6 and pass that off as a fact. That would be a subjective,incorrect opinion.

And as for your little dig at me "Speculation is fine as long as it is not dressed up as fact, regardless of the authority cited" -- I'm extremely confident in the authors I cite. I have never proclaimed to know everything regarding the case but nor do I believe in theories based on pure speculation hence why I completely reject the bed wetting theory and subsequent parent got mad and hit JonBenet theory.Oh, and I manifestly do not support the intruder theory.