Why Patsy
- Thread starter madeleine
- Start date
joeskidbeck
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,897
- Reaction score
- 52
Hi Madeleine. I need to clarify before I can respond to your post. I believe Patsy is responsible for the head injury (but I don't believe the head injury is what killed JB). So, for me, that leaves one of the other three as being the killer.
Linda7NJ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2005
- Messages
- 31,866
- Reaction score
- 7,458
I think Patsy struck her and that head injury would have killed her eventually. I also believe she fashioned the rope.
I am wondering something legally...if that were true, that Pasty head bashed and and someone else came along and strangled her with the rope hastening death. Wouldn't they both be guilty of different degrees of murder? But, if they conspired to stage that would make both guilty of the first degree premeditated murder if the rope was used to end her life. What would it be if the rope was intended only as staging and unknowingly finished her off? Which came first? head blow or rope.
I think all of these questions come into play when trying to understand why they were never charged. It's a tangled mess.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
I agree re the mess.
Let's say that PR bashed her head but she didn't die.She died when JR strangled her in order to cover up,not knowing she is dead.I guess in this case,he is the one guilty of murder.Legally.Or?
I don't think so. One, the head bash, if it was during a fit of fury, would be manslaughter, Murder Two at the far outside. And regardless of who tied the cord, if they thought she was already dead, then it's not murder. Murder requires intent. You can't murder someone you think is already dead.
Only if they KNEW she was still alive.
Like I said, you can't murder someone you think is dead. So it would probably be manslaughter when you take it all in.
I'm forced to say head blow. But you'll get a lot of different answers.
Right on both counts.
Yes, you can, IF you know that the person is still alive, even only barely.
It would be very hard, if not impossible, to prove that someone didn't realize she was still alive. And just as hard to prove they weren't lying about it.
The coroner was unable to determine which of the two causes of death came first or was the bigger contributor to her death. Without that, it would not be possible to charge one (of the two) perps with a more serious crime unless you could prove which one committed the more serious crime and also if that crime contributed more to her death.
The coroner was unable to determine which of the two causes of death came first or was the bigger contributor to her death. Without that, it would not be possible to charge one (of the two) perps with a more serious crime unless you could prove which one committed the more serious crime and also if that crime contributed more to her death.
It would be very hard, if not impossible, to prove that someone didn't realize she was still alive. And just as hard to prove they weren't lying about it.
The coroner was unable to determine which of the two causes of death came first or was the bigger contributor to her death. Without that, it would not be possible to charge one (of the two) perps with a more serious crime unless you could prove which one committed the more serious crime and also if that crime contributed more to her death.
The coroner was unable to determine which of the two causes of death came first or was the bigger contributor to her death. Without that, it would not be possible to charge one (of the two) perps with a more serious crime unless you could prove which one committed the more serious crime and also if that crime contributed more to her death.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/08/14-2.html
From a statement by Boulder County Coroner John E. Meyer, M.D.:
"The time of an 'unwitnessed' death is very difficult to determine with any precision, and at best is an estimate based not only on autopsy findings but also on investigative information.
"I consider estimation of time of death to be an interpretive finding rather than a factual statement, and it is not this Office's practice to include this estimate as part of any autopsy report. As has been stated in the past, it would also be inappropriate for me, as a potential expert and material witness, to make interpretive statements prior to testifying in court."
From a statement by Boulder County Coroner John E. Meyer, M.D.:
"The time of an 'unwitnessed' death is very difficult to determine with any precision, and at best is an estimate based not only on autopsy findings but also on investigative information.
"I consider estimation of time of death to be an interpretive finding rather than a factual statement, and it is not this Office's practice to include this estimate as part of any autopsy report. As has been stated in the past, it would also be inappropriate for me, as a potential expert and material witness, to make interpretive statements prior to testifying in court."
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
Wecht also questioned why there was no estimated time of death in the autopsy.
But Meyer said it isn't unusual not to include an estimated time of death in an autopsy report.
"The investigation is still ongoing," Meyer said. "There may be some point that comes up during the investigation that might have an influence on what that estimated time of death is. I don't like to put interpretive things in an autopsy report."
Yeah right "I don't like",he just left the door open for a loooooooooooooot of interpretation by what he didn't do.
But Meyer said it isn't unusual not to include an estimated time of death in an autopsy report.
"The investigation is still ongoing," Meyer said. "There may be some point that comes up during the investigation that might have an influence on what that estimated time of death is. I don't like to put interpretive things in an autopsy report."
Yeah right "I don't like",he just left the door open for a loooooooooooooot of interpretation by what he didn't do.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Might as well throw the autopsy report along with the ransom note in the trash. You're not going to solve this case with either one. There's nothing in the autopsy report or the ransom note that would allow you to draw any important conclusions.
I mean, the ransom note was a big lie, right? It was so bogus. There was no kidnapping, JBR was left there!
The autopsy report seems to be yet another example of how things can be easily misconstrued even by professionals.
Not so much misconstrued as stated in an evasive or unclear manner.
It is not unusual for a coroner to state only what he SEES or observes when autopsying the body. But for example, when there is a stab wound, it should be described as a stab wound and not just a hole in the body. If the knife is present in the crime scene, the coroner should be able to tell if that knife made the specific stab would, as opposed to some other sharp object.
It is clear in this case that Mayer did not KNOW what caused her vaginal injuries or caused her to bleed in a quantity sufficient to require wiping.
It is not unusual for a coroner to state only what he SEES or observes when autopsying the body. But for example, when there is a stab wound, it should be described as a stab wound and not just a hole in the body. If the knife is present in the crime scene, the coroner should be able to tell if that knife made the specific stab would, as opposed to some other sharp object.
It is clear in this case that Mayer did not KNOW what caused her vaginal injuries or caused her to bleed in a quantity sufficient to require wiping.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
What would've been a clear manner? Should he have stated PR and JR obviously deposited their lint on JBR's underwear, longjohns, and the garrote? That the older injuries were obviously caused by JR? That the DNA is obviously incidental?
Seriously, though: what should the coroner have stated more clearly, and in doing so further support RDI?
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
But this is not about IDI or RDI HOTYH IMO.It's about a prosecutor being able to establish a timeline and build a case.If you have no idea what the COD or TOD was how can you do that.If you don't even have the murder weapon (IMO it was the garrote but it doesn't matter what I think,it matters what LE thinks or the DA).
And I was wondering about your SFF theory.If I were LE and I'd think it was a SFF I would check all hotels in Boulder and their guests who were staying there those days,did they do that?
That it is. It's like that with a lot of experts, from what I can gather.
Well, look at it in context, maddy: he probably figured that he'd be called to testify in rather short order and make those interpretive statements. I strongly doubt he knew that the case would drag on like it did.
I would disagree with those assertions, but not by much. You may be onto something, HOTYH.
All right, HOTYH!
I wonder. Misconstrued? Or just stated evasively? Either way, it doesn't do much good.
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 147
- Guests online
- 3,797
- Total visitors
- 3,944