885 users online (188 members and 697 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 276
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Runnin' up that hill....
    Posts
    264

    The complicity of Patsy in coverup.

    Hello. This is my first post on these forums. Nice to meet you all. I look forward to your responses.
    _____________________

    I agree with Cyril Wecht's conclusions regarding the death of JonBenet -- namely that her death was a result of a "sex game gone awry". Further, the bludgeon to the head, by most likely the flashlight, was done after the strangulation.

    However, if John Ramsey was the parent who was molesting JonBenet for example, why would Patsy be complicit with him when JonBenet died?

    If we assume (like most experts do) that Patsy wrote the ransom note, we can all state with certainty that she was involved with the crime in as far as she was willing to make up the lie that an intruder killed her daughter.

    But why would she be complicit with John if he killed her -- what dynamic in their relation would allow that to occur?


    _____________
    Last edited by Let_Forever_Be; 12-14-2010 at 07:09 PM. Reason: misspelled thread title was corrected

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,577
    Welcome to Websleuths Let Forever Be. I think there are as many answers to that question as there are posters.

    My personal belief is that the R's covered up the actions of their one remaining child. They were in the cover up together. All three R's were guilty.
    ___________________

    "This Time We Get It Right!"
    If you can read this, thank a teacher, if it's in English, thank a soldier!
    If I forget to mention it. Everything I post is my opinion, right or wrong, good or bad.
    If you have questions about Rebecca Zahaus death, please watch this:http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...00&postcount=1

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Runnin' up that hill....
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by SunnieRN View Post
    Welcome to Websleuths Let Forever Be. I think there are as many answers to that question as there are posters.

    My personal belief is that the R's covered up the actions of their one remaining child. They were in the cover up together. All three R's were guilty.

    Hello.

    I'm familiar with the various theories that state the parents were protecting Burke. I've never believed them but some are pretty compelling. I suppose their son would be the one person they would coverup for.

    But I excluded him as I believe the molestation, erotic asphyxiation device, depth of ransom note and its relationship to the crime precludes Burke.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    653
    You're assuming that the ropes etc were used as an erotic asphyxiation device.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Runnin' up that hill....
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderllama View Post
    You're assuming that the ropes etc were used as an erotic asphyxiation device.
    Many forensic pathologists agree that the ropes were used as an erotic asphyxiation device.

    The fact that JonBenet's death was concluded to be strangulation and that she had both acute and chronic genital trauma implies a sexual nature to her death.

    The ropes looked like they were used to 'restrain' her when the molester was doing their 'sex-game'.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    653
    The reason I question it (and I speak from no experience on the subject ), is that I was under the impression the receiver of the pleasure/arousal was the person being choked.

    Seems unlikely in this instance.
    As for control, pretty sure a blow to the head controlled her.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Runnin' up that hill....
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderllama View Post
    The reason I question it (and I speak from no experience on the subject ), is that I was under the impression the receiver of the pleasure/arousal was the person being choked.

    Seems unlikely in this instance.
    As for control, pretty sure a blow to the head controlled her.
    Normally a person using an erotic asphyxiation device does it for a perceived sense of pleasure.It's usually adults.

    But clearly JonBenet was molested -- the genital trauma she received determines this. Thus, she was the recipient of 'sexual' treatment.

    The person doing the EA to JonBenet could be getting pleasure watching her -- in a perverse, sick, twisted way.

    The bludgeon to the head was done after she was accidentally strangled in my opinion -- it was a way to divert attention from the sinister nature of JonBenet's death and perhaps the shame of the person(s) who did it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Let_Forever_Be View Post
    Many forensic pathologists agree that the ropes were used as an erotic asphyxiation device.

    The fact that JonBenet's death was concluded to be strangulation and that she had both acute and chronic genital trauma implies a sexual nature to her death.

    The ropes looked like they were used to 'restrain' her when the molester was doing their 'sex-game'.
    Let_Forever_Be,

    Hey there. Your questions are interesting.

    JonBenet's hair was entwined into the ligature knotting so if it had been used as described it would have pulled JonBenet's hair out at the roots. This did not occur. Also the ligature ran over JonBenet's necklace which if used would have left a mark on her skin. There was no such mark. For completeness if JonBenet had been asphyxiated using the garrote you might expect her hyoid bone to be broken. Both it and her internal neck structure was found to be intact and no sign of trauma was noted.

    The ligature and other rope restraints are staging, they are there to fake a crime-scene e.g. erotic asphyxiation device.

    The erotic asphyxiation angle was a major plank in Lou Smit's intruder theory. He posited a perverted, psychotic pedophile kidnapped JonBenet so to engage in some kind of erotic asphyxiation game.

    Sadly for the IDI people the crime-scene evidence does not support such a theory.

    There are so many questions that need answered by an IDI theory. One alone is a major headache e.g.

    Why did the intruder fake a crime-scene in the wine-cellar?

    Another might be: Why bring a flashlight to the crime-scene then wipe it clean inside and out, then leave it behind instead of taking it with him along with the duct-tape and cord etc.


    .

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    653
    Let_Forever_Be, there are an awful lot of assumptions there unfortunately....

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Runnin' up that hill....
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Let_Forever_Be,

    Hey there. Your questions are interesting.

    JonBenet's hair was entwined into the ligature knotting so if it had been used as described it would have pulled JonBenet's hair out at the roots. This did not occur. Also the ligature ran over JonBenet's necklace which if used would have left a mark on her skin. There was no such mark. For completeness if JonBenet had been asphyxiated using the garrote you might expect her hyoid bone to be broken. Both it and her internal neck structure was found to be intact and no sign of trauma was noted.

    The ligature and other rope restraints are staging, they are there to fake a crime-scene e.g. erotic asphyxiation device.

    The erotic asphyxiation angle was a major plank in Lou Smit's intruder theory. He posited a perverted, psychotic pedophile kidnapped JonBenet so to engage in some kind of erotic asphyxiation game.

    Sadly for the IDI people the crime-scene evidence does not support such a theory.

    There are so many questions that need answered by an IDI theory. One alone is a major headache e.g.

    Why did the intruder fake a crime-scene in the wine-cellar?

    Another might be: Why bring a flashlight to the crime-scene then wipe it clean inside and out, then leave it behind instead of taking it with him along with the duct-tape and cord etc.


    .

    Thanks for the reply.

    I disagree however with a number of observations.

    1.The EA device need not break the hyoid bone. Indeed, death can occur when the cartoid arteries are sufficiently oppressed.

    2. The ligature need not pull out JonBenet's hair -- the fact it didn't yet she died is testament to the fact that the EA device killed her in such circumstances without pulling her hair out. Of course, this only makes sense if you accept the 'sex-game gone awry' theory like I do.

    3.I disagree that the ropes were used as staging --JonBenet's body bore out the effects of the strangulation. Her brain had little blood in it (less than a teaspoon) thus many pathologists state she was strangled after her heart stopped beating and when she was dead/near death.Further, the ropes seem to be in keeping with the sexual nature of JonBenet's death.


    Regarding the flashlight -- perhaps it was still in the house as there was no way of getting rid of it. There was snow outside and for whatever reasons, the perpetrator couldn't leave the house. Thus, it was cleaned -- that was the best they could do -- clean it to remove any trace of their DNA. The fact that the batteries were cleaned implies that the person cleaning them was also the person who put the batteries into the flashlight in the first place i.e one of the parents.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Runnin' up that hill....
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderllama View Post
    Let_Forever_Be, there are an awful lot of assumptions there unfortunately....
    What assumptions?

    JonBenet's cause of death was recorded as strangulation. I never made that up -- that's what the coroner said.

    Further, JonBenet did have chronic and acute genital trauma -- a tore hymen, bleeding, bruising etc. These were facts recorded.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,581
    Welcome! Do you prefer "Let," "Forever," or "Be?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Let_Forever_Be View Post
    Hello.

    I'm familiar with the various theories that state the parents were protecting Burke. I've never believed them but some are pretty compelling. I suppose their son would be the one person they would coverup for.

    But I excluded him as I believe the molestation, erotic asphyxiation device, depth of ransom note and its relationship to the crime precludes Burke.
    BBM
    Yes...in the cover-up. (The jury's still out on the "erotic asphyxiation device" being staged to be such).

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Runnin' up that hill....
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by my_tee_mouse View Post
    Welcome! Do you prefer "Let," "Forever," or "Be?"


    BBM
    Yes...in the cover-up. (The jury's still out on the "erotic asphyxiation device" being staged to be such).
    Just call me whatever is easiest. All are fine!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,871
    Quote Originally Posted by Let_Forever_Be View Post
    Thanks for the reply.

    I disagree however with a number of observations.

    1.The EA device need not break the hyoid bone. Indeed, death can occur when the cartoid arteries are sufficiently oppressed.

    2. The ligature need not pull out JonBenet's hair -- the fact it didn't yet she died is testament to the fact that the EA device killed her in such circumstances without pulling her hair out. Of course, this only makes sense if you accept the 'sex-game gone awry' theory like I do.

    3.I disagree that the ropes were used as staging --JonBenet's body bore out the effects of the strangulation. Her brain had little blood in it (less than a teaspoon) thus many pathologists state she was strangled after her heart stopped beating and when she was dead/near death.Further, the ropes seem to be in keeping with the sexual nature of JonBenet's death.


    Regarding the flashlight -- perhaps it was still in the house as there was no way of getting rid of it. There was snow outside and for whatever reasons, the perpetrator couldn't leave the house. Thus, it was cleaned -- that was the best they could do -- clean it to remove any trace of their DNA. The fact that the batteries were cleaned implies that the person cleaning them was also the person who put the batteries into the flashlight in the first place i.e one of the parents.
    Let_Forever_Be,
    Well your circular argument here does not support your case.
    2. The ligature need not pull out JonBenet's hair -- the fact it didn't yet she died is testament to the fact that the EA device killed her in such circumstances without pulling her hair out. Of course, this only makes sense if you accept the 'sex-game gone awry' theory like I do.
    As I mentioned before the EA angle was Lou Smits contribution to the IDI theory. This was put to bed a long time ago, since there is no forensic evidence to support it.


    .

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Runnin' up that hill....
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Let_Forever_Be,
    Well your circular argument here does not support your case.


    As I mentioned before the EA angle was Lou Smits contribution to the IDI theory. This was put to bed a long time ago, since there is no forensic evidence to support it.


    .
    Lou Smit believed in the erotic asphyxiation angle with respect to an intruder. I manifestly disagree as stated in my opening post -- I don't accept the intruder theory. However, EA device theory was not put to rest long ago. Cyril Wecht and Michael Doberson both think it was the cause of death.

    What 'circular' argument are you referring to -- could you elaborate please? My belief is that JonBenet was molested -- an EA was used on her which accidentally killed her. I believe her sexual trauma in her genital area are related to the sexual nature of her life. I believe the acute genital injuries are absolutely linked to the strangulation.
    Last edited by Let_Forever_Be; 12-14-2010 at 08:22 PM.

Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The 2001 Coverup
    By BigCat in forum Jerry Sandusky-Cover Up at Penn State
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 05-28-2013, 07:37 PM
  2. Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #5
    By wfgodot in forum Jerry Sandusky General Discussion threads
    Replies: 596
    Last Post: 12-09-2011, 08:10 PM
  3. Penn State Sandusky scandal: AD arrested, Paterno, Spanier fired; coverup charged #3
    By wfgodot in forum Jerry Sandusky General Discussion threads
    Replies: 590
    Last Post: 11-21-2011, 11:22 AM
  4. If Patsy killed JBR in a rage, what does Patsy deserve?
    By GuruJosh in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-03-2005, 11:50 PM
  5. Which Ramsey Is Benefiting From The Coverup?
    By BlueCrab in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-05-2005, 03:34 PM