View Poll Results: who molested/abused JB?

Voters
424. You may not vote on this poll
  • JR

    118 27.83%
  • BR

    109 25.71%
  • JAR

    22 5.19%
  • a close family friend

    25 5.90%
  • a stranger/stalker a la JMK

    16 3.77%
  • PR-it wasn't sexual abuse,it was corporal punishment

    73 17.22%
  • she wasn't previously abused/molested

    61 14.39%
Page 27 of 89 FirstFirst ... 17 25 26 27 28 29 37 77 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 405 of 1323
  1. #391
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    188
    Let's not forget that PR left her house after the finding of JB with her cloths on from the the previous night. Fur coat and Purse!


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Flatlander For This Useful Post:


  3. #392
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,268
    As someone (I'm PDI) who believes that this crime MAY have been premeditated, I have been wondering lately if Patsy was at all jealous of the attention John received when his elder daughter (Beth?) was killed. I dunno, any thoughts??


  4. #393
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,964
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    Interesting. I didn't know the rest of the panties were never found.

    I'd argue that she was thinking irrationally both during the staging and when disposing of evidence.

    She knew in her psychotic fashion that none of this actually made sense but to her that was not something she needed to overthink.

    So it makes sense to me that she could throw on a pair of the oversize panties and then decide that was part of what she needed to get rid of.

    In "getting rid of" the evidence I think Patsy got rid of the part of her that did it, in large degree. She then became the "grieving mother" and didn't spend too much time thinking about how to answer these questions.

    It is quite absurd, if you believe the intruder theory, to think that an intruder would redress JonBenet AND TAKE THE REST OF THE PANTIES. You could understand the intruder redressing her to eliminate his DNA, but it's crazy to think he'd leave as much as he did and yet feel the need to take the rest of the panties with him.

    So this is more evidence that points towards PR, and I think it could be consistent with my "PR did everything herself" theory.
    sandover
    I'd argue that she was thinking irrationally both during the staging and when disposing of evidence.
    Possibly, but her interview regarding the size-12's is much later, where she displays quite rational behaviour, including episodes of amnesia.

    It is quite absurd, if you believe the intruder theory, to think that an intruder would redress JonBenet AND TAKE THE REST OF THE PANTIES. You could understand the intruder redressing her to eliminate his DNA, but it's crazy to think he'd leave as much as he did and yet feel the need to take the rest of the panties with him.
    Yes this is what Patsy's account of the size-12's suggests, that is until the Ramsey's magicked up the remaining size-12's, found miraculously in a packing crate, somehwere in Atlanta.

    The size-12's sunk the Ramsey's version of events, precisely because it was Patsy who offered it. Everyone knows she lied through her teeth, its impossible not to read the interview, and wonder why she thought anyone would believe she gave JonBenet size-12 underwear that had been intend for a much older relative?


    .


  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  6. #394
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Squishified View Post
    As someone (I'm PDI) who believes that this crime MAY have been premeditated, I have been wondering lately if Patsy was at all jealous of the attention John received when his elder daughter (Beth?) was killed. I dunno, any thoughts??
    I just don't see it. I also do not feel this was premeditated. Why choose THAT night? With an early flight out the next morning, your son and husband home- if this was planned, there would be much better opportunities when she would have been alone with her daughter and could offer a more plausible "accident" . Premeditation is simply not something that makes sense to me in this case.

    I also don't see Patsy being jealous of the attention JR received when his older daughter died. It wasn't a newsworthy event, and that kind of attention abates rather quickly. I don't see Patsy as feeling "well, HE lost a daughter, so I want to lose one too". Just doesn't make sense.
    Patsy could have been jealous of JB, however. She saw JB as being very likely able to win that Miss America crown that she missed out on. Jealous enough to kill her? No way, not in my mind. I just don't see her killing JB out of jealousy.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  8. #395
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Yes this is what Patsy's account of the size-12's suggests, that is until the Ramsey's magicked up the remaining size-12's, found miraculously in a packing crate, somehwere in Atlanta..
    Wait... so how did they ever explain them?? If they weren't in the drawer where Patsy said she had put them, then where were they found??


  9. #396
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,964
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    Wait... so how did they ever explain them?? If they weren't in the drawer where Patsy said she had put them, then where were they found??
    sandover,
    Therein lies the size-12 conundrum, they never explained anything they were simply presented as is. Found by someone, who in all likelyhood would never have known the significance of this obscure package of underwear.

    So they were handed in to the DA's office, I think, with some cover story, but the chain of evidence is broken, so I doubt they could ever be produced in a trial?

    If they weren't in the drawer where Patsy said she had put them, then where were they found??
    They were allegedly found much, much later in another state, Atlanta, inside a packing crate.

    So the size-12 question is: If Patsy redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, then removed the remaining size-12's, why did she offer such a ridiculous explanation, when she knew in advance that one was required at a forthcoming interview?

    This suggests to me that Patsy was covering for someone else, and that can only be either John or Burke Ramsey? And if John did not tell Patsy about the size-12's because he was ignorant about them, then was it Burke Ramsey who removed the size-12's and hid them somewhere in the house?

    Remember that bit on the 911 tape, where Burke is heard asking something along the lines, What did you find?


    Nearly everyone concentrates upon the wine-cellar, yet its likely that the redressing and probably the death of JonBenet took place at another location in the basement.

    The wine-cellar is simply where forensic evidence and JonBenet were dumped out of sight, to make the ransom note appear consistent!







    .


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  11. #397
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,964
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I just don't see it. I also do not feel this was premeditated. Why choose THAT night? With an early flight out the next morning, your son and husband home- if this was planned, there would be much better opportunities when she would have been alone with her daughter and could offer a more plausible "accident" . Premeditation is simply not something that makes sense to me in this case.

    I also don't see Patsy being jealous of the attention JR received when his older daughter died. It wasn't a newsworthy event, and that kind of attention abates rather quickly. I don't see Patsy as feeling "well, HE lost a daughter, so I want to lose one too". Just doesn't make sense.
    Patsy could have been jealous of JB, however. She saw JB as being very likely able to win that Miss America crown that she missed out on. Jealous enough to kill her? No way, not in my mind. I just don't see her killing JB out of jealousy.
    DeeDee249,
    ITA, after what Patsy had invested in JonBenet, I reckon she was mature enough to deal with such issues.

    If this had ever gone to trial, and considering the evidence, e.g. Patsy's fibers embedded into the garrote, and on underside of the duct-tape, would she have been facing a first or second degree homicide charge?



    .


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  13. #398
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,983
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    Wait... so how did they ever explain them?? If they weren't in the drawer where Patsy said she had put them, then where were they found??
    They were allegedly "found" 5 years later, according to the parents, in a packing box after they moved to Atlanta. They had been (also allegedly) packed up by the movers and sent along to the Rs new home in Atlanta. The R's gave them to their lawyer, who then sent them along to LE in Boulder. Not much else was explained, and not much has been said publicly by LE about them. It is not known whether the remaining 6 pairs in the package (they were sent still in the package, proving that Patsy was lying when she said she had removed them and put them in JB's panty drawer) were consistent with the panties that were sold in those novelty gift sets for girls in 1996 at Bloomingdale's NYC, though there are ways to verify that. The manufacturer supplying Bloomingdale's NYC with those panty sets that year could have been tracked down and given the answers, but as far as I know, this was not done. It was also never stated whether the "Wednesday" pair was missing from that package, though I would hope LE would have mentioned it if they were not.
    Presumably, both this "found" package of panties and the "Wednesday" pair actually found on the body should still be in an evidence locker in Boulder. In an unsolved murder like this, especially a notorious child murder, it would be prudent to open that evidence locker once a year, a least, to be sure that what was supposed to be in there is STILL in there and hasn't gone "missing". I had read that some things from this case have "gone missing" over the years, and there is supposed to be a "chain of custody" over all evidence in a murder case. There is supposed to be a log of who has access to the evidence, who goes in and out of that area, and inventory taken after each and every entry.
    Wanna bet NO one pays attention to that? Wanna bet there is LOTS of evidence that is presently unaccounted for?
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  15. #399
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,983
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249,
    ITA, after what Patsy had invested in JonBenet, I reckon she was mature enough to deal with such issues.

    If this had ever gone to trial, and considering the evidence, e.g. Patsy's fibers embedded into the garrote, and on underside of the duct-tape, would she have been facing a first or second degree homicide charge?



    .
    Definitely not first degree murder (Murder 1) as premeditation has to be demonstrated. There was no proof of premeditation in this case, whether anyone THINKS she thought about it before or not.
    If this case looked like it was going to trial, I would think there would be a plea-bargain before that actually happened. For one, AH the DA only ever took ONE case to trial and he lost, vowing never to take another case to trial, he was the king of plea-bargains. There is talk that he had planned to offer a plea bargain in this case that would not have involved any jail time and it was promptly shot down by the R lawyers.
    I'd say it would be manslaughter and not homicide. I'd say they would be going for an accidental death caused by reckless action. Just MOO.
    For it to be murder, even second degree, it has to be demonstrated that they KNEW their actions (head bash and ligature) would kill her and it was their intention that it kill her. The difference between first and second degree murder is that first degree requires evidence of premeditation and second degree does not. Both require intent to cause the victim's death.
    While many feel this is obvious, it is murky ground from the point of view of a trial.
    It could be argued (and it would have been) that the head bash was done to silence her, and her death was unintentional (which is different than accidental) or it would be argued that she was slammed into a faucet as she and Patsy fought in a rage over some toilet issue. Even the ligature could have been argued that it was staged on JB when she was THOUGHT to be already dead, so they did not know it was killing her. Or it would have had to be admitted that it was part of a sexual/erotic strangulation game, where death is not intended. This one would have been less likely to admit to, as that sexual activity with a child carries a pretty stiff penalty in its own. And even LESS likely to admit to if the perp was BR.
    The fact that there was no plea-bargain can seem to be a hint to BR's involvement, because he could not be implicated because of his age, even if they knew he did it. But it could also be simply their lawyers calling the DA's bluff as to whether he would actually attempt to take the case to trial. It worked.
    Last edited by DeeDee249; 04-13-2012 at 04:59 PM.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  17. #400
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632
    how can there not be a consideration of murder 1 when autopsy report states one of the causes of death as asphyxiation by the ligature fashioned around her with the handle - premeditation only has to take a second. it took at least a second to decide to use the ligature for asphyxiation, whether or not the headblow was already there. it's not just a staged ligature, as proven by the autopsy report in determining cause of death....

    unless that was proven to be like a drawstring on some window blinds causing an accidental death, which it's not, I don't see how you could not be able to go for murder 1 in that respect.

    maybe if there was only the headblow and no other direct cause.....

    ___

    Okay, DeeDee you were editing your post apparently when I was asking this question.... I see what you're saying, but still,
    yes, you'd have to have a pretty serious argument like what the other reason for the ligature is, for it to not be considered a premeditation cause for murder 1.

    Otherwise, it is premeditated to put the ligature on her for strangulation, and to argue that it was not that, therefore not intended to kill her - only a handful of possible reasons could be for that (like yes, admitting the EA actions), but once you put the ligature strangulation together with eveything else, you are going to have to come up with some serious detailed story about why it was not premeditated, after all that you see there, when in fact it did kill her - it's going to have to be pretty colorful, outrageous, or both....


    but then, that's what they did with casey anthony - and they won. so who knows.
    Last edited by Whaleshark; 04-13-2012 at 05:06 PM.


  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  19. #401
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Whaleshark View Post
    how can there not be a consideration of murder 1 when autopsy report states one of the causes of death as asphyxiation by the ligature fashioned around her with the handle - premeditation only has to take a second. it took at least a second to decide to use the ligature for asphyxiation, whether or not the headblow was already there. it's not just a staged ligature, as proven by the autopsy report in determining cause of death....

    unless that was proven to be like a drawstring on some window blinds causing an accidental death, which it's not, I don't see how you could not be able to go for murder 1 in that respect.

    maybe if there was only the headblow and no other direct cause.....

    ___

    Okay, DeeDee you were editing your post apparently when I was asking this question.... I see what you're saying, but still,
    yes, you'd have to have a pretty serious argument like what the other reason for the ligature is, for it to not be considered a premeditation cause for murder 1.

    Otherwise, it is premeditated to put the ligature on her for strangulation, and to argue that it was not that, therefore not intended to kill her - only a handful of possible reasons could be for that (like yes, admitting the EA actions), but once you put the ligature strangulation together with eveything else, you are going to have to come up with some serious detailed story about why it was not premeditated, after all that you see there, when in fact it did kill her - it's going to have to be pretty colorful, outrageous, or both....


    but then, that's what they did with casey anthony - and they won. so who knows.
    Premeditation does not mean thinking about it as you are doing it. Premeditation requires thinking about it at a previous time. The fact that both these actions did actually kill her (head bash, ligature) cannot be considered in court as evidence that the perp INTENDED to kill her. I know that this seems obvious to many people, but the DA had to view this case as a lawyer would, and that is very different. The police are not lawyers, but the DA is. That is why there is sometimes a conflict when the police want charges to be filed and the DA balks.

    Examples of premeditation would be attempting to hire someone to kill, setting up a false alibi, or shopping for bleach and rope and tarps (like Scott Peterson). Taking out an insurance policy is also another clue.
    And of course, incriminating phone calls, texts, e-mails. None of these were evident in the R case.
    We do know that one of the Rs purchased items, matching exactly in price and department to the duct tape and cord, at a local hardware store in town (McGuckin's) a few weeks before. BUT the store's register system shows ONLY the price and department on the register tape, NOT the actual item. Newer systems show the item, like going to Shop Rite and the register tape shows "quart of milk" or "diet Coke". The older systems only showed price and department (like "produce" or "meats" or "dairy", etc.) The McGuckin's tape only showed a general department, like "hardware", or "paints" or "outdoor", or "plumbing", that type of thing.
    So there was no way to PROVE beyond a doubt that the two items purchased were, in FACT, the tape and cord. To do that, there would have to be a TRIAL and a McGuckin's employee would have to be questioned on the witness stand as to whether ONLY the tape and cord were sold at that specific price in that specific department or if other items were sold at those prices as well.
    There was a LOT that could have been questioned or clarified at a trial- and as we know, there was no trial.
    Last edited by DeeDee249; 04-13-2012 at 05:36 PM.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  21. #402
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632
    but what i'm talking about is this - that premeditation IS considered thinking of it ahead of time in some states, even if only by a few seconds:

    [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premeditated_murder"]Premeditated murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.[1]

    State laws in the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation."
    In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder. Premeditated murder is usually defined as one of the most serious forms of homicide, and is punished more severely than manslaughter or other types of murder - often with the death penalty or a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

    In the U.S, Federal law criminalizes premeditated murder, felony murder and second-degree murder at Title 18 United States Code Section 1111.
    __

    Or this even:

    http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal...efinition.html

    First Degree Murder Definition:

    In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.

    For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.

    Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule", under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies - usually arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery.

    For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they are fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death.
    ___

    So once she was hit on the head (even if accidentally), according to the above, when they start to use a ligature as well, it looks like in some states, it could be considered pre-meditated, and possibly tried as murder 1?


  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  23. #403
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,964
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Premeditation does not mean thinking about it as you are doing it. Premeditation requires thinking about it at a previous time. The fact that both these actions did actually kill her (head bash, ligature) cannot be considered in court as evidence that the perp INTENDED to kill her. I know that this seems obvious to many people, but the DA had to view this case as a lawyer would, and that is very different. The police are not lawyers, but the DA is. That is why there is sometimes a conflict when the police want charges to be filed and the DA balks.

    Examples of premeditation would be attempting to hire someone to kill, setting up a false alibi, or shopping for bleach and rope and tarps (like Scott Peterson). Taking out an insurance policy is also another clue.
    And of course, incriminating phone calls, texts, e-mails. None of these were evident in the R case.
    We do know that one of the Rs purchased items, matching exactly in price and department to the duct tape and cord, at a local hardware store in town (McGuckin's) a few weeks before. BUT the store's register system shows ONLY the price and department on the register tape, NOT the actual item. Newer systems show the item, like going to Shop Rite and the register tape shows "quart of milk" or "diet Coke". The older systems only showed price and department (like "produce" or "meats" or "dairy", etc.) The McGuckin's tape only showed a general department, like "hardware", or "paints" or "outdoor", or "plumbing", that type of thing.
    So there was no way to PROVE beyond a doubt that the two items purchased were, in FACT, the tape and cord. To do that, there would have to be a TRIAL and a McGuckin's employee would have to be questioned on the witness stand as to whether ONLY the tape and cord were sold at that specific price in that specific department or if other items were sold at those prices as well.
    There was a LOT that could have been questioned or clarified at a trial- and as we know, there was no trial.
    DeeDee249,
    I reckon you are right, and the legal niceties would have taken over, plea-baragaining etc.

    I reckon Patsy could claim and plea-bargain 2nd Degree, although she might have to admit the final asphyxiation was intended as staging, e.g. she assumed she was already dead.

    If the prosecution can demonstrate that the wine-cellar is staging, along with the ransom note etc. Then this is apriori proof of premeditation, the only point of contention might be Patsy's intent on applying the garrote, hence the eventual plea-bargain?

    .


  24. #404
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,983
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    DeeDee249,
    I reckon you are right, and the legal niceties would have taken over, plea-baragaining etc.

    I reckon Patsy could claim and plea-bargain 2nd Degree, although she might have to admit the final asphyxiation was intended as staging, e.g. she assumed she was already dead.

    If the prosecution can demonstrate that the wine-cellar is staging, along with the ransom note etc. Then this is apriori proof of premeditation, the only point of contention might be Patsy's intent on applying the garrote, hence the eventual plea-bargain?

    .
    No- NONE of the wineceller activities is evidence of premeditation, as the entire wineceller and staged crime scene, including the note, occurred AFTER her death.
    If Patsy (or whoever tightened that cord) did intend to kill her at the time she was doing it, it would then be second degree murder, not first, because there was no evidence of premeditation.
    But PROVING the perp intended to kill JB at the time of her death is difficult, with no living eyewitness who is not willing to testify that was the intent. Spouses can't be compelled to testify against each other, so the likelihood of Patsy or JR accusing the other is virtually non-existent. To me, this says they either BOTH had something to hide and/or were culpable in some way, or they were protecting someone else.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  26. #405
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,964
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    No- NONE of the wineceller activities is evidence of premeditation, as the entire wineceller and staged crime scene, including the note, occurred AFTER her death.
    If Patsy (or whoever tightened that cord) did intend to kill her at the time she was doing it, it would then be second degree murder, not first, because there was no evidence of premeditation.
    But PROVING the perp intended to kill JB at the time of her death is difficult, with no living eyewitness who is not willing to testify that was the intent. Spouses can't be compelled to testify against each other, so the likelihood of Patsy or JR accusing the other is virtually non-existent. To me, this says they either BOTH had something to hide and/or were culpable in some way, or they were protecting someone else.
    DeeDee249,
    as the entire wineceller and staged crime scene, including the note, occurred AFTER her death.
    Well the temporal aspects are for the coroner and expert witness to chew over. I reckon the DA could have used the threat of a 1st Degree charge as a bargaining chip.

    To me, this says they either BOTH had something to hide and/or were culpable in some way, or they were protecting someone else.
    Or a combination of all three if JonBenet was a prior victim of more than one relative? It does appear as if something was being hidden, makes me wonder about the BDI a little more. Until I see the Ramsey DNA results on the table, I'll continue to consider a BDI.

    .


  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


Page 27 of 89 FirstFirst ... 17 25 26 27 28 29 37 77 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Molested with the handle?
    By Paradox in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 396
    Last Post: 06-26-2014, 09:42 AM
  2. OK- girls molested at slumber party
    By peeples in forum Crimes-Spotlight on Children
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-08-2011, 09:49 AM
  3. 20+ Teens Molested by PA Cop
    By MrsBuckWeaver in forum Crimes in the News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-28-2007, 11:11 PM
  4. Replies: 65
    Last Post: 09-06-2006, 01:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •