1401 users online (270 members and 1131 guests)  



Websleuths News

View Poll Results: Malice aforethought or accidental killing with cover-up?

Voters
179. You may not vote on this poll
  • One of the Ramseys killed Jonbenet with malice aforethought

    15 8.38%
  • One of the Ramseys killed Jonbenet accidentally and then tried to cover it up

    135 75.42%
  • None of the above - please explain

    29 16.20%

Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 183
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    RDI Theorists

    Do you think the Ramseys killed Jonbenet with malice aforethought or that it was an accidental killing with a cover-up?
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Do you think the Ramseys killed Jonbenet with malice aforethought or that it was an accidental killing with a cover-up?
    It would be good to get a real sense of what people believe here. Everyone can only vote once so it will be an honest outcome.

    Remember - the RST like to think that the BORG can only see the Ramseys as cold-blooded murderers. If you think it was a tragic accident followed by a cover-up, then vote now.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    It would be good to get a real sense of what people believe here. Everyone can only vote once so it will be an honest outcome.

    Remember - the RST like to think that the BORG can only see the Ramseys as cold-blooded murderers. If you think it was a tragic accident followed by a cover-up, then vote now.
    I have no doubt at all that basically the JB case was just one of these child abuse cases which resulted in death or near-death of the child: one parent snapped and lost it in a rage and irreparable damage was done.
    Most parents to whom this happens do take their child to the hospital, but they almost always try to cover it up too by saying for example that the child fell down the stairs, against the bathtub etc..
    But I think Patsy did not want to run the risk of having trained pediatricians find out that the child had died as a result of physical violence (committed by one or both parents), which is why she went a lot farther than other parents in her situation would have, and frantically thought out a staged 'kidnapping resulting in murder' scenario, aided by John, to whom public image probably was as important as to Patsy herself.

    I voted tragic accident, the 'accident' being the (unintentional) death of the child following an attack by an enraged parent. But since a parent (not temporarily insane) who yanks the child so violently, or strikes a horrible blow like that, must be aware of the possible (deadly) damage this action can bring about, with what would the parent have been charged, in case had she/he had confessed? Manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter or second-degree murder?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    202
    None of the above. The small foreign faction inside Patsy did it and they didn't mean for it to happen.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,652
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox
    None of the above. The small foreign faction inside Patsy did it and they didn't mean for it to happen.
    Lol, Paradox - good one, and also very true! And to this day, I believe Patsy refuses to look at that part of her personality which was able to do this.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,959
    Currently the forensic evidence suggests an intentional homicide.

    The homicide was followed by a ransom note, possibly anticipating placing JonBenet's body outdoors, away from the house.

    This was then revised as per the wine-cellar, and became an intruder staging.

    I doubt it was an accident initially since JonBenet had been accidentally injured by Burke on a prior occassion, by a golf-club, and there was no problem accessing medical facilities etc. So not wishing to report an accident I doubt is an issue here.

    Burke stated that JonBenet walked into the house on returning from the Whites, pineapple residue in JonBenet's digestive system reveals she was awake a few hours later. All suggesting she never made it to her bed, she was violently killed shortly after engaging in some pineapple snacking.

    At this point someone asphyxiated JonBenet manually using either her own top or another item, and probably the force of the violence shook JonBenet's neck causing her head to indiscriminately hit another object. The head trauma may simply be a consequence of the violence, her killer may have known she hit her head, but not how serious it was, but I doubt they cared.

    Why would anyone want JonBenet dead: so she could not talk!

    There was a coverup, there was crime-scene staging, the crime-scene staging has been mistakenly promoted by the media as representing an intruder homicide, mis-using the authority of criminal profilers and investigators, all three Ramsey's have colluded in this process.

    Accidental deaths simply do not require this level of crime-scene staging so I think JonBenet was silenced and the Ramsey Household purged of any links to the secret that JonBenet took with her to her grave.


    .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,652
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    Currently the forensic evidence suggests an intentional homicide.
    ...
    At this point someone asphyxiated JonBenet manually using either her own top or another item, and probably the force of the violence shook JonBenet's neck causing her head to indiscriminately hit another object. The head trauma may simply be a consequence of the violence, her killer may have known she hit her head, but not how serious it was, but I doubt they cared.

    Why would anyone want JonBenet dead: so she could not talk!
    Even if manual asphyxiation came first, imo this forensic evidence would not automatically suggest an intentional homicide. For manual asphyixiation due to rage is not that uncommon in domestic violence cases.

    But if in your opinion JB was asphyxiated so that she could not talk (= first-degree murder), my question: what did the perp fear JB would have said if she could have talked?

  8. #8
    sharpar's Avatar
    sharpar is offline If dogs dont go to heaven I want to go where they are
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Home of the Alamo
    Posts
    1,282
    I believe the abuse ( punishment) was escalating in that child's life and it had everything to do with the role assigned to JB by the murderer and thoughts and feelings of the murderer and not anything to do with what JB actually did.

    I believe the murderer was getting increasingly more agiated as the holidays
    came on and if JB had survived Christmas night I believe she might not have
    survived the stay in MI or the Big Boat.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,959
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon
    Even if manual asphyxiation came first, imo this forensic evidence would not automatically suggest an intentional homicide. For manual asphyixiation due to rage is not that uncommon in domestic violence cases.

    But if in your opinion JB was asphyxiated so that she could not talk (= first-degree murder), my question: what did the perp fear JB would have said if she could have talked?
    rashomon,

    Domestic violence cases usually involve spouses, JonBenet was a 6-year old girl.

    Why must it be rage, is it not possible to kill in a calculated manner?

    Even if anger plays a part, its difficult to rationalize a corpse away on the basis the perpetrator had a bad hair day?

    But you may be correct it may have been an enraged relative, but they continued asphyxiating JonBenet until she expired, the violence was so extreme her skull was shattered, the intention to kill appears transparent even although the rage is evident, the level and degree of violence used on JonBenet is what suggests it was intentional and not simply a by-product of anger!

    How many relatives have a bad-hair day then strangle and inflict severe head-trauma on their youngest relative, thinking "I feel better now"?

    JonBenet either during the pinapple snacking session, which I think PR attended, her fingerprints are at the scene, or afterwards obviously told one of the other three Ramseys, that she was not playing ball, and she had someone in mind to talk to?

    Some form of abuse is the likely secret, the killing of a relative, particularly by asphyxiation, followed by a crime-staging has occurred before in an incest case!



    .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,652
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    rashomon,

    Domestic violence cases usually involve spouses, JonBenet was a 6-year old girl.

    Why must it be rage, is it not possible to kill in a calculated manner?

    Even if anger plays a part, its difficult to rationalize a corpse away on the basis the perpetrator had a bad hair day?

    But you may be correct it may have been an enraged relative, but they continued asphyxiating JonBenet until she expired, the violence was so extreme her skull was shattered, the intention to kill appears transparent even although the rage is evident, the level and degree of violence used on JonBenet is what suggests it was intentional and not simply a by-product of anger!

    How many relatives have a bad-hair day then strangle and inflict severe head-trauma on their youngest relative, thinking "I feel better now"?

    JonBenet either during the pinapple snacking session, which I think PR attended, her fingerprints are at the scene, or afterwards obviously told one of the other three Ramseys, that she was not playing ball, and she had someone in mind to talk to?

    Some form of abuse is the likely secret, the killing of a relative, particularly by asphyxiation, followed by a crime-staging has occurred before in an incest case!
    But doesn't domestic violence also include child abuse cases? I think yes.

    It 'must' not be rage, but I suppose statistically most children killed by a parent were killed in a rage and not calculatedly murdered.

    A 'bad hair day' would of course be too trivial and not enough, but stress build-up can make people snap, given the circumstances. And maybe Patsy wasn't all that happy under the glamorous surface. Fading beauty and fear of age for example must have been quite a challenge for someone like her, who had lived in the world of beauty contests all her life.
    She said she was totally exhausted in the days before Christmas. And who knows if she didn't take some medication which in combination with alcohol ingested at the party contributed to her losing control.

    But of course the reason for JB's death could also have been something far more sinister, no question about it. I'm currently oscillating between the stress build-up scenario or a sexual abuse scenario.
    I that context I also find both Nuisanceposter's and Sharpar's theories and thoughts on the matter very interesting.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    21

    Shades of things past

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox
    None of the above. The small foreign faction inside Patsy did it and they didn't mean for it to happen.
    BrotherMoon, is that you?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by amordei
    BrotherMoon, is that you?
    No. Are you disappointed?

  13. #13
    I believe it was an accident....Patsy losing it and hitting JonBenet over the head with the flashlight.
    ...We have said to ourselves, look, there is never going to be a victory in this, there is no victory...John Ramsey: 6/24/98

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    7,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Toltec
    I believe it was an accident....Patsy losing it and hitting JonBenet over the head with the flashlight.
    Toltec,

    How is that an accident? Thats an intentional homicide, the victim is a 6-year old girl.

    Its quite possible that the flashlight was used by JR on one of his journeys down to the basement, when he would not want to turn the lights on and draw likely attention from people upstairs.


    .

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy
    Toltec,

    How is that an accident? Thats an intentional homicide, the victim is a 6-year old girl.

    Its quite possible that the flashlight was used by JR on one of his journeys down to the basement, when he would not want to turn the lights on and draw likely attention from people upstairs.


    .
    No it isn't intentional homicide. It would be manslaughter - not first degree murder. First degree murder is when the murder is planned with malice aforethought.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast