Jayelles
New Member
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.Jayelles said:Do you think the Ramseys killed Jonbenet with malice aforethought or that it was an accidental killing with a cover-up?
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.Jayelles said: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.
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.Paradox said:None of the above. The small foreign faction inside Patsy did it and they didn't mean for it to happen.
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.UKGuy said: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!
rashomon said: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?
But doesn't domestic violence also include child abuse cases? I think yes.UKGuy said: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!
BrotherMoon, is that you?Paradox said:None of the above. The small foreign faction inside Patsy did it and they didn't mean for it to happen.
No. Are you disappointed?amordei said:BrotherMoon, is that you?
Toltec said:I believe it was an accident....Patsy losing it and hitting JonBenet over the head with the flashlight.
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.UKGuy said: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.
.
What's the difference between manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter and second-degree murder?Jayelles said: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.
Please bear in mind that the Scotland has its own legal system which is separate even from the English legal system.rashomon said:What's the difference between manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter and second-degree murder?
Wouldn't a rage killing have been second-degree murder?
Jayelles said: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.
Jayelles said:Please bear in mind that the Scotland has its own legal system which is separate even from the English legal system.
Malice aforethought is intent to kill without justification (a mercy killing could still be murder but could -perhaps- be justifiable). It means that an individual takes an action with full knowledge that this action will result in the death of another. So that would be first degree murder.
Then there is second degree murder which is called manslaughter in England and culpable homicide in Scotland but there are degrees of guilt within this charge. In Scotland, a charge of culpable homicide might be made if death was due to a person's reckless (possibly criminally reckless) behaviour - but where there was no actual intent to kill.
Involuntary manslaughter is equivalent to culpable homicide. With voluntary manslaughter, there may have been intent to kill - but this would be a matter for the defence to argue against.
In Scotland we have three verdicts - Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven. The "third verdict" as it is known means "we think ye did it, but we cannae prove it!"
Have to add following consultation with a lawyer ... Voluntary manslaughter is when someone dies during the commission of another crime.UKGuy said:Jayelles
Malice aforethought, may be absent, as the homicide is a result of a snap decision to silence the victim, you also dont know if the ransom note was written prior to her death or afterwards, also there was extensive post-mortem planning and staging including forensic evidence removal, hardly the hallmarks of an unintended accidental death!
In Scotland we have three verdicts - Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven.
Not Proven also implies an absence of evidence e.g. the indictment may be spurious!
.