Jayelles
New Member
Do you think the Ramseys killed Jonbenet with malice aforethought or that it was an accidental killing with a cover-up?
RDI Theorists
- Thread starter Jayelles
- Start date
Jayelles
New Member
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:
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.Jayelles said:
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?
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.
.
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.
.
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:
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?
sharpar
If dogs dont go to heaven I want to go where they
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,282
- Reaction score
- 6
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.
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.
rashomon 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!
.
But doesn't domestic violence also include child abuse cases? I think yes.UKGuy said:
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.
Toltec 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.
.
Jayelles
New Member
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:
Jayelles
New Member
Please bear in mind that the Scotland has its own legal system which is separate even from the English legal system.rashomon said:
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!"
Jayelles 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!
.
Jayelles
New Member
Have to add following consultation with a lawyer ... Voluntary manslaughter is when someone dies during the commission of another crime.UKGuy said:
Re: Not Proven:- It's used when there exists insufficient evidence to convict someone who is probably guilty.