10-09-2006, 01:31 AM #1
IMO this was no "accident".Accidents are when something happens and someone calls for and gets help.
I think this changed to murder when the perp (I'm of the RDI theory) failed to get help as JB passed out,whether that was from choking or the head wound.The perp could have been afraid JB would have awakened and stated that xxxx hit me/choked me,etc.,so in his/her mind,it was better for him/her to go ahead and make sure she was dead rather than take that chance and let the truth get out that physical child abuse occured by this person.Not calling for help IMO meant the perp didn't want her to wake up, as anyone that wanted her to surely would have held out an ounce of hope and gotten help ASAP, as well as trying CPR in the meantime.I think whether he/she thought she was dead after whatever happened is irrelevant, as surely this person wanted her to be after what had occured.I just don't buy that whatever happened was an accident,JB was thought to be dead and it was covered up.
10-09-2006, 05:57 AM #2Registered User
Originally Posted by JMO8778
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
The Accident theory like the Intruder theories have both been promoted in the media by books, and press releases, curiously the main proponents both worked on the Ramsey case in Boulder.
Both fall into the psychologically satisfying area, that is they explain the evidence in a manner that appeals to most peoples idea of how a parent might behave under certain circumstances.
So the Ramsey's are innocent because a parent would not garrote their own child.
Or it was an Intruder because JonBenet was sexually assaulted, and her parents would never do that.
Or it must have been an accident, then covered up because wealthy parents love their children so much more than poor ones.
Or it was an out of character punishment that was too severe which resulted in JonBenet's death, and as parents, we can all understand how trying children can be. So they never really meant it to happen?
But the forensic evidence practically rules out any form of an intruder homicide, and seriously questions the accident theory, particularly that proposed by the Toilet Rage theorists.
The injuries to JonBenet's face and body suggest she was the victim of a sustained assault prior to her death, she has contusions and abrasions on the side of her face, and similar on her body, also her skull was fractured. Her lower neck bears the marks of a manual strangulation, after all this she was then strangled to death with the ligature, as per Coroner Meyer's autopsy report, either concurrent with or prior to this attack she was also sexually assaulted!
The latter description is not that of an accident but a deliberate and successful attempt to kill JonBenet.
There is patently still information either not in the public domain, or what is, is incorrect, since if you analyse the Ramsey case you will find glaring inconsistencies with regard to peoples statements and the forensic evidence.
10-09-2006, 06:11 AM #3Former Member
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- NSW Australia
Yep, when you look at the way that little girl ended up it's hard to believe it was an accident..
What kind of accident could it have been that the Ramsey's would go to such lengths to cover it up?
10-09-2006, 09:54 AM #4Registered User
Originally Posted by narlacat
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
But if a parent strikes out at her child in a total rage, and the blow is so hard that the child is nearing death, this is NO accident. The parent may not have wanted to kill JB and in that sense 'accidentally' killed her, but it was the parent who first struck an intentional blow (prompted by rage), and an intentional blow is no accidental blow.
10-09-2006, 10:31 AM #5
While I believe Patsy and/or John Ramsey is the person(s) responsible for JonBenet's death, I have a hard time believing either of them meant to kill her the night she died - I can't see them deciding to intentionally murder their child. One of the main reasons I think this is there appears to be no motive...it seems to me that JonBenet's death was the unfortunate result of a series of unfortunate events. In this respect I consider JonBenet's death to have been an accident.
I have to wonder what exactly the person who hit her on the head and caused those injuries to her face and neck thought they were doing. Hitting a child on the head hard enough to cause an eight inch fracture is not an accident. I also think that bruise in the front of her neck looks like someone grabbed her by the collar and yanked her up, maybe choking her. That was not an accident. I don't know what caused the abrasions on her face, but I'm willing to bet that also wasn't an accident.
Sometimes I (as a PDI) wonder if Patsy didn't just completely lose it, and suffer some kind of break with reality, perhaps even blacking out - only to come to and realize JonBenet had been injured beyond repair. I have to assume that if JonBenet's murder was intentional, then they would have done a better job, and chosen a situation that didn't cast so much suspicion right on them...but maybe not.
10-09-2006, 01:55 PM #6
I think the idea of an 'accident' comes from the fact that it's the simplest way to say an unintentional injury.Hi, I'm SuperDave. I do BAD things to BAD people.
Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)
10-10-2006, 04:11 PM #7Originally Posted by rashomon
10-10-2006, 04:19 PM #8Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
I can't figure out why on earth anyone would think an intruder would leave his/her flashlight.The light would likely be needed to get out of the house without been heard or seen.
10-10-2006, 05:18 PM #9Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
Also,the R's said Xmas would be easier if they all just got together afterwards,but it seems to me,it would have been just as easy to have the other kids fly to Co. beforehand, and then on to MI with them.That way they would have all gotten to spend Xmas day together.Was there possibly a reason someone didn't want the whole family there at that time?
10-10-2006, 05:26 PM #10Originally Posted by Becba
Anyway,that's the way I see it...she was finishing up the note while he showered, and then the whole 'scene' started from there,as they had BR to think about and had to start somewhere with the whole scenerio.I.E.-PR finds the note,screams to JR about it while he's in the shower....
10-10-2006, 06:12 PM #11Former Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Detroit 'Burb
Incident at the Whites' a Trigger
When a 911 call was attempted at the Whites' that same night that Janet McReynolds said she found JonBenet crying, sitting alone on the back stairs, I think the little girl had been molested and was in pain and that none of the grownups seemed to care. Who would have thought a 6 yr old would know to call 911, and of course she had to be silenced.
A plan had probably been dreamed up quite a while earlier and not put into action until definitely needed.
This would be a much bigger rage than a bedwetting rage, very obviously.
Though I can't explain the fibers being embedded (?) in the rope. A TV show about fiber crime solving showed how fibers were collected, by using a kitchen spatula on the piece of clothing, scraping off fibers. I suppose onto some kind of surface that could be folded and transported.
"What if" someone in LE did it, and somehow got hold of PR's jacket, to expertly embed fibers into the rope and paint box? I ask you, would PR have worn the jacket the next morning if she'd known fibers from it would be "found" in these places? I'm assuming they slept in separate bedrooms?
Criminals don't need keys, and they know how to sneak quietly into bedrooms when people are asleep. It's just not logical at all that PR would have worn the jacket that morning if she'd known its fibers had been harvested or had been near the crime scene at all. She was smarter than that.
The little victim just suddenly wasn't going to take it any more. The game was up which had been going on for quite a while, probably since the trip to Houston.
10-10-2006, 07:15 PM #12Registered User
Originally Posted by SuperDave
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
Thats fine for an unintentional injury but JonBenet has multiple injuries!
imo the variations on the accident theory look quite shaky to me, wrt the Toilet Rage theory, it is inconsistent with the available forensic evidence.
Also the two main theories e.g. Intruder and Accident have both been promoted by ex-detectives.
Neither of these theories have yielded any results, the Intruder theory is more or less discredited, and the Accident theory is preserved since as you suggest it's the simplest way to say an unintentional injury. Which may be a reflection of the nature of forums such as this where theories can be recycled ad-infinitum?
10-10-2006, 07:38 PM #13
Why would anyone in LE want to frame Patsy like that? And her fibers were also on the back of the tape - which was over JonBenet's mouth until John Ramsey ripped it off and dropped it on the floor. In order for someone in LE to have gathered Patsy's fibers and placed them in the crime scene, they would have had to have been there when the murder was taking place...unless they undid the knot strangling JB and put the jacket fibers in and then recinched the knot and then put the fibers on the tape and in the paint tray (and that's bordering on absurd, and again, why? Who in LE wouold have a need to make it look like the Rs did it like that? When would they have had the opportunity to do it - while items were in evidence?) Let us not forget John's shirt fibers on JonBenet as well. Coroner Meyer found those on JonBenet during the autopsy. No one would have had time to plant those fibers on the body, and there is no innocent explanation for why John's shirt fibers would be on his daughter's genitals. Especially after the killer wiped her down...unless the perp intentionally used John's shirt to wipe her down to implicate him - but again, why? And how did the perp do it without leaving any forensic evidence of himself?
I seriously doubt a plan to frame the Ramseys for the murder of their daughter was pre-planned and arranged to the point of collecting up their clothing while they slept and putting their fibers in the crime scene and on the body...it makes much more sense to conclude the fibers from the clothes J & P wore were there because J & P were involved. Occam's razor applied - John and Patsy's fibers are there because they did this, not because there was an elaborate plan by someone else to make it look like they did, someone who left only forensic evidence of the Rs and somehow none of himself.
I have a hard time figuring out why Patsy was still in the same outfit on the 26th that she had worn the night before. I don't believe for a second that a person that obsessed with appearances was actually planning on wearing the same clothes she had worn the night before the next day. Not only would that outfit be at least marginally soiled from having been worn six hours the night before, but she had a closet literally full of clothes to choose from - it wasn't like this was her only seasonal outfit and "would have to do."
My impression was that she either planned to wear the same clothes in an attempt to throw herself on the body and give an explanation for any residual fiber evidence that may have been found, or she ran out of time to change or just plain forgot. I do wonder why JR had time to shower and she didn't since I think it looks like John was in on the staging, too.
I think Patsy was a fairly intelligent person, but I don't think this murder looks like it was planned out in advance at all, and I doubt Patsy was able to think of everything as she tried the best she could to make it look like someone else did it.
John and Patsy did not have separate bedrooms - they shared a bed in their master bedroom on the third floor. Patsy slept in a separate bedroom when she was ill with cancer and chemo, because the bathroom in JAR's room was right next to the bed, whereas the bathroom in the master bedroom was all the way across the room from the bed. When she got better, she went back to the master bedroom.
I can believe JonBenet had threatened to blow the whistle on the molester, but I have a hard time believing the molester decided she must die for it on Christmas night - and while I'm at it, I'll just make it look like her parents did it - but not only that they did it, but that they wanted it to look like an intruder did it. There are too many other weird things, like the forgotten pineapple and the way the Rs kept changing their stories. And how was this molester (if it wasn't a Ramsey) gaining access to JonBenet in order to molest her enough to the point that there is medical evidence of it going on and she was going to tell?
10-10-2006, 08:03 PM #14Registered User
Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
- Join Date
- Sep 2004
Interesting, as you suggest it raises more questions than answers, particularly ones the current popular theories do not have answers to.
Now this assumption:
My impression was that she either planned to wear the same clothes in an attempt to throw herself on the body and give an explanation for any residual fiber evidence that may have been found
If you think Patsy was a fairly intelligent person, you must assume she was vaguely familiar with basic police routines, so with what degree of certainty could Patsy predict she would be offered any opportunity to fling herself upon JonBenet?
imo there are only two answers, either it was pre-arranged as in a conspiracy, or she just cannot know in advance?
So your latter assumption looks to me to be on firmer ground:
she ran out of time to change or just plain forgot. I do wonder why JR had time to shower and she didn't since I think it looks like John was in on the staging, too.
10-10-2006, 08:12 PM #15
True, true...I forgot about the blanket wrapped around JonBenet preventing Patsy's fibers from making direct contact while she begged Jesus to raise her child from the dead. Patsy would not have been certain that she would get a chance to throw herself on JonBenet, either. Hmmm.
That brings me back to she must have run out of time or forgot all about her clothes. It appears the Rs forgot about the pineapple, and possibly the flashlight...
ARGH! I've spent the last nine + years wondering what the heck happened that night and who did what, and even with all of the incredibly knowledgeable people I have met here and all of the excellent discussion, I am still no closer to understanding.