971 users online (178 members and 793 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 59
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    116

    Exclamation JonBenet's murder was a Premeditated Murder?

    I remember in one interview Patsy said that JonBenet's murder was a Premeditated Murder. I looked up Premeditated Murder on Wikipedia and it says: {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.}
    I don't understand this, does Premeditated mean that JonBenet's murder was planned out?
    Aunt Pam: JonBenet why don't you put your shoes on? JonBenet: Because I want to feel the rhythm of the earth under my feet.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,537
    That is what Pasty wants us to believe. That someone planned to kill Jonbenet in advance and tried to set them up

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,890
    Shanny,

    It depends on which sense you wish to use the word Premeditated.

    Someone may be mad, and still have due consideration to the time and method of their victim's death, would this be described as rational?

    There is enough forensic evidence to suggest that JonBenet was probably killed down in the basement by the use of a garrote and that this took place after she had sustained a head injury upstairs. So all the elements of a Premeditated Murder are in place e.g. the time and the method so selected in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension. e.g the accompanying staging in the wine-cellar.

    This is why JonBenet's death cannot be considered to be accidental, medical assistance could have been sought, but was not, instead she was callously asphyxiated, then possibly vaginally assaulted to fake a sexual assault. So in a court of law the charges laid against JonBenet's killer(s) would most likely be Premediated Murder!

    The sense in which Patsy was using the word Premeditated was planned, she realized given the forensic evidence, and the lack of any medical assistance offered to JonBenet that the only way to explain her death was that an intruder had planned it so. This was the basis for fellow Ramsey' travellor Lou Smit's Intruder Did It theory, who expanded upon it with wild speculation and a disregard for forensic evidence that calls into question his motives for promoting his IDI theory and appearing enthusiastically in the Ramsey funded documentaries.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    I guess as far as that goes,I don't think anyone thinks that Patsy planned in advance to kill JB on Christmas night.But it turned out that way,spurned from anger.As far as 'accident' goes,well,I have to wonder at some point,perhaps when she was manually strangling JB,did she decide then and there that she wanted her dead? What was going through her mind? ...did she think to herself, 'you know what? I am just sick and tired of this child and this nonsense (ie-soiling herself,rebelling against her mother),and I can't take it anymore !' And the rest is history.

    on that note,I have to wonder if Patsy had her own personal frame of reference for saying it was premeditated,in that respect.As it appears she did for saying 'two ppl know who did it'.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    8,022
    Actually- the prosecutor would probably push for Second Degree Murder. Though the decision not to seek medical help was deliberate, and the garrote was applied to mask a manual strangulation (with the shirt, not hands)- for it to be premeditated as far as the Rs are concerned it would have to be shown that they planned to kill their daughter without it having anything to do with the head bash. The way I see it- they did love their kids, and I just can't see either of them planning to kill her. Her death was the result of an out-of-control situation. The initial injury was a rage attack- and not intended to kill her. The garroting could have been done for two reasons. Either they though she was already dead and did it to hide the marks from the manual strangulation or they needed to have a cause of death that would be immediately obvious to anyone who saw the body.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanny View Post
    I remember in one interview Patsy said that JonBenet's murder was a Premeditated Murder. I looked up Premeditated Murder on Wikipedia and it says: {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.}
    I don't understand this, does Premeditated mean that JonBenet's murder was planned out?
    Like Rino said, this is what the Ramseys want people to believe: that a sexual predator intruded in the home intending to murder JonBenet.
    When a suspect is trying to direct the attention one way, one should look exactly the other way. This is what you get then: no intruder entered the home to murder JonBenet, but it was a cover-up of a domestic homicide.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    Like Rino said, this is what the Ramseys want people to believe: that a sexual predator intruded in the home intending to murder JonBenet.
    When a suspect is trying to direct the attention one way, one should look exactly the other way. This is what you get then: no intruder entered the home to murder JonBenet, but it was a cover-up of a domestic homicide.
    Well, if everyone was absolutely sure that it's just Patsy trying to redirect everyone away, then I guess there wouldn't be much discussion.

    Now, when an intruder is trying to direct the attention one way, one should look exactly the other way also. That's why the pineapple, no intruder evidence, why they called all their friends over, why they can't or won't figure it out who did it (when it was obviously close to home). All those things point to an intruder of course.

    Just having fun. Now that 320 Sycamore is down what to do? Is this Webbbsleuths? Hold onto your hat they say.
    Last edited by Rupert; 03-11-2008 at 01:04 AM. Reason: spelling

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
    Just having fun. Now that 320 Sycamore is down what to do?
    it is? well,as they say, 'It's a wonderful life'. LOL.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SWFL
    Posts
    2,909

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    it is? well,as they say, 'It's a wonderful life'. LOL.
    And I just got there! LOL - it couldn't be a coinky-dink could it?!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
    That's why the pineapple, no intruder evidence, why they called all their friends over, why they can't or won't figure it out who did it (when it was obviously close to home).
    Pineapple - it seems pretty clear (to me, at least) that either the Rs forgot that JonBenet had eaten pineapple and that it would show up in her system as a way to estimate TOD, or they didn't realize that JonBenet had snagged a piece or two of pineapple after they got home, proving she was awake when they said she wasn't. It was definitely pineapple in her system, and it was definitely the same as what was in the bowl. No intruder gave her pineapple. This is clear proof that JonBenet was AWAKE at some point after returning home from the Whites.

    No intruder evidence - how nice of you to admit there's no real evidence of an intruder other than what the Rs amateurishly tried to stage. The window and the ligature and sexual assault are all meant to indicate an intruder (cause supposedly, no Christian parent like the Rs pretended to be would do that to their own child.) The RN is the biggest piece of evidence meant to indicate an intruder. Too bad Patsy can NOT be eliminated as author of it, changed her writing right after the murder, and her own family members thought it looked like her writing. Patsy even told ST that she thought it looked like a woman wrote it. Hmmmm.

    Called friends over - here is self-preservation. The Rs needed the friends over for very important reasons...buffer for police, contamination of crime scene, and emotional support. There is no way on God's green earth that you could ever convince me that the Rs would have violated the threats in that RN if they had actually believed the RN was authentic and some kidnapper was holding JonBenet somewhere, watching, ready to cut her head off. No way at all. They knew she was no danger of that because they knew she was already dead in the basement. That's why they didn't question sending Burke out without a police escort and didn't go pick him up immediately when they left the hellhole. They knew there was no SFF and no danger in Burke being elsewhere.

    Can't or won't figure it out - ST figured it out, and had a lot of very qualified experts agreeing with his RDI theory. Smit can't or won't figure it out because he picked and chose which evidence he wanted to follow, and refused to consider the Rs as valid suspects after they drove over to the hellhole when they knew Smit would be there to have a prayer session with him. That was pretty damn crafty of them - they want nothing to do with the hellhole, don't ever want to live there or go there again, yet they'll drive right on over when they know Smit is there and they want him to be their new BFF.

    As for why the Rs refuse to act like other parents of murdered children and do all they can, they can't or won't because they know who killed JonBenet and have been covering for that person all these years.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter View Post
    Pineapple - it seems pretty clear (to me, at least) that either the Rs forgot that JonBenet had eaten pineapple and that it would show up in her system as a way to estimate TOD, or they didn't realize that JonBenet had snagged a piece or two of pineapple after they got home, proving she was awake when they said she wasn't. It was definitely pineapple in her system, and it was definitely the same as what was in the bowl. No intruder gave her pineapple. This is clear proof that JonBenet was AWAKE at some point after returning home from the Whites.
    ..in thinking about it,it appears they're trying to account for their own forensic evidence on JB w. that story,IMO.yes,they did forget about the pineapple,one or both of them,or thought it would be unimportant.
    ..but JR says he carried a sleeping JB to bed,and took her shoes off.I think he carried an unconcious JB down the stairs.At some point,he removed her shoes..probably in her room,b/f going down the stairs with her.So he knew his prints were on her shoes,and he had to account for that.Also by saying he had carried her in the house,he's accounting for any evidence that might be on JB from him having carried her.
    Patsy says she took JB's coat off,and then put her in the Lj's.She probably did remove her coat when they got back... but she put the lj's on JB *after she was knocked out from the head wound,IMO.So Patsy has effectively accounted for her own forensic evidence on JB,by using that story.Also,it is an easy story for all of them to remember and keep straight..BR included as well.
    ..so,what does that tell us...it says that JB was dressed (to shoes,at that) when she was struck on the head..(we already know from Dr Spitz that she was manually strangled by her shirt collar);it also says that both Patsy and JR were dressed...at least JR had his shirt on.But he does try to account for his underwear fibers (in DOI) in JB's room,and in the hallway where he says he was reading the RN ..to me, that says he was in the process of getting undressed,when he heard JB scream and ran to her room.


    No intruder evidence - how nice of you to admit there's no real evidence of an intruder other than what the Rs amateurishly tried to stage. The window and the ligature and sexual assault are all meant to indicate an intruder (cause supposedly, no Christian parent like the Rs pretended to be would do that to their own child.) The RN is the biggest piece of evidence meant to indicate an intruder. Too bad Patsy can NOT be eliminated as author of it, changed her writing right after the murder, and her own family members thought it looked like her writing. Patsy even told ST that she thought it looked like a woman wrote it. Hmmmm.
    I've always thought it strange that neither Patsy's mom or dad flew to CO. to be with her after JB's murder... her 2 sisters came instead.I take it they had a suspicion it was Patsy who did it,and didn't want to become involved..so they didn't show up.They sure did stay away for some reason,IMO.



    [ As for why the Rs refuse to act like other parents of murdered children and do all they can, they can't or won't because they know who killed JonBenet and have been covering for that person all these years.
    absolutely,JR appeared very smug when on tv after Patsy died..he didn't use his media time wisely,asking for help to find the killer,and he even laughed and said he felt sorry for Karr,after Karr was cleared.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
    Well, if everyone was absolutely sure that it's just Patsy trying to redirect everyone away, then I guess there wouldn't be much discussion.
    What exactly makes you doubt that Patsy was the main stager of the scene?
    Now, when an intruder is trying to direct the attention one way, one should look exactly the other way also. That's why the pineapple, no intruder evidence, why they called all their friends over, why they can't or won't figure it out who did it (when it was obviously close to home). All those things point to an intruder of course.
    There was no need for an intruder to leave a bogus ransom note behind with the body left in the home. The only people who needed to write that note were the Ramseys.
    [Rupert]:
    Just having fun. Now that 320 Sycamore is down what to do?
    Exchanging posts with genuine truth seekers for a change might be a good idea.

    I think you are an IDI who truly believes in the Ramseys' innocence, Rupert, but I'm convinced that on Sycamore, quite a few IDIs knew perfectly well that the JB Ramsey case IS an RDI case, which showed in their consciously distorting info. These people, for whatever reasons, don't want the truth to come out.

    jmo

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    Shanny,

    It depends on which sense you wish to use the word Premeditated.

    Someone may be mad, and still have due consideration to the time and method of their victim's death, would this be described as rational?

    There is enough forensic evidence to suggest that JonBenet was probably killed down in the basement by the use of a garrote and that this took place after she had sustained a head injury upstairs. So all the elements of a Premeditated Murder are in place e.g. the time and the method so selected in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension. e.g the accompanying staging in the wine-cellar.

    This is why JonBenet's death cannot be considered to be accidental, medical assistance could have been sought, but was not, instead she was callously asphyxiated, then possibly vaginally assaulted to fake a sexual assault. So in a court of law the charges laid against JonBenet's killer(s) would most likely be Premediated Murder!

    The sense in which Patsy was using the word Premeditated was planned, she realized given the forensic evidence, and the lack of any medical assistance offered to JonBenet that the only way to explain her death was that an intruder had planned it so. This was the basis for fellow Ramsey' travellor Lou Smit's Intruder Did It theory, who expanded upon it with wild speculation and a disregard for forensic evidence that calls into question his motives for promoting his IDI theory and appearing enthusiastically in the Ramsey funded documentaries.
    I believe it was a combination of a rage attack followed by a first-degree murder decided 'on the spot', so to speak.
    Imo once the offender realized irreparable damage had been done with the head blow, JonBenet's fate was sealed. The offender saw to it that she would never wake up again and strangled her fairly quickly after delivering the head blow. More than one motive came into play imo: Patsy neither wanted to be saddled with a severely brain-damaged child living in a vegetative state for the rest of her life, nor did she - should a miracle happen and JonBent recover from the head injury - want her to tell the world what had happened. jmo

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,391
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    What exactly makes you doubt that Patsy was the main stager of the scene?

    There was no need for an intruder to leave a bogus ransom note behind with the body left in the home. The only peple who needed to write that note were the Ramseys.

    Exchanging posts with genuine truth seekers for a change might be a good idea.

    I think you are an IDI who truly believes in the Ramseys' innocence, Rupert, but I'm convinced that on Sycamore, quite a few IDIs knew perfectly well that the JB Ramsey case IS an RDI case, which showed in their consciously distorting info. These people, for whatever reasons, don't want the truth to come out.

    jmo
    Brilliant. I would also expect that many of the those from that forum will need to seek a place to set down their soap boxes and begin to broadcast their truths. That might have a few of us rising to the challenge of seeking to promote that the truth one day comes out.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,890
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon View Post
    I believe it was a combination of a rage attack followed by a first-degree murder decided 'on the spot', so to speak.
    Imo once the offender realized irreparable damage had been done with the head blow, JonBenet's fate was sealed. The offender saw to it that she would never wake up again and strangled her fairly quickly after delivering the head blow. More than one motive came into play imo: Patsy neither wanted to be saddled with a severely brain-damaged child living in a vegetative state for the rest of her life, nor did she - should a miracle happen and JonBent recover from the head injury - want her to tell the world what had happened. jmo

    rashomon,
    You may be correct. I am not entirely convinced about the sequence of events, athough it does appear that there was a short period of time between JonBenet being initially assaulted and whichever method was used to finally kill her. Otherwise there should have been a measurable swelling of her brain, since all the methods used in her homicide lead to brain-swelling. This will be why Coroner Meyer's remarks e.g.

    CLINICOPATHLOGIC CORRELATION: Cause of death of this six year old
    female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral
    trauma.
    links both events asphyxia by strangulation and craniocerebral
    trauma
    since either independently or in concert lead to hypoxia and potential subsequent brain-swelling, but nowhere in the autopsy report do the words swell , enlarged, edema occur the latter being the technical term for brain-swelling!

    This means its possible that JonBenet was manually strangled to the point of near-death, followed soon after with the head blow and garroting both intended as staging, but not in the fake sense since the violence was real!

    I do not think the blow to JonBenet's head was accidental I watched a program which measured the forces to a child's head, from falling from a chair to the floor, and from being shaken violently, and neither would kill the child. With her head injury being near the top of her head, its not a place for an accident to occur, maybe the back, the front, low on the side, all from falls, but not the one inflicted?

    So I wonder now if the wine-cellar represents a more complete staging along with last-minute wiping away of blood, than we considered before?

    Also why would anyone vaginally assault JonBenet during the staging process, then cover it up?

    .

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Robert Ressler on JonBenet's Murder
    By Toltec in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-04-2013, 09:51 AM
  2. Felony Murder Vs Premeditated Murder
    By JBean in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 02:45 AM
  3. Premeditated Murder #972
    By JBean in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 340
    Last Post: 10-21-2009, 11:13 PM
  4. Premeditated murder by an Intruder
    By Toltec in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 05-10-2005, 04:23 PM