Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

Whaleshark said:

how can there not be a consideration of murder 1 when autopsy report states one of the causes of death as asphyxiation by the ligature fashioned around her with the handle - premeditation only has to take a second. it took at least a second to decide to use the ligature for asphyxiation, whether or not the headblow was already there. it's not just a staged ligature, as proven by the autopsy report in determining cause of death....

unless that was proven to be like a drawstring on some window blinds causing an accidental death, which it's not, I don't see how you could not be able to go for murder 1 in that respect.

maybe if there was only the headblow and no other direct cause.....

___

Okay, DeeDee you were editing your post apparently when I was asking this question.... I see what you're saying, but still,
yes, you'd have to have a pretty serious argument like what the other reason for the ligature is, for it to not be considered a premeditation cause for murder 1.

Otherwise, it is premeditated to put the ligature on her for strangulation, and to argue that it was not that, therefore not intended to kill her - only a handful of possible reasons could be for that (like yes, admitting the EA actions), but once you put the ligature strangulation together with eveything else, you are going to have to come up with some serious detailed story about why it was not premeditated, after all that you see there, when in fact it did kill her - it's going to have to be pretty colorful, outrageous, or both....


but then, that's what they did with casey anthony - and they won. so who knows.

Click to expand...

Premeditation does not mean thinking about it as you are doing it. Premeditation requires thinking about it at a previous time. The fact that both these actions did actually kill her (head bash, ligature) cannot be considered in court as evidence that the perp INTENDED to kill her. I know that this seems obvious to many people, but the DA had to view this case as a lawyer would, and that is very different. The police are not lawyers, but the DA is. That is why there is sometimes a conflict when the police want charges to be filed and the DA balks.

Examples of premeditation would be attempting to hire someone to kill, setting up a false alibi, or shopping for bleach and rope and tarps (like Scott Peterson). Taking out an insurance policy is also another clue.
And of course, incriminating phone calls, texts, e-mails. None of these were evident in the R case.
We do know that one of the Rs purchased items, matching exactly in price and department to the duct tape and cord, at a local hardware store in town (McGuckin's) a few weeks before. BUT the store's register system shows ONLY the price and department on the register tape, NOT the actual item. Newer systems show the item, like going to Shop Rite and the register tape shows "quart of milk" or "diet Coke". The older systems only showed price and department (like "produce" or "meats" or "dairy", etc.) The McGuckin's tape only showed a general department, like "hardware", or "paints" or "outdoor", or "plumbing", that type of thing.
So there was no way to PROVE beyond a doubt that the two items purchased were, in FACT, the tape and cord. To do that, there would have to be a TRIAL and a McGuckin's employee would have to be questioned on the witness stand as to whether ONLY the tape and cord were sold at that specific price in that specific department or if other items were sold at those prices as well.
There was a LOT that could have been questioned or clarified at a trial- and as we know, there was no trial.

but what i'm talking about is this - that premeditation IS considered thinking of it ahead of time in some states, even if only by a few seconds:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premeditated_murder"]Premeditated murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

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.[1]

State laws in the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation."
In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder. Premeditated murder is usually defined as one of the most serious forms of homicide, and is punished more severely than manslaughter or other types of murder - often with the death penalty or a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

In the U.S, Federal law criminalizes premeditated murder, felony murder and second-degree murder at Title 18 United States Code Section 1111.
__

Or this even:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/first-degree-murder-definition.html

First Degree Murder Definition:

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.

Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule", under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies - usually arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery.

For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they are fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death.
___

So once she was hit on the head (even if accidentally), according to the above, when they start to use a ligature as well, it looks like in some states, it could be considered pre-meditated, and possibly tried as murder 1?

DeeDee249 said:

Premeditation does not mean thinking about it as you are doing it. Premeditation requires thinking about it at a previous time. The fact that both these actions did actually kill her (head bash, ligature) cannot be considered in court as evidence that the perp INTENDED to kill her. I know that this seems obvious to many people, but the DA had to view this case as a lawyer would, and that is very different. The police are not lawyers, but the DA is. That is why there is sometimes a conflict when the police want charges to be filed and the DA balks.

Examples of premeditation would be attempting to hire someone to kill, setting up a false alibi, or shopping for bleach and rope and tarps (like Scott Peterson). Taking out an insurance policy is also another clue.
And of course, incriminating phone calls, texts, e-mails. None of these were evident in the R case.
We do know that one of the Rs purchased items, matching exactly in price and department to the duct tape and cord, at a local hardware store in town (McGuckin's) a few weeks before. BUT the store's register system shows ONLY the price and department on the register tape, NOT the actual item. Newer systems show the item, like going to Shop Rite and the register tape shows "quart of milk" or "diet Coke". The older systems only showed price and department (like "produce" or "meats" or "dairy", etc.) The McGuckin's tape only showed a general department, like "hardware", or "paints" or "outdoor", or "plumbing", that type of thing.
So there was no way to PROVE beyond a doubt that the two items purchased were, in FACT, the tape and cord. To do that, there would have to be a TRIAL and a McGuckin's employee would have to be questioned on the witness stand as to whether ONLY the tape and cord were sold at that specific price in that specific department or if other items were sold at those prices as well.
There was a LOT that could have been questioned or clarified at a trial- and as we know, there was no trial.

Click to expand...

DeeDee249,
I reckon you are right, and the legal niceties would have taken over, plea-baragaining etc.

I reckon Patsy could claim and plea-bargain 2nd Degree, although she might have to admit the final asphyxiation was intended as staging, e.g. she assumed she was already dead.

If the prosecution can demonstrate that the wine-cellar is staging, along with the ransom note etc. Then this is apriori proof of premeditation, the only point of contention might be Patsy's intent on applying the garrote, hence the eventual plea-bargain?

.

UKGuy said:

DeeDee249,
I reckon you are right, and the legal niceties would have taken over, plea-baragaining etc.

I reckon Patsy could claim and plea-bargain 2nd Degree, although she might have to admit the final asphyxiation was intended as staging, e.g. she assumed she was already dead.

If the prosecution can demonstrate that the wine-cellar is staging, along with the ransom note etc. Then this is apriori proof of premeditation, the only point of contention might be Patsy's intent on applying the garrote, hence the eventual plea-bargain?

.

Click to expand...

No- NONE of the wineceller activities is evidence of premeditation, as the entire wineceller and staged crime scene, including the note, occurred AFTER her death.
If Patsy (or whoever tightened that cord) did intend to kill her at the time she was doing it, it would then be second degree murder, not first, because there was no evidence of premeditation.
But PROVING the perp intended to kill JB at the time of her death is difficult, with no living eyewitness who is not willing to testify that was the intent. Spouses can't be compelled to testify against each other, so the likelihood of Patsy or JR accusing the other is virtually non-existent. To me, this says they either BOTH had something to hide and/or were culpable in some way, or they were protecting someone else.

DeeDee249 said:

No- NONE of the wineceller activities is evidence of premeditation, as the entire wineceller and staged crime scene, including the note, occurred AFTER her death.
If Patsy (or whoever tightened that cord) did intend to kill her at the time she was doing it, it would then be second degree murder, not first, because there was no evidence of premeditation.
But PROVING the perp intended to kill JB at the time of her death is difficult, with no living eyewitness who is not willing to testify that was the intent. Spouses can't be compelled to testify against each other, so the likelihood of Patsy or JR accusing the other is virtually non-existent. To me, this says they either BOTH had something to hide and/or were culpable in some way, or they were protecting someone else.

Click to expand...

DeeDee249,

as the entire wineceller and staged crime scene, including the note, occurred AFTER her death.

Click to expand...

Well the temporal aspects are for the coroner and expert witness to chew over. I reckon the DA could have used the threat of a 1st Degree charge as a bargaining chip.

To me, this says they either BOTH had something to hide and/or were culpable in some way, or they were protecting someone else.

Click to expand...

Or a combination of all three if JonBenet was a prior victim of more than one relative? It does appear as if something was being hidden, makes me wonder about the BDI a little more. Until I see the Ramsey DNA results on the table, I'll continue to consider a BDI.

.

Thanks to all who gave their opinions regarding my question. My opinion is that if this was premeditated (I'll admit it's a big "if"), that Patsy had considered killing JonBenet, not necessarily on Christmas night, just that the thought had crossed her mind at times.
Hope that makes sense. I am currently sitting at the hospital with my husband who will have to stay the week, so my mind is a little scattered.

Squishified said:

Thanks to all who gave their opinions regarding my question. My opinion is that if this was premeditated (I'll admit it's a big "if"), that Patsy had considered killing JonBenet, not necessarily on Christmas night, just that the thought had crossed her mind at times.
Hope that makes sense. I am currently sitting at the hospital with my husband who will have to stay the week, so my mind is a little scattered.

Click to expand...

Squishified,
I doubt JonBenet's murder was planned well in advance. By premeditated, I mean Patsy had to decide whether to allow JonBenet medical assistance, or ignore it, and proceed to asphyxiate her. The forensic evidence, e.g. Patsy's fibers etc, seems to suggest she did.

Patsy knew JonBenet would report being molested, also her internal injuries would be self evident on arrival at hospital. So she strangled her!


.


.

UKGuy said:

Squishified,
I doubt JonBenet's murder was planned well in advance. By premeditated, I mean Patsy had to decide whether to allow JonBenet medical assistance, or ignore it, and proceed to asphyxiate her. The forensic evidence, e.g. Patsy's fibers etc, seems to suggest she did.

Patsy knew JonBenet would report being molested, also her internal injuries would be self evident on arrival at hospital. So she strangled her!


.


.

Click to expand...

In the US, that does not meet the definition of premeditated murder. Denying someone medical assistance, thus allowing them to die, is actually only manslaughter. If it could be proved that the strangulation was meant to hasten an inevitable death, that is more serious, but neither suggests premeditation. Premeditated murder means something that is planned in advance, not something you plan as you are in the middle of it.

DeeDee249 said:

In the US, that does not meet the definition of premeditated murder. Denying someone medical assistance, thus allowing them to die, is actually only manslaughter. If it could be proved that the strangulation was meant to hasten an inevitable death, that is more serious, but neither suggests premeditation. Premeditated murder means something that is planned in advance, not something you plan as you are in the middle of it.

Click to expand...

DeeDee249,
Point taken, possibly deliberate might be a better description, e.g. not an accident.



.

DeeDee249 said:

In the US, that does not meet the definition of premeditated murder. Denying someone medical assistance, thus allowing them to die, is actually only manslaughter. If it could be proved that the strangulation was meant to hasten an inevitable death, that is more serious, but neither suggests premeditation. Premeditated murder means something that is planned in advance, not something you plan as you are in the middle of it.

Click to expand...

sorry.... just a thought.....how do we know PR did not premeditated JBR´d death.....she bought the large underwear in advance not for her niece.....maybe she knew about the sexual abuse(if JR has been doing it) or she was abusing her daughter and planed on kill JBR ???!!??....

DIRK SCHILLER said:

sorry.... just a thought.....how do we know PR did not premeditated JBR´d death.....she bought the large underwear in advance not for her niece.....maybe she knew about the sexual abuse(if JR has been doing it) or she was abusing her daughter and planed on kill JBR ???!!??....

Click to expand...

I cannot make any connection between the purchase of the size 12 underwear and planning to kill JB. Please explain how you think the purchase of the panties indicates that the murder was premeditated.

It is always possible that Patsy did know that JB was being abused, and it is also possible that Patsy was the abuser (I don't think this was the case).
Of course, we DON'T know what Patsy was thinking, or whether she planned in advance to kill her daughter, but nothing I have read about this case indicates to me that this was planned in advanced by anyone.

DeeDee249 said:

I cannot make any connection between the purchase of the size 12 underwear and planning to kill JB. Please explain how you think the purchase of the panties indicates that the murder was premeditated.

It is always possible that Patsy did know that JB was being abused, and it is also possible that Patsy was the abuser (I don't think this was the case).
Of course, we DON'T know what Patsy was thinking, or whether she planned in advance to kill her daughter, but nothing I have read about this case indicates to me that this was planned in advanced by anyone.

Click to expand...

well......maybe buying a larger size was planned because she wanted police to think a sexual paedo had abused and killed her....then he wanted her to wear it as a kind of sexual ritual or kinda she would look older..... don´t know ,just a thought......but PR had already thought about catching both of them (dad and daughter) doing it....or it was part of Patsy´s plan?!?!?? (staging)

DIRK SCHILLER said:

well......maybe buying a larger size was planned because she wanted police to think a sexual paedo had abused and killed her....then he wanted her to wear it as a kind of sexual ritual or kinda she would look older..... don´t know ,just a thought......but PR had already thought about catching both of them (dad and daughter) doing it....or it was part of Patsy´s plan?!?!?? (staging)

Click to expand...

DIRK SCHILLER,
We cannot know what was in Patsy's mind, prior to the death of JonBenet. If Patsy intended the size-12's to play some part in JonBenet's death then her admission that she purchased them has to be explained away.

Remember BPD has, conveniently, not made public if there were any Bloomingdales size-6 in JonBenet's underwear drawer, e.g. the counterpart to the size-12's. Many expect that there were, and that a Wednesday size-6 pair should be missing?

Patsy likely wanted JonBenet's clothing to be as consistent with Wednesday as possible, hence the Bloomingdales size-12. This is the behavioural factor that you might see popping up in a Columbo movie, and why he nails the killer, e.g. he/she was so orderly, lists for this, schedules for that etc. So was Patsy like this or was she an untidy disordered type?


When you attempt to work out what took place, I find the staging helps since certain events took place first, e.g. wiping her down, then applying the size-12's.

Whatever Patsy's prior plans were, wrt size-12's, any notion of a pedophile scenario, had long evaporated by the time JonBenet had been relocated to the basement, how many people think everything took place in the basement?

Without John's shirt fibers on JonBenet, I'd be inclined to go for a PDI. Which for me is how a Columbo movie might portray it, e.g. the opening scene is Patsy down in the basement placing a paintbrush against the wall, next to the wine-cellar, where she stamps on it, breaking it in two. Next you see her attaching the handle of the paintbrush to the ligature already loosely hanging from JonBenet's neck. From here it skips to John finding his way downstairs, kneeling down to read the note, and then Patsy dialling 911, except in this case, Columbo turns up smoking his cigar, complaining how his Christmas schedule has been disturbed.

So why are John's shirt fibers on JonBenet. The forensic evidence suggests they arrived prior to basement staging. Now the longjohns were said to be sourced upstairs, and the size-12's in the basement, why the discrepancy?

Why was JonBenet wiped down, why was this required if it was simply as per Steve Thomas' theory, a bedwetting affair? JonBenet was only 6-years old, so why was there blood present, and where was her size-6 underwear?

If we can ask these questions, then I reckon so did Steve Thomas et al, suggesting the bedwetting theory was a smokescreen. So if Patsy had a plan which involved a pedophile, why did she bring JonBenet down to the basement, wipe her down, redress her, then attach a piece of paintbrush handle to her neck? When leaving JonBenet naked from the neck down, in her own bedroom, bloodstained and visibly the victim of a sexually motivated homicide, should have been the most obvious course of staging?

This along with those fibers, the missing information about the underwear, and of course, were there any partially opened gifts intended for Jenny? On the latter I think not, since BPD never questioned Patsy on this, even when she volunteered information, then again they never expanded on the Barbie Doll?


.

UKGuy- I like how you brought up how Columbo would handle this. Now THAT would make a great episode. Too bad Columbo isn't real.

And if I may clarify, when I say that there may have been premeditation, I don't mean that Patsy thought out how she was going to kill JonBenet. Just that maybe she had thoughts of killing her. I know Patsy said something about the My Twinn doll looking like JonBenet in a coffin. Didn't she say other odd things like that? My mind is mush right now and I can't remember any other specifics.

DIRK SCHILLER said:

well......maybe buying a larger size was planned because she wanted police to think a sexual paedo had abused and killed her....then he wanted her to wear it as a kind of sexual ritual or kinda she would look older..... don´t know ,just a thought......but PR had already thought about catching both of them (dad and daughter) doing it....or it was part of Patsy´s plan?!?!?? (staging)

Click to expand...

Hey, DIRK SCHILLER- that's a theory I've never heard. I'm not sold on it, but I like how you think outside the box. Since the case has never been "solved" you never know what info will make the whole thing make sense.

UK, your post about Columbo reminded me of something. Weren't a box of John's Cuban cigars listed on a warrant and taken in? And wasn't he questioned about said cigars or the box and they were in the basement? I seriously doubt the investigators were working-in an investigation involving illegal smokes along with JonBenet's death. There must have been something important there. I've forgotten more about this case than I remember!

I've always thought that if Patsy bought the size 12 panties for any purpose other than as a Christmas gift for her niece in Georgia, it was so JonBenet would have little girl panties that would fit over the diapers/pull-ups she is said to have worn.

Squishified said:

UKGuy- I like how you brought up how Columbo would handle this. Now THAT would make a great episode. Too bad Columbo isn't real.

And if I may clarify, when I say that there may have been premeditation, I don't mean that Patsy thought out how she was going to kill JonBenet. Just that maybe she had thoughts of killing her. I know Patsy said something about the My Twinn doll looking like JonBenet in a coffin. Didn't she say other odd things like that? My mind is mush right now and I can't remember any other specifics.

Click to expand...

Squishified,
Well I guess I like Columbo more than other tv detectives, even the modern CSI stuff, which bores me, as the characters are sooo stereotyped, e.g. people with large glasses and white coats, tossing out nerdy salad words, requesting analysis of this or that. There is one CSI series where the scientific character is a goofy female, who is patently an individual, probably modeled on a punk personality type, well that is a setup I cannot sit back, relax and enjoy, its so fake!


I agree with your use of premeditation thats loosely how am using it too. Since we do know Patsy said she was worried about JonBenet flirting, so if anything was amiss behind the scenes, which she did not want the world to know about, then its a short step to imagining why Patsy might actually have a motive or rationale for killing JonBenet?


.

BOESP said:

UK, your post about Columbo reminded me of something. Weren't a box of John's Cuban cigars listed on a warrant and taken in? And wasn't he questioned about said cigars or the box and they were in the basement? I seriously doubt the investigators were working-in an investigation involving illegal smokes along with JonBenet's death. There must have been something important there. I've forgotten more about this case than I remember!

I've always thought that if Patsy bought the size 12 panties for any purpose other than as a Christmas gift for her niece in Georgia, it was so JonBenet would have little girl panties that would fit over the diapers/pull-ups she is said to have worn.

Click to expand...

BOESP,
There was a box of Cuban cigars, I remember someone offered a reasonable explanation for them and they have just never resurfaced as an issue?

it was so JonBenet would have little girl panties that would fit over the diapers/pull-ups she is said to have worn.

Click to expand...

Why would Patsy not have told her interviewers this? Why invent the Jenny tale? You could be 100% correct, since the size-12's are so bizarre, you have to wonder why whomever redressed JonBenet did not stop and think, how will this look?



.

The housekeeper LHP told police that, although JB started wearing Pull-Ups again at around age 3, well AFTER she had been potty trained, that Patsy didn't like putting them on her and she had long since stopped using them. JB had long stopped wearing pull-ups at the time of her death.

UKGuy said:

<snip> Why would Patsy not have told her interviewers this? Why invent the Jenny tale? You could be 100% correct, since the size-12's are so bizarre, you have to wonder why whomever redressed JonBenet did not stop and think, how will this look?



.

Click to expand...

Maybe Patsy was embarrassed for the world to know that JonBenet had soiling issues at her age and still required diapers. That's a sure sign of abuse in many cases, especially the regression soiling we are told JonBenet had.

I think whoever redressed her goofed in their thinking. I'd say Patsy would never want her daughter to have been found without underwear. Since Patsy said JonBenet had on the same clothing as the night before, Patsy needed Wednesday panties in case someone at the Whites knew what type panties JonBenet had worn the previous night (as in they helped her with bathroom duties at the White's party).