Questions you'd like answers to...

[Leighcara]

So many police investigations are well, less than expert, to say the least. I’ve recently read Bringing Adam Home, about John Walsh’s son and his murder investigation. Otis Toole confessed 2 years after his murder, (as he continued to do, even taking lead detective to site of where little Adam’s head had been found), it was all mucked up from then on.

 

[edpower]

Ok, so if the parents did do it, I have one question....why did they stage a second cause of death?

To clarify, if John, Patsy, and/or Burke killed JonBenet (by accident or on purpose) by either strangling her or by a head injury, then why cover it up by either strangling her or hitting her on the head?

Ex:

* Family member(s) kill JonBenet.
* Family member(s) decides to cover it up that they did it.
* To cover it up, family member(s) then further brutalize the already dead body to make it look like it was murdered?

Why would they fake "re-kill" the already murdered body to make it look murdered if it was already murdered?

I feel like I'm missing something here.

Thanks.

 

[David Rogers]

The most likely events from my view is a hot in the head. Then when she couldn’t be woken up the body was dragged into hiding.

 

[edpower]

The most likely events from my view is a hot in the head. Then when she couldn’t be woken up the body was dragged into hiding.

Thanks for the reply. But this is what I mean...she's hit in the head, so they decide to then violently strangle her ON TOP OF THAT?

Why? She was hit in the head already, and she wasn't dead, why not fake an accident instead and call 911 saying she has a head injury?

I apologize if this is me just being slow, but the the family memeber(s) thought pattern is/are:

"Ok, she's hit in the head. Let's not call 911 and..."

And what? Drag her down stairs. Ok, Then what? Eventually they came to the idea:

"Well, we'll need to violently strangle her too."

And my question is why? If she's dead form the head injury, you don't need to strangle her, and if she isn't dead, why kill then her, and why with a violent strangulation?

 

[Emerald2]

edpower:

The question you raised has always been a serious problem for RDI theorists, especially for the vast majority who presume the crime started as an accident.

In the original theory of Steve Thomas it is supposed Patsy accidentally caused the head blow. Instead of calling 911 she sought to protect herself by staging an intruder scenario, because she believed JonBenet was already dead.

There are many RDI advocates who find this narrative hard to believe, not least because Patsy and her husband were highly intelligent people who one would expect to be able to determine if their daughter was dead or not. Hence it is common to suppose JonBenet was being sexually molested by someone in the family, and the murder was done to cover this up. This is theoretically possible, but it depends on assumptions to make it work:

1 JonBenet really was being sexually abused. Expert opinion is divided on this.
2 The Ramseys were aware of this abuse.
3 The Ramseys believed the abuse would be discovered if their daughter was taken to the hospital.

There are still others, more common in recent years, who believe Burke did it (either in total or just the head strike by accident) and the parents felt the need to continue with the crime to protect Burke.

 

[edpower]

edpower:

The question you raised has always been a serious problem for RDI theorists, especially for the vast majority who presume the crime started as an accident.

In the original theory of Steve Thomas it is supposed Patsy accidentally caused the head blow. Instead of calling 911 she sought to protect herself by staging an intruder scenario, because she believed JonBenet was already dead.

There are many RDI advocates who find this narrative hard to believe, not least because Patsy and her husband were highly intelligent people who one would expect to be able to determine if their daughter was dead or not. Hence it is common to suppose JonBenet was being sexually molested by someone in the family, and the murder was done to cover this up. This is theoretically possible, but it depends on assumptions to make it work:

1 JonBenet really was being sexually abused. Expert opinion is divided on this.
2 The Ramseys were aware of this abuse.
3 The Ramseys believed the abuse would be discovered if their daughter was taken to the hospital.

There are still others, more common in recent years, who believe Burke did it (either in total or just the head strike by accident) and the parents felt the need to continue with the crime to protect Burke.

Thanks for the reply!

So, then the theory is goes:

Child is injured and near death, so badly they'd have to take her to a hospital. Despite regularly taking the daughter to doctors previously, it's decided that can't happen, because the hospital will see she has been molested.

So, it's then decided to fake a person breaking in and molesting the daughter, but she's still alive, so we'll strangle her until she is dead, so she is now murdered and molested so she can't talk about the molestation to the cops if she does come to.

And then they decided they'd write a ransom note, also? Instead of just doing all of that and calling 911 to report that their daughter is missing, or that they found her dead down the basement?

I mean, nothing in the case makes sense, but the RDI theory seems to be the one that gets the most backing as the most logical theory, and to me it makes just as little/much sense as most of the other theories, and I don't get why.

 

[Emerald2]

edpower:

You have put your finger on the contrived flavor of most RDI theories. The RDI point of view receives backing not because it is a very logical theory, but because it is supported by most of the available evidence such as the similarity of Patsy's handwriting to that of the note, her failure to change clothes overnight, and the inability of the Ramseys to account for the pineapple.

Some believe the findings of trace DNA on JonBenet point to an intruder, but this is a double-edged sword, for every time someone suggests someone specific as the intruder it turns out their DNA is not a match.

Now if the Ramseys committed the murder deliberately then the contrived flavor of the RDI point of view would disappear. For if the initial head strike failed to kill JonBenet it would only be natural to try something else. But there is nothing in the background of the Ramseys to suggest they were capable of such a thing, nor any obvious motive, so most RDI advocates discount this approach.

 

[UKGuy]

Ok, so if the parents did do it, I have one question....why did they stage a second cause of death?

To clarify, if John, Patsy, and/or Burke killed JonBenet (by accident or on purpose) by either strangling her or by a head injury, then why cover it up by either strangling her or hitting her on the head?

Ex:

* Family member(s) kill JonBenet.
* Family member(s) decides to cover it up that they did it.
* To cover it up, family member(s) then further brutalize the already dead body to make it look like it was murdered?

Why would they fake "re-kill" the already murdered body to make it look murdered if it was already murdered?

I feel like I'm missing something here.

Thanks.

edpower,
Yup, what your missing is the staging effect.

Whenever by whomever injured JonBenet it did not look as if someone had murdered JonBenet. Add to this that the parents decided to fake a crime-scene, e.g. the wine-cellar, then they needed some visible sign that made it self evident that this was the cause of JonBenet's death and not what had transpired before, so they likely tried a head whack, no luck, then a ligature asphyxiation, this did the trick?

So the answer lies in your assumption that JonBenet already looked as if she had been murdered, she may have been dead, but did not fit the parents profile of an intruder homicide, so they rolled their own, one that no parent would ever commit and it mainly worked, which is why so many people do not think the parents were involved!

In psychology 101 its called the halo affect, nice wealthy parents who are millionaires they could never kill their daughter, Lou Smit played on this by saying he believed a church going Christian family like the Ramsey's were innocent.

 

[necnaw]

It is for this reason that I believe the strangulation was a part of the original assault and crime and not a part of the following cover up. I don't personally believe Patsy or John did anything to Jonbenet's body other than tying her wrists, placing tape on her mouth, and wrapping her in a blanket. I believe James Kolar believes the same, and I do tend to trust his theory given that he has seen a lot of evidence that we have not

 

[Swirlz]

According to a child abuse expert who reviewed the autopsy slides, the type of genital wound JonBenet sustained would've caused her to scream. The scream provoked the head-bash. The ligature strangulation was done to prevent her from ever waking up and telling.

 

[Userid]

Ok, so if the parents did do it, I have one question....why did they stage a second cause of death?

To clarify, if John, Patsy, and/or Burke killed JonBenet (by accident or on purpose) by either strangling her or by a head injury, then why cover it up by either strangling her or hitting her on the head?

Ex:

* Family member(s) kill JonBenet.
* Family member(s) decides to cover it up that they did it.
* To cover it up, family member(s) then further brutalize the already dead body to make it look like it was murdered?

Why would they fake "re-kill" the already murdered body to make it look murdered if it was already murdered?

I feel like I'm missing something here.

Thanks.

This is a good question. I used to believe that the strangulation was staged, but over time, I'm not so sure. I feel now like the strangulation was a part of the initial assault and/or punishment. I think that perhaps the garrotte was the one element that was technically staged, but that the strangulation itself was not "staged." As we know, the garrotte didn't function like a proper garrotte. With a normal garrotte (if I recall correctly), one must twist it; but with this garrotte, it was supposedly pulled -- this basically defeats the entire purpose of a garrotte and makes it more of a simple "handle" than anything.

Add this to your series of questions: why would they need to bind JBR's wrists? Wouldn't the garrotte itself be enough? It makes you wonder if the wrist bindings were applied first, before the stagers realized they needed to account for the deep furrow in her neck.

 

[Cottonstar]

Ok, so if the parents did do it, I have one question....why did they stage a second cause of death?

To clarify, if John, Patsy, and/or Burke killed JonBenet (by accident or on purpose) by either strangling her or by a head injury, then why cover it up by either strangling her or hitting her on the head?

Ex:

* Family member(s) kill JonBenet.
* Family member(s) decides to cover it up that they did it.
* To cover it up, family member(s) then further brutalize the already dead body to make it look like it was murdered?

Why would they fake "re-kill" the already murdered body to make it look murdered if it was already murdered?

I feel like I'm missing something here.

Thanks.

You answered your own question.

 

[David Rogers]

Thanks for the reply. But this is what I mean...she's hit in the head, so they decide to then violently strangle her ON TOP OF THAT?

Why? She was hit in the head already, and she wasn't dead, why not fake an accident instead and call 911 saying she has a head injury?

I apologize if this is me just being slow, but the the family memeber(s) thought pattern is/are:

"Ok, she's hit in the head. Let's not call 911 and..."

And what? Drag her down stairs. Ok, Then what? Eventually they came to the idea:

"Well, we'll need to violently strangle her too."

And my question is why? If she's dead form the head injury, you don't need to strangle her, and if she isn't dead, why kill then her, and why with a violent strangulation?

she was drug to be hidden. The dragging actually choked her to death. The rest was staging.

 

[Swirlz]

If someone wanted to drag her they could easily have just pulled her by her arm or ankle.

 

[kaykay543]

In my opinion the strangling was initially a sex game and she was accidentally killed. Then she was hit on the head to make it look like an intruder murdered her. I think it was done to try to hide the sexual assault.

I think the wrist ties were added after she died to go in with the intruder murder. They weren't really "tied".

I also think initially they were going to move the body outside of the house (to go with the kidnapping) but either ran out of time or just couldn't put her out in the cold. JR knew exactly where she was the entire time.

 

[Userid]

I think the most important question is, why wouldn't the R's simply frame this as an accident no matter who was responsible?

That is why I think that the strangulation was not staging. You could not frame it as an "accident" with that deep furrow in her neck, it would have been impossible.

And I also believe that the head injury and the strangulation were both done out of anger.

 

[Cottonstar]

I think the most important question is, why wouldn't the R's simply frame this as an accident no matter who was responsible?

That is why I think that the strangulation was not staging. You could not frame it as an "accident" with that deep furrow in her neck, it would have been impossible.

And I also believe that the head injury and the strangulation were both done out of anger.

UID-

Is that you?

 

[David Rogers]

If someone wanted to drag her they could easily have just pulled her by her arm or ankle.

Unless you don’t have the grip to hold on to a leg or arm. A tug rope was known to scouts.

 

[Swirlz]

A 9 yr. old could easily pull an unconscious 6 yr. old by an ankle or wrist.

 

[Userid]

UID-

Is that you?

Haha, yes, hi Cottonstar. I thought you'd like that. I'm trying to remember our exact argument but can't recall my stance, as it was a while ago. I'm assuming back then I thought it was staging, but now I've changed my stance on that particular element of the crime -- at least for the time being. I'm sure we still disagree on BR's involvement, so I haven't changed my stance completely of course.