Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[Flatlander]

1991 PMPT Page 181 -
"Burke had this red scout knife and had always whittled. He'd never use a bag or paper to catch the shavings. He's whittle all over the place. I asked Patsy to have a talk with him. She answered, "Well I don't know what to do other than take the knife away from him." After Thanksgiving I took that knife away from him and hid it in the cupboard just outside JonBenet's room. That's how that problem was solved... LHP.
'Page 437
"Then there was the issue of where Burke/s red pocket knife had been kept prior to the murder; it was found a few yards from JonBenet's body."
Two weeks later Burke shocked a police psychologist by shouting, "I know what happened. She was killed. Someone took her quitely and took her down in the basement...took a knife out...hit her on the head." At that point only the police knew that Burke's Swiss Army knife had been found next to JonBenet's body.

One last little note here. Burke's best friend was Doug Stine not Fleet White's son. Nathan Inouye, whom was also a close friend of the Ramsey's was, the teen college student who lived at the Stine's house and was Doug Stine's caregiver while the parents, Glen and Susan Stine, worked at the University. 21 year old NI, regularly drove Burke and JB to school. He wasn't even known to the cops until the Atlanta interview in 2000. I doublt that NI has never been properly investigated and interviewed to this day.

My take as been for along time that the last stop on Christmas 1996 was to drop off gifts at the Stine's. I believe that Doug Stine was invited to go on the after Christmas flight to Michigan and then on the Disney Red Boat with Burke and family. Maybe, just maybe NI decided to pay a visit that evening. The boys let him in...he could have possibly put on the Santa suit and paid a visit to JonBenet. Burke and Doug decided to investigate, catching NI Burke picked up a driver from his dad's bag intending to hit NI and instead hit JB. Then the coverup begins ....:twocents:

 

[sandover]

JonBenet was molested, it was a known fact i.e. dictionary turned and cornered to ear mark incest in JR den.

I believe Patsy killed JonBenet and covered it up and John was an accomplice much later (see my full theory on the members' theory thread).

But one detail that has never made sense to me is the dictionary being open and earmarked to highlight the word incest.

Wouldn't someone as surface-obsessed as Patsy have closed the dictionary had she been looking up the word?

It's not an uncommon word so why was anyone looking it up anyway?

If Patsy staged the crime, why not shut the dictionary?

This detail has always been one of the few that suggests an intruder trying to frame the Ramseys.

 

[UKGuy]

I believe Patsy killed JonBenet and covered it up and John was an accomplice much later (see my full theory on the members' theory thread).

But one detail that has never made sense to me is the dictionary being open and earmarked to highlight the word incest.

Wouldn't someone as surface-obsessed as Patsy have closed the dictionary had she been looking up the word?

It's not an uncommon word so why was anyone looking it up anyway?

If Patsy staged the crime, why not shut the dictionary?

This detail has always been one of the few that suggests an intruder trying to frame the Ramseys.

sandover,
The dictionary fact[/i might have no connection with the death of JonBenet at all. In any crime lots of established facts are simply the result of accident, and everyday life occurrence. Any word or none may have been looked at on those pages.


BDI is a more consistent theory than PDI or JDI. With the absence of the release of any DNA results relating to the Ramsey's this could be accounted for by a BDI and his age at the time of JonBenet's death?

 

[shotgunhomicide]

I just think it's ridiculous speculation to assume that JR and PR sent BR to FW's home to alleviate the burden of taking Burke with them if they planned to leave the country.

First of all, they had no idea how things were going to play out at that point. Why take the risk of staging the kidnapping and hoping LE bought it when they could have simply left the country and then informed someone about JB's death, or simply just leave her body in the wine cellar until the housekeeper came to the house later that day to collect the money she was borrowing from PR? Evading justice by leaving the country would have automatically meant they were guilty. I'm sure they knew this and they seemed to relish in the attention given to the absurd details of their complicity in the murder. I simply see no logic in this choice and if it was a consideration, I don't see them leaving Burke, period. They've shown fierce devotion to keeping what was left of their family together by evading the police and refusing to cooperate. If they didn't give them any of the information they asked of them, LE couldn't find inconsistencies in their story.

I will never believe that the R's intended to hide JB's body from LE until they could stage her body being returned by the killers. The Ramsey's were not idiots. Surely they knew they would be heavily monitored by the police. In fact, it's probable that a police escort would stay behind to tap the phone lines incase a call came in. They already disregarded the instructions left in the RN. It would have been beyond silly to start following it at that point.

As DD has said, it makes all of the sense in the world to send BR away from the house while all of this was going on to avoid him seeing his sister's body or to keep him from being questioned by police or the Ramsey's hoard of friends they called over. Those reasons are good enough reasons alone. If they are truly guilty, his safety was of no concern to them. They had more to risk by keeping him around than they did by simply passing him on until the worst of it was revealed.

Another thing people keep asking about is why the Ramsey's would want to flee to Atlanta after the events of the night of the 25th took place. Obviously, the most important and logical thing would be to put some distance between themselves and LE, but in attempt to be balancing since i'm not entirely convinced of RDI (even though I heavily lean towards it) or IDI either way; The R's support system was centrally located in Atlanta and anyone in their position would probably be worried for their safety, even though they didn't worry too much about JB based on their actions that morning.

Sorry, just thinking outloud over here. One thing I wanted to ask though and I don't want to get too much into the touch DNA, but is even possible to collect touch DNA profiles off from human flesh?

 

[UKGuy]

I just think it's ridiculous speculation to assume that JR and PR sent BR to FW's home to alleviate the burden of taking Burke with them if they planned to leave the country.

First of all, they had no idea how things were going to play out at that point. Why take the risk of staging the kidnapping and hoping LE bought it when they could have simply left the country and then informed someone about JB's death, or simply just leave her body in the wine cellar until the housekeeper came to the house later that day to collect the money she was borrowing from PR? Evading justice by leaving the country would have automatically meant they were guilty. I'm sure they knew this and they seemed to relish in the attention given to the absurd details of their complicity in the murder. I simply see no logic in this choice and if it was a consideration, I don't see them leaving Burke, period. They've shown fierce devotion to keeping what was left of their family together by evading the police and refusing to cooperate. If they didn't give them any of the information they asked of them, LE couldn't find inconsistencies in their story.

I will never believe that the R's intended to hide JB's body from LE until they could stage her body being returned by the killers. The Ramsey's were not idiots. Surely they knew they would be heavily monitored by the police. In fact, it's probable that a police escort would stay behind to tap the phone lines incase a call came in. They already disregarded the instructions left in the RN. It would have been beyond silly to start following it at that point.

As DD has said, it makes all of the sense in the world to send BR away from the house while all of this was going on to avoid him seeing his sister's body or to keep him from being questioned by police or the Ramsey's hoard of friends they called over. Those reasons are good enough reasons alone. If they are truly guilty, his safety was of no concern to them. They had more to risk by keeping him around than they did by simply passing him on until the worst of it was revealed.

Another thing people keep asking about is why the Ramsey's would want to flee to Atlanta after the events of the night of the 25th took place. Obviously, the most important and logical thing would be to put some distance between themselves and LE, but in attempt to be balancing since i'm not entirely convinced of RDI (even though I heavily lean towards it) or IDI either way; The R's support system was centrally located in Atlanta and anyone in their position would probably be worried for their safety, even though they didn't worry too much about JB based on their actions that morning.

Sorry, just thinking outloud over here. One thing I wanted to ask though and I don't want to get too much into the touch DNA, but is even possible to collect touch DNA profiles off from human flesh?

shotgunhomicide,

I just think it's ridiculous speculation to assume that JR and PR sent BR to FW's home to alleviate the burden of taking Burke with them if they planned to leave the country.

Things in this case are not always what they seem. The speculation is not ridiculous it is a valid inference from the facts, e.g. Burke was relocated, the Ramsey's intended flying out of Colorado!

Why take the risk of staging the kidnapping and hoping LE bought it when they could have simply left the country and then informed someone about JB's death

Now that is a rhetorical question, and its answer is surely situated in whatever theory you adopt.

I simply see no logic in this choice and if it was a consideration, I don't see them leaving Burke, period.

That you note an absence of logic does not mean the reasoning was actually absent.

Despite your on the spot characterisation of the Ramsey's state of mind as:

First of all, they had no idea how things were going to play out at that point.

I would assert John Ramsey did have some idea, he also had a strategy to enact. If everything went to plan BPD would find JonBenet, the wine-cellar would be roped off, and due process would take its course. Burke Ramsey need view no part of the discovery of JonBenet, all he might know is what he came to know anyway, that JonBenet was dead!

If John Ramsey had not relocated Burke so early that morning I would be more partial to a BDI, then again I am ignorant as to JR's true motives that morning.

Evading justice by leaving the country would have automatically meant they were guilty.

So what do think about John Ramsey, phoning his pilot at 1:40 P.M. to arrange a flight out of Colorado? JonBenet was found at approximately 1:00 P.M.

If the Ramsey's were innocent there would be no need to relocate Burke, they could all journey down to the police station for a few interviews, assist the police as much as possible then be released on bail or gratis.

This did not happen because the R's wished to avoid due process, and evade justice by flying out of Colorado. Why would the R's wish to do this? Precisely for the very reasons you enumerated:

First of all, they had no idea how things were going to play out at that point.

For the parents it was safety first, they did not want to hang around to find out how things transpired, they fully intended to leave JonBenet in the house and Burke relocated.

If Burke had been that important to the end-game, he would have been factored in at the beginning and kept close to his parents side, not relocated to whatever unknown danger might appear if the parents were arrested on the spot for the murder of JonBenet.

I don't want to get too much into the touch DNA, but is even possible to collect touch DNA profiles off from human flesh?

Yes, no problem at all. Only the quality of the sample might be variable.


.

 

[sandover]

... from UKGuy in that I don't believe JR was part of the cover up initially.

I think PR killed JB and then staged everything.

I think when JR saw the ransom note he "knew" on some level that something was off, but went along with it.

His strange behavior that AM can be chalked up to his struggling with what he on some level "knew."

I think during the morning he found the body and then really "knew." He tried to figure out what to do, and then decided to "discover" the body in order to deal with his overwhelming anxiety.

I think his phone call to his pilot was an irrational act driven by confusion, panic, and alarm.

I think once lawyers got involved, and as long as he didn't "objectively know" anything -- given Patsy's performance -- he felt protected.

Over time enough people believed Patsy -- and she never told him the truth -- that he decided to never ever express his secret knowledge to anyone.

I think this is why, while Patsy is often convincing in interviews, John stumbles more and seems less sure. Patsy could psychotically convince herself, more or less, that she loved JB and didn't kill her (though she did) while the more sane John knew that he "knew" the truth. He was sane enough to know he was withholding and lying, and so the truth gets through here and there.

Regardless -- it's an endlessly fascinating psychological case study. And I remain open to the possibility that JR or BR were in different ways part of the killing/staging/cover up.

 

[UKGuy]

... from UKGuy in that I don't believe JR was part of the cover up initially.

I think PR killed JB and then staged everything.

I think when JR saw the ransom note he "knew" on some level that something was off, but went along with it.

His strange behavior that AM can be chalked up to his struggling with what he on some level "knew."

I think during the morning he found the body and then really "knew." He tried to figure out what to do, and then decided to "discover" the body in order to deal with his overwhelming anxiety.

I think his phone call to his pilot was an irrational act driven by confusion, panic, and alarm.

I think once lawyers got involved, and as long as he didn't "objectively know" anything -- given Patsy's performance -- he felt protected.

Over time enough people believed Patsy -- and she never told him the truth -- that he decided to never ever express his secret knowledge to anyone.

I think this is why, while Patsy is often convincing in interviews, John stumbles more and seems less sure. Patsy could psychotically convince herself, more or less, that she loved JB and didn't kill her (though she did) while the more sane John knew that he "knew" the truth. He was sane enough to know he was withholding and lying, and so the truth gets through here and there.

Regardless -- it's an endlessly fascinating psychological case study. And I remain open to the possibility that JR or BR were in different ways part of the killing/staging/cover up.

sandover,
Well can I suggest the forenisc evidence does support John Ramsey's prior involvement. Fibers from his black woolen Israeli manufactured shirt were found on JonBenet's groin.

Whatever JR's culpability actually is, he was never ignorant about what had happened to JonBenet.

Then there is the issue of acute and chronic molestation both observations arise from the autopsy report. Was a Patsy a deranged female pedophile?

If its PDI then explain Patsy's version of events regarding the size-12's. Bear in mind prior to her interview the NE had published that JonBenet had been found wearing Bloomingdale size-12's. Patsy knew in advance what the most important questions were going to be.

A more coherent theory might encompass the Ramsey family unit being effectively dysfunctional, with JonBenet being abused on a generational level, so when Burke accidentally kills JonBenet it all has to be covered up?



.

 

[sandover]

sandover,
Well can I suggest the forenisc evidence does support John Ramsey's prior involvement. Fibers from his black woolen Israeli manufactured shirt were found on JonBenet's groin.

Whatever JR's culpability actually is, he was never ignorant about what had happened to JonBenet.

Then there is the issue of acute and chronic molestation both observations arise from the autopsy report. Was a Patsy a deranged female pedophile?

If its PDI then explain Patsy's version of events regarding the size-12's. Bear in mind prior to her interview the NE had published that JonBenet had been found wearing Bloomingdale size-12's. Patsy knew in advance what the most important questions were going to be.

A more coherent theory might encompass the Ramsey family unit being effectively dysfunctional, with JonBenet being abused on a generational level, so when Burke accidentally kills JonBenet it all has to be covered up

You raise a lot of good points. Let me address them.

I do think it's possible JR was molesting his daughter -- one reason he "kept quiet" initially even if he realized on some level that Patsy had killed JB.

It's also possible PR was abusing her daughter, though that's less plausible.

it's possible that Burke was involved with sex play or outright molestation of his sister, which also might have made JR enable the cover up.

The sweater is a mystery. But it would not be crazy to believe that PR wiped JB down with it, would it? Or that whatever she wiped JB down with had those fibers on it? JR would not have been wearing the sweater at the time the staging occurred since it was presumably in the early morning hours.

I also think the "Hon, we need 'em" which starts off the 911 call suggests that JR wasn't sure about calling the police immediately and that PR needed to justify it.

I'm not aware of the issue with PR's version of events re: the oversized panties, can you explain?

It's certainly possible JR helped stage things. But JR's behavior after the fact seems to me more consistent with someone not saying what he suspects, rather than someone flat out lying about what he did. But I could be wrong!

 

[UKGuy]

You raise a lot of good points. Let me address them.

I do think it's possible JR was molesting his daughter -- one reason he "kept quiet" initially even if he realized on some level that Patsy had killed JB.

It's also possible PR was abusing her daughter, though that's less plausible.

it's possible that Burke was involved with sex play or outright molestation of his sister, which also might have made JR enable the cover up.

The sweater is a mystery. But it would not be crazy to believe that PR wiped JB down with it, would it? Or that whatever she wiped JB down with had those fibers on it? JR would not have been wearing the sweater at the time the staging occurred since it was presumably in the early morning hours.

I also think the "Hon, we need 'em" which starts off the 911 call suggests that JR wasn't sure about calling the police immediately and that PR needed to justify it.

I'm not aware of the issue with PR's version of events re: the oversized panties, can you explain?

It's certainly possible JR helped stage things. But JR's behavior after the fact seems to me more consistent with someone not saying what he suspects, rather than someone flat out lying about what he did. But I could be wrong!

sandover,

I'm not aware of the issue with PR's version of events re: the oversized panties, can you explain?

Patsy claimed she put the Bloomingdale size-12's, intended as a gift for her neice Jenny, into JonBenet's underwear drawer for her personal use. Yet when police searched the whole house no size-12's could be found , anywhere!

Prior to the interview the National Enquirer published a splash stating that at autopsy JonBenet had been wearing size-12 Bloomingdales. Obviously a piece of clothing out of context.

Patsy during the interview agreed she read or heard something about the NE splash, but proceeded to offer her explanation for JonBenet wearing the size-12's.

So the question is given Patsy is culpable, why would she offer an explanation that she knows will be contradicted by any search BPD makes?



.

 

[sandover]

So the question is given Patsy is culpable, why would she offer an explanation that she knows will be contradicted by any search BPD makes?.

Interesting. I didn't know the rest of the panties were never found.

I'd argue that she was thinking irrationally both during the staging and when disposing of evidence.

She knew in her psychotic fashion that none of this actually made sense but to her that was not something she needed to overthink.

So it makes sense to me that she could throw on a pair of the oversize panties and then decide that was part of what she needed to get rid of.

In "getting rid of" the evidence I think Patsy got rid of the part of her that did it, in large degree. She then became the "grieving mother" and didn't spend too much time thinking about how to answer these questions.

It is quite absurd, if you believe the intruder theory, to think that an intruder would redress JonBenet AND TAKE THE REST OF THE PANTIES. You could understand the intruder redressing her to eliminate his DNA, but it's crazy to think he'd leave as much as he did and yet feel the need to take the rest of the panties with him.

So this is more evidence that points towards PR, and I think it could be consistent with my "PR did everything herself" theory.

 

[Flatlander]

Let's not forget that PR left her house after the finding of JB with her cloths on from the the previous night. Fur coat and Purse!

 

[Squishified]

As someone (I'm PDI) who believes that this crime MAY have been premeditated, I have been wondering lately if Patsy was at all jealous of the attention John received when his elder daughter (Beth?) was killed. I dunno, any thoughts??

 

[UKGuy]

Interesting. I didn't know the rest of the panties were never found.

I'd argue that she was thinking irrationally both during the staging and when disposing of evidence.

She knew in her psychotic fashion that none of this actually made sense but to her that was not something she needed to overthink.

So it makes sense to me that she could throw on a pair of the oversize panties and then decide that was part of what she needed to get rid of.

In "getting rid of" the evidence I think Patsy got rid of the part of her that did it, in large degree. She then became the "grieving mother" and didn't spend too much time thinking about how to answer these questions.

It is quite absurd, if you believe the intruder theory, to think that an intruder would redress JonBenet AND TAKE THE REST OF THE PANTIES. You could understand the intruder redressing her to eliminate his DNA, but it's crazy to think he'd leave as much as he did and yet feel the need to take the rest of the panties with him.

So this is more evidence that points towards PR, and I think it could be consistent with my "PR did everything herself" theory.

sandover

I'd argue that she was thinking irrationally both during the staging and when disposing of evidence.

Possibly, but her interview regarding the size-12's is much later, where she displays quite rational behaviour, including episodes of amnesia.

It is quite absurd, if you believe the intruder theory, to think that an intruder would redress JonBenet AND TAKE THE REST OF THE PANTIES. You could understand the intruder redressing her to eliminate his DNA, but it's crazy to think he'd leave as much as he did and yet feel the need to take the rest of the panties with him.

Yes this is what Patsy's account of the size-12's suggests, that is until the Ramsey's magicked up the remaining size-12's, found miraculously in a packing crate, somehwere in Atlanta.

The size-12's sunk the Ramsey's version of events, precisely because it was Patsy who offered it. Everyone knows she lied through her teeth, its impossible not to read the interview, and wonder why she thought anyone would believe she gave JonBenet size-12 underwear that had been intend for a much older relative?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

As someone (I'm PDI) who believes that this crime MAY have been premeditated, I have been wondering lately if Patsy was at all jealous of the attention John received when his elder daughter (Beth?) was killed. I dunno, any thoughts??

I just don't see it. I also do not feel this was premeditated. Why choose THAT night? With an early flight out the next morning, your son and husband home- if this was planned, there would be much better opportunities when she would have been alone with her daughter and could offer a more plausible "accident" . Premeditation is simply not something that makes sense to me in this case.

I also don't see Patsy being jealous of the attention JR received when his older daughter died. It wasn't a newsworthy event, and that kind of attention abates rather quickly. I don't see Patsy as feeling "well, HE lost a daughter, so I want to lose one too". Just doesn't make sense.
Patsy could have been jealous of JB, however. She saw JB as being very likely able to win that Miss America crown that she missed out on. Jealous enough to kill her? No way, not in my mind. I just don't see her killing JB out of jealousy.

 

[sandover]

Yes this is what Patsy's account of the size-12's suggests, that is until the Ramsey's magicked up the remaining size-12's, found miraculously in a packing crate, somehwere in Atlanta..

Wait... so how did they ever explain them?? If they weren't in the drawer where Patsy said she had put them, then where were they found??

 

[UKGuy]

Wait... so how did they ever explain them?? If they weren't in the drawer where Patsy said she had put them, then where were they found??

sandover,
Therein lies the size-12 conundrum, they never explained anything they were simply presented as is. Found by someone, who in all likelyhood would never have known the significance of this obscure package of underwear.

So they were handed in to the DA's office, I think, with some cover story, but the chain of evidence is broken, so I doubt they could ever be produced in a trial?

If they weren't in the drawer where Patsy said she had put them, then where were they found??

They were allegedly found much, much later in another state, Atlanta, inside a packing crate.

So the size-12 question is: If Patsy redressed JonBenet in the size-12's, then removed the remaining size-12's, why did she offer such a ridiculous explanation, when she knew in advance that one was required at a forthcoming interview?

This suggests to me that Patsy was covering for someone else, and that can only be either John or Burke Ramsey? And if John did not tell Patsy about the size-12's because he was ignorant about them, then was it Burke Ramsey who removed the size-12's and hid them somewhere in the house?

Remember that bit on the 911 tape, where Burke is heard asking something along the lines, What did you find?


Nearly everyone concentrates upon the wine-cellar, yet its likely that the redressing and probably the death of JonBenet took place at another location in the basement.

The wine-cellar is simply where forensic evidence and JonBenet were dumped out of sight, to make the ransom note appear consistent!







.

 

[UKGuy]

I just don't see it. I also do not feel this was premeditated. Why choose THAT night? With an early flight out the next morning, your son and husband home- if this was planned, there would be much better opportunities when she would have been alone with her daughter and could offer a more plausible "accident" . Premeditation is simply not something that makes sense to me in this case.

I also don't see Patsy being jealous of the attention JR received when his older daughter died. It wasn't a newsworthy event, and that kind of attention abates rather quickly. I don't see Patsy as feeling "well, HE lost a daughter, so I want to lose one too". Just doesn't make sense.
Patsy could have been jealous of JB, however. She saw JB as being very likely able to win that Miss America crown that she missed out on. Jealous enough to kill her? No way, not in my mind. I just don't see her killing JB out of jealousy.

DeeDee249,
ITA, after what Patsy had invested in JonBenet, I reckon she was mature enough to deal with such issues.

If this had ever gone to trial, and considering the evidence, e.g. Patsy's fibers embedded into the garrote, and on underside of the duct-tape, would she have been facing a first or second degree homicide charge?



.

 

[DeeDee249]

Wait... so how did they ever explain them?? If they weren't in the drawer where Patsy said she had put them, then where were they found??

They were allegedly "found" 5 years later, according to the parents, in a packing box after they moved to Atlanta. They had been (also allegedly) packed up by the movers and sent along to the Rs new home in Atlanta. The R's gave them to their lawyer, who then sent them along to LE in Boulder. Not much else was explained, and not much has been said publicly by LE about them. It is not known whether the remaining 6 pairs in the package (they were sent still in the package, proving that Patsy was lying when she said she had removed them and put them in JB's panty drawer) were consistent with the panties that were sold in those novelty gift sets for girls in 1996 at Bloomingdale's NYC, though there are ways to verify that. The manufacturer supplying Bloomingdale's NYC with those panty sets that year could have been tracked down and given the answers, but as far as I know, this was not done. It was also never stated whether the "Wednesday" pair was missing from that package, though I would hope LE would have mentioned it if they were not.
Presumably, both this "found" package of panties and the "Wednesday" pair actually found on the body should still be in an evidence locker in Boulder. In an unsolved murder like this, especially a notorious child murder, it would be prudent to open that evidence locker once a year, a least, to be sure that what was supposed to be in there is STILL in there and hasn't gone "missing". I had read that some things from this case have "gone missing" over the years, and there is supposed to be a "chain of custody" over all evidence in a murder case. There is supposed to be a log of who has access to the evidence, who goes in and out of that area, and inventory taken after each and every entry.
Wanna bet NO one pays attention to that? Wanna bet there is LOTS of evidence that is presently unaccounted for?

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
ITA, after what Patsy had invested in JonBenet, I reckon she was mature enough to deal with such issues.

If this had ever gone to trial, and considering the evidence, e.g. Patsy's fibers embedded into the garrote, and on underside of the duct-tape, would she have been facing a first or second degree homicide charge?



.

Definitely not first degree murder (Murder 1) as premeditation has to be demonstrated. There was no proof of premeditation in this case, whether anyone THINKS she thought about it before or not.
If this case looked like it was going to trial, I would think there would be a plea-bargain before that actually happened. For one, AH the DA only ever took ONE case to trial and he lost, vowing never to take another case to trial, he was the king of plea-bargains. There is talk that he had planned to offer a plea bargain in this case that would not have involved any jail time and it was promptly shot down by the R lawyers.
I'd say it would be manslaughter and not homicide. I'd say they would be going for an accidental death caused by reckless action. Just MOO.
For it to be murder, even second degree, it has to be demonstrated that they KNEW their actions (head bash and ligature) would kill her and it was their intention that it kill her. The difference between first and second degree murder is that first degree requires evidence of premeditation and second degree does not. Both require intent to cause the victim's death.
While many feel this is obvious, it is murky ground from the point of view of a trial.
It could be argued (and it would have been) that the head bash was done to silence her, and her death was unintentional (which is different than accidental) or it would be argued that she was slammed into a faucet as she and Patsy fought in a rage over some toilet issue. Even the ligature could have been argued that it was staged on JB when she was THOUGHT to be already dead, so they did not know it was killing her. Or it would have had to be admitted that it was part of a sexual/erotic strangulation game, where death is not intended. This one would have been less likely to admit to, as that sexual activity with a child carries a pretty stiff penalty in its own. And even LESS likely to admit to if the perp was BR.
The fact that there was no plea-bargain can seem to be a hint to BR's involvement, because he could not be implicated because of his age, even if they knew he did it. But it could also be simply their lawyers calling the DA's bluff as to whether he would actually attempt to take the case to trial. It worked.

 

[Whaleshark]

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.