Question re Lawsuits

[Solace]

Thomas says on pg 286 -7 of his book,

"I believed JonBenet was slammed against a hard surface, such as the edge of the tub, inflicting a mortal head wound. She was unconscious, but her heart was still beating. Patsy would not have known JonBenet was still alive, because the child already appeared to be dead. The massive head trauma would have eventually killed her.

It was the critical moment in which she had to either call for help or find an alternative explanation for her daughter's death. It was accidental in the sense that the situation had developed without motive or premeditation. She could have called for help but chose not to. An emergency room doctor probably would have questioned the "accident" and called the police. Still, little would have happened to Patsy in Boulder. But I believe panic overtook her.

John and Burke continued to sleep while Patsy moved the body of JonBenet down to the basement and hid her in the little room."

He then goes on to theorize that Patsy then wrote the note and after that went back down and fashioned the "garotte" from cord she found and the paintbrush from her tote and strangled JB from behind to fit in with her made-up scenario.

As much as I consider Steve Thomas to be one of the only ones truly concerned with delivering that poor dead child justice, I'm not sure I completely buy his theory. I'm not sure the head wound preceeded the strangulation, and I'm not sure what implement was used to incur the head wound.

I use to be sure and then I read Wecht's version. I am no longer sure.

 

[JBRMod2]

Please reduce your inbox.

 

[JBRMod2]

Please check your inbox.

 

[UKGuy]

Thomas says on pg 286 -7 of his book,

"I believed JonBenet was slammed against a hard surface, such as the edge of the tub, inflicting a mortal head wound. She was unconscious, but her heart was still beating. Patsy would not have known JonBenet was still alive, because the child already appeared to be dead. The massive head trauma would have eventually killed her.

It was the critical moment in which she had to either call for help or find an alternative explanation for her daughter's death. It was accidental in the sense that the situation had developed without motive or premeditation. She could have called for help but chose not to. An emergency room doctor probably would have questioned the "accident" and called the police. Still, little would have happened to Patsy in Boulder. But I believe panic overtook her.

John and Burke continued to sleep while Patsy moved the body of JonBenet down to the basement and hid her in the little room."

He then goes on to theorize that Patsy then wrote the note and after that went back down and fashioned the "garotte" from cord she found and the paintbrush from her tote and strangled JB from behind to fit in with her made-up scenario.

As much as I consider Steve Thomas to be one of the only ones truly concerned with delivering that poor dead child justice, I'm not sure I completely buy his theory. I'm not sure the head wound preceeded the strangulation, and I'm not sure what implement was used to incur the head wound.

Nuisanceposter,

I tend to agree with you. Its unlikely that the head trauma preceded the asphyxiation, since even if she was dead, that could still be passed off as an accident.

I always assumed that the Ramsey's first tactic could be to present JonBenet's death as either a domestic accident or a suicide, but JonBenet's age precludes the latter.

The theory that Steve Thomas presents in his book, may not account for all the evidence, he may be unable, due to legal constraints, to give a richer version incorporating all the evidence we have never seen?

If you give it some consideration most of the theories accounting for JonBenet's death are linear, the two most popular are PDI and IDI.

The IDI usually includes a sexual assault, but not all PDI's include this aspect, Steve Thomas's public domain theory is an example of this.

Both these theories have hooks for interested parties to latch onto, and imo this will tend to reflect the interested parties preferences, e.g. IDI has the violent sexual assault, PDI emotional rage, these both appeal to different sensibilities, and have many supporters.

But neither of these theories account for all the forensic evidence, so what occurred that night may be some variation of the IDI or PDI, but I suspect something darker, due to the extensive staging, and that there was collusion between the main suspects.

Dr John Meyer's Autopsy states

CLINOCOPATHOLIGICAL CORRELATION:

Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.


Personally I interpret that as not a Ligature strangulation which is itemized as a component part of her homicide, along with the associated head injury.

If JonBenet had been killed by Ligature strangulation then just how its possible to rationalise this away as any kind of emotional rage killing is beyond my comprehension. IMO to kill by Ligature strangulation seems reasonably intentional to me.

So was JonBenet killed by Manual strangulation ? Currently I think she was, and the Ligature is staging applied later.

I also think JonBenet was intentionally killed, probably to silence her, the violence visited upon her goes way beyond that of an emotional outburst, Dr John Meyer lists 15 different contributing factors, some of which are staging, most are not.

It helps to bear in mind that JonBenet's killer was probably unaware of her head injury!

Parts of the Ramsey house was cleaned up, evidence was removed, JonBenet's corpse was relocated down to the wine-cellar, and at least two staging events occurred.

All of this goes way beyond that of a homicide impelled by an outburst of anger that becomes a tragic accident ...

 

[Seeker]

Solace, I see how that post must have looked now. Sorry about that. I should have been more clear in my reply. I did not mean you in any way, or any other poster here.

Let me rephrase a bit...again, I appologise if I wasn't more clear in my reply.

You know, everytime someone posts ST scenario I have to laugh at his (ST) ignorance.

If Patsy had done as he (ST) suggested she wouldn't have had to go through all of the elaborate staging to cover it up. JonBenet's bedroom had a balcony to the outside....

How simple would it have been for Patsy to drop her over the edge and then call 911 a while later stating her daughter had had an accident? JonBenet had already said she was going to be getting a special visit from Santa. Patsy could have easily relayed that as the excuse for JonBenet having gone out on her balcony and having a fatal "accident" that night. If she had done it as quickly as he (ST) assumes she did in carrying her down to the basement and applying the strangulation device (she must have quickly ran down 2 flights of stairs) then dropping her from the balcony would have probably caused more head trauma and hidden the original injury.

I don't know of any cases where a mother killed her child and then proceeded to create more complicated evidence to hide the initial injuries. I don't know of any cases where a mother also penned a false 2 1/2 page ransom note either.

I think it's mostly males who come up with these types of twisted plot twists & turns.

Or Patsy could have left JB on the floor of the bathroom then called 911 to say her daughter must have had a horrible accident and that she just found her like that. I think the paramedics would have assumed that JB slipped and cracked her head on the corner of the sink. IOW there was no need for Patsy to stage an elaborate cover up.

I haven't heard of any mom's doing anything like that before, or since either. I think most mothers who kill call 911.
Even Susan Smith didn't fabricate more physical evidence to implicate someone, even though she lied to cover her own involvement at first.
Andrea Yates called 911...and she wasn't even mentally stable.

Meyer never said that JB had been sexually abused prior to that night either. I don't believe she was the target of a pedophile, but someone wanted everyone to believe she was.

I think the Ramsey's know what happened to their daughter and I think they know who did it and have been covering for that person.

I don't think Patsy did it because none of her side of the family (father, mother, sisters, etc) was lawyered up right away and it's always bothered me more than just a little bit that JR paid for his ex-wife's attorney right away. Why would she need a lawyer??? And why not retain one for any of Patsy's family if she were guilty of anything? What was John trying to hide by getting his ex-wife a lawyer? Just what does she know?

 

[narlacat]

She could know that he was a child molester, namely his own.
Someone here mentioned, maybe Linask or Trixie, that maybe that's why he was so badly affected by his first daughter's death.
He was beyond comfort about Beth's death....maybe he felt guilty as well as grieving for her.

 

[Solace]

Solace, I see how that post must have looked now. Sorry about that. I should have been more clear in my reply. I did not mean you in any way, or any other poster here.

Let me rephrase a bit...again, I appologise if I wasn't more clear in my reply.

You know, everytime someone posts ST scenario I have to laugh at his (ST) ignorance.

If Patsy had done as he (ST) suggested she wouldn't have had to go through all of the elaborate staging to cover it up. JonBenet's bedroom had a balcony to the outside....

How simple would it have been for Patsy to drop her over the edge and then call 911 a while later stating her daughter had had an accident? JonBenet had already said she was going to be getting a special visit from Santa. Patsy could have easily relayed that as the excuse for JonBenet having gone out on her balcony and having a fatal "accident" that night. If she had done it as quickly as he (ST) assumes she did in carrying her down to the basement and applying the strangulation device (she must have quickly ran down 2 flights of stairs) then dropping her from the balcony would have probably caused more head trauma and hidden the original injury.

I don't know of any cases where a mother killed her child and then proceeded to create more complicated evidence to hide the initial injuries. I don't know of any cases where a mother also penned a false 2 1/2 page ransom note either.

I think it's mostly males who come up with these types of twisted plot twists & turns.

Or Patsy could have left JB on the floor of the bathroom then called 911 to say her daughter must have had a horrible accident and that she just found her like that. I think the paramedics would have assumed that JB slipped and cracked her head on the corner of the sink. IOW there was no need for Patsy to stage an elaborate cover up.

I haven't heard of any mom's doing anything like that before, or since either. I think most mothers who kill call 911.
Even Susan Smith didn't fabricate more physical evidence to implicate someone, even though she lied to cover her own involvement at first.
Andrea Yates called 911...and she wasn't even mentally stable.

Meyer never said that JB had been sexually abused prior to that night either. I don't believe she was the target of a pedophile, but someone wanted everyone to believe she was.

I think the Ramsey's know what happened to their daughter and I think they know who did it and have been covering for that person.

I don't think Patsy did it because none of her side of the family (father, mother, sisters, etc) was lawyered up right away and it's always bothered me more than just a little bit that JR paid for his ex-wife's attorney right away. Why would she need a lawyer??? And why not retain one for any of Patsy's family if she were guilty of anything? What was John trying to hide by getting his ex-wife a lawyer? Just what does she know?

Thank you for your reply Seeker. I have to disagree on a few points. I think that there was some prior sexual abuse. I can find a few doctors as experts that (I do not have the books with me) say JB had been abused sexually prior the murder. Wecht says several days but I read just last night one expert believes in the previous months. If this is true, than Patsy and John know it will come out with an autopsy.

It sounds like you believe that theory of the gentlemen who wrote the book that John had been letting JB be photographed for *advertiser censored* and the situation got out of hand and she died. I do not believe any of that.

Also, I do not care if this type of crime has never been documented before. We may just not know of it. As statistics go, most abuse cases do not go reported and those that do, half do not have a history. So we could argue that all day.

It is interesting that he got his wife a separate lawyer and I feel it was just in case.

I believe in my heart this case is exactly what it appears. Someone in the house did this and someone else helped that person cover it up. No one else has been found by the police or the Ramseys after ten years.

This is a rage killing. It is hard enough to believe that JB was abused by John at all, but believing that John or Patsy were involved in covering for a third person, maybe you are suggesting Berke, or maybe you are suggesting as I said above to a pornographer - is so far beyond my realm of consideration.

Usually things are as they appear. Usually, not always, and I was not there so I do not know. But I believe that Patsy is involved and John is helping cover it.

To say they could have thrown JB out the window is completely forgetting that they did love this child as has been shown. This is some kind of an accident. And you are assuming that forensics cannot tell if someone has been thrown or pushed. I disagree with that assumption. Forensics can tell almost to the tune of a video.

 

[Seeker]

I don't believe forensics could have determined it back then, maybe now they can due to the advances made, but 9 almost 10 years ago when this case happened, luminol was considered new.

Also if forensics back then was so good they would have been able to determine which came first. The headblow, or the strangulation. Either way it happened none of the experts can get it together enough to determine which it was. Beauf supposedly let the BPD see JonBenet's medical records before he locked them up. As far as I know he was still a practicing and licensed physician long after the murder and I doubt he would have not reported any sexual abuse he saw in order to protect the Ramseys.

I don't know about any book of JonBenet being used in *advertiser censored*...that IMO is probably someone's fantasy writing.

I agree that it was someone within the family that did this and Patsy & John are covering for him/her.

 

[Solace]

I don't believe forensics could have determined it back then, maybe now they can due to the advances made, but 9 almost 10 years ago when this case happened, luminol was considered new.

Also if forensics back then was so good they would have been able to determine which came first. The headblow, or the strangulation. Either way it happened none of the experts can get it together enough to determine which it was. Beauf supposedly let the BPD see JonBenet's medical records before he locked them up. As far as I know he was still a practicing and licensed physician long after the murder and I doubt he would have not reported any sexual abuse he saw in order to protect the Ramseys.

I don't know about any book of JonBenet being used in *advertiser censored*...that IMO is probably someone's fantasy writing.

I agree that it was someone within the family that did this and Patsy & John are covering for him/her.

Seeker,

We will just have to agree to disagree. The older brother was out of town and proven so along with the sister. There is no one else unless you are referring to 9 year old Berke. As far as the physician Beauf, he admits he never gave JB an internal citing there was no need for it.

But we could go on forever and to no end. I just happen to disagree with virtually everthing you say.

 

[Seeker]

Seeker,

We will just have to agree to disagree. The older brother was out of town and proven so along with the sister. There is no one else unless you are referring to 9 year old Berke. As far as the physician Beauf, he admits he never gave JB an internal citing there was no need for it.

But we could go on forever and to no end. I just happen to disagree with virtually everthing you say.

Your welcome to do so. When I say someone within the family I'm not necessarily referring to the 3 people in the house...there are others that are part of the family.

A poster called mjenn/koldkase did extensive research and found that JAR could have been at the home that night. There was also a witness who said a young man who he took to be JAR was seen at, or around the home that night. There was also Grandpa Paugh who had an apartment nearby who left suddenly.

 

[Seeker]

Seeker,

We will just have to agree to disagree. The older brother was out of town and proven so along with the sister. There is no one else unless you are referring to 9 year old Berke. As far as the physician Beauf, he admits he never gave JB an internal citing there was no need for it.

But we could go on forever and to no end. I just happen to disagree with virtually everthing you say.

Also on Beauf, didn't he say he gave JB a vaginal exam and said she had some rash or infection due to bubble baths? I think that's in the book PMPT.

 

[Solace]

Also on Beauf, didn't he say he gave JB a vaginal exam and said she had some rash or infection due to bubble baths? I think that's in the book PMPT.

He never gave her an internal and she did have infections - vaginitis - from chronic wetting - which Patsy said would not go away because she was always wet. Beauf sounds like a moron.

 

[Seeker]

Would there be any need to give her an internal exam if neither he, nor his nurse did not suspect sexual abuse though?

I would think that there would have been some obvious signs that would indicate whether or not she may have been being sexually abused.

 

[Solace]

Would there be any need to give her an internal exam if neither he, nor his nurse did not suspect sexual abuse though?

I would think that there would have been some obvious signs that would indicate whether or not she may have been being sexually abused.

Seeker,

She had chronic vaginitis, she was inflammed. One does not want to do that of course not. She is only 6 years old. Outwardly (forget about the internal just now); outwardly she was inflamed from the vaginitis - one would think that Desitin is not going to make it (which is what Patsy was using, like this is a baby) . Patsy does say that Dr. Beauf (sp) checked her but did not give her an internal. I am sure he told her to use desitin. My point is this Seeker. Maybe she was not abused sexually, however, when a little girl has chronic vaginitis, and it does not clear up, then her doctor who was seeing her quite often, one would think he would want to look further. The Ramseys were very influential. I don't know why he did not look further, but I know I would have. Also, I know you don't like to hear about Steve Thomas, but I have to here. At the end of his book during his presentation, he presents to photographs; one of JB and one of a normal six year old. The difference is remarkable to everyone who views it. But of course I am echoing ST and you may not believe that. I wish I could find the photos, but I don't see how we are going to find photos of JB's vagina.

I don't see that ST has any reason to lie and if he writes a book and says her presented these photos, why would he lie?

 

[Seeker]

I don't know if ST would lie about any photo's, but if he had them and they were shown to experts who said they were vastly different then it seems to be opposite of the coroner's findings.

I can only go by what is stated in the autopsy report as to the condition of her vagina. Meyer listed it as being "unremarkable". To me that means it was normal for a 6 year old. If there was anything abnormal you would think the autopsy report would state that.

Can't vaginitis also be caused by the antibiotics JB was on? I seem to remember that was another possible reason she had it.

 

[Solace]

I don't know if ST would lie about any photo's, but if he had them and they were shown to experts who said they were vastly different then it seems to be opposite of the coroner's findings.

I can only go by what is stated in the autopsy report as to the condition of her vagina. Meyer listed it as being "unremarkable". To me that means it was normal for a 6 year old. If there was anything abnormal you would think the autopsy report would state that.

Can't vaginitis also be caused by the antibiotics JB was on? I seem to remember that was another possible reason she had it.

Seeker,

I have to look this up again, but I am almost positive (almost here) that Dr. Meyer suspects sexual abuse. I do not know what they mean by "unremarkable" but it may mean something different than what you or I may think. I would think it would mean "normal'.But since you work in a lab, you probably know better than I. Is that part of the autopsy the only part that refers to the vagina in the report. There are different parts for internal and external. Wecht is convinced of it. I am not convinced that there was ongoing abuse. I am saying I think for sure the night of the murder, it was staged to look like a sexual assault.

I don't know if it is possible that chronic vaginitis can cause internal injury. It can't be good. And it has to be painful. And I would think extremely tender. So it is a guess for me.

I am saying Wecht makes a good case for it. But he also said MacDonald was innocent - so what does he know?

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Whether Dr Wecht thinks MacDonald killed the family or not doesn't affect his ability to decipher information in an autopsy report. He's performed more than 13,000 of them himself.

Wecht's book, pb, pg 99

"When several court documents were disclosed later, they would include an affidavit from Detective Linda Arndt swearing that Coroner Meyer had told her after the autopsy that JonBenet 'had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina." Meyer had added "that it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact."

 

[Seeker]

Thanks for posting that Nuisance, yes, but that does not imply that it was ongoing, just that one time. Remember there was some bifringement material found as well and it's been speculated that it might have been some varnish from the broken end of the top of the paintbrush that was used to create the digital penetration.

I agree with Solace that it was done deliberately to make it seem as if she was the target of a pedophile. Part of the staging to divert attention towards sexual predators instead of anyone who wasn't IMO.

Solace, I used to work in a Pathology lab, but it got to me and I had to change jobs. We never had a child in ours. It was in a specific type of hospital, not a county coroner's offices.

In my short experience the word "unremarkable" meant nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[Solace]

Whether Dr Wecht thinks MacDonald killed the family or not doesn't affect his ability to decipher information in an autopsy report. He's performed more than 13,000 of them himself.

Wecht's book, pb, pg 99

"When several court documents were disclosed later, they would include an affidavit from Detective Linda Arndt swearing that Coroner Meyer had told her after the autopsy that JonBenet 'had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina." Meyer had added "that it was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact."

I agree with you Nuisance. That is why I am leaning towards Wecht's conclusions. He really has sound reasons and thank you for adding Meyer's statement. I knew I read it.

 

[Solace]

Thanks for posting that Nuisance, yes, but that does not imply that it was ongoing, just that one time. Remember there was some bifringement material found as well and it's been speculated that it might have been some varnish from the broken end of the top of the paintbrush that was used to create the digital penetration.

I agree with Solace that it was done deliberately to make it seem as if she was the target of a pedophile. Part of the staging to divert attention towards sexual predators instead of anyone who wasn't IMO.

Solace, I used to work in a Pathology lab, but it got to me and I had to change jobs. We never had a child in ours. It was in a specific type of hospital, not a county coroner's offices.

In my short experience the word "unremarkable" meant nothing out of the ordinary.

But maybe he was referring to the outside not the internal organ of JB. Because there was definitely bleeding inside and there was also some healed tissue.