Why Patsy

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by madeleine, Jul 15, 2010.

  1. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Will you please make a list of things/evidence that makes you 100% that it was Patsy who killed JB and not JR,BR or JAR.
    Thanks.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. joeskidbeck

    joeskidbeck Rest in Peace

    Messages:
    1,897
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Madeleine. I need to clarify before I can respond to your post. I believe Patsy is responsible for the head injury (but I don't believe the head injury is what killed JB). So, for me, that leaves one of the other three as being the killer.
     
  4. Linda7NJ

    Linda7NJ Active Member

    Messages:
    30,907
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38

    I think Patsy struck her and that head injury would have killed her eventually. I also believe she fashioned the rope.

    I am wondering something legally...if that were true, that Pasty head bashed and and someone else came along and strangled her with the rope hastening death. Wouldn't they both be guilty of different degrees of murder? But, if they conspired to stage that would make both guilty of the first degree premeditated murder if the rope was used to end her life. What would it be if the rope was intended only as staging and unknowingly finished her off? Which came first? head blow or rope.


    I think all of these questions come into play when trying to understand why they were never charged. It's a tangled mess.
     
  5. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree re the mess.
    Let's say that PR bashed her head but she didn't die.She died when JR strangled her in order to cover up,not knowing she is dead.I guess in this case,he is the one guilty of murder.Legally.Or?
     
  6. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Maybe it's different if the head blow would eventually have killed her anyway.Can you be charged of murder if you kill someone who is already dying?
     
  7. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't think so. One, the head bash, if it was during a fit of fury, would be manslaughter, Murder Two at the far outside. And regardless of who tied the cord, if they thought she was already dead, then it's not murder. Murder requires intent. You can't murder someone you think is already dead.

    Only if they KNEW she was still alive.

    Like I said, you can't murder someone you think is dead. So it would probably be manslaughter when you take it all in.

    I'm forced to say head blow. But you'll get a lot of different answers.

    Right on both counts.
     
  8. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes, you can, IF you know that the person is still alive, even only barely.
     
  9. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It would be very hard, if not impossible, to prove that someone didn't realize she was still alive. And just as hard to prove they weren't lying about it.
    The coroner was unable to determine which of the two causes of death came first or was the bigger contributor to her death. Without that, it would not be possible to charge one (of the two) perps with a more serious crime unless you could prove which one committed the more serious crime and also if that crime contributed more to her death.
     
  10. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It would be very hard, if not impossible, to prove that someone didn't realize she was still alive. And just as hard to prove they weren't lying about it.
    The coroner was unable to determine which of the two causes of death came first or was the bigger contributor to her death. Without that, it would not be possible to charge one (of the two) perps with a more serious crime unless you could prove which one committed the more serious crime and also if that crime contributed more to her death.
     
  11. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I remember one article in the archives where Meyer was saying that he didn't put everything in the report because there are some things he will talk about only on the stand.Is this ok?Is this how it works?
     
  12. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/08/14-2.html

    From a statement by Boulder County Coroner John E. Meyer, M.D.:

    "The time of an 'unwitnessed' death is very difficult to determine with any precision, and at best is an estimate based not only on autopsy findings but also on investigative information.
    "I consider estimation of time of death to be an interpretive finding rather than a factual statement, and it is not this Office's practice to include this estimate as part of any autopsy report. As has been stated in the past, it would also be inappropriate for me, as a potential expert and material witness, to make interpretive statements prior to testifying in court."
     
  13. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wecht also questioned why there was no estimated time of death in the autopsy.

    But Meyer said it isn't unusual not to include an estimated time of death in an autopsy report.

    "The investigation is still ongoing," Meyer said. "There may be some point that comes up during the investigation that might have an influence on what that estimated time of death is. I don't like to put interpretive things in an autopsy report."


    Yeah right "I don't like",he just left the door open for a loooooooooooooot of interpretation by what he didn't do.
     
  14. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't like to put interpretive things in an autopsy report.



    Dunno why I feel like LAUGHING.Everything he wrote in it is interpretive,no exact COD,no TOD,nothing clear about the injuries down there.
     
  15. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Might as well throw the autopsy report along with the ransom note in the trash. You're not going to solve this case with either one. There's nothing in the autopsy report or the ransom note that would allow you to draw any important conclusions.

    I mean, the ransom note was a big lie, right? It was so bogus. There was no kidnapping, JBR was left there!

    The autopsy report seems to be yet another example of how things can be easily misconstrued even by professionals.
     
  16. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not so much misconstrued as stated in an evasive or unclear manner.

    It is not unusual for a coroner to state only what he SEES or observes when autopsying the body. But for example, when there is a stab wound, it should be described as a stab wound and not just a hole in the body. If the knife is present in the crime scene, the coroner should be able to tell if that knife made the specific stab would, as opposed to some other sharp object.
    It is clear in this case that Mayer did not KNOW what caused her vaginal injuries or caused her to bleed in a quantity sufficient to require wiping.
     
  17. Holdontoyourhat

    Holdontoyourhat Former Member

    Messages:
    5,299
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What would've been a clear manner? Should he have stated PR and JR obviously deposited their lint on JBR's underwear, longjohns, and the garrote? That the older injuries were obviously caused by JR? That the DNA is obviously incidental?

    Seriously, though: what should the coroner have stated more clearly, and in doing so further support RDI?
     
  18. madeleine

    madeleine New Member

    Messages:
    4,970
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But this is not about IDI or RDI HOTYH IMO.It's about a prosecutor being able to establish a timeline and build a case.If you have no idea what the COD or TOD was how can you do that.If you don't even have the murder weapon (IMO it was the garrote but it doesn't matter what I think,it matters what LE thinks or the DA).
    And I was wondering about your SFF theory.If I were LE and I'd think it was a SFF I would check all hotels in Boulder and their guests who were staying there those days,did they do that?
     
  19. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That it is. It's like that with a lot of experts, from what I can gather.
     
  20. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, look at it in context, maddy: he probably figured that he'd be called to testify in rather short order and make those interpretive statements. I strongly doubt he knew that the case would drag on like it did.
     
  21. SuperDave

    SuperDave Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,263
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I would disagree with those assertions, but not by much. You may be onto something, HOTYH.

    All right, HOTYH!

    I wonder. Misconstrued? Or just stated evasively? Either way, it doesn't do much good.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice