Murder or not?

Found on the internet.

I am not completely familiar with what the law says, however logic tell me this statement is completely wrong. Morally, to me, this statement also doesn’t hold either. My reason for opposing this statement is:

On the moral side:
At the time you would have found someone you think is death, you have the obligation to let a physician establish death. That most certainly counts if you cannot be sure of the fact that death has occurred. If you decide no to call a physician but stage the crime scene by strangling the person who you think is dead, you take the risk of killing someone who is in need of medical care. Therefore, my conclusion you are willing to risk that you kill someone. Should it later be established that the victim was still alive when you staged the strangulation, you, to me, are definitely a murderer.

On the law side:
No, you, in principle, cannot murder a dead person. However if it later turns out the victim was still alive when you strangled the victim in order to create a staged crime scene, you are, to me, a murderer and should be prosecuted as such. Again the same thing counts, you are not skilled to establish death on such sort notice, therefore you are obliged to call a physician. It does not matter to me what you think, but what is the actuality truth.

 

I still maintain that since the reflexes and perhaps seizure activity were present, the killer tried to stop that from occurring by issuing a final insult which would result in motionlessness.

 

"The strangler could easily have believed JonBenet was dead, in which case the strangler couldn't be a murderer because you can't murder someone you think is dead, even if you were, as it turned out, wrong."

:wtf: Regardless of what "the strangler" believes, he is a sexual puke pervert kid killer. Jmho.

 

Wouldn't this be an example of the defense mechanism known as "rationalization"?

-Tea

 

You are, typically, splitting hairs over a minor point -- and refusing to see the big picture. If she were struck over the head and still breathing and you wanted to put her out of her misery, you'd hit her again. Why take all the time to construct that elaborate "garotte"? If she were struck over the head and you wanted to cover that up, you'd report it as an accident. Strangling her with a "garotte" will not erase the huge crack you put in her skull. Nor will writing a phoney ransom note in your own hand fool anyone if you're planning on calling the cops with the body in the house.

If Patsy struck her on the head and John tried to cover that up by strangling her then BOTH are looking at life in prison and possibly the chair. Whether John's actions or Patsy's actually killed her is beside the point in such a case. But that scenario itself is fatally flawed. It could NOT have happened that way.

I think she was initially strangled by hand and the "garotte" was applied to destroy any possible prints left on her neck. The head blow clearly came after the strangulation -- otherwise there would have been a LOT more bleeding. The purpose of the head blow was probably to make sure she was dead. It could also have been an act of rage at having "forced" the perp to kill her by threatening to "tell" on him.

It's hard to imagine any other sequence of events. But, of course, there may be aspects of the case we don't know anything about.

 

I don't see it that way.

I believe the blow to the head came first, then the strangling, then the garrotte.

Why would anyone hit someone so brutally after strangling them? The type of blow she had to the head could very easily have broken the skin. The gushing of blood would be great.

Now the perp would have blood to deal with (and that's hard to cover), especially when you are taken them to the basement.

 

"The strangler could easily have believed JonBenet was dead, in which case the strangler couldn't be a murderer because you can't murder someone you think is dead, even if you were, as it turned out, wrong."

It's a defense, Tea, but doesn't make any sense to me. A strangler is a murderer. I don't know if it is rationalization or denial or just b.s. I agree with Sylvia, it's wrong.

And "...you can't murder someone you think is dead" - why, I'd say, yes, you can.

 

amount of bleeding

Even experts are in disagreement whether there is enough bleeding under the skull to say whether the head blow or strangling came first. I have read articles that support either side. I don't think it is clear which came first, except to say she was alive when both occured.

 

Admittedly the circumstances of JonBenet's death, and especially the sequence of events, are extremely puzzling. And, as with just about every other aspect of the case, the "experts" are all over the place. But there are some things that maybe we can agree on:

1. Since her hair was intertwined with the knots of the "garotte" it seems clear that she must have been either unconcious or dead when that was constructed. Otherwise she'd have been screaming and also struggling, which would have made it impossible to put the thing together.

2. If the head blow came first, then it's very hard to understand why the "garotte" would have been used at all. If the blow didn't kill her and the idea was to finish her off quickly and mercifully, then why go to the trouble of making a phoney "garotte", why not just keep striking her on the head?

3. The "garotte" could not have been used as a means of pointing away from the head wound. The head wound could not have been hidden, so why try to "cover it up"?

4. If manual strangulation were in fact the cause of death, then the "garotte" might well have been intended to literally mask that by obliterating any prints from the attacker's hands. I'm not sure whether or not any coroner would have been able to identify the signs of manual strangulation through the very deep furrows made by the cord (in more than one place). So it's possible that there is simply no way for us to tell whether or not manual strangulation ever took place. If that's true then it can't be ruled out.

5. I'm wondering whether anyone here has another theory as to why the "garotte" was used.

 

JC and Tea, that is exactly what I mean. It's rationalization of a murder, looking for excuses. Just because "you think someone is dead you aren't a murderer" to me is the justification for murder. I was amazed when I read this in an article on the internet. To my opinion it could open a door for other murderers by using the "I thought he/she was dead" excuse. If it can happen once that a (in this case) strangulation is rationalized, it can happen again in the future.

 

Sparky, I also believe the blow to the head came first. To do so after death would have been useless, overkill and that is not likely to happen when a family member is the murderer.

And I agree if done during the strangulation would have indeed been a enormous risk, as you say indeed someone takes the risk of breaking the skin. Besides wouldn't a victim of strangulation fight back? There are no signs whatsoever that she did that.

 

For starters, who would need to go to all these great lengths to overpower a little six year old girl and remove her from her home? It could have been done silently and in a flash.

This has the makings of an accidental death written all over it, with Law Enforcement not having the courage to arrest the parents at the crucial time of finding the body.

I too believe the head injury came first, and the concoction of the make-believe garotte was thought up by Patsy's phantasmagorical mind. Both of them were involved in
this cover-up scheme, and they should have been arrested on the spot. Not insisting strongly enough for the Ramseys to be taken down to the police station, was the biggest mistake Sergeant Larry Mason made.

 

I think Elle 1 is on track!

I think a person that kills someone one way would do everything possible to change the crime scene. This I had to deal with in Steven's death. It is my opinion that the evidence did support the arrest of the Ramsey's. That was probable cause for law enforcement to make the arrest. The rest of the job would have been left to the DA's office.

I'm behind on this case, and know nothing of that district attorney. One thing for sure if they are like Cass county Tx DA's office they are totaly corrupt and incompetent.

 

I'm just playing an old broken record, Wounded, over and over again. I am truly sorry that in your case, you are posting about your own son, Steven. I can't imagine what you and your wife have been through (?).

The District Attorney in Boulder in December, 1996 was Alex Hunter, and he was a very weak man. He couldn't make decisions for himself, not even with "all the evidence" leading back to Patsy and John Ramsey, according to Detective Steve Thomas, who eventually resigned from the case.

D.A. Hunter even handed Lawrence Schiller, the author of "Perfect Murder Perfect Town" Detective Steve Thomas' police reports on the JonBenét case because he was writing a book. How low could this D.A. go? He also fed information to Jeff Shapiro, a reporter with The Globe tabloid. Hunter was a first class sleazeball in my opinion.
These creeps are put into these positions for political reasons, I'm sure.

 

Remember that there was a piece of duct tape on JonBenet's mouth when Daddy found her in the basement, which he immediately ripped off her face.

In the "garrotte first" scenario, the duct tape would have been put on before the cord to quiet her. In the "head blow first" scenario, it was merely part of the staging.

The only sure things we know about the duct tape: John removed it, it had a print of JonBenet's lips on it, and several fibers consistent with Patsy's Christmas jacket were stuck to it. I believe Steve Thomas called the lip impression "perfect," as if she hadn't been screaming and struggling when if was put on her mouth. Also, I recall no mention of her own hairs being caught on it, which also makes it seem that she was quiet when it was applied.

 

If that person believed JBR was dead, why did he strangle her?

 

The person would get off on jacking around with little girls, dead or alive, is all I can figure.

 

This is what the Ramseys want you and everyone else to think happened JC, that this scene was handled by a pedophile, and not themselves.

 

I don't buy it, Elle. Sounds like what may be the jameson factor.

 

Why would anyone stage a crime scene if they find someone dead without a apparent cause of death?