"Betcha I know what Henry Lee is talking about above, and it meshes with Kane saying he thinks it was an accident, and even Steve Thomas. John and Patsy don't fit the profile for killers. No one in the history of the country has ever garotted their own child. They all think if either or both of the Ramseys were involved in JonBenet's death, it was an accident followed by a cover-up that resulted in her death. If JonBenet was killed by an intruder, it was murder. They can't find enough evidence to rule out either possibility. If this assessment is correct, the only thing that has been ruled out is traditional murder one by John and/or Patsy - premeditated murder."

What do you think? Is Henry Lee using a sort of code?

accidental death = John and/or Patsy did it - accident followed by cover-up

murder = Intruder killed JonBenet.

If this should be true, it would mean that the authorities don't think the Ramseys murdered JonBenet as the result of any plan. It also means they could find no motive, which would explain ST's ridiculous toileting hypothesis.

It may not seem like much, but if the authorities in Boulder are convinced the Ramseys aren't cold blooded killers, it is progress. And, it explains all of the talk about an "accident".

Next step - they need to determine the head wound was not the result of an accident. That will leave only murder by an intruder.

This 'murder or accident' is just another way of saying 'inside job' is what we are looking at.

It could be 99%evidence of intruder and 1%evidence of accidental death and they would still be harping on that 'we don't know if its murder or an accident'.

At this stage any 'it was definitely an intruder' would only work to the detriment of Boulder, so its just not going to happen.

A case that is unsolved due to its being an inside job is acceptable; an unsolved notorious child murder is not.

Just call me Pollyanna with a mustache.

> A case that is unsolved due to its being an inside job is acceptable; an unsolved notorious child murder is not.

I can't argue with that. Still, we have both Kane and Thomas saying it was an accident followed by a coverup, and Henry Lee saying there isn't enough evidence to prove it wasn't an accident (in a manner of speaking).

We can safely eliminate an accident by an intruder.

That leaves an accident by John and/or Patsy. To me, Wecht's sex game theory is BS, but if one chooses to consider a little girl's death being caused by an adult who was garotting her for some sort of sexual reason, I would be hard pressed to call it an accident. I think it would be murder anywhere. Causing someone's death during the commission of a felony, in this case felony child abuse, is murder. I don't think Kane would call this scenario an accident, and he thinks JBR's death was an accident followed by a cover-up.

That leads us into the uncharted depths of Thomas' diaper box hypothesis, which doesn't lend itself to analysis because it isn't based on facts or evidence. All you can do is try to claw your way back to the surface and keep on looking.

Next up, staging. I have never had any reason to believe the crime scene was staged, but it appears that Kane thinks so. So, maybe they are working backwards. The crime scene is staged, so it must be a coverup. Patsy wrote the ransom note in spite of what the Secret Service says. John and Patsy have nothing in their backgrounds to suggest they would kill an innocent child on purpose. So, if the Ramseys were involved, the coverup must have been initiated to hide an accident that caused JBR's head injury.

JBR's head injury doesn't look to me like an accident. The question is, why would they think so?

I realize that Kane's talk of an accident could be nothing more than a psychological ploy to get the Ramseys to confess to an "accident". But, that would mean Thomas' whole book was a ploy, and I don't think so.

>we have both Kane and Thomas saying it was an accident followed
>by a coverup, and Henry Lee saying there isn't enough evidence
>to prove it wasn't an accident (in a manner of speaking).
Yes, they are indeed saying that, I doubt they actually believe it.
It is a public relations posturing stance: Thomas in hopes of royalties, Kane and Lee as hired guns. I can't prove absolutely and completely that Guppy is not a martian, therefore ... I will refuse to discuss any theory or follow any inquiry until the question of Guppy being a martian is resolved. As long as I never give in on this initial threshold issue that I have created, I will never have to go in any direction that I do not want to go.

>JBR's head injury doesn't look to me like an accident. The
>question is, why would they think so?
They don't think so. Probably not even the tabloid editors think so any more than those editors believe the Martian invader stories.

>But, that would mean Thomas' whole book was a ploy
PRECISELY!! but it was ploy to get royalties because he couldn't hack it as a cop even in a dumb cushy place like Boulder.

The following true story and forensic analysis supports the idea, IMO, that if JonBenet were swung or forcefully thrown against some object there would be DEFINITE signs of countra-coup brusing opposite the fracture. Some think there are signs but these aren't definite by any means. The fracture probably would have occured somewhere on the side of JB's head rather than on top as well, wouldn't you think? Does anyone think she was dropped accidently directly on top of her head, like from the staircase? Experts on the example case say that the 7-1/2" fracture if incurred in a fall could only happen in a fall greater than 4 feet. I believe a free fall greater than that onto the top of her head would have broken JonBenet's neck as well. But that wasn't the case. In other words the head injury in the Ramsey case wasn't due to a great or slight fall, it wasn't due to being slung around like a sack of potatoes. It was a blow from above made forcefully and with a prepared or purposefully selected object, ie., it was premeditated murder, not an accidental death.

The case study also indicates that if the head wound came first it is likely that the child would have lived an hour or so sans garrote. She would have been visibly alive,breathing, perhaps convulsing. Only a terminally close minded person might conceive of these parents standing by while their daughter lay dying? What idiot would think these kind hearted, miracle believing folks would concoct a bizarre garroting staging rather than taking their daughter to the ER (even if, in fact, their daughter had been injured in their sight or at their hand)?

The link:

A INTERESTING CASE STUDY
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Wright-George111001/wright-george111001.html
excerpt
A case where the patient/victim lay unconscious and bleeding until, apparently, an embolism ended her life-no garrote to choke off the blood flow to the brain.

"A 75–80 cc acute subdural hematoma in the left temporal area with underlying cortical contusion. The latter is called a contracoup hemorrhage since it occurs on the opposite side from the fracture (7-1/2"). This collection of blood was reported to be so severe as to cause uncal herniation and cerebellar coning which occur only with the heart pumping blood into the brain, according to the medical literature.
***Dr. Berkland asserts that contracoup injury can occur only if a "moving head stationary object." not by a moving object striking a stationary head. This is contradicted by authoritative literature.*** In addition, the forensic literature says that an unguarded fall of at least four feet is required to fracture the skull and a contracoup injury would require substantially greater energy than would be produced by such a short fall. Furthermore, Dr. Berkland said that Klausutis fell because a cardiac arrhythmia made the heartbeat ineffectual without explaining how the heart then pumped enough blood to produce an expanding collection of blood on the left side of the brain, the side opposite to the fracture? Finally, although the report shows the subdural hematoma was severe, it was far from the site deep in the brainstem that controls heartbeat and respiration. Dr. Berkland's microscopics give no description of the brainstem and no evidence that it was damaged at all, leaving a question as to the exact cause of death. Ed Friedlander, M.D., a noted forensic pathologist has stated that "A good rule of thumb is that nothing inside the head short of a gunshot wound through the lower brainstem will kill a person in less than 60 minutes."

http://www.onlinejournal.com/09-20-01_George-Wright-printable.pdf

There was no 'accidental injury' to the head, there was a carefully aimed blow that delivered a fairly major force. I would NOT refer to it as a 'coup de grace' because no merciful ending of pain was intended, it was more a final 'take that, just to be sure'.

The problem many of us have is that we don't know if the person who delivered that forceful blow did so: to get rid of a witness to his perversion because JonBenet knew his identity, to get rid of a possible witness to his perversion because JonBenet might eventually describe and later identify him, to inflict pain on the family, to give him pleasure?

That would seem to support the idea that he hasn't rejected the intruder theory.

In any case, what happened was NOT an accident by any means. What was done WAS the first strike, NOT a coverup, as I'm sure YOU are well aware. I know, you were just quoting what someone else said.

We know by what was done that it was murder. The note was written before the crime as far as we know. Anyone who could've carried her to the basement without waking the whole house could've gotten her out of the house as well. The note is not a ransome note, it is a tale; almost like a pre-planning of events to take place. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a bored college age in seek of thrills as we have heard of other times (whether that be true or not). Whereas one writes the tale, perhaps differently and another uses IT and copies it in the handwriting of whoever wrote on the pad (in this case Patsy) and then followed their own ideas after that. The perp came prepared, we know that. What him was intending to do may have changed on the scene, or he may have known it beforehand.

Neither was that noose made with a paintbrush handle while so close to JonBenét so that her long hair tangled into the knots of the cord. That noose was pulled so hard into that child's neck that it was imbedded into her throat.