Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[Mikebr]

There was a personal back and forth exchange in here that I removed. If it isn't done and over with when I get back, time outs will be issued. :nono:

good idea.

 

[Mikebr]

Hmmm...could any vaginal examinations that Dr. might have been doing been in any way a result of the incontinence JonBenet had to contend with, or the results of that incontinence?

Just how in-depth were these vaginal exams? A quick visual peek of the outside area, enough to see the next infection on JB's skin in what Patsy said was a frequent occurrence? Probably. I seriously doubt it went so far as involve implements used on adult women.

This is what infuriates me the most about the Ramsey case - the needless suffering JonBenet had to endure.

If JonBenet had so many infections and Patsy knew it, even said they were hard to clear up because she always wet, WHY didn't Patsy take her to a specialist? Patsy brags about how incredible the health insurance the Rs have is in DOI - why wasn't that totally awesome amount of insurance going towards helping JonBenet stay infection-free?

Why haven't Dr. Beuf's notes ever been released?

Why did Patsy call Beuf's office three times in one hour, only to later conveniently forget why?

Why did JonBenet visit the school nurse on three consecutive Mondays in December, in the weeks just before she was murdered?

What are they HIDING? WHY???



Patsy often downplayed JB's incontinence as bed-wetting, but in JB's situation, it had gone far beyond mere bed-wetting.

While Patsy did say that if she didn't wake JonBenet up around midnight to use the bathroom, she may end up wet by morning, but she also told a friend of hers named Pam Griffin that (from PMPT, hb, page 94) "JonBenet often waited until an emergency was imminent and as a result, was still having accidents."

Bed-wetting is one thing; wetting one's self at age 6 while wide awake was another. Accident? Every now and then, sure. But...later on that same page we learn:

"Patsy complained that JonBenet had frequent infections that were hard to clear up because her underpants were always wet."

Accidents are one thing, but how many accidents does one little girl have to have before it turns not only into an infection, but an infection that is hard to clear up - because the child being treated is still sitting in wet underwear...? What mother just ignores her 6 yr old daughter having to endure that as normal, everyday, average, nothing to really be concerned about (which is how Patsy downplays it post-murder)?

The skin on that area of the body is so sensitive, especially on a child. It must have been so uncomfortable for JonBenet, and then remember she's only 6. She needed an adult to help her with it, because that is just beyond the scope of what a 6 yr old can do for herself. Having to drop her clothes and sit exposed just to let anyone look at it to help her with it, much less have to treat it, must have been at the very least uncomfortable in embarrassment alone for JB...not to mention how sore it would have been.

And then figure in how BPD said the underwear they found searching JonBenet's drawers showed that almost every pair had stains of soiling. If I may quote and link:


Holly Smith, head of Boulder County Sexual Abuse team, stated had found fecal staining in all of JBR's panties on the 3rd day of the investigation; in 2006 she stated: "There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith....While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions."

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence%20of%20Prior%20Sexual%20Abuse


So Jonbenet wasn't just wetting the bed every now and then at night...she was wetting herself during the day as well, and sat around in soaking wet underwear so often that it created what her mother referred to as "frequent infections that were hard to clear up from always being in wet underpants".

And then we also know that the sex abuse expert from BPD discovered Jonbenet's underwear were stained with fecal soiling.

So she's got frequent infections from being wet and/or soiled either during the day or night or both, and it's just some bed-wetting?

No. IMO, something in JonBenet's life was extremely wrong, and the toileting issues were her best way to try to communicate how badly she was being abused. Nothing about the entire situation with the soiling or toileting issues is any way normal or average, when you compare the life JonBenet lived to the lives other children live. In any other child, no one would argue such issues denote abuse - but for some reason, the Rs are exempt, no matter how obvious it is to everyone, including the Rs.

IMO, Patsy knew JonBenet's toileting issues were the manifestation of the abuse JonBenet went through on a regular basis, and that's why she ignored them and tried to deny any of it ever existed to the full scope that it did. Sexual and physical abuse. And both JR and PR knew, cause they were each part of it. They covered up for each other, because both were equally as guilty in one way or another. IMO.

There were many things going on in that house. I am not sure who knew what..but Jonbenet was never allowed to be a little girl, just a plaything for mom and who knows who else?

 

[runsdeep]

aside from evidence, i'm curious about the behaviors since that night. who of the ramsey's had the upper hand in their relationship? who held the power over the others? and why?

anyone have suggestions on this? or is there a thread that covers it somewhere?

 

[DeeDee249]

I've read that JR pretty much let Patsy do what she wanted- as far as JB's pageant career, spending money, decorating, clothes, etc. Once in a whike he complained about how much money Patsy spent, but Patsy's mother Nedra made a comment once something like she and Patsy "love spending all that money JR makes".
Does that really mean Patsy had the upper hand, though?
It didn't seem like Patsy was subservient to him. But she did depend on him for her lifestyle.
It'd be interesting to hear everyone's take on this. Who called the shots? Patsy or JR. Or did they each have their own "shots" to call.

 

[runsdeep]

I've read that JR pretty much let Patsy do what she wanted- as far as JB's pageant career, spending money, decorating, clothes, etc. Once in a whike he complained about how much money Patsy spent, but Patsy's mother Nedra made a comment once something like she and Patsy "love spending all that money JR makes".
Does that really mean Patsy had the upper hand, though?
It didn't seem like Patsy was subservient to him. But she did depend on him for her lifestyle.
It'd be interesting to hear everyone's take on this. Who called the shots? Patsy or JR. Or did they each have their own "shots" to call.

my impression on seeing them on tv, and in a documentary about them up to the time she died, her behavior was such that she could have what she wanted without fear of being kicked out to the curb. and she mostly looked to him to answer questions.

 

[New1]

I've been reading here for awhile, but I don't recall ever posting and I've learned some things I'd never heard about this case. I followed it when it first happened, but I have forgotten some of the details. When it first happened I thought that one of the Ramseys did it, and I thought that Ramsey was most likely Burke. I still think that, but I don't believe Burke is aware of it. I think whatever happened, it was an accident. JonBenet' was mortally wounded, and to keep Burke from thinking he had not just "hurt" her and knocked her out, but instead had killed her, John or Patsy gave Burke a sedative and put him to bed telling him JB was all right then they staged the death scene in the basement, patsy wrote the RN and they stayed up all night staging and wiping fingerprints, etc., and concocted the kidnapping story to protect Burke from knowing he had killed his sister. Far-fetched? Maybe, but they were clearly covering up for SOMEONE and, logically, the only person I can think of would have been Burke.

It is not logical to think that an intruder took JB from her bed, brought her to the kitchen and fed her pineapple, took her to the basement and sexually abused her, bashed her in the head and strangled her, cleaned her up, re-dressed her, then wrote a 3 page ransom note in the dark and forgot to take the body with him. The ransom note said "WE are a small foreign faction", indicating more than one. Just how many people should we believe were in that house walking around in the dark, going up and down the stairs getting clothing items to re-dress JB, looking for pen and paper to write the ransom note and not even being afraid of waking JR or PR during all this? It's unbelievable IMO.

 

[vlpate]

anyone have suggestions on this? or is there a thread that covers it somewhere?

We've really only seen interviews and not much reality type interaction between the two of them.

I think Patsy held secrets about JR, and that gave her a total advantage. IMO

 

[LCoastMom]

Fair sorry for my earlier post saying i disagreed..i didn't mean to sound so abrupt.

I am a little confused on the need to stage the abuse myself. But staging is done by people who attempt to make a crime look like its not. The note was staging to make it look like a kidnapping. I also contend it was first staged for John to get him out of the house to the bank...but i said that....
When i was writing my previous post I realized that staging it to look like a sexual assault may be the killer's way of covering evidence of an earlier attack by someone Patsy was trying to protect. I think patsy planned to dump the body and staged the body for the dumpsite not the basement. John just did not react the way Patsy thought. He made her call the police which based on the note Patsy thought she was going to be convincing about not calling the police..remember over and over how the daughter will die. I think John was in a panic and had not digested the note until after the 911 call. At that point either by admissions by Patsy or by his own reasoning he realized the note was fake, patsy was acting weird and maybe even recognized patsy had written the note. Perhaps John was who she was protecting, not sure. Maybe she confessed. but after the police got there, they both were putting on a performance. In cases i have heard of where a father kills their child and stages an abduction, the child is dumped. I think Patsy could not get the body to the car and drive off to dump it with John in the house. He would have heard or seen her in the act. A man could easily move the body with ease and since its my belief Patsy wrote the note, it would have to be both involved or patsy by herself. If both were involved the body would have been dumped not left in the basement for the police to find it.

I don't know near what most of you do on this case but I'm curious, if PR committed the crime alone and planned to remove her from the home - why take JBR to the cellar? Why not leave under the cover of darkness while JR slept on the third floor, one or two floors above? She would have had most of the night to do so IIRC. Waiting for early morning, even assuming JR would have left to withdraw money would have involved the risk of being seen out and about. Leaving their beautiful daughter to the elements - I can't see that as being part of "the plan".

The "staged" sexual abuse - on top of a rage fueled accidental death (if that is the case) is what perplexes me the most in this case. I know adults lose their tempers and strike out at their children but to then sexually violate them in a very vicious manner just makes my skin crawl. To enlist the aid of the spouse in covering such a crime is beyond my ability to reason.

In answer to the OP - yes the R's are involved.

 

[cynic]

Leaving their beautiful daughter to the elements - I can't see that as being part of "the plan".

ITA, dumping her outside would have serious risks involved. While that would have probably been more of a concern for John, the concern from Patsy’s perspective would have been the thought that animals and / or the elements would destroy the chance for her little beauty queen to be displayed once last time at her funeral, picture perfect, in her sparkling tiara.
There is even a hint of this concern in the ransom note…”You will also be denied her remains for proper burial.”

 

[cynic]

The "staged" sexual abuse - on top of a rage fueled accidental death (if that is the case) is what perplexes me the most in this case. I know adults lose their tempers and strike out at their children but to then sexually violate them in a very vicious manner just makes my skin crawl. To enlist the aid of the spouse in covering such a crime is beyond my ability to reason.

In answer to the OP - yes the R's are involved.

If the Ramseys believed she was dead already, (from the head injury,) and they felt that the chronic abuse (whether sexual or corporal) would be discovered and result in serious criminal child abuse charges, then their actions become quite plausible, although obviously not justifiable.

 

[Mikebr]

I don't know near what most of you do on this case but I'm curious, if PR committed the crime alone and planned to remove her from the home - why take JBR to the cellar? Why not leave under the cover of darkness while JR slept on the third floor, one or two floors above? She would have had most of the night to do so IIRC. Waiting for early morning, even assuming JR would have left to withdraw money would have involved the risk of being seen out and about. Leaving their beautiful daughter to the elements - I can't see that as being part of "the plan".

The "staged" sexual abuse - on top of a rage fueled accidental death (if that is the case) is what perplexes me the most in this case. I know adults lose their tempers and strike out at their children but to then sexually violate them in a very vicious manner just makes my skin crawl. To enlist the aid of the spouse in covering such a crime is beyond my ability to reason.

In answer to the OP - yes the R's are involved.

I am not sure Patsy was thinking too clearly. I suspect drugs and alcohol. I always come back to the note. Patsy wrote that note. The note was written to deceive. I think the person targeted by the note was Patsy. Patsy moved the body to the basement and began the staging by rigging the garrotte. She could not easily move that body to her car, much less drive away without John noticing. She needed John gone. THe note was suppose to make John leave the house for the bank and NOT call the police. John threw a wrench in the plan by reacting in a way Patsy did not expect. He reacted like a father who thought his daughter had been kidnapped. Then somewhere along the way that morning...he figured it out. If John and Patsy had both done it, the body would not be in that house.

 

[LCoastMom]

If the Ramseys believed she was dead already, (from the head injury,) and they felt that the chronic abuse (whether sexual or corporal) would be discovered and result in serious criminal child abuse charges, then their actions become quite plausible, although obviously not justifiable.

Their child had just been murdered, accidentally or intentionally - to add sexual assault to the equation just goes beyond my level of comprehension.

The blood in the vaginal vault suggests the injury was premortem and that the injury was inflicted where the body was found. Wasn't it said that there may have been evidence that JBR was moved (dragged?) down stairs after the head injury? Did LE ever find whatever was used to clean JB?

JBR had a PCP who had examined her recently and would have testified she was not a victim of SA.

Without the fresh injury, I have a hard time believing anyone would have been charged with (or at least convicted of) SA - even in children the area heals rapidly, without scarring (signs of a vicious attack) the rupture of a hymen can be explained away - sorry I don't have a link but I have read that 25% of all women are born without a complete hymen and many more will rupture theirs in childhood without ever knowing it happened. Lack of a hymen can not be used as proof of prior intercourse. Since JBR was prone to infections in the area it could easily be argued that the torn hymen was self inflected due to scratching/rubbing the vagina when inflamed.

I'm not saying that's how it happened, just saying it is a valid explanation.

It's like FCA suggesting she staged a murder to cover up an accidental death!

Very little about this crime make sense. The rambling note (where it was left even), the parents claims to have slept through the whole thing while a neighbor heard a scream, the pineapple, the horrific injuries followed by the undoing, the early morning calls to get friends in the house....I don't know near enough about this crime, but what I do know does not add up. It's like it was orchestrated by a mastermind with a split personality.

 

[cynic]

Their child had just been murdered, accidentally or intentionally - to add sexual assault to the equation just goes beyond my level of comprehension.

The blood in the vaginal vault suggests the injury was premortem and that the injury was inflicted where the body was found. Wasn't it said that there may have been evidence that JBR was moved (dragged?) down stairs after the head injury? Did LE ever find whatever was used to clean JB?

JBR had a PCP who had examined her recently and would have testified she was not a victim of SA.

Without the fresh injury, I have a hard time believing anyone would have been charged with (or at least convicted of) SA - even in children the area heals rapidly, without scarring (signs of a vicious attack) the rupture of a hymen can be explained away - sorry I don't have a link but I have read that 25% of all women are born without a complete hymen and many more will rupture theirs in childhood without ever knowing it happened. Lack of a hymen can not be used as proof of prior intercourse. Since JBR was prone to infections in the area it could easily be argued that the torn hymen was self inflected due to scratching/rubbing the vagina when inflamed.

I'm not saying that's how it happened, just saying it is a valid explanation.

It's like FCA suggesting she staged a murder to cover up an accidental death!

Very little about this crime make sense. The rambling note (where it was left even), the parents claims to have slept through the whole thing while a neighbor heard a scream, the pineapple, the horrific injuries followed by the undoing, the early morning calls to get friends in the house....I don't know near enough about this crime, but what I do know does not add up. It's like it was orchestrated by a mastermind with a split personality.

There are certainly people who share your skepticism with respect to prior abuse; although, I happen to believe chronic abuse did exist and is a key component as to why the accident was covered up.
The visits to Dr. Beuf are meaningless to me, he was a family friend; additionally, he never did an internal on JB and never used a speculum on her. Without doing that, he would not have seen the evidence of abuse that was seen at the autopsy.

DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?
Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.
Primetime Live, September 10, 1997

Have a look through these posts for reasons why I believe the way I do.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6283867&postcount=2"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6283927&postcount=4"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]

 

[LCoastMom]

There are certainly people who share your skepticism with respect to prior abuse; although I happen to believe chronic abuse did exist and is a key component as to why the accident was covered up.
The visits to Dr. Beuf are meaningless to me, he was a family friend; additionally, he never did an internal or pelvic exam on JB and never used a speculum on her. Without doing that, he would not have seen the evidence of abuse that was seen at the autopsy.
Have a look through these posts for reasons why I believe the way I do.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Thanks for the Links, I'm not in the "no prior abuse crew". I'm just aware how it would be explained away if it was ever suggested or made it to trial.

I believe the events of Dec 25-26 must be the tip of the iceberg. Something was very wrong in that house for the R's to coverup the crime the way they did. I don't believe two adults (or even one) with no priors (known or not) could do such a thing to their child.

OTOH if JBR was a victim of long term SA and one or both were aware/involved, that would explain them going there. While her death may have been an accident, staging to obstruct was not.

 

[cynic]

Thanks for the Links, I'm not in the "no prior abuse crew". I'm just aware how it would be explained away if it was ever suggested or made it to trial.

I believe the events of Dec 25-26 must be the tip of the iceberg. Something was very wrong in that house for the R's to coverup the crime the way they did. I don't believe two adults (or even one) with no priors (known or not) could do such a thing to their child.

OTOH if JBR was a victim of long term SA and one or both were aware/involved, that would explain them going there. While her death may have been an accident, staging to obstruct was not.

BBM
I agree with you that it would have been yet another “trial of the century,” with dueling experts on a number of fronts including chronic abuse and handwriting, to name two.
They should have rolled the dice, however, and given it a try - let a jury decide; but given the conditions in the Boulder DA’s office, that was never going to happen barring a confession from one the Ramseys.

 

[cynic]

OTOH if JBR was a victim of long term SA and one or both were aware/involved, that would explain them going there. While her death may have been an accident, staging to obstruct was not.

I definitely believe that the most plausible explanation for the cover-up / staging is a history of chronic abuse, (barring serious undiagnosed mental illness.)

 

[LCoastMom]

There are certainly people who share your skepticism with respect to prior abuse; although, I happen to believe chronic abuse did exist and is a key component as to why the accident was covered up.
The visits to Dr. Beuf are meaningless to me, he was a family friend; additionally, he never did an internal on JB and never used a speculum on her. Without doing that, he would not have seen the evidence of abuse that was seen at the autopsy.

DIANE SAWYER: If there had been an abrasion involving the hymen, you would have seen it?
Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Probably. I can't say absolutely for sure because you don't do a speculum exam on a child that young at least unless it's under anesthesia.
Primetime Live, September 10, 1997

Have a look through these posts for reasons why I believe the way I do.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)

I'm not doubting this panel but I think for every specialist who testified there was prior SA the R Team would have one to say there wasn't. (Doesn't make it true).

I don't know enough about the case to know who besides PR/JR would have had enough access to JBR to carryout such attacks but her gmother saying JonBenet was only slightly abused (paraphrased) is disturbing.

My sister was the victim of long term (age 6 to 9) SA. The perp was the neighbor of a school friend. So I know it happens and I know kids don't always tell (there were dozens of kids in the neighborhood this creep molested both before and during my sister's abuse) my sister was the first to tell (at least the first whose parents contacted LE).

 

[cynic]

I'm not doubting this panel but I think for every specialist who testified there was prior SA the R Team would have one to say there wasn't. (Doesn't make it true).

I don't know enough about the case to know who besides PR/JR would have had enough access to JBR to carryout such attacks but her gmother saying JonBenet was only slightly abused (paraphrased) is disturbing.

My sister was the victim of long term (age 6 to 9) SA. The perp was the neighbor of a school friend. So I know it happens and I know kids don't always tell (there were dozens of kids in the neighborhood this creep molested both before and during my sister's abuse) my sister was the first to tell (at least the first whose parents contacted LE).

As I suggested in my previous post, I don’t doubt for a moment that the Ramseys with their resources would not have mounted an “OJ dream team” defense that would have struck fear into the heart of any DA’s office.
With respect to frequent and unquestioned access by someone outside the home, it could obviously not be ruled out, but that would be looking at a piece of the circumstantial evidence in isolation.
Who would have frequent and unquestioned access to JonBenet with respect to chronic sexual abuse and would also feel the need to break into the Ramsey home for an aborted kidnapping and leave a ransom note in Patsy’s handwriting and linguistics, leave fibers from the clothing Patsy Ramsey was known to have worn that night on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth, in the ligature, and in the paint tray, etc.
In isolation, many elements in any case can be attacked but when looked at as a whole, who does it point to?

 

[LCoastMom]

As I suggested in my previous post, I don’t doubt for a moment that the Ramseys with their resources would not have mounted an “OJ dream team” defense that would have struck fear into the heart of any DA’s office.
With respect to frequent and unquestioned access by someone outside the home, it could obviously not be ruled out, but that would be looking at a piece of the circumstantial evidence in isolation.
Who would have frequent and unquestioned access to JonBenet with respect to chronic sexual abuse and would also feel the need to break into the Ramsey home for an aborted kidnapping and leave a ransom note in Patsy’s handwriting and linguistics, leave fibers from the sweater Patsy Ramsey was known to have worn that night on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth, etc.
In isolation, many elements in any case can be attacked but when looked at as a whole, who does it point to?

Was there ever any signs of abuse in JR's older kids? Any mumbles before JBR's death? He seems like a "distant parent", not part of the day to day household around JBR and BR. But IIRC he took the death of his older daughter extremely hard.

I've heard it suggested that PR accidentally caused the horrific head injury after yet another bed wetting incident...that kind of lashing out seems to suggest mental instability to me.

IIRC you were 100% Friends of Patsy's or you were exiled by PR, even before JBR murder.

What if there was a male relative of PR's who had been SA JBR, someone she had recently pointed out to her mother? Could PR have blamed JBR? It wouldn't be the first time a mother did so. (I'm not suggesting this is true or putting the blame on anyone because I don't know who else it could possibly be - just brain storming.)

Why would JR help cover this crime if it was committed solely by PR as some here have suggested with JR reading the RN and putting 2+2 together?

 

[LCoastMom]

Was there ever any signs of abuse in JR's older kids? Any mumbles before JBR's death? He seems like a "distant parent", not part of the day to day household around JBR and BR. But IIRC he took the death of his older daughter extremely hard.

I've heard it suggested that PR accidentally caused the horrific head injury after yet another bed wetting incident...that kind of lashing out seems to suggest mental instability to me.

IIRC you were 100% Friends of Patsy's or you were exiled by PR, even before JBR murder.

What if there was a male relative of PR's who had been SA JBR, someone she had recently pointed out to her mother? Could PR have blamed JBR? It wouldn't be the first time a mother did so. (I'm not suggesting this is true or putting the blame on anyone because I don't know who else it could possibly be - just brain storming.)

Why would JR help cover this crime if it was committed solely by PR as some here have suggested with JR reading the RN and putting 2+2 together?

Please excuse me quoting myself. I've just read some other threads here, I had forgotten about JR's sweater fibers being found in JB's size 12 Bloomy's.

A lightbulb went off while reading, what (among many things) bothered me about this case. Why the overkill?

Let's say JB was murdered (or close to death) by the ligature around her neck which happened during the SA. Why then crack her skull? The bruising visible on her neck shows whoever applied the cord did so with great force. Whether death was intended or not, there was going to be no denying she had been strangled.

So assuming JB was SA, choked and then she was hit over the head with a huge amount of force, enough to leave an 8 inch crack in her skull.

Why the RN? Why not get up (or pretend to get up) 12/26 and find JB missing from her bed and the kitchen door unlocked or even left open? Call 911 to report a missing child who is later found in the WC, murdered? Then insist an IDI! Must have been lying in wait when the R's got home on 12/25 and stole JB out of her bed or snuck in through the kitchen door during the night...

Did the person who perpetrated this crime think LE was going to be fooled by a poorly written RN? Did this person think they were outsmarting LE with their actions?

JB's death reminds me more of Caylee Anthony's all the time, done by someone with no conscience who got away with murder.