What do the profilers say?

[rashomon]

And I believe that John was the molester, NOT Burke, therefore Patsy - willing to cover for either of them and a pediatrician willing to overlook the symptoms or incompetent to diagnose sexual abuse, and Burke was not removed. Your theory is no proof that JB was not molested. I believe her bedwetting and BM regression were as a result of the chronic molestation, this is how this little 6-year old girl coped, by regressing. I was molested at 13, so I have a good idea how she felt...

From the 'keep it simple' principle JB's chronic sexual abuse would certainly point to John Ramsey because in the majority of cases children sexually abused are abused by their fathers.

Who do you think killed JB? John too?
For if it was John who killed JB, would Patsy Ramsey go so far as to cover up for the killer of her daughter and stay married to him?

 

[BlueCrab]

From the 'keep it simple' principle JB's chronic sexual abuse would certainly point to John Ramsey because in the majority of cases children sexually abused are abused by their fathers.

Who do you think killed JB? John too?
For if it was John who killed JB, would Patsy Ramsey go so far as to cover up for the killer of her daughter and stay married to him?

rashomon,

Because of the on-going coverup, if a Ramsey killed JonBenet then it would not have been John nor Patsy. IMO the other two would not cover for an adult. They would cover only for a child.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Here we go defying nature again. The 'maternal instinct' is very strong, and is ignored completely here, as if it doesn't even exist.

The truth is, any parent will instinctively act to prevent harm to their children, even at the cost of their own life. So if JBR were being harmed or her life was being threatened, a parent would have no choice but to intervene. Either by trying to save JBR or by protecting their other children.

If either parent felt the other parent did it, their instinct would naturally prevent them from coexisting. Both the R's must be convinced that the other one didn't do it, or else they naturally wouldn't be able to coexist. A coverup by one to protect another defies nature.

The only remaining RDI alternative is that both the R's are filicial, which is highly unlikely since A, none of the obvious psychological problems and/or socioeconomic failures are present, which accompany filicide 90% of the time and B, can't think of very many cases of filicide where both parents are convicted.

Parental instincts are a natural fact that must be accounted for, and can't be arbitrarily erased without an explanation. Where did the naturally occuring parental instincts suddenly go?

This 'parental instinct' thing is a big problem for RDI, but not IDI.

 

[ellen13]

I think that Patsy honestly believed that it was Burke that molested JB.
She was all about protecting and cover-up. Even if John did it, which I don't believe he did, she wouldn't have confronted him because she wouldn't have wanted to give up the life style.

JMHO

 

[rashomon]

Here we go defying nature again. The 'maternal instinct' is very strong, and is ignored completely here, as if it doesn't even exist.
Parental instincts are a natural fact that must be accounted for, and can't be arbitrarily erased without an explanation.

Hmm. Well, both John And Patsy saying in the 1997 interview that they were not angry about the murder of her daughter would defy any 'parental instinct' too, wouldn't it? Anger (to say the least) would be the natural emotion for a parent to feel in that situation. Imagine your child has been slain in the most brutal manner and all you can say is that you don't feel angry and want to go on with your life.
This was also the interview in which Patsy mentioned Susan Smith and O.J. Simpson. Quite telling too.

Their claiming not to be angry about the tragic murder of JonBenet says that they were covering up something, whatever it was. There is no other explanation.

Burke maybe? But I can't imagine him, who was a child himself, being a long-time sexual abuser to his sister.

And: can we assume that the person who molested John Benet is also her killer? We can assume that, but it it doesn't necesssarily have to be so.

 

[narlacat]

That's right rashomon.
I've always wondered if the person who was abusing her was not neccasarily the killer.
Maybe her father was abusing her and maybe her brother had an extreme case of jealousy towards her.
Besides his being jealous of her, Burke was also the one responsible for her in the middle of the night. She chose to go to Burke's room instead of her parents room when she had wet the bed at night.

 

[LinasK]

Ohhhh, I believe Patsy would cover for her own husband over her daughter, that does say alot about her maternal instincts. I do believe John killed her when the sex game got taken too far. Patsy would rather cover than lose her husband and have to admit he was molesting her daughter.

 

[Nehemiah]

Here we go defying nature again. The 'maternal instinct' is very strong, and is ignored completely here, as if it doesn't even exist.

The truth is, any parent will instinctively act to prevent harm to their children, even at the cost of their own life. So if JBR were being harmed or her life was being threatened, a parent would have no choice but to intervene. Either by trying to save JBR or by protecting their other children.

If either parent felt the other parent did it, their instinct would naturally prevent them from coexisting.

Whoa, HOTYH! You are apparently not in LE or a Social Worker. I have personally removed children from their homes due to sexual abuse by the stepfathers, or even natural fathers. In each and every case I worked, the mother knew the abuse was going on. In each and every case I worked, the mother chose the husband over her own daughter. In each and every case I worked, I would have left the children in the homes if the stepdads or dads had left the homes. Never happened, and the mothers wanted the husbands to stay.

Animals will instinctively act to prevent harm to their young, but sadly, very sadly, people do not. Do I think that JR was molesting JBR? No, but to make a blanket statement as you did, can definitely be disputed.

 

[UKGuy]

That's right rashomon.
I've always wondered if the person who was abusing her was not neccasarily the killer.
Maybe her father was abusing her and maybe her brother had an extreme case of jealousy towards her.
Besides his being jealous of her, Burke was also the one responsible for her in the middle of the night. She chose to go to Burke's room instead of her parents room when she had wet the bed at night.

narlacat,

This is one assumption I've made whilst working out any possible staging scenarios.

It would help explain why JonBenet was sexually assaulted in the wine-cellar and say not upstairs, thats assuming she either went from her bedroom or the kitchen area down to the basement.

That is the person who used the paintbrush handle or their digit, may have done so in an attempt to cover up any previous abuse!

If you review the crime-scene evidence its possible to note that although JonBenet appeared to either be being re-dressed e.g. barbie-gown, or had been partially redressed, e.g. size-12 underwear, or those longjohns etc.

Given the time available to the perpetrator Jonbenet is NOT consistently or neatly dressed. And this is a famliy with money, where the mother's Number 1. Rule is to present yourself properly and dress to show. This was handed on to JonBenet via the pageant routines.

The upper half of JonBenet's torso appears to be dressed in daytime mode, including jewellry etc. Yet her bottom half is open to debate depending on what function you think her clothing plays.

Then there is the hairstyling with the asymmetric ponytails, and different colored hair-ties, a feature she certainly never went to the Whites with.

So I'm assuming, after her death, different people have dressed her at different points each undoing some aspect of the previous dresser. This might explain why she is dressed in a rag-bag of clothes and wrapped in a blanket.

Some of the other evidence found in the basement that appears to originate from upstairs, may be the remnants of a previous staging or dressing, after it was removed it was hurriedly placed away, say in the suitcase. Possibly because if she was found with that blanket beside or wrapped around her then maybe she was NOT abducted straight from her bedroom?

So assuming what you suggest regarding Burke is correct, then possibly he re-dressed JonBenet, and placed her in the other bedroom, incidentally would Burke know where to find JonBenet's underwear, he can read, so would he settle for the size-12 Wednesday pair? Later along comes Patsy and decides to either tidy up a few loose ends and removes JonBenet to the basement. Much later along comes John who decides she should look as if she has been abducted direct from her bed, hence the barbie gown, and she was the victim of a sadistic sexual assault, which would also obscure any prior abuse, or at least cloud the issue?

This thumbnail outline although unlikely to be correct, helps to explain disparate factors, and still answers the question, why are the Ramsey's covering up?

 

[tipper]

That's right rashomon.
I've always wondered if the person who was abusing her was not neccasarily the killer.
Maybe her father was abusing her and maybe her brother had an extreme case of jealousy towards her.
Besides his being jealous of her, Burke was also the one responsible for her in the middle of the night. She chose to go to Burke's room instead of her parents room when she had wet the bed at night.

I wouldn't really say Burke was responsible for her at night. She simply shifted herself into the dry twin bed in his room.

 

[rashomon]

Whoa, HOTYH! You are apparently not in LE or a Social Worker. I have personally removed children from their homes due to sexual abuse by the stepfathers, or even natural fathers. In each and every case I worked, the mother knew the abuse was going on. In each and every case I worked, the mother chose the husband over her own daughter. In each and every case I worked, I would have left the children in the homes if the stepdads or dads had left the homes. Never happened, and the mothers wanted the husbands to stay.

I hear you, but the Ramsey case is not only a child abuse case, it is also a murder case, so just curious: have you ever been involved in a case where both child abuse and homicide were combined?
For this is what makes this case so complicated: of course victims of child abuse and social workers know that the mother often knows about the abuse.
But would a mother still choose the husband over her own daughter, knowing he had not only abused, but killed her? Stay married to him, knowing he had killed her child?
So, rather than having to admit that he molested JB, Patsy would prefer covering up for her husband who not only molested but also murdered her child? If so, then both John and Patsy Ramsey must be thoroughly sociopathic personalities.

Have the parents ever undergone psychological evaluation and testing?

 

[narlacat]

QUOTE>>I wouldn't really say Burke was responsible for her at night. She simply shifted herself into the dry twin bed in his room.<<

Well, I don't see why she wouldn't have gone to her parents room, which was closer. They did provide her with a torch though, for the walk from her room to Burke's.
I don't think it was cool for her to go to her parents when she wet the bed.

 

[tipper]

SHe probably didn't go to their room because they didn't have a spare dry bed to use.

 

[narlacat]

She had a spare bed in her own room.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Animals will instinctively act to prevent harm to their young, but sadly, very sadly, people do not. Do I think that JR was molesting JBR? No, but to make a blanket statement as you did, can definitely be disputed.

Most people sure do instinctively act to prevent harm to their young. Maybe you shouldn't pick up somebody elses child in a department store, unless you just want to find out if 'people' still have any 'animalistic protective instincts' (lol).

One aspect of your post concerns me though, and that is where the mother 'chooses father or stepfather over daughter.' It seems to me this could be an 'economic decision.' The father makes more money than the daughter, and so to survive, the mother chooses the father.

It could also be an 'unwanted child' decision.

Believe it or not, this could still be the mother's maternal instincts at work: she opted to have her daughter removed from that environment in the interest of safety and her daughter's reputation.

Relating to RDI, I was really only asking a question: Where did the parental instinct go? Why isn't the absence of a parental instinct questioned? Is this lack of parental protective instinct supposed to be accepted as a 'given' without any explanation?

 

[Nehemiah]

I hear you, but the Ramsey case is not only a child abuse case, it is also a murder case, so just curious: have you ever been involved in a case where both child abuse and homicide were combined?

No, thankfully, no.

For this is what makes this case so complicated: of course victims of child abuse and social workers know that the mother often knows about the abuse. But would a mother still choose the husband over her own daughter, knowing he had not only abused, but killed her? Stay married to him, knowing he had killed her child?

I'd be guessing here, but I think it's entirely possible.

So, rather than having to admit that he molested JB, Patsy would prefer covering up for her husband who not only molested but also murdered her child? If so, then both John and Patsy Ramsey must be thoroughly sociopathic personalities.

Have the parents ever undergone psychological evaluation and testing?

Not of which we have been made aware.

I personally don't think the Ramseys murdered JB, but I know that it can/does happen.

 

[narlacat]

narlacat,

This is one assumption I've made whilst working out any possible staging scenarios.

It would help explain why JonBenet was sexually assaulted in the wine-cellar and say not upstairs, thats assuming she either went from her bedroom or the kitchen area down to the basement.

That is the person who used the paintbrush handle or their digit, may have done so in an attempt to cover up any previous abuse!

If you review the crime-scene evidence its possible to note that although JonBenet appeared to either be being re-dressed e.g. barbie-gown, or had been partially redressed, e.g. size-12 underwear, or those longjohns etc.

Given the time available to the perpetrator Jonbenet is NOT consistently or neatly dressed. And this is a famliy with money, where the mother's Number 1. Rule is to present yourself properly and dress to show. This was handed on to JonBenet via the pageant routines.

The upper half of JonBenet's torso appears to be dressed in daytime mode, including jewellry etc. Yet her bottom half is open to debate depending on what function you think her clothing plays.

Then there is the hairstyling with the asymmetric ponytails, and different colored hair-ties, a feature she certainly never went to the Whites with.

Well, noone knows how she wore her hair to the White's, but your'e right, there's no way Patsy would have sent JonBenet out with her hair like that.
There's not one photo of Jonbenet with her hair in that style and the mis matched hair ties would have been a no no to Patsy.
It was an attempt by the Ramsey's to deflect the attention away from themselves.

So I'm assuming, after her death, different people have dressed her at different points each undoing some aspect of the previous dresser. This might explain why she is dressed in a rag-bag of clothes and wrapped in a blanket.

Some of the other evidence found in the basement that appears to originate from upstairs, may be the remnants of a previous staging or dressing, after it was removed it was hurriedly placed away, say in the suitcase. Possibly because if she was found with that blanket beside or wrapped around her then maybe she was NOT abducted straight from her bedroom?

So assuming what you suggest regarding Burke is correct, then possibly he re-dressed JonBenet, and placed her in the other bedroom, incidentally would Burke know where to find JonBenet's underwear, he can read, so would he settle for the size-12 Wednesday pair? Later along comes Patsy and decides to either tidy up a few loose ends and removes JonBenet to the basement. Much later along comes John who decides she should look as if she has been abducted direct from her bed, hence the barbie gown, and she was the victim of a sadistic sexual assault, which would also obscure any prior abuse, or at least cloud the issue?

I'd say Burke would have known where to find Jonbenet's underwear, but maybe missed the sizing in his haste and didnt realise they were not the right size nor that they were not meant for JonBenet.

This thumbnail outline although unlikely to be correct, helps to explain disparate factors, and still answers the question, why are the Ramsey's covering up?

UK guy, do you have a set theory?

 

[narlacat]

Hi UK Guy
Geez youv'e got the Ramsey's being real busy that night! I'm sure they were too.

>>Then there is the hairstyling with the asymmetric ponytails, and different colored hair-ties, a feature she certainly never went to the Whites with.<<

Well, we don't know how Jonbenet wore her hair to the White's as there is no pictures, but you are right. There's no way Patsy would have sent JonBenet out with her hair like that. There's not one picture of JonBenet with her hair styled like that and the mis matched hair ties would have been a no no to Patsy.
I think the hair thing was just another lame attempt at deflecting the attention away from themselves.
(so lame that it worked!)

>>So assuming what you suggest regarding Burke is correct, then possibly he re-dressed JonBenet, and placed her in the other bedroom, incidentally would Burke know where to find JonBenet's underwear, he can read, so would he settle for the size-12 Wednesday pair? <<

I think Burke would have had a rough idea where JonBenet's underwear was kept. He mightn't have known her sizing though and assumed the packet from Bloomingdale's was hers, not realising they were the wrong size. Contrary to what alot of people think, I don't think the size 12 undies would have fallen off her, I think they would have just been more roomy/baggy.
Were the ones from Bloomingdale's in the same place as her other underwear? I forget now.
I'm not so sure about Burke being involved too much in the staging, surely he had done enough already.....but maybe you mean before Patsy and John knew JonBenet was dead?
I think you are right though, I think it took a while for them to decide how she should look and where she should be placed.

 

[tipper]

She had a spare bed in her own room.

That's true and my recollection is that she sometimes hifted over to that one. I just don't think its very important or meaningful. Perhaps because my kids (especially the bedwetters) used to migrate during the night.

 

[tipper]

She had a spare bed in her own room.

That's true and my recollection is that she sometimes shifted over to that one. I just don't think its very important or meaningful. Perhaps because my kids (especially the bedwetters) used to migrate during the night.