Why the need to seperate the two? Why not a rage attack because of incest?Does a crime of incest resulting in death actually account for more of the evidence and behavior of the offender(s) than does the popular rage attack theory?
Why the need to seperate the two? Why not a rage attack because of incest?
-Tea
I agree with you. Tea. For if it was a rage attack, it could have been related to the incest itself (though not necessarily).Why the need to seperate the two? Why not a rage attack because of incest?
-Tea
I agree with you. Tea. For if it was a rage attack, it could have been related to the incest itself (though not necessarily).
Then there also exists the possibility that it was a rage attack which was not related to incest, but still JonBenet could have been the victim of chronic sexual abuse.
While the Ramsey case a slam dunk case against the parents in terms of their having covered up the true reason of JonBenet's death
(Patsy Ramsey ought to have been arrested as the main stager of the cover-up), it is a most intricate case in terms of who did what in relation to the homicide itself.
While there was evidence pointing to chronic molestation, this evidence was not conclusive enough in terms of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
An acute vaginal wound was inflicted which bled.
Circumferential reddish hyperemia (= reddish indicates it was fresh, not yet in the processof healing) inside the vestibule of the vagina extending just inside the vaginal orifice could point to sexual contact involving digital manipulation/penetration.
But again, these manipulations/injuries could also have been inflicted for staging purposes.
In short, one gets many variables.
Possible questions:
Was JonBenet the victim of chronic sexual abuse?
If yes, who was her sexual abuser?
If yes, was the sexual abuse the reason for her violent death (not necessarily)
Was her sexual abuser also her killer? (again, not necessarily!)
How much did the person who was the main stager of the scene know about the chronic sexual abuse?
What exactly happened in that house and why? No Ramsey will ever tell us imo.
I also don t think that Burke will one day speak about it. Who knows if he wasn't involved himself.
Does a crime of incest resulting in death actually account for more of the evidence and behavior of the offender(s) than does the popular rage attack theory?
I agree with you. Tea. For if it was a rage attack, it could have been related to the incest itself (though not necessarily).
Then there also exists the possibility that it was a rage attack which was not related to incest, but still JonBenet could have been the victim of chronic sexual abuse.
While the Ramsey case a slam dunk case against the parents in terms of their having covered up the true reason of JonBenet's death
(Patsy Ramsey ought to have been arrested as the main stager of the cover-up), it is a most intricate case in terms of who did what in relation to the homicide itself.
While there was evidence pointing to chronic molestation, this evidence was not conclusive enough in terms of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
An acute vaginal wound was inflicted which bled.
Circumferential reddish hyperemia (= reddish indicates it was fresh, not yet in the processof healing) inside the vestibule of the vagina extending just inside the vaginal orifice could point to sexual contact involving digital manipulation/penetration.
But again, these manipulations/injuries could also have been inflicted for staging purposes.
In short, one gets many variables.
Possible questions:
Was JonBenet the victim of chronic sexual abuse?
If yes, who was her sexual abuser?
If yes, was the sexual abuse the reason for her violent death (not necessarily)
Was her sexual abuser also her killer? (again, not necessarily!)
How much did the person who was the main stager of the scene know about the chronic sexual abuse?
What exactly happened in that house and why? No Ramsey will ever tell us imo.
I also don t think that Burke will one day speak about it. Who knows if he wasn't involved himself.
If yes, was the sexual abuse the reason for her violent death (not necessarily)
Does a crime of incest resulting in death actually account for more of the evidence and behavior of the offender(s) than does the popular rage attack theory?
Imo the stager of the scene could have wanted to camouflage chronic sexual abuse by inflicting the acute wound. So that the investigators should think all damage to JonBenet's genitals had been done by the sexual predator on that night.Since the acute vaginal trauma and the homicide occured around the same time (or relatively close together), imo it seems highly propable that the sexual abuse in one way or another led to the death. It's hard to imagine the acute vaginal trauma as staging, in light of the chronic vaginal trauma.
Would Patsy have covered up for he man who had killed JonBenet, the apple of her eye? I always had the feeling that the only person Patsy would cover up for was herself. Maybe for Burke also, but for John?I believe more that it was a case of John molesting her and getting carried away and accidentally killing her than a rage attack by Patsy, however I believe Patsy stood by her man and had a major role in the cover-up.
IF JR did it,then did he perhaps threaten Patsy? For one,she needed access to enough money in case her cancer came back...she also wanted to give the outside world the appearance of 'perfection'.But,like I said,that's an 'IF JR did it' scenario.
Possibly, but I can't see JR's threats keeping her silent over the years. PR didn't have to stay with a husband who sexually assaulted then killed their 6-year old daughter. PR could have taken her son and gone back to Atlanta to live with her parents, she had friends there too. I could be underestimating her shallowness, but even to maintain her lifestyle, it's a stretch to think of her covering for JR alone, even JAR. If PR was only involved in the coverup and not the actual event, then I am afraid I'd have to put BR there when she died- as an observer or participant, not the sole perpetrator. He is the only one I'd see her covering for (other than herself).
That's why I lean towards a rage attack by PR, with JR helping with the coverup. Why would he be willing to do this? It's complex, but I feel that there are several reasons. One- when PR acted, it was an accident. If you feel JR killed her during or as part of a sexual assault, THAT wasn't an accident. He also considered his son; he may not have wanted to put his cancer survivor wife in prison or a mental home; he may not have wanted his son to go though the trauma of seeing his mother tried for this crime. IT may have been as simple as not wanting to raise his son alone. But the main difference that I see with why JR would help cover for PR while PR would NOT cover for JR is down to one thing- If PR is the killer, it was the result of a rage attack and not intentional; If JR is the killer, it was the result of sexual abuse- with her screaming and him bashing her skull to shut her up. While he may not have intended to kill her, it isn't the same kind of unintentional event as it is with PR accidentally killing her by slamming her head.
Was JonBenet the victim of chronic sexual abuse?
If yes, who was her sexual abuser?
On the basis of the fiber evidence, it appears John was responsible for the acute vaginal trauma, as evidenced by his shirt fibers in JonBenet's panties and crotch area. It then follows that he was her chronic abuser. Since Patsy's fibers link her to the asphyxia via the neck ligature, it appears Patsy was her killer. Their dual involvement in the cover-up is manifest in the fiber evidence: John molested her and Patsy killed her. Seems they covered for each other because each had leverage against the other.
hmmmmm :waitasec: