James Kolar's New Book Will Blow the Lid off the JonBenet Ramsey Investigation

[Chrishope]

Chrishope, one of the reasons that Steve Thomas's theory makes the most sense to me is because of what you call the sexual assault. I see it as corporal cleansing.

If Thomas is right, then Patsy did know about the damage JonBenet incurred and in her mind that may have required a staged event to explain that damage (sexual organ damage done during the corporal cleansing in addition to the skull fracture).

OK.

Patsy may have believed a kidnapper might also sexually assault a child before leaving the scene so she used the paintbrush to make that part of her fantasy of how she thought the police would see it -- a kidnapper who sexually assaulted JonBenet before he left the house and in the act killed her.

Respectfully, I don't believe PR thought a kidnapper would leave a note, then SA the child, then kill her, then redress her, then hide her in the WC wrapped in a blanket, then leave the RN behind as he left the premises.

A kidnapping was staged to cover a murder. That's why we have a RN. There is nothing sexual about the crime until she's on the autopsy table. There's no use going on as you know my theory and where this is leading.

When Patsy couldn't bear the thoughts of that child being taken into the cold dark night she put her in the wine cellar, wrapped her papoose style, placed her Barbie night gown by JonBenet's side, and hoped for the best. The "ransom note" would explain it all.

There is no reason to believe someone who could kill a child couldn't bear leaving the dead body in the cold and dark. The RN explains a disappearance, it does not, imo, explain the murder and the hiding of the body in the WC.

They left the ransom note because Patsy didn't know what she was doing and thought the ransom note made a good prop to use to prove an intruder did it.

Well we'll agree to disagree. To me the RN was written to explain why a girl is missing, and eventually to explain why she's dead, if the body is later found.

 

[BOESP]

Respectfully, I don't believe PR thought a kidnapper would leave a note, then SA the child, then kill her, then redress her, then hide her in the WC wrapped in a blanket, then leave the RN behind as he left the premises.

A kidnapping was staged to cover a murder. That's why we have a RN. There is nothing sexual about the crime until she's on the autopsy table. There's no use going on as you know my theory and where this is leading.

BBM: that's what I said only in different words (and I think it was accidental rather than murder).

If JonBenet had sexual damage it was gonna be found. I'd guess Patsy thought the embalmer would find it although I suspect she may have thought an autopsy would be done. Doesn't matter what my guess is anyway. All staged kidnappings need a ransom note and all sexual damage needs to be "explained" just in case. That aside, I'd guess Patsy thought the police would find JonBenet (instead of John) and then she could claim that the kidnapper had killed JonBenet just like the ransom note said.

FWIW, I think it was a reckless but accidental event that caused the skull fracture. I think it appeared JonBenet was already dead and the ligature strangulation was the staging of a desperate person who didn't know what they were doing. They likely thought JonBenet was dead from the head injury. And I'm here to say that not many mothers are going to put her child out on a cold, dark, snowy night if there is any option at all.

Well we'll agree to disagree. To me the RN was written to explain why a girl is missing, and eventually to explain why she's dead, if the body is later found.

I don't disagree with you on that. I think you are correct. I just used different words. It explained that the intruder did it.

 

[questfortrue]

BBM: that's what I said only in different words.

If JonBenet had sexual damage it was gonna be found. I'd guess Patsy thought the embalmer would find it although I suspect she may have thought an autopsy would be done. Doesn't matter what my guess is anyway. All staged kidnappings need a ransom note and all sexual damage needs to be "explained" just in case. That aside, I'd guess Patsy thought the police would find JonBenet (instead of John) and then she could claim that the kidnapper had killed JonBenet just like the ransom note said.

FWIW, I think it was a reckless but accidental event that caused the skull fracture. I think it appeared JonBenet was already dead and the ligature strangulation was the staging of a desperate person who didn't know what they were doing. They likely thought JonBenet was dead from the head injury. And I'm here to say that not many mothers are going to put her child out on a cold, dark, snowy night if there is any option at all.

I don't disagree with you on that. I think you are correct. I just used different words. It explained that the intruder did it.

Boesp, ST and you could be right, I had not considered the corporal cleansing issue in the context of PR covering for herself. Though, the consideration of sex abuse from a male R, is something which has some roots in JB behaviors, particularly in the last few weeks/months before she died.

These are the behaviors I recollect: First there was the comment from Grandma Nedra that JB was just “a little bit molested,” and I don’t remember when that statement was made. Then the statement from one of JB’s teachers that JB had become particularly clingy to PR in December ‘96, tells me there may have been more going on besides corporal cleansing. Thirdly there was the flirty behavior of JB. So if JB was having toileting issues, and I consider accidents during the day and encopresis to be strong indication of JB protesting something, would your thought be that PR was making things worse by her corporal cleansing? Certainly possible. moo

If PR was responsible for the paintbrush jab, then covering for herself might certainly be one of several likely conclusions. Or covering for BR. Or in total anger at JB over something, not a conscious cover-up, but just anger. I will have to give this some more thought. mho

 

[BOESP]

Boesp, ST and you could be right, I had not considered the corporal cleansing issue in the context of PR covering for herself. Though, the consideration of sex abuse from a male R, is something which has some roots in JB behaviors, particularly in the last few weeks/months before she died.

These are the behaviors I recollect: First there was the comment from Grandma Nedra that JB was just “a little bit molested,” and I don’t remember when that statement was made. Then the statement from one of JB’s teachers that JB had become particularly clingy to PR in December ‘96, tells me there may have been more going on besides corporal cleansing. Thirdly there was the flirty behavior of JB. So if JB was having toileting issues, and I consider accidents during the day and encopresis to be strong indication of JB protesting something, would your thought be that PR was making things worse by her corporal cleansing? Certainly possible. moo

If PR was responsible for the paintbrush jab, then covering for herself might certainly be one of several likely conclusions. Or covering for BR. Or in total anger at JB over something, not a conscious cover-up, but just anger. I will have to give this some more thought. mho

BBM: yes, I would speculate that PR made things worse and I suspect JonBenet was "corporally cleansed" on more than one occasion. It's all speculation of course as are the possible reasons why Patsy may have felt the need for that type cleansing.

I don't totally discount someone besides Patsy molesting JonBenet. I agree with you about JonBenet's behavior suggesting something of that nature. My opinion is there are so many things this family kept secret to the outside world that anything is possible.

I can only speculate but I just don't read John Ramsey as a child molester, even as a situational molester. He strikes me more as a womanizer who paid little attention to things going on at his home. I think his past behavior as recorded in a couple of the books about this family has proven that he will find it where he can get it if he wants it.

ETA: I'm not sure how to read Nedra. I think she may have been out in left field and maybe even knew of Patsy's corporal cleansing methods. I wish I could remember where I originally read Nedra's statement. At the time it seemed to me that she was surprised about it at all and that the "little bit molested" was not the exact wording. I took it that she was repeating what she'd heard from the autopsy report and putting it in a more gentile wording. But her comment didn't mean a lot to me one way or the other.

 

[Chrishope]

BBM: that's what I said only in different words (and I think it was accidental rather than murder).

What I'm trying to emphasize is that people don't stage sex murders with RNs, they stage kidnappings with RNs. The RN doesn't exist, imo, to make anyone think an intruder killed JB in her own home. The RN exists to explain the planned disappearance of JB. RNs stage kidnappings, not SA.

If JonBenet had sexual damage it was gonna be found. I'd guess Patsy thought the embalmer would find it although I suspect she may have thought an autopsy would be done. Doesn't matter what my guess is anyway. All staged kidnappings need a ransom note and all sexual damage needs to be "explained" just in case. That aside, I'd guess Patsy thought the police would find JonBenet (instead of John) and then she could claim that the kidnapper had killed JonBenet just like the ransom note said.

The sexual damage might be found, but when? Had the body been dumped it may have been weeks before it was found and the evidence of SA (or corporal cleansing) would have deteriorated, possibly to the point where it was no longer present.

IMO there is no way the plan was to call the police and have them find both a RN and a body - that completely destroys the kidnapping staging.

He/she/they could not have failed to understand that there would be an autopsy. They weren't stupid.

FWIW, I think it was a reckless but accidental event that caused the skull fracture.

Could be.

I think it appeared JonBenet was already dead and the ligature strangulation was the staging of a desperate person who didn't know what they were doing. They likely thought JonBenet was dead from the head injury. And I'm here to say that not many mothers are going to put her child out on a cold, dark, snowy night if there is any option at all.

And I'm here to say any mother who'd wrap a cord around her daughter's neck and who wanted to stay out of prison would not have any qualms about placing a dead body in the outdoors. But it wasn't the mother anyway.

I don't disagree with you on that. I think you are correct. I just used different words. It explained that the intruder did it.

No, we disagree. I have failed to be clear enough in what I'm trying to say. The RN doesn't explain that an intruder did it. It would do so if the body were missing. Then it's perfectly reasonable to blame the disappearance on a kidnapper. Later, after the ransom is paid and the girl is not returned she may have been found, and then her death would be blamed on kidnappers.

With the body in the house, it's all too obvious no kidnapping took place and that no one sneaked into the house and killed her. We have a staged kidnapping that did not take place.

We have a choice, we can believe the culprit actually expected the police to buy the kidnapping turned SA murder, complete with the murderer redressing her and hiding the body in the WC, or we can recognize that the kidnapping scenario which was being staged had not been completed.

 

[otg]

I know many people still don’t agree with me (yet) on who precipitated everything that happened, but in your thinking about what was staged and why, consider the following: Doesn’t it make more sense to think there was no staging of a sexual assault? If it was staged for whatever the reason, would the person doing it not have made it much more obvious rather than trying to remove the blood from her legs and crotch area? Of course they would. Any criminal profiler can tell you that that is something that oftentimes gives away someone close to the victim. They just can’t bring themselves to leave the body in such a way that a rapist would. The body is covered by a family member -- where a person who doesn’t care about the victim will leave it as it was when he is finished with whatever he was doing and simply leave the crime scene. And if it is done as some sort of revenge or grudge against the victim or their family, the person will “display” the body for the maximum amount of shock value.

Instead, what we have here is a dead child who has signs of sexual assault that have been removed and hidden. The blood on her legs was wiped clean. The blood on her genitals was wiped off. The blood just inside her vagina was washed out. At least some of her clothes were changed from what she had been wearing during the assault. Whoever you might believe did all this, it should be obvious they were trying to hide the sexual assault rather than make it look like one. I think that in their ignorance of autopsy practices, they thought that if they could hide the sexual aspects of this, there would be no examination to determine whether or not she had been raped. I don’t believe whoever staged this was even aware of the past violations or the signs of it that would be found during the autopsy.

We’ll never know what was going through the mind(s) of whoever did this. But it should be obvious that there was no “staged sexual assault”. There was a sexual assault that was covered up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Also, on the comment from Nedra Paugh about JonBenet being “a little bit molested”, I found this thread on the subject:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47450"]Quote from Nedra Paugh? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


Here is the original post referred in the thread:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1152274#post1152274"]Wendy Murphy - Page 3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[BOESP]

What I'm trying to emphasize is that people don't stage sex murders with RNs, they stage kidnappings with RNs. The RN doesn't exist, imo, to make anyone think an intruder killed JB in her own home. The RN exists to explain the planned disappearance of JB. RNs stage kidnappings, not SA.
<snip>
With the body in the house, it's all too obvious no kidnapping took place and that no one sneaked into the house and killed her. We have a staged kidnapping that did not take place.

We have a choice, we can believe the culprit actually expected the police to buy the kidnapping turned SA murder, complete with the murderer redressing her and hiding the body in the WC, or we can recognize that the kidnapping scenario which was being staged had not been completed.

I think I understand what you are saying. Maybe.

Imo the fake ransom note was a stage prop written by a desperate person who thought they could fool LE into believing something other than the truth of what happened. Whatever part of the whole concocted story didn't work out as hoped for, well, it could still be blamed on the Intruder who wrote the note, accompanied with "I "don't know" or "I don't remember" or "That doesn't belong here. That's how I see it. The ransom note was a CYA prop.

I am not flexible on my belief that no way, no how, would Patsy Ramsey have subjected JonBenet's body to the elements and animals. It's one thing to accidentally kill your daughter (no matter which Ramsey did it) and then do what you need to do to CYA. But subjecting her little body to the unknown outdoors isn't necessary and it would have likely prevented an open-casket funeral. I do understand that in your opinion you think anyone capable of doing what was done was capable of putting JonBenet's body outside. But, in the mind of the stager, going that far wasn't necessary to make the story work. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[BOESP]

I know many people still don&#8217;t agree with me (yet) on who precipitated everything that happened, but in your thinking about what was staged and why, consider the following: Doesn&#8217;t it make more sense to think there was no staging of a sexual assault? If it was staged for whatever the reason, would the person doing it not have made it much more obvious rather than trying to remove the blood from her legs and crotch area? Of course they would. Any criminal profiler can tell you that that is something that oftentimes gives away someone close to the victim. They just can&#8217;t bring themselves to leave the body in such a way that a rapist would. The body is covered by a family member -- where a person who doesn&#8217;t care about the victim will leave it as it was when he is finished with whatever he was doing and simply leave the crime scene. And if it is done as some sort of revenge or grudge against the victim or their family, the person will &#8220;display&#8221; the body for the maximum amount of shock value.

Instead, what we have here is a dead child who has signs of sexual assault that have been removed and hidden. The blood on her legs was wiped clean. The blood on her genitals was wiped off. The blood just inside her vagina was washed out. At least some of her clothes were changed from what she had been wearing during the assault. Whoever you might believe did all this, it should be obvious they were trying to hide the sexual assault rather than make it look like one. I think that in their ignorance of autopsy practices, they thought that if they could hide the sexual aspects of this, there would be no examination to determine whether or not she had been raped. I don&#8217;t believe whoever staged this was even aware of the past violations or the signs of it that would be found during the autopsy.

We&#8217;ll never know what was going through the mind(s) of whoever did this. But it should be obvious that there was no &#8220;staged sexual assault&#8221;. There was a sexual assault that was covered up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Also, on the comment from Nedra Paugh about JonBenet being &#8220;a little bit molested&#8221;, I found this thread on the subject:
Quote from Nedra Paugh? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Here is the original post referred in the thread:
Wendy Murphy - Page 3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Thank you for the links otg.

I do agree with you on everything you said above. My only qualm is how "sexual assault" is defined in this case. The result of a corporal cleansing could present the same symptoms that a sex-for-gratification assault would present. Imo, the amount of damage to JonBenet in that area was no where near a full-blown sexual assault by an Intruder. That is one of many reasons I believe it was an inside job. However, digital penetration can be a means of corporal cleansing depending on what you are doing. Where I still have questions (if it was corporal cleansing) is what event triggered Patsy's need to do such as that? That event could have been a sex-for-gratification event; or a playing doctor event; a rage attack from Patsy as Thomas stated or something else entirely

Patsy may have subjected Burke to some sort of cleansing punishment(s) as well thus the island of privacy request. Regardless, I still think what is publicly known points to Patsy-Patsy-Patsy as being the person who ended JonBenet's life. I am on the fence about the point in time she believed JonBenet was dead. I haven't totally dismissed John and while Burke could have been involved I'm undecided on details about that possibility.

I know we don't agree on a lot of the basics but I truly enjoy your posts. They are thought-provoking and have changed my mind on a few things and just confused me on others. :rockon:

 

[Chrishope]

I know many people still don&#8217;t agree with me (yet) on who precipitated everything that happened, but in your thinking about what was staged and why, consider the following: Doesn&#8217;t it make more sense to think there was no staging of a sexual assault? If it was staged for whatever the reason, would the person doing it not have made it much more obvious rather than trying to remove the blood from her legs and crotch area? Of course they would. Any criminal profiler can tell you that that is something that oftentimes gives away someone close to the victim. They just can&#8217;t bring themselves to leave the body in such a way that a rapist would. The body is covered by a family member -- where a person who doesn&#8217;t care about the victim will leave it as it was when he is finished with whatever he was doing and simply leave the crime scene. And if it is done as some sort of revenge or grudge against the victim or their family, the person will &#8220;display&#8221; the body for the maximum amount of shock value.

Instead, what we have here is a dead child who has signs of sexual assault that have been removed and hidden. The blood on her legs was wiped clean. The blood on her genitals was wiped off. The blood just inside her vagina was washed out. At least some of her clothes were changed from what she had been wearing during the assault. Whoever you might believe did all this, it should be obvious they were trying to hide the sexual assault rather than make it look like one. I think that in their ignorance of autopsy practices, they thought that if they could hide the sexual aspects of this, there would be no examination to determine whether or not she had been raped. I don&#8217;t believe whoever staged this was even aware of the past violations or the signs of it that would be found during the autopsy.

We&#8217;ll never know what was going through the mind(s) of whoever did this. But it should be obvious that there was no &#8220;staged sexual assault&#8221;. There was a sexual assault that was covered up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Also, on the comment from Nedra Paugh about JonBenet being &#8220;a little bit molested&#8221;, I found this thread on the subject:
Quote from Nedra Paugh? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Here is the original post referred in the thread:
Wendy Murphy - Page 3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Bravo.

I agree, the SA was not staged in the sense it was meant to make police believe it was a weird sex murder. The SA was covered up, hidden, meant to be kept out of view.

We do not have a weirdly cross-staged kidnapping morphed into a SA murder. We have a staged kidnapping, with the body as yet not removed from the crime scene. We have a SA that is cleaned up and hidden from view.

I could not agree more - the attempt wasn't to make it look like a SA, the attempt was to hide the SA.

 

[Chrishope]

I think I understand what you are saying. Maybe.

Imo the fake ransom note was a stage prop written by a desperate person who thought they could fool LE into believing something other than the truth of what happened. Whatever part of the whole concocted story didn't work out as hoped for, well, it could still be blamed on the Intruder who wrote the note, accompanied with "I "don't know" or "I don't remember" or "That doesn't belong here. That's how I see it. The ransom note was a CYA prop.

I am not flexible on my belief that no way, no how, would Patsy Ramsey have subjected JonBenet's body to the elements and animals. It's one thing to accidentally kill your daughter (no matter which Ramsey did it) and then do what you need to do to CYA. But subjecting her little body to the unknown outdoors isn't necessary and it would have likely prevented an open-casket funeral. I do understand that in your opinion you think anyone capable of doing what was done was capable of putting JonBenet's body outside. But, in the mind of the stager, going that far wasn't necessary to make the story work. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Well, we can agree to disagree.

Perhaps my point is clearer if I say I'm not using intruder and kidnapper as synonyms. IMO the culprit attempted to stage a kidnapping, not a sex murder. IMO the RN does not explain her death, as it's obvious she was killed at home and there is little evidence of an intruder.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

There was no staging for police.

 

[otg]

Thank you for the links otg.

I do agree with you on everything you said above. My only qualm is how "sexual assault" is defined in this case. The result of a corporal cleansing could present the same symptoms that a sex-for-gratification assault would present. Imo, the amount of damage to JonBenet in that area was no where near a full-blown sexual assault by an Intruder. That is one of many reasons I believe it was an inside job. However, digital penetration can be a means of corporal cleansing depending on what you are doing. Where I still have questions (if it was corporal cleansing) is what event triggered Patsy's need to do such as that? That event could have been a sex-for-gratification event; or a playing doctor event; a rage attack from Patsy as Thomas stated or something else entirely

Patsy may have subjected Burke to some sort of cleansing punishment(s) as well thus the island of privacy request. Regardless, I still think what is publicly known points to Patsy-Patsy-Patsy as being the person who ended JonBenet's life. I am on the fence about the point in time she believed JonBenet was dead. I haven't totally dismissed John and while Burke could have been involved I'm undecided on details about that possibility.

We use the terms here very loosely that actually are defined by statute in individual states. Terms like sexual assault, rape, molestation, child abuse. I&#8217;m not a legal expert, and I&#8217;m certainly not familiar with Colorado&#8217;s statutes, but for the purposes here, we don&#8217;t really need to go into the exact details. Generally, the definitions of each of these terms revolve around consent, penetration, intent, and age. An underage child is not capable in the eyes of the law to make an informed consent, so in any case of a child victim, that is not a factor. The difference in age between the victim and the perpetrator can be a factor. From http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html:

What's the age difference between a molester and a child? It is five years, so a 14-year-old "older child" sexually touching a nine-year-old is an example. This is the accepted medical definition.

Sometimes, a professional will consider that a molestation act has occurred when the older child is only three years older - a sixth-grader with a third-grader, for instance. The crucial element here is the lack of equality between the two children; the sixth grader is clearly bigger, more powerful, and more "adult-like" than the third-grader.

We avoid definitions that are ambiguous by sticking to the medical definition. We define "child molester" as an adult or child, who is at least five years older than the child he or she has molested.
​

And then, just like murder statutes, there are degrees of each offense. Here is information on North Carolina&#8217;s statutes.

I completely agree with you, BOESP, that the results of corporal cleansing (as it is used here) could result in the same symptoms as a deliberate sexual assault. The only difference here would be the intent of the perpetrator.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault
wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

I know we don't agree on a lot of the basics but I truly enjoy your posts. They are thought-provoking and have changed my mind on a few things and just confused me on others. :rockon:

Really? Pray tell, what have you changed your mind on, and what have I said that might have confused you? I realize I am sometimes a little vague about certain things because of the way some posters react to what I say. (Remember, I&#8217;m still a little apprehensive about stating some things because of the way I was excoriated in the past.) But I try to find things we can all agree on, regardless of who we think is responsible -- and again, I think ultimately that John and Patsy Ramsey are responsible for all that happened.

 

[Nom de plume]

I know many people still don’t agree with me (yet) on who precipitated everything that happened, but in your thinking about what was staged and why, consider the following: Doesn’t it make more sense to think there was no staging of a sexual assault? If it was staged for whatever the reason, would the person doing it not have made it much more obvious rather than trying to remove the blood from her legs and crotch area? Of course they would. Any criminal profiler can tell you that that is something that oftentimes gives away someone close to the victim. They just can’t bring themselves to leave the body in such a way that a rapist would. The body is covered by a family member -- where a person who doesn’t care about the victim will leave it as it was when he is finished with whatever he was doing and simply leave the crime scene. And if it is done as some sort of revenge or grudge against the victim or their family, the person will “display” the body for the maximum amount of shock value.

Instead, what we have here is a dead child who has signs of sexual assault that have been removed and hidden. The blood on her legs was wiped clean. The blood on her genitals was wiped off. The blood just inside her vagina was washed out. At least some of her clothes were changed from what she had been wearing during the assault. Whoever you might believe did all this, it should be obvious they were trying to hide the sexual assault rather than make it look like one. I think that in their ignorance of autopsy practices, they thought that if they could hide the sexual aspects of this, there would be no examination to determine whether or not she had been raped. I don’t believe whoever staged this was even aware of the past violations or the signs of it that would be found during the autopsy.

We’ll never know what was going through the mind(s) of whoever did this. But it should be obvious that there was no “staged sexual assault”. There was a sexual assault that was covered up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Also, on the comment from Nedra Paugh about JonBenet being “a little bit molested”, I found this thread on the subject:
Quote from Nedra Paugh? - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


Here is the original post referred in the thread:
Wendy Murphy - Page 3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

BBM OTG did this come from the AR? I don't recall that. I think this is the first time I've ever heard about this. TIA

 

[BOESP]

There was no staging for police.

Interesting comment BB. Are you saying there was no staging or are you saying the staging was for the benefit of someone other than police? If so, for whom was the staging set?

 

[otg]

BBM OTG did this come from the AR? I don't recall that. I think this is the first time I've ever heard about this. TIA

Sorry, Nom. I hinted at it before and no one questioned it. I believe that's what the AR tells us where it says, "A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault." I can think of no other reason for there to be a thin watery red fluid in that location other than there being an attempt to clean the blood out of her vagina. Exactly how that attempt was made we can only speculate, but I can think of no other explanation.

You?

 

[BOESP]

<snip>

I completely agree with you, BOESP, that the results of corporal cleansing (as it is used here) could result in the same symptoms as a deliberate sexual assault. The only difference here would be the intent of the perpetrator.

<snip>

Really? Pray tell, what have you changed your mind on, and what have I said that might have confused you? I realize I am sometimes a little vague about certain things because of the way some posters react to what I say. (Remember, I&#8217;m still a little apprehensive about stating some things because of the way I was excoriated in the past.) But I try to find things we can all agree on, regardless of who we think is responsible -- and again, I think ultimately that John and Patsy Ramsey are responsible for all that happened.

Thanks for your comments on defining sexual assault. I am only familiar with two states and like you, I know nothing of Colorado statutes. We have a conflict: whether we are defining sexual assault from a legal aspect or from a moral aspect. Maybe if we more clearly stated which intent it would help stop that confusion or maybe I'm being obtuse and don't realize it.

BBM: I have changed my mind on being staunchly devoted to the PDI point of view.

I have changed my mind to allow the possibility that this crime may be the result of incest.

I don't think you have confused me per se. It's the whole dynamic of Internet message boards (some posters have poor conversational skills; colloquialisms; not always proofreading posts; the intent of some posters with what seems like a "gotcha on that one;" no face-to-face input, etc. -- I've been guilty of doing some of these myself).

I am confused with your thoughts particularly on how the skull damage occurred blushing. You make a good argument for being struck with an object rather than her head hitting an object. I guess at this point it is easiest to just agree that something fractured JonBenet's skull and it was a contributing factor to her death. I am not a medical person or a mechanical engineer but I have close access to a couple of people who are. Yet your explanations are plausible, thus the confusion.

(Remember, I&#8217;m still a little apprehensive about stating some things because of the way I was excoriated in the past.)

I've never seen a post from you that that I thought deserved excoriation.

 

[otg]

Thanks for your comments on defining sexual assault. I am only familiar with two states and like you, I know nothing of Colorado statutes. We have a conflict: whether we are defining sexual assault from a legal aspect or from a moral aspect. Maybe if we more clearly stated which intent it would help stop that confusion or maybe I'm being obtuse and don't realize it.

I don’t think it’s necessary to state intent, and I certainly don’t think you’re being obtuse. I guess the point I was trying to make (and I’m not always successful at my attempts) is that the legal definitions are too complicated to worry about, so regardless of the word or phrase we use, we should all allow a little latitude with one another.

BBM: I have changed my mind on being staunchly devoted to the PDI point of view.

I have changed my mind to allow the possibility that this crime may be the result of incest.

Thank you.

I don't think you have confused me per se. It's the whole dynamic of Internet message boards (some posters have poor conversational skills; colloquialisms; not always proof reading posts; the intent of some posters with what seems like a "gotcha on that one;" no face-to-face input, etc. -- I've been guilty of doing some of these myself).

I am confused with your thoughts particularly on how the skull damage occurred blushing. You make a good argument for being struck with an object rather than her head hitting an object. I guess at this point it is easiest to just agree that something fractured JonBenet's skull and it was a contributing factor to her death. I am not a medical person or a mechanical engineer but I have close access to a couple of people who are. Yet your explanations are plausible, thus the confusion.

I know where your disagreement is with me on that. I still haven’t gotten around to finishing where I was going on that thread. What I feel I am certain of so far though is the shape and approximate size of what came in contact with her skull. If you (or anyone else) can find or suggest an object that fits within that criteria that her head could have come in contact with at the angle necessary to collide with the depressed fracture location, we can get into a little more detail on it. (Example: Think about the curved edge of a bathtub, which might fit the criteria, and the angle her head would have to be at in order for that to be the object.) Right now though, I still tend to think it more plausible that an object was swung that caused the skull fractures. But I'm fine with your being a skeptic on that. In fact, I appreciate honest criticism -- it makes me look closer at what I believe.

I've never seen a post from you that that I thought deserved excoriation.

Sorry, BOESP. I’ve alluded to it before, and I guess only someone who’s been around for a very long time would know what I was referring to.

Early on in discussions on other boards that don’t even exist anymore (BNF - Boulder News Forum, Joshua-7, JusticeWatch), any suggestion of juvenile involvement was met with a great deal of resistance -- and even ridicule. Over the years, posters who saw things that way (myself included) tended to get discouraged and simply posted less and less, or simply stopped participating. It hasn’t really been until after Kolar’s book came out that more and more people have begun to see the possibility of what hadn’t been revealed publicly until then. I still am a little cautious about what I post simply as a conditioned habit.

Perhaps this is why I’m a little more tolerant (usually) about opposing views -- as long as I feel the poster is sincere. But sometimes people who claim to be unconvinced or uncommitted reveal themselves with the phases they use. I use terms like “the Ramsey hellhole” referring to their home, or “lawyering up” for their hiring attorneys (as they are entitled to do) -- but I make no claim to impartiality -- I think the Ramseys are responsible. But when a poster claims to be impartial and then uses a phrase like “holding the body for ransom” in referring to the police wanting not to release that part of the evidence prematurely... Well, I think the language we use reveals how we really feel, regardless of what we may state.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Interesting comment BB. Are you saying there was no staging or are you saying the staging was for the benefit of someone other than police? If so, for whom was the staging set?

Everything was done by Patsy for Patsy.

 

[Venom]

Everything was done by Patsy for Patsy.

You know, I've been thinking about your theory....
Did PR and JR ever their medical records looked at, particularly their mental health (if there was any?)

 

[Nom de plume]

Sorry, Nom. I hinted at it before and no one questioned it. I believe that's what the AR tells us where it says, "A minimal amount of semiliquid thin watery red fluid is present in the vaginal vault." I can think of no other reason for there to be a thin watery red fluid in that location other than there being an attempt to clean the blood out of her vagina. Exactly how that attempt was made we can only speculate, but I can think of no other explanation.

You?

Nope! As usual OTG, you're the sharpest tack in the box! I totally missed that! Certainly sounds like someone tried to wash the blood out. No other reason to have "semiliquid thin watery red fluid" present IMO. If that's the case, then how much blood was there to start with? Wiped off of her legs, washed from inside her....sounds like a heck of a lot of blood to me, and only one way I can think of to accomplish that. IMO, I don't see any way to find PR innocent of any involvement considering this fact. Certainly not something JR, BR, or an "intruder" would ever do.