KK, please let us 'in': 3 important questions

[Whaleshark]

I wonder why they would be so worried to have the molestation found out at autopsy, and not worried it would have been found out in all those doctor visits?

Even if John was the one doing the molestation, and Patsy didn't know, did he not know she went to the doctor a lot anyway?

If someone was that worried about covering up sexual abuse, seems they would have been worried about it being found out long before that night since she not only went to the doctor often, but also for vaginally-related issues as well..

Makes me lean toward thinking the vaginal injury that night was not staging... It happened because it had been happening.... Evidence needed to be cleaned up on her body due to the assault.

I don't think it makes sense that she was assaulted that night to cover previous assault. New assault/injuries in that area just called attention to that area in the first place anyway. I think the assault to her was part of the crime that needed to be wiped clean...

Of course they want to hide sexual assault as any part of this crime, but I think that's just what it was, part of this crime.

 

[txsvicki]

And if they knew all about cheynes stokes, brain death, percentages of disability in head injury didn't they know it takes about 4 minutes to die of strangulation? If not, they thought her dead a second time and inflicted the vaginal jab injury or did it right before the strangulation. It's almost too much to be believeable.

 

[OpenMind4U]

I totally get what you're trying to do and I apologize if my remarks fall in the pale. My problem is the forest/trees analogy. "I want to see the forest AND the trees. Having worked in the field under the supervision of a PhD neuropsychologist I developed a methodology that worked in our program. I must come from a "place" of grounded perspective taking into account the biopsychosocial aspects of the case. We may never "solve" this case but for me it is -critical- to profile the players Burke, John, Patsy, Jonbenet and others. I begin with whats reasonable and balance the evidence within a framework of plausibilty until a piece of evidence is ruled invalid. Facts will build a case but we dont have many facts that cannot be challenged. Sorry for going on... just my humble opinion.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I'm 100% agree. I'm a big proponent to make and USE the psychological profile in ANY complicated HUMAN matters (divorce, abuse, murder). You MUST know the player's psychological ID (not just the photo picture) to reach the reasonable conclusion with the help of known facts/evidences. In today world, when children (and some adults) has been raised in the virtual world of the vidio games, networking and texting - the concept of the HUMAN communication is getting lost. The understanding of the 'body language' becomes absolete. Children becomes the 'robots', without knowledge how to handle the happiness or frustration.

Well, back to Ramsey. Like KK said: we don't know them we didn't leave with them. To better understand every Ramsey (PR, JR, BR) - you MUST draw their psychological profile to better understand what each of them is capable or not capable to do under certain 'triggers' of life. JMH/and strong!/O

 

[ciela]

I'm not saying that it did happen, and I'm not saying if it did happen, or if thats what they thought as it happened, that it wasn't twisted and skewed and totally off the scale of all understandable decency..of course it was, I'm just trying to think how they might have seen it.

If the sexual abuse was the huge element we all think it might have been then JB was never going anywhere near an ER unit imo because it definitely would have been picked up, and thats a whole other box of frogs to deal with if you are thinking in terms of taking responsibility for that.

And that imo is the key element in this, the sexual abuse, wether the head injury was accidental, or deliberate, the sexual abuse and the potential discovery of that facilitated the strangulation (which I do not believe was sexual) and the staging/cover up, however/whoever that happened.

So there you are with a daughter, you thought she was dead, you discover she's not but you can see she is in the death throes, she's been obviously molested, you KNOW that someone in your house caused both the fatal injury and the molestation and either someone you love (or someone you are heavily implicated with) is going to take the rap for it (and since you are implicated along with them you are too) so ER is not an option, unless you want to lose everything.. so what do you do? walk away and leave her to gasp painfully until she expires? stand and watch her? or......

It's still totally unimaginable to me, and completely awful, but I can see how someone could do it and THINK (and I stress think) they were being merciful, ending her pain.

I cannot resolve the above dilemna in my own mind because it pre-supposes chronic sexual abuse or in home molestation. From my reading, this abuse has not been proven, correct me if I am wrong by citing your source please. But I will add that if both the parents "believed there was sexual abuse in the home" (and this is a big jump) then the body would have had to have been disposed of totally because autopsy or medical attention (ER) would have exposed it.

 

[hetty]

Thats a fair point ciela.

I don't have the autopsy info to hand, but I do know from years of reading here (but only recently posting), that JB's hymen was eroded in such a way that it was thought did show prior sexual abuse to that night, and possibly repeated prior sexual abuse.

As to the body being diposed of totally as it would have been discovered at autopsy, well yes..unless of course you can stage the scene and make it seem as if it might possibly have been due to the action of an intruder..which is what most here believe...and if RDI then that pretty much seems to have worked, officially anyhow, as things stand.

May I ask if you are an IDI (intruder did it)? I don't want to assume, but the way you phrased that it kind of sounds like thats your stance - which is fair enough, all respect to you, we are all just reaching in the dark really, me too! xx

 

[ciela]

Thats a fair point ciela.

May I ask if you are an IDI (intruder did it)? I don't want to assume, but the way you phrased that it kind of sounds like thats your stance - which is fair enough, all respect to you, we are all just reaching in the dark really, me too! xx

Im not an IDI at all. I absolutely am perplexed at this case and havent discussed it for years. I stumbled onto websleuths researching James Holmes psychopathology. Ive concluded that for every expert testifying x we are going to get 10 experts testifying y, and 100 panelists denying x and y. I think each of us has to find our own truth by extrapolating the facts and using our instincts unless of course someone confesses or brings out some conclusive NEW evidence. Yes Im on the fence 50/50.

Im going to post a link here ( I hope its legal ) that shows the wide dissention of pediatricians and mds regarding the question of chronic sexual abuse in the Jonbenet case. I suppose we could pick or choose who we wanted to believe...

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

 

[hetty]

Yes, we see through a glass darkly, at best, at the moment.

 

[BOESP]

How many parents of a "murdered" child (I use the term "murdered" since the Ramseys wanted everyone to believe an Intruder killed JonBenet) have written a book about their child's "murder?"

Then JOB Ramsey comes along and writes another book about his sufferings.

These two people were trying to make money off their daughter's death by writing and making television appearances. If they couldn't afford Lyn Wood without using JonBenet's death as a cash cow then they should have gotten a lawyer they could have afforded.

 

[ciela]

How many parents of a "murdered" child (I use the term "murdered" since the Ramseys wanted everyone to believe an Intruder killed JonBenet) have written a book about their child's "murder?"

Then JOB Ramsey comes along and writes another book about his sufferings.

These two people were trying to make money off their daughter's death by writing and making television appearances. If they couldn't afford Lyn Wood without using JonBenet's death as a cash cow then they should have gotten a lawyer they could have afforded.

As much as we would love to slap the "cuffs" on him, having bad taste and being greedy is not evidence that he committed said crime. JMHO.

 

[BOESP]

As much as we would love to slap the "cuffs" on him, having bad taste and being greedy is not evidence that he committed said crime. JMHO.

I agree with what you said but it also indicates abnormal behavior. There is no way under the sun he isn't a party to what happened even if only by finding out after the fact what happened. He did not come forward for a reason yet he had time to collaborate with Patsy on a worthless book (Death of Innocence).

What would that reason be? (rhetorical question)

 

[ciela]

Facts will always trump conjecture.

 

[DeeDee249]

I cannot resolve the above dilemna in my own mind because it pre-supposes chronic sexual abuse or in home molestation. From my reading, this abuse has not been proven, correct me if I am wrong by citing your source please. But I will add that if both the parents "believed there was sexual abuse in the home" (and this is a big jump) then the body would have had to have been disposed of totally because autopsy or medical attention (ER) would have exposed it.

The abuse has absolutely been proven. An eroded hymen, vaginal bruising, bruising on the labia, blood IN the vagina as well as on the pubic area and thighs. The source is the AUTOPSY REPORT. And I cannot imagine anyone reading it and still saying there was no abuse. NONE of these things happen from bubble baths, masturbation or wet underwear. SOME of these things were prior injuries (before that night).

What is not proven is WHO molested her. The parents were not forensics specialist. They wiped away the blood that they SAW (pubic area and thighs) but had no way of knowing what the hymen looked like or seeing the internal vaginal bleeding. These were things that could only be seen when she was autopsied. The same thing goes for the pediatrician. He NEVER did an internal exam, so he NEVER saw evidence of abuse. It was reckless (and suspect, IMO) for him to state he never saw evidence of abuse. FACT- he never looked for it.

 

[twinkiesmom]

So having said that, maybe you can work that "turtleneck" into the discussion. If that happened, it happened somewhere. So maybe it would fall into evidence the head blow happened in her room, like the blood on the pillowcase?

I can live with your explanation for the triangular lesion...however....If there was only one strangulation, she was conscious for it...those are her fingernail scratches on her neck.

So, one strangulation, the head blow had to come second....Headblow could have come between two strangulation attempts.

If the broken paintbrush assault was to cover a previous molestation then it makes sense that the ligature strangulation was to cover a previous strangulation. Since she wore a turtleneck to bed, it makes sense that that could have been the first assault....several possible suspects.

 

[txsvicki]

Imo, if the paintbrush handle was staging then whoever did it had to know that something of similar or smaller size had been inserted most likely 3-10 days before. I'd say they knew a finger had caused injury so something a little bigger round was chosen to try and cover the not fully healed injury.

 

[twinkiesmom]

Imo, if the paintbrush handle was staging then whoever did it had to know that something of similar or smaller size had been inserted most likely 3-10 days before. I'd say they knew a finger had caused injury so something a little bigger round was chosen to try and cover the not fully healed injury.

This was always my thought too...that's why I have such a problem with BDI....anyone staging the crime scene would have had to have known about the previous molestation to attempt to cover it up with a fresh injury.

 

[OpenMind4U]

This was always my thought too...that's why I have such a problem with BDI....anyone staging the crime scene would have had to have known about the previous molestation to attempt to cover it up with a fresh injury.

but, but, but...what if the acute fresh injury by the paintbrush is NOT part of the 'staging' then what?...it means that acute injury was just an another escalated act as the progression of the previous chronic molestation. Agree?

On another hand, if fresh injury is part of the 'staging' then why clean it up???...

Therefore, IMO, the acute fresh sexual assult is NOT part of the 'staging'.

 

[otg]

Why would anyone think that the acute vaginal injury was done to cover a previous injury? And then the blood from the most recent injury was wiped away from her pubic area and from her legs so it would not be obvious? I really don't understand that.

All of the staging... all of the coverup... all of the acting... It was all done to hide the molestation that occurred that night. And as for the previous molestation, assuming they were even aware of it, they probably didn't have any idea it would be found out in an autopsy.
.

 

[KoldKase]

Imo, if the paintbrush handle was staging then whoever did it had to know that something of similar or smaller size had been inserted most likely 3-10 days before. I'd say they knew a finger had caused injury so something a little bigger round was chosen to try and cover the not fully healed injury.

I believe Patsy knew.

She told her friend Pam Archuleta JB was "flirting" inappropriately sometime before the murder.

Of course the child would have bled, as well. That was probably present in the panties.

Patsy tried three times in an hour to call Dr. Beuf on Dec. 17th, after office hours. Neither Patsy nor Dr. Beuf could "remember" what those calls related to.

I believe Patsy knew who and what.

 

[KoldKase]

Why would anyone think that the acute vaginal injury was done to cover a previous injury? And then the blood from the most recent injury was wiped away from her pubic area and from her legs so it would not be obvious? I really don't understand that.

All of the staging... all of the coverup... all of the acting... It was all done to hide the molestation that occurred that night. And as for the previous molestation, assuming they were even aware of it, they probably didn't have any idea it would be found out in an autopsy.
.

I bet to differ.

I can tell you even in the days before we all knew so much about child molesters, covering up the family pervert was as common as pretending your wedding was before the actual date to hide the fact you were pregnant when you said the "I do's."

Even then, a sexually abused six year old would have been identifiable at autopsy. There's no mistaking a broken, damaged hymen.

1996 wasn't the Dark Ages, believe it or not.

 

[otg]

I bet to differ.

I can tell you even in the days before we all knew so much about child molesters, covering up the family pervert was as common as pretending your wedding was before the actual date to hide the fact you were pregnant when you said the "I do's."

Even then, a sexually abused six year old would have been identifiable at autopsy. There's no mistaking a broken, damaged hymen.

1996 wasn't the Dark Ages, believe it or not.

I think you misunderstood the point of what I was trying to say. Probably my fault for not saying it well enough out of frustration. What I was trying to point out was the folly (in my mind anyway) of suggesting that someone with full knowledge of prior injuries from sexual molestation of their daughter would find her dead and then deliberately injure her again (and even more severely) in an attempt to obfuscate the past injuries. And then after inflicting the injury, clean up the obvious signs of it.

As to the prior molestation in which I said, "if they were even aware of it" -- I didn't mean to impugn the abilities of medical personnel in 1996. What I meant was that if the parents were aware of any past sexual explorations (and there are suggestions that Patsy at least was), they weren't necessarily aware that the extent of that sexual curiosity had gone beyond the "looking and comparing" stage, and therefore that it was something that would show up in an exam because of the extent of past injuries.
.