Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet?

[ILikeToBendPages]

Just because she ate pineapple doesn't mean the perp fed it to her.

I get frustrated at the leaps in logic discussing this case amounts to. A burglar at Christmas time is NORMAL. Home invasions happen all the time. They had a big house and were gone for a long time. A burglar could have gotten in easily and remained there. In fact two people could have been there.

Once they realized how rich JR was they might have thought to attempt a kidnapping in order to get the money. If had a paper out with the bonus or mention of it, or if they were people who knew him, they'd know he has the money. The person who wrote the letter knew the bonus amount.

Here's the other leap of logic that I think is dumb, that people say that JR went to all this trouble to write this ransom note and then mentioned a specific amount of money that only he would know about and point the suspicion directly at himself?

It makes no sense to write that amount of money. Why the specific number.

What doesn't make sense is the way people create illogical scenarios because they don't know what happened.

I have still YET to get an answer to my simple question. What motive or reason would he have for murdering and desecrating his child's body?

Give a real reason. If he wanted to kill her he could have just pushed her down the stairs or shoved her while she was taking a showed and bashed her head on the tub. Why this elaborate staging?

That was all they were willing to lose. That was the price they put on JonBenet. John could pay millions and had friends ready to put up more money, but he was asked for a measy little 118,000?

Hiding incest is a motivating factor to many people, when you're at the top of the food chain, and don't want anyone knowing what was happening to your little girl.

JonBenet was an abused little girl. No one can get past that fact. Go look at photos and videos of the bruises on her.

Why, if one head bash didn't killed her, why take the chance of another or two blows to her head doing the job? You can maybe cover one, but you can't beat her head in and call it accident.

 

[Chewy]

I have read up on this case and the spinning goes on and on and on. There are accusations of sexual abuse but not corroborating evidence. Suspicion is not evidence.

 

[Chewy]

Evidence Against Prior Sexual Abuse
Medical Opinions
JBR's Pediatrician Saw No Signs of Abuse.
JBR's pediatrician, Dr. Beuf, denied there had been any sexual abuse and he was in the best position to know.
Only 5 Visits Over 3 Years Related to Genitalia. Although JBR had 27 pediatrician visits between March 1993 and November 1996, only 5 of these occasioned an examination of genitalia; a detailed listing of dates and reasons for these exams is here.

Michael Doberson, MD. On the question of whether the autopsy findings indicated chronic abuse, "Arapahoe County Coroner Dr. Michael Doberson says you would need more information before you could come to any conclusion. That was part of Smith's job. But then she was abruptly pulled off the investigation and told police were handling everything." [Editor's Note: **Holly Smith** was head of Boulder Country Sexual Abuse Team.]

Inflammation and Abuse. Dr. Richard Gardner has stated: "There are doctors (even pediatricians) who claim that any inflammation of a little girl's vulva is a manifestation of sex abuse. Most, however, note that this is an extremely common finding and can result from sweat, tight pants, certain kinds of soap, and the occasional mild rubbing (sometimes masturbatory) activity of the normal girl."

No Other Injuries Observed. Dr. Richard Gardner has stated: "McCann (1988) states that 85% of preadolescent children who are being molested are molested on a chronic, ongoing, and recurring basis. Such molestation should, then, produce changes indicative of chronic trauma. He emphasizes the importance of examination for bruises in other parts of the body, in the nongenital area. The mouth is a common site of lesions because the perpetrator may have placed his hand over the child's mouth in order to stop the child from screaming. Grab marks on the arms and inner thighs are also strongly suggestive of sex abuse, especially thumb marks on the inner aspect of the thigh, placed there when the child's legs were forced apart."

This site has both interpretations. I'm sure you know yours so I'll post this one.

Kids being "in bed together" is not a definitive example of sexual abuse. This is how the Salem witch trials went down. Suspicion is NOT EVIDENCE.

Where is the evidence. Microscopic clothing fibers found on the childs body that indicate she had perhaps HUGGED her parents and gotten fibers on her, are not indicative of anything wrong.

People have researched this case in a completely unethical and unscientific way.



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

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

This site has both interpretations. I'm sure you know yours so I'll post this one.

Kids being "in bed together" is not a definitive example of sexual abuse. This is how the Salem witch trials went down. Suspicion is NOT EVIDENCE.

Where is the evidence. Microscopic clothing fibers found on the childs body that indicate she had perhaps HUGGED her parents and gotten fibers on her, are not indicative of anything wrong.

People have researched this case in a completely unethical and unscientific way.



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

You really need to read the autopsy report. There was a bruise on Jonbenet's right inner thigh. The ME said it was where her legs would of been held open to assault her. Then there is the previous damage done to her vagina that was found along with a hidden large crack in her skull, but that's alright.. someone just "hugged" her right?


The pedi never looked or examined Jonbenet. He took Pasty at her word. And she has been proven a liar many times over.

Who "hugged" JonBenet when she was naked that night and then redressed her in panties that would of fallen down around her feet if she had worn them? It's the little details of evidence that count. Not what you think or feel.

If you don't want to take the time to learn about JonBenet and her death,then it's your own limited mindset, and not those who have invested many years in learning all they can about this little girl. And doubling down on the many who have for years is an injustice to JonBenet and disservice to us.

Go,read and learn then come back and talk crap.

 

[Chewy]

Really the pediatrician who performed 3 genital examinations and saw her 27 times was a raging moron who has no clue and doesn't perform his job professionally because he "liked Patsy"

But a bunch of people chewing the fat online are the better experts. Really now.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Really the pediatrician who performed 3 genital examinations and saw her 27 times was a raging moron who has no clue and doesn't perform his job professionally because he "liked Patsy"

But a bunch of people chewing the fat online are the better experts. Really now.

This case was thoroughly bungled from beginning to end by so-called "experts" - on both sides.

It is one of the main reasons we are still able to debate the case.

Unfortunately your viewpoint seems to be based on zero evidence of any kind except a resistance to believe people are cruel to and kill their children.

Knowing that this is far, far from the truth, it appears your viewpoint is based on belief not fact.

The facts of this case, such as they are, overwhelmingly point to RDI.

:cow:

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

DeeDee, can you lend me a hand? Evidence please. Cold hard facts. Proof of deception and out right lies. Handfulls of lawyers to hide behind, not making a real search for your child's killer. A doctor that NEVER looked or examined JonBenet and has "hid" her medical records from LE. A family that "forgives" the murderer of their little beauty queen just days after she's found dead in her own home. Those things we've learned that have broken out hearts.

Thank you.

 

[Chewy]

This case was thoroughly bungled from beginning to end by so-called "experts" - on both sides.

It is one of the main reasons we are still able to debate the case.

Unfortunately your viewpoint seems to be based on zero evidence of any kind except a resistance to believe people are cruel to and kill their children.

Knowing that this is far, far from the truth, it appears your viewpoint is based on belief not fact.

The facts of this case, such as they are, overwhelmingly point to RDI.

:cow:

I'm the only one thus far in this conversation that has posted actual facts. In fact the link I posted has both sides of the argument.

And I would not say that parents can't be cruel to their children. I'm the last person in the world that would say that having been raised by someone whose personality was that of Charles Manson and Sybil's mother.

I'm saying there are all sorts of wonky suspicions being stated with no evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about how it "seems" I'm worried about what the evidence shows.

People do this all the time. The facts. The evidence. That is what I'm interested in.

I've heard three or four different theories thus far and no one has explained why the idea of an intruder COULD NOT happen. I'm not saying it did happen just that it seems more logical than all these melodramatic movie of the week stories involving Munchausen by Proxy, Satanic Rituals, Incest, Secret plots to get people to leave the house (after which JR told PR to call the police and invited a bunch of people to the house)

Lots of "started off' theories that once you get to the point of proof people jump on to the next one.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm the only one thus far in this conversation that has posted actual facts. In fact the link I posted has both sides of the argument.

And I would not say that parents can't be cruel to their children. I'm the last person in the world that would say that having been raised by someone whose personality was that of Charles Manson and Sybil's mother.

I'm saying there are all sorts of wonky suspicions being stated with no evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about how it "seems" I'm worried about what the evidence shows.

People do this all the time. The facts. The evidence. That is what I'm interested in.

I've heard three or four different theories thus far and no one has explained why the idea of an intruder COULD NOT happen. I'm not saying it did happen just that it seems more logical than all these melodramatic movie of the week stories involving Munchausen by Proxy, Satanic Rituals, Incest, Secret plots to get people to leave the house (after which JR told PR to call the police and invited a bunch of people to the house)

Lots of "started off' theories that once you get to the point of proof people jump on to the next one.

FACT- most of the "facts and evidence" in this case has never been made public. So right off the bat we are trying to solve this with blinders on. But we do our research. We read books, and interviews, look at photos and reports, then distill it all into our OPINIONS and theories. And until someone either confessesn (legitimately) or is charged (legitimately) that's all you're gonna get.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee, can you lend me a hand? Evidence please. Cold hard facts. Proof of deception and out right lies. Handfulls of lawyers to hide behind, not making a real search for your child's killer. A doctor that NEVER looked or examined JonBenet and has "hid" her medical records from LE. A family that "forgives" the murderer of their little beauty queen just days after she's found dead in her own home. Those things we've learned that have broken out hearts.

Thank you.

Correct on all counts.

As far as the pediatrician- a pelvic exam is NOT part of normal pediatric examinations- it requires use of speculum and the child to be put under general anesthesia. It is done in a hospital, not a doctor's office. Without an internal exam, there was no way for her doctor to even see the eroded hymen or any evidence of sexual abuse. However, I believe her doctor may have had information about BR and his history with his sister (why else seal HIS medical records too?).
If a pediatrician suspected abuse, he would be required to report it. By all accounts, he was in awe of the Rs, was a personal friend, belonged to their country club etc, and IMO would have been NOT very willing to report his suspicions.
It is VERY suspicious that a pediatrician would out and our REFUSE to turn over the medical records of a little girl who was KILLED and SEXUALLY ASSAULTED to the people investigating her death. And also VERY suspicious that the DA charged with overseeing this investigation REFUSED to get a warrant to demand those records.
Please understand there is NO innocent reason for these refusals. There MUST be something to hide- else why hide it?

 

[Chewy]

fine but I'd like to see SOME of the evidence? I mean one of the examples used to prove she was sexually assaulted was bedwetting. My youngest wet the bed until he was 8 years old. We worked a lot on it but he just would go at night. He was not sexually assaulted.

So evidence I've seen is "she peed the bed and the maid saw her and her brother in bed together.(which is a completely vague statement)"

And my evidence "Her pediatrician never saw any evidence of sexual abuse after 27 physical examinations which included three genital exams."

So let's see which one do you think looks more like "evidence" and what looks like "suspicion and gossip?"

 

[DeeDee249]

Chewy- here's your simple answer to your simple question:

There may not BE a motive or reason. There is not always a motive or reason for a murder. Tough to face, but like it or not, there does not always have to be a motive. Nor do you need one for a murder conviction (except murder one, which requires proof of premeditation/intent to kill). This wouldn't be a First Degree Murder case.

It may be as simple as an unintended death (caused by a blow to the head which was not meant to be fatal, but my have been meant to silence her) and a follow up of staging in desperation. There was NO calling 911. No trying to save her because she seemed beyond saving. And there isn't hospital in the world who wouldn't have found that abuse- she had BLOOD in her vagina and on her thighs.

 

[Chewy]

She was sexually abused at the time of her death. But there are varying reports about her being sexually abused prior to that night. There are those who say yes but the majority say no.

Some of the "gossip" comments that i have seen I think are ridiculous. The assertion that on December 23rd someone called 911 and hung up. And people gossiping that someone in the house was calling to report sexual abuse? I mean really? REALLY? LOL


I could agree completely that it was an unintended death. That's what I first thought in the beginning. But I don't understand how people would think that a person who unintendedly killed their child would cover it up this way.

Like I posted earlier. What makes the most sense? That they said she wet the bed and went into the shower to clean up and slipped and fell, or this whole thing?

JR's older daughter says that he is a loving father who never abused her nor did she witness any abuse. She's a nurse.

Even if JB was not examined internally doctors and nurses are trained and required to look for and report child abuse.

Saying the pedi didn't because he "worshipped the Ramsey's" is just gossip and speculation.

All these theories are based on gossip and speculation and don't add up if you follow it all the way through.

 

[DeeDee249]

She was sexually abused at the time of her death. But there are varying reports about her being sexually abused prior to that night. There are those who say yes but the majority say no.

Some of the "gossip" comments that i have seen I think are ridiculous. The assertion that on December 23rd someone called 911 and hung up. And people gossiping that someone in the house was calling to report sexual abuse? I mean really? REALLY? LOL


I could agree completely that it was an unintended death. That's what I first thought in the beginning. But I don't understand how people would think that a person who unintendedly killed their child would cover it up this way.

Like I posted earlier. What makes the most sense? That they said she wet the bed and went into the shower to clean up and slipped and fell, or this whole thing?

JR's older daughter says that he is a loving father who never abused her nor did she witness any abuse. She's a nurse.

Even if JB was not examined internally doctors and nurses are trained and required to look for and report child abuse.

Saying the pedi didn't because he "worshipped the Ramsey's" is just gossip and speculation.

All these theories are based on gossip and speculation and don't add up if you follow it all the way through.

Nothing here is "gossip". However it is OPINION. That is what a crime forum if for- we all have opinions and we discuss them. It is ridiculous to accuse us of "gossip". I am sure you understand how discussion boards work? People TALK about things, even things they cannot be sure are factual (because we don't HAVE all the facts).
As for the pediatrician, do you have an INNOCENT explanation why he would refuse access to the medical records of a murdered patient (and her sibling who was at home at the time)? Because I cannot think of ONE.
There should be NO "island of privacy" when it comes to a murdered, sexually abused child". Investigators don't need to see their IQ tests. They don't need to see when they had their measles vaccine or whether they had the chicken pox. What they NEEDED to see was whether there was any prior indication that she had been abused, or whether her brother had been suspected (or caught) in that abuse by a family member or caregiver.

The only reason I see for a horrific cover up like this was to protect a family member from being exposed as a sexual abuser and/or from being found responsible for her death. Even though the blow to her head might not have been intended to kill her, it was still an assault. It wasn't like she walked in front of a moving bludgeon accidentally.
Slipping and falling would certainly have resulted in a 911 call-if there had been no sexual assault that night that resulted in her bleeding. The blood in and around her vagina is FACT. It isn't gossip or hearsay. It was noted in the autopsy report and the coroner expressed TO POLICE that it was likely caused by digital penetration. Some of these injuries were healed- that meant they did NOT happen that night. The only "expert" who actually SAW the body felt there was prior abuse- that is good enough for me.

As for the internal exam- my whole point was that NO ONE had done such an exam during her short life. They are NOT routine.
The first time she was examined internally is when the coroner dissected her. But had she been brought to a hospital, she would have been examined with a fluoroscope for traces of semen- and blood would have been found, prompting an internal exam as I described. THEN- the eroded hymen, bruising, etc would have been found. And someone in the family (probably JR, responsible or not) would have been arrested and they wpuld have gotten to the bottom of WHO had been abusing her.

Her abuser SAW the blood. He/she had to. It was wiped away.NO one but a parent would do this. An intruder wouldn't care, even one who knew her- no need to clean her up or stage her death. In fact, all the more reason NOT to clean her up- far more shocking to her family, especially her father, (who was the alleged target of hatred).

 

[Chewy]

Saying "do I have a reason for the pedi not to reveal" the information (btw I was going to mention that as well" is purely gossip and speculation. That's not how evidence works.

What is being done here, as demonstrated so nicely by your question, is referred to in logical debate as "Confirmation bias"

IOW you only look at the evidence that supports what you want to believe and ignore the evidence to the contrary.

The question about the pediatrician is what is referred to as a straw man. Say the pediatrician didn't document something properly or had written quips on the patient file that may be embarrassing if publicized. That has absolutely no bearing on the guilt of JR and PR.

The only way to make it seem so is through gossip and speculation.

 

[DeeDee249]

Saying "do I have a reason for the pedi not to reveal" the information (btw I was going to mention that as well" is purely gossip and speculation. That's not how evidence works.

What is being done here, as demonstrated so nicely by your question, is referred to in logical debate as "Confirmation bias"

IOW you only look at the evidence that supports what you want to believe and ignore the evidence to the contrary.

The question about the pediatrician is what is referred to as a straw man. Say the pediatrician didn't document something properly or had written quips on the patient file that may be embarrassing if publicized. That has absolutely no bearing on the guilt of JR and PR.

The only way to make it seem so is through gossip and speculation.

We'll have to agree to disagree. We are all biased one way or another on this case- how could we not be? I see NO evidence "to the contrary" as you do. Or course we speculate. So do you. When you don't have all the facts, there is little else to do.
But to accuse posters here of gossip just because you don't like what we believe is insulting. We are here because we care about this case and we care about a dead little girl whose killers may have been known to her and have bought or intimidated their way out of being held responsible for her death. One side is right. Doesn't matter to me if I am PROVEN wrong- I'll be the first one to say I am glad and relieved. Until that happens (that I am prove wrong) I'll be entitled to my OPINION of the case as I see it just as you are, and resent it being called "gossip".

 

[Chewy]

I am simply asking for someone to line up the evidence in a way that points it all the way through instead of cherry picking through the information to find something that supports the claims being stated.

Ex one poster has a blog stating that JB did it and was using the RN to get Patsy out of the house so he could dispose of the body. Fine that's opinion.

But the evidence shows JR invited people to his house and that he told PR to call he police. So that evidence blows the opinion out of the water.

And so on. I've yet to see someone line up the evidence and explain the situation all the way.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

She was sexually abused at the time of her death. But there are varying reports about her being sexually abused prior to that night. There are those who say yes but the majority say no.

Some of the "gossip" comments that i have seen I think are ridiculous. The assertion that on December 23rd someone called 911 and hung up. And people gossiping that someone in the house was calling to report sexual abuse? I mean really? REALLY? LOL


I could agree completely that it was an unintended death. That's what I first thought in the beginning. But I don't understand how people would think that a person who unintendedly killed their child would cover it up this way.

Like I posted earlier. What makes the most sense? That they said she wet the bed and went into the shower to clean up and slipped and fell, or this whole thing?

JR's older daughter says that he is a loving father who never abused her nor did she witness any abuse. She's a nurse.

Even if JB was not examined internally doctors and nurses are trained and required to look for and report child abuse.

Saying the pedi didn't because he "worshipped the Ramsey's" is just gossip and speculation.

All these theories are based on gossip and speculation and don't add up if you follow it all the way through.

I said my abuser was a good person also. Many of us do. You bore the shame that comes with it, and kept your mouth shut. Being a nurse doesn't carry much weight with me. It's never been reported that she would have a reason to check out Jonbenet's private parts.

I guess some would do what the Ramsey's thought was a good idea. You'd do it to hide a brother sexually molesting his little sister, and possibly the one who cracked her skull open.

One of the Ramsey's made the decision to put a cord around their dying daughter neck and chock her to death. To finish her off. That is a fact.

Someone made the choice of not seeking any medical care that night for JonBenet. That is a fact. Why didn't they call for help? What did they have to hide if,as you theorize,she fell in the tub? You'd call for help as soon as she was found unconscious wouldn't you? To tell of an accident in the tub? You'd want to see if her life could be saved right?
I'm a mother and a grandmother and I know I'd sure as hell would call for help. Even if it meant others finding out about any abuse, especially sexual abuse. And if I found a sister and brother, in bed under the covers, they both would get a talking to and I'd be watching to see which one was the aggressor and deal with it.

JonBenet was starting to exhibit signs of sexual abuse. Some which Pasty, the main person to sexualize her,was starting to notice and was becoming concerned about. That is a fact. Pasty's own friends planned a talk about what was happening to JonBenet. They saw it was Pasty, and not JonBenet that wanted the glory from the pageants. They saw the progression in how Pasty was dressing her baby girl and they knew it was just plain wrong. They saw the haunted look in JonBenet's eyes along with the platinum blonde hair Pasty chose for her. They saw a little six year old girl being made to wear things a Las Vegas showgirl would wear. That is a fact.

There is evidence that some one was "fingering" JonBenet. It's noted as "digital penetration" not a penile intrusion. That is a fact, not a theory, any of us came up with.

The red fibers that were found on JonBenet and at the place of her death were from Pasty's red sweater that she wore Christmas day, and was still wearing that morning when LE got there. That is a fact.

The black fibers that were found in the crotch of the size twelve panties were from John Ramsey's black shirt that he'd worn that night. That is a fact. Pasty told LE that JonBenet herself, wanted the pack of panties that were for her older cousins Christmas present, and put them in her panty drawer. No others were found in that house, but they appeared several years later, just as John and Pasty's clothes did. That is a fact.

JonBenet was being molested. That is a fact.

She suffered a devastating head blow and was then chocked to death and placed in a dark womb like room, swaddled in her favorite white blanket. Those are facts, not opinions.

If you add all the facts together it that points to a family member. Not an opinion, but a fact. Something you can not get pass. It's the totality of the evidence released so far that we've come to these conclusions.

You only list one JonBenet Ramsey site as a source ,and to be fair to yourself and others, go read at aCandyrose and Forum for Justice for more current information about this case, since you want to stay away from people writing books and making money off this little girl. Something her parents have done many times over. And that is a fact.

Open you eyes and heart to the fact a little girl is dead before her time, and someone in that family caused her death.

 

[Chewy]

No that's not a fact.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

No that's not a fact.

I thought I was into sado-machiasin,necrophilia and bestiality, but then I realized I was just beating a dead horse.

OK stick a fork in me. I'm done. And that's a fact.