Members' Theories

[tennison]

Em, the findings in the autopsy clearly show that JonBenet suffered molestation both of the acute and chronic kind.How does a 6year old have all those injuries?

Please post a link to the ACTUAL Autopsy report showing this.

The coroner did not express an opinion of the facts he presented.But the many experts who have analysed the findings have. And most of those experts agree that JonBenet was acutely and chronically molested.

Again these experts are basing these opinions on what exactly?

The argument does not go on. Perhaps in your mind it does.

Lets not be silly now, the FACT is there was no definitive proof of Parental responsibility, hence the argument DOES continue.

But it's an objective fact JonBenet was molested immediately both before she died aswell as at least 48-72 hours prior.

Please post proof of this.

Further, your 'proof' that the autopsy supposedly said that no chronic abuse existed is absolutely frivolous --your quote was from the Carnes ruling and NOT the autopsy. It's a well noted fact that Cyril Wecht didn't testify in that particular case aswell as the fact that Judge Carnes did not have access to all the case evidence.

Again please post link to autopsy report

Remember, Carnes made the statement that she felt the evidence supported the intruder theory (the joke of course was that she was saying this stuff whilst not having ALL the facts). Yep, in Carnes's mind, a ransom note most experts said a Ramsey wrote, no sign of intruder entry, parental fibres on the duct tape covering JonBenet's mouth etc = intruder theory. I say no more.

Although the Carnes ruling was based on a particular law-suit against Patsy Ramsey by Chris Wolf, Carnes's ruling is by no means the default and most respected ruling on this case with regards to the topic of the molestation issue.

Respected by whom?

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Respected by whom?

You cited the Carnes ruling to bolster your incorrect claim that the autopsy says no molestation occurred (you actually quoted the Carnes ruling as if it was the actual autopsy report). The autopsy does not say anything which corroborates your claim. I replied that the Carnes ruling is not the authority on the correct interpretation of the autopsy -- in that particular case experts such as Cyril Wecht did not testify. Thus, the Carnes ruling is not as universally respected as some may think.

Could I ask you to please use a different text colour to mine if you are going to add in rebuttalls to my questions/replies. I almost missed the fact you were doing that.It's confusing.

As for the autopsy report -- you made the claim that the autopsy said no molestation occurred. That was in layman's terms a lie. The autopsy report says no such thing. You cited the Carnes ruling to make that point of yours.You were wrong. Simple as that.

I quoted from the actual autopsy report. My quotes are direct and factual and not quotes from a ruling on Ramsay related case.I think you can google the autopsy report.

Oh, and in a prior post you said ;

"So because a medical expert will not commit to saying she was sexually abused prior to her murder, he must be wrong?"

Furstly, if the coroner did not commit to an opinion as Meyer didn't, then how can he be 'wrong' about anything? Your sentence is inherently illogical.

No-one is saying Meyer is wrong. People are saying that people such as yourself, who claim the autopsy dismissed sexual abuse are flat-out wrong.

If you are saying that no molestation occurred, it's up to you to provide evidence for that claim. Not me. I have sourced my evidence to back up my claims. But the phrase 'molestation did not occur' is not present in the autopsy report thus your claim it said that have been successfully rebutted.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

tennison said;

This is Bull, there are only averáge size guides to body parts, its not a one size thing,

This was said in response to my remark that experts said JonBenet had a vaginal opening twice as wide as the average 6 year old girl.

Firstly, you are wrong in this instance -- when body parts display certain attributes, certain conclusions CAN be drawn. When a child has bleeding in the genitals, chronic inflammation, briefriengement material in the genitals, a garrote around the neck perhaps acting as an Erotic-asphyxiation device, your claim that JonBenet's genitals (which were also twice the size of a normal 6yr old) is nonsense, is perplexing to say the least. I guess you know more that the world renowned experts on the case then...........

Here's two link to show you why you are wrong:

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

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/8/5/403

 

[tennison]

You cited the Carnes ruling to bolster your incorrect claim that the autopsy says no molestation occurred (you actually quoted the Carnes ruling as if it was the actual autopsy report). The autopsy does not say anything which corroborates your claim. I replied that the Carnes ruling is not the authority on the correct interpretation of the autopsy -- in that particular case experts such as Cyril Wecht did not testify. Thus, the Carnes ruling is not as universally respected as some may think.

Could I ask you to please use a different text colour to mine if you are going to add in rebuttalls to my questions/replies. I almost missed the fact you were doing that.It's confusing.

As for the autopsy report -- you made the claim that the autopsy said no molestation occurred. That was in layman's terms a lie. The autopsy report says no such thing. You cited the Carnes ruling to make that point of yours.You were wrong. Simple as that.

I quoted from the actual autopsy report. My quotes are direct and factual and not quotes from a ruling on Ramsay related case.I think you can google the autopsy report.

Oh, and in a prior post you said ;

"So because a medical expert will not commit to saying she was sexually abused prior to her murder, he must be wrong?"

Furstly, if the coroner did not commit to an opinion as Meyer didn't, then how can he be 'wrong' about anything? Your sentence is inherently illogical.

No-one is saying Meyer is wrong. People are saying that people such as yourself, who claim the autopsy dismissed sexual abuse are flat-out wrong.

If you are saying that no molestation occurred, it's up to you to provide evidence for that claim. Not me. I have sourced my evidence to back up my claims. But the phrase 'molestation did not occur' is not present in the autopsy report thus your claim it said that have been successfully rebutted.

OK. First let me tell you i have been quoting from the JB case encyclopedia, i have not intentionally tried to pick and choose references by anyone other than mayer.
If you can post a link to the Autopsy report you have i would be grateful.

 

[tennison]

You cited the Carnes ruling to bolster your incorrect claim that the autopsy says no molestation occurred (you actually quoted the Carnes ruling as if it was the actual autopsy report). The autopsy does not say anything which corroborates your claim. I replied that the Carnes ruling is not the authority on the correct interpretation of the autopsy -- in that particular case experts such as Cyril Wecht did not testify. Thus, the Carnes ruling is not as universally respected as some may think.

Could I ask you to please use a different text colour to mine if you are going to add in rebuttalls to my questions/replies. I almost missed the fact you were doing that.It's confusing.

As for the autopsy report -- you made the claim that the autopsy said no molestation occurred. That was in layman's terms a lie. The autopsy report says no such thing. You cited the Carnes ruling to make that point of yours.You were wrong. Simple as that.


I have no problem with the fact that JB was sexually molested on the night in question, i do however have a problem finding any evidence of chronic prior sexual abuse, to say she wasnt sexually abused during the attack would be stupid, so if you have been under that illusion you have misinterperated what i have said.
My problem lies with people using the sexual evidence as PROOF of previous abuse by her parents.
I quoted from the actual autopsy report. My quotes are direct and factual and not quotes from a ruling on Ramsay related case.I think you can google the autopsy report.

Oh, and in a prior post you said ;

"So because a medical expert will not commit to saying she was sexually abused prior to her murder, he must be wrong?"

Furstly, if the coroner did not commit to an opinion as Meyer didn't, then how can he be 'wrong' about anything? Your sentence is inherently illogical.

No-one is saying Meyer is wrong. People are saying that people such as yourself, who claim the autopsy dismissed sexual abuse are flat-out wrong.

If you are saying that no molestation occurred, it's up to you to provide evidence for that claim. Not me. I have sourced my evidence to back up my claims. But the phrase 'molestation did not occur' is not present in the autopsy report thus your claim it said that have been successfully rebutted.

OK. First let me tell you i have been quoting from the JB case encyclopedia, i have not intentionally tried to pick and choose references by anyone other than mayer.
If you can post a link to the Autopsy report you have i would be grateful.

 

[madeleine]

Em, the findings in the autopsy clearly show that JonBenet suffered molestation both of the acute and chronic kind.How does a 6year old have all those injuries?

my point exactly on the other thread.
ANOTHER coincidence?don't think so.....
you have old scars,an eroded hymen,acute assault and murder + the killer/killers trying to cover it up by redressing,cleaning the body.
i just can't believe that sexual assault happened only that night and the other scars +the eroded hymen are the result of bad hygiene or whatever some are implying (JB did it to herself,vaginitis,etc)

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

OK. First let me tell you i have been quoting from the JB case encyclopedia, i have not intentionally tried to pick and choose references by anyone other than mayer.
If you can post a link to the Autopsy report you have i would be grateful.

The autopsy report is cited in many places on the internet. Here is one link:

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

I linked to a news-site so that you could read the report as presented to the world and so that you don''t think I edited it.

Hope it helps.

 

[tennison]

The autopsy report is cited in many places on the internet. Here is one link:

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

I linked to a news-site so that you could read the report as presented to the world and so that you don''t think I edited it.

Hope it helps.

Thanks for the link.

I still see no conclusive proof of PRIOR sexual abuse at all, as stated before there are several reasons for chronic inflamation of the vaginal mucosa least of all actual sexual assault on the night of the murder.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks for the link.

I still see no conclusive proof of PRIOR sexual abuse at all, as stated before there are several reasons for chronic inflamation of the vaginal mucosa least of all actual sexual assault on the night of the murder.

People get confused with "chronic" when it comes to prior abuse this case. Chronic simply means occurring before the injuries that happened at the time of the crime. It could be the previous day, or days or weeks before.
But there is one finding that absolutely proves previous sexual penetration of some type, That is the HYMENAL EROSION. That is NOT an "acute" injury (meaning it did not happen exclusively at the time of the murder). That erosion took multiple times to develop. There were some healing bruises too, which indicate they happened at a previous time.
Slides of typical vaginal opening in CHILDREN were presented, so there could be valid comparisons with JB. Her vagina was seen to be markedly enlarged for a child her age, compared to other children in her age group. This is also something that took repeated contact. This is not something that happened that night. The corner said to LE present at the autopsy that in his opinion, it was consistent with digital penetration, it did not appear to be from an (adult) penis. However, this does not mean there had not been some attempt at penile penetration at some previous time. But the "erosion" makes it likely the previous penetration was also digital (or with something of similar size).

 

[SunnieRN]

tennison said;



This was said in response to my remark that experts said JonBenet had a vaginal opening twice as wide as the average 6 year old girl.

Firstly, you are wrong in this instance -- when body parts display certain attributes, certain conclusions CAN be drawn. When a child has bleeding in the genitals, chronic inflammation, briefriengement material in the genitals, a garrote around the neck perhaps acting as an Erotic-asphyxiation device, your claim that JonBenet's genitals (which were also twice the size of a normal 6yr old) is nonsense, is perplexing to say the least. I guess you know more that the world renowned experts on the case then...........

Here's two link to show you why you are wrong:

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

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/8/5/403

Some people just refuse to admit the truth, des[ite the fact that it is staring them in the face.

Great post LFB!!

 

[NanK]

OK - I have read a few of the members theories but after doing my own research I strongly feel that Patsy, John or Burke were not involved in the death of Jonbenet. The crime is far to heinous and there is no motive at all or history of violence on the Ramseys part. I feel the perp(s) gained knowledge of the Ramseys plans for Christmas and where they would be prior to their trip to Charlevoix and the Disney boat and that's why the plan went down prior to their trip. I believe the perp(s) were of meager means (much less than the Ramseys and that is where the cops should focus to find their perp(s) and that money and anger towards John's wealth were the main focus of this crime, they were envious of John Ramsey in particular and he did hit the billion dollar mark in 1996 and it was publicized for the entire city of Boulder in the newspaper so it was not private information. The perp(s) hung out at the Ramsey's and sifted through his paperwork maybe and saw that he got a $118,000 bonus were disgusted and focused on this amount because they thought he would have no trouble coming up with it quickly since it was just a bonus. They've never kidnapped before so were learning as they went and used what was handy and what they could leave behind: the pen, pad of paper, rope, duct tape, but brought a stun gun and flashlight in case they were caught and had to flee by stun gunning the parents. They waited until the house became quiet, went up to JB's room silenced her with the stun gun, duct taped her mouth and planned to kidnap her but chickened out ditching the note behind on the stairs. While in the basement, the perp(s) thought: what will we do now that the kidnapping is not going to happen - they decide to end her life to get back at John Ramsey somehow and not leave a possible witness behind, so they fashion a garotte and strangle her. They stay there awhile but are not sure if she is alive or not so they hit her on the head to ensure she doesn't live (that is why there is no blood pool around her head). They leave through a window and escape into the night thinking the kidnapping was a bad idea and they couldn't pull it off easily like they thought. I think the red herrings are: the spider web - that is just too silly to focus on really, the scream in the night heard by a neighbour down the street - who keeps a window open in December anyway? - I don't believe that story at all, Patsy accidentally killing JB over bedwetting - sorry, that's silly too. The Ramseys did not thoroughly check their house out because they thought they were dealing with a kidnapping and they should stay by the phone and in the company of their friends for comfort. They lawyered up once they realized that they were being focused on by the cops as the primary suspects and thought just in case it's best to have some level of representation so they are not railroaded. They became evasive and paranoid because of the media frenzy that ensued on top of the cops thinking that they killed their daughter - what a nightmare for grieving parents. They walled themselves off because they became angry and disgusted with where the investigation was going and they certainly weren't going to do everything the cops wanted because who knows what the hidden agenda was and what could be twisted up to implicate the Ramseys. They couldn't take that chance - they still had to raise Burke after all. The handwritten note if we take it at face value identifies more than one person, asks for money (which I believe is the true motive), threatens violence, and is signed! of all things. So there are clues there that indicate that the perp(s) are not afraid that John will recognize their handwriting because he has never seen their handwriting but they somehow know intimate details about him to reveal that in the note. The Swiss army knife was hidden according to the housekeeper, the perp(s) may have found it after snooping around. This is my theory and I think the Ramseys are totally innocent and the cops screwed up big time.

 

[Chewy]

Nank, USE PARAGRAPHS, holy crapola....

 

[cindysue]

So JR is smart enough to run a multi-million dollar business but would leave a crime scene full of things that point to your family. The paper ,pen , some practice notes in your waste basket, your wife's paintbrush, a RN with an amount of money that's confidential? I doubt it.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

How would John and Patsy get rid of all those items? They couldn't risk anyone seeing them leaving their house. As for why the RN amount matched John's bonus, my theory is that it was deliberately done to point towards someone who was jealous of John's business.

 

[vlpate]

OK - I have read a few of the members theories but after doing my own research I strongly feel that Patsy, John or Burke were not involved in the death of Jonbenet. The crime is far to heinous and there is no motive at all or history of violence on the Ramseys part. I feel the perp(s) gained knowledge of the Ramseys plans for Christmas and where they would be prior to their trip to Charlevoix and the Disney boat and that's why the plan went down prior to their trip. I believe the perp(s) were of meager means (much less than the Ramseys and that is where the cops should focus to find their perp(s) and that money and anger towards John's wealth were the main focus of this crime, they were envious of John Ramsey in particular and he did hit the billion dollar mark in 1996 and it was publicized for the entire city of Boulder in the newspaper so it was not private information. The perp(s) hung out at the Ramsey's and sifted through his paperwork maybe and saw that he got a $118,000 bonus were disgusted and focused on this amount because they thought he would have no trouble coming up with it quickly since it was just a bonus. They've never kidnapped before so were learning as they went and used what was handy and what they could leave behind: the pen, pad of paper, rope, duct tape, but brought a stun gun and flashlight in case they were caught and had to flee by stun gunning the parents. They waited until the house became quiet, went up to JB's room silenced her with the stun gun, duct taped her mouth and planned to kidnap her but chickened out ditching the note behind on the stairs. While in the basement, the perp(s) thought: what will we do now that the kidnapping is not going to happen - they decide to end her life to get back at John Ramsey somehow and not leave a possible witness behind, so they fashion a garotte and strangle her. They stay there awhile but are not sure if she is alive or not so they hit her on the head to ensure she doesn't live (that is why there is no blood pool around her head). They leave through a window and escape into the night thinking the kidnapping was a bad idea and they couldn't pull it off easily like they thought. I think the red herrings are: the spider web - that is just too silly to focus on really, the scream in the night heard by a neighbour down the street - who keeps a window open in December anyway? - I don't believe that story at all, Patsy accidentally killing JB over bedwetting - sorry, that's silly too. The Ramseys did not thoroughly check their house out because they thought they were dealing with a kidnapping and they should stay by the phone and in the company of their friends for comfort. They lawyered up once they realized that they were being focused on by the cops as the primary suspects and thought just in case it's best to have some level of representation so they are not railroaded. They became evasive and paranoid because of the media frenzy that ensued on top of the cops thinking that they killed their daughter - what a nightmare for grieving parents. They walled themselves off because they became angry and disgusted with where the investigation was going and they certainly weren't going to do everything the cops wanted because who knows what the hidden agenda was and what could be twisted up to implicate the Ramseys. They couldn't take that chance - they still had to raise Burke after all. The handwritten note if we take it at face value identifies more than one person, asks for money (which I believe is the true motive), threatens violence, and is signed! of all things. So there are clues there that indicate that the perp(s) are not afraid that John will recognize their handwriting because he has never seen their handwriting but they somehow know intimate details about him to reveal that in the note. The Swiss army knife was hidden according to the housekeeper, the perp(s) may have found it after snooping around. This is my theory and I think the Ramseys are totally innocent and the cops screwed up big time.

All that and they did not leave one single bit of evidence - not one hair, no fingerprints, no glove residue - nothing. Yeah, the DNA is a big deal to IDI's, but that will not prove anything - and it's such a tiny bit of evidence for someone who spent so much tine milling around and rifling through drawers.

 

[Alix]

Patsy Ramsey. There is no doubt in my mind it was Patsy.

First of all, PR is a sexual deviant. She sexualized her daughter. She
was obsessed with her in an unnatural way. (My belief is that all of
these pageant mothers are disturbed, anyhow.)

PR is very narcissistic. Look at me, look at me, everyone look at me.
Then there are her extremely arrogant and aggressive reactions to the
questions of the police. This was a woman who had just lost her little
girl in a horrible way, and she was arrogant beyond belief! Unnatural
reaction. Making it worse was her gloating, smirking manner with the
detective on the Larry King(?) show. Anger and tears would be
understandable. But gloating and smirking. Warped.

I think what happened that night, was that JBR either got up and asked
her brother to get her pineapple or she got it herself. Her mother
caught her eating, went psycho on her and smashed her her a good one. The
weapon went bye-bye later, or possibly PR killed her by other means,
maybe grabbing her by the feet after chasing her around, and swinging her
against the corner of the counter.

Then PR, thinking of herself(again), sat and thought up a plan. Ransom--
this is great because now I can get MORE attention! Plus, the hicks
around here are so dumb, they'll never figure out what I did!

That note was the single most important evidence that Patsy murdered her
daughter.

Patsy fashioned the garrote and strangled and raped her little girl down
in the basement.

I believe only a mentally disturbed woman who is obsessed with control
would be able to brutalize her daughter's body this way. It's as simple
as rape, because it IS rape. Rape is about control and PR is about
control. My kid disobeyed me and snuck food. She thwarted me! I'll show
that little so-and-so who's boss around here!

PR's useless and equally sociopathic husband helped her to cover up at
some point. I'm not sure that I believe he dictated the ransom note at
all. I think that note is 100% Patsy, both hand-writing and thoughts. I
think the writing analysts who felt it had a man's touch mistook
aggression for maleness.

I don't believe the intruder theory because(to me) it's ludicrous to
think that an intruder would break into the house, rape and murder that
child and then spend hours dicking around, practicing long-winded ransom
notes. So that leaves JR or PR and I opt for PR.

Now, other than a rage-killing, the only other option I have is murder.
Patsy decides her growing child isn't fun anymore. She's starting to wet
the bed, too, and that REALLY pisses PR off. I'll stop here because I've
already posted too much on my first "theory".*blush*

 

[Extrachewyy]

I don't know much about this case, the only thoughts I've ever had were wether or not the parents did it. I just watched a YouTube that suggested to me that JB was relatively new to the padgent scene, yet seemed to be winning almost everything. Was there a competitor that was now losing as appossed to winning, since JB's arrival? Could there have been some parents with a very sad little girl, all thanks to a new girl on the scene named JonBenet Ramsey? To what lengths might a padgent parent go?

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't know much about this case, the only thoughts I've ever had were wether or not the parents did it. I just watched a YouTube that suggested to me that JB was relatively new to the padgent scene, yet seemed to be winning almost everything. Was there a competitor that was now losing as appossed to winning, since JB's arrival? Could there have been some parents with a very sad little girl, all thanks to a new girl on the scene named JonBenet Ramsey? To what lengths might a padgent parent go?

Please read up on the case. It will be fascinating, as well as enlightening.
Try HERE: www.acandyrose.com and don't forget to scroll down to the JonBenet archives.

 

[gajonka]

Ramsey's Innocent.

As much as I would like to see new evidence finding them guilt, it is clear that this was done by someone who they had over for one of their parties. Not a direct friend, but an indirect contact, or friend of a friend.
The garrote is too complex a knot. The perp just got sloppy, and decided he'd have a better chance with a clean escape without the baggage.... And the follow up to get the money.
They must have overheard the bonus figure. The ransom note had too many movie lines- had to be a younger person.
That's all I got!

 

[Limaes]

My opinion is that PDI. I believe that PR had resorted to treating JB's vaginitis using her own method and Nedra & possibly Dr. Buef were fully aware. Understandably, JB did not enjoy this and considering it caused the erosion of her hymen, it would have caused pain and discomfort to her.

I believe that on that fateful night, JB put up a fight. She physically fought her mother and was resisting the over the top solution that PR chose to fix the problem. A vicious cycle was created and the more JB fought against it, the more angry and aggressive her mother became which resulted in the internal bruising and bleeding.

The males in the R household did not react to the commotion that was taking place in JB's room, and eventually her bathroom, because it was most likely a regular occurance, they'd heard it before. Only this time, it ended tragically with JB on her bathroom floor with a mortal head wound (coming into heavy contact with a large object), bruising on the side of her face (PR's ring mark whilst having her by the scruff of her neck when wiping her down) and noticeable marks on her neck (the twisting of her collar whilst holding her by the scruff of her neck)

Faced with the horrible truth that was in front of her eyes, along with the knowledge that JB had already been internally injured (I believe this is why PR had been trying to phone Dr.Buef a few weeks prior) people like Susan Smith & OJ came to her mind and she decided it would be easier to mourn her child in the luxury of her own environment rather than from behind bars. Srrhe now had to come up with a way to hide what she had done and point the blame elsewhere. But to who?...well the first and most convenient victim to be thrown under the R bus was Linda Hoffman-Pugh.

This is just a brief summary of my thoughts and opinions about this case. Will post my opinions about the staging and why I think LHP was a big target for PR to pin this on over the next week.