Nedra & Patsy's sisters

[Toltec]

I wonder about that, too.Perhaps the trip the next day was just too much of a chance to take,and JB was silenced.

(no flames,please!) But I do consider that a possibility.

I do not think so because I believe Patsy did it. I also believe if Burke or John were molesting JonBenet, who would JonBenet turn to but her parent/s? What would be the consequences of that?

 

[UKGuy]

I do not think so because I believe Patsy did it. I also believe if Burke or John were molesting JonBenet, who would JonBenet turn to but her parent/s? What would be the consequences of that?

Toltec,

But someone was molesting JonBenet, and if Patsy did the staging, including any sexual assault then she must be covering up for this molester, not unless she was molesting JonBenet?

 

[UKGuy]

but,what about JR's fibers being there? It would seem he,(or at least his shirt),was used to wipe JB down last.

JMO8778,

I agree, so did Patsy run back upstairs to specifically find the shirt John had worn the previous night?

Or was John already naked when he wiped down JonBenet?


Does this imply they were both involved, either joinly, or as one aiding and abetting another?

Did they both know about JonBenet's chronic sexual abuse, was she killed because she would no longer co-operate, or did someone take her sexual abuse too far?


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

I agree, so did Patsy run back upstairs to specifically find the shirt John had worn the previous night?

Or was John already naked when he wiped down JonBenet?


Does this imply they were both involved, either joinly, or as one aiding and abetting another?

Did they both know about JonBenet's chronic sexual abuse, was she killed because she would no longer co-operate, or did someone take her sexual abuse too far?


.

UK,have you read DOI? pprback,p.13,JR states:

"For the first time I am aware that I have been racing around the house in my underwear.I hurry back to the third floor bedroom to grab my clothes.I stop in JonBenet's room and look under the bed to make sure she isn't there."

Ok,my question here is: WHY IS HE TRYING TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS UNDERWEAR FIBERS BEING IN HER ROOM?
(more specifically,on the floor near her bed).

B/c I think it's obvious that that's exactly what he's trying to do with that comment.

Flip the page,and here's this comment from him on p.15:

"I suddenly remember our large walk-in refrigerator.Could JonBenet have been put inside,trapped there?I open the door to check.She isn't there."

(italics are his in this comment).Ok,my question here is, WHAT IS HE TRYING TO ACCOUNT FOR WITH THIS COMMENT? Maybe he placed JB's body in it at some point during the night? And/or was he trying to account for his fresh fingerprints being on it,b/c he took something out of it that had to do with the murder?

I certainly consider that JR could be guilty of the murder,instead of PR.
Of course it's always possible he had sexual contact with her shortly after she went to bed,then he went to bed,and he had nothing to do with her actual murder,other than the staging.

BUT,PR's comment 'WE didn't mean for this to happen',doesn't seem to fit the toilet rage scenerio very well,IMO.Who is WE?.For that,she'd have to mean she and JB didn't mean for the soiling rages to get out of hand.
Her comment fits the 'silencing her due to sexual abuse' scenerio much better,as in SHE AND JR didn't mean for the molestation to get so out of hand that JB would have to be silenced forever.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

I agree, so did Patsy run back upstairs to specifically find the shirt John had worn the previous night?

not likely,is it.the most likely explanation is that the closest thing handy was used.and the most likely explanation is that it came from the person who was wearing it.

Or was John already naked when he wiped down JonBenet?

Well,JR's shirt fibers found in JB's crotch area,as well as him trying to account for his underwear fibers being in her room...I'd say he had nothing on,at some point in time,in her room.

Does this imply they were both involved, either joinly, or as one aiding and abetting another?

I don't know.IMO,it's likely one was aiding the other.

Did they both know about JonBenet's chronic sexual abuse, was she killed because she would no longer co-operate, or did someone take her sexual abuse too far?


.

I don't know,but what do you mean by too far? the garrotte as such wasn't usable as one.

 

[UKGuy]

not likely,is it.the most likely explanation is that the closest thing handy was used.and the most likely explanation is that it came from the person who was wearing it.

Well,JR's shirt fibers found in JB's crotch area,as well as him trying to account for his underwear fibers being in her room...I'd say he had nothing on,at some point in time,in her room.


I don't know.IMO,it's likely one was aiding the other.

I don't know,but what do you mean by too far? the garrotte as such wasn't usable as one.

JMO8778,

By too far I just mean increased the demands on JonBenet until she protested etc, possibly leading to a manual strangulation?

I think they were both involved, and that they both knew about the chronic sexual abuse, why else should they both cover for each other over something as serious as a homicide.

If Patsy was innocent she would walk away with most of JR's estate, and alternately JR would have clean hands if he testified against Patsy. So why collude in a homicide cover up, imo only if you are guilty of some crime against JonBenet.

Consider this though, JonBenet is dead, she can no longer accuse her molester(s), so whomever was molesting her chronically, is free to deny any responsibility since 1. JonBenet is silent and 2. No forensic evidence.

This implies JonBenet's chronic molester knows that they cannot be found guilty of abusing JonBenet, not unless a 2nd person was party to and assisted in abusing JonBenet?

imo both Patsy and John had knowledge of JonBenet's prior sexual abuse!


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

By too far I just mean increased the demands on JonBenet until she protested etc, possibly leading to a manual strangulation?

could be,I don't know a lot about sexual rage,but it seems possible.

I think they were both involved, and that they both knew about the chronic sexual abuse, why else should they both cover for each other over something as serious as a homicide.

If Patsy was innocent she would walk away with most of JR's estate, and alternately JR would have clean hands if he testified against Patsy. So why collude in a homicide cover up, imo only if you are guilty of some crime against JonBenet.

I've thought about that as well;it would have been a lot easier to just turn the guilty party in,and file for divorce..but of course that's not a possibility if both are involved in some way,in something illegal against JB.

Consider this though, JonBenet is dead, she can no longer accuse her molester(s), so whomever was molesting her chronically, is free to deny any responsibility since 1. JonBenet is silent and 2. No forensic evidence.

This implies JonBenet's chronic molester knows that they cannot be found guilty of abusing JonBenet, not unless a 2nd person was party to and assisted in abusing JonBenet?

right

imo both Patsy and John had knowledge of JonBenet's prior sexual abuse!


.

and her murder as well;no matter which one actually did it,they are both covering for the other,and they both know it.

 

[JMO8778]

I do not think so because I believe Patsy did it. I also believe if Burke or John were molesting JonBenet, who would JonBenet turn to but her parent/s? What would be the consequences of that?

her sister Melinda,whom she was going to see the next day,and who also worked in ER,in the ped. unit.

 

[Ames]

her sister Melinda,whom she was going to see the next day,and who also worked in ER,in the ped. unit.

She could have said..."I am going to tell Melinda when I see her, what you have been doing to me".

 

[Toltec]

but,what about JR's fibers being there? It would seem he,(or at least his shirt),was used to wipe JB down last.

Great question so I got to reading PMPT. This part hit me like a ton of bricks. Schiller talks about the blood in the panties:

In addition, JonBenet's underpants bore stains that appeared to be blood. The corresponding areas of her skin in the pubic area, however, showed no matching stain. The coroner told the police that the blood smears on the skin and the fibers found in the folds of of the labia indicated that the child's pubic area had been wiped with a cloth. The blood smears also contained traces of fibers.[b/]

I can't make any sense of this.

 

[Solace]

Great question so I got to reading PMPT. This part hit me like a ton of bricks. Schiller talks about the blood in the panties:

In addition, JonBenet's underpants bore stains that appeared to be blood. The corresponding areas of her skin in the pubic area, however, showed no matching stain. The coroner told the police that the blood smears on the skin and the fibers found in the folds of of the labia indicated that the child's pubic area had been wiped with a cloth. The blood smears also contained traces of fibers.[b/]

I can't make any sense of this.

Okay, so she is wiped down. The blood is smeared. Whhoever is wiping is not doing it very well. They are leaving traces of fibers and blood. And if blood trickled down later, why would anyone expect the stains to match her skin, maybe it did not touch her skin. It trickled onto the underwear and left the skin alone. AND YES THAT IS POSSIBLE. But why is this such a big deal?

 

[UKGuy]

Okay, so she is wiped down. The blood is smeared. Whhoever is wiping is not doing it very well. They are leaving traces of fibers and blood. And if blood trickled down later, why would anyone expect the stains to match her skin, maybe it did not touch her skin. It trickled onto the underwear and left the skin alone. AND YES THAT IS POSSIBLE. But why is this such a big deal?

Solace,

Because it shows someone was attempting to hide the fact that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted, just as her manual strangulation was hidden by a fake garrote!

The wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene, and patently not the result of an accident.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Great question so I got to reading PMPT. This part hit me like a ton of bricks. Schiller talks about the blood in the panties:

In addition, JonBenet's underpants bore stains that appeared to be blood. The corresponding areas of her skin in the pubic area, however, showed no matching stain. The coroner told the police that the blood smears on the skin and the fibers found in the folds of of the labia indicated that the child's pubic area had been wiped with a cloth. The blood smears also contained traces of fibers.[b/]

I can't make any sense of this.

Toltec,

This is old old information, I have posted links to the original quotes many times. Your looking at a staged crime-scene that hides JonBenet's prior sexual assault, by wiping her down and re-dressing her in size-12's, which is linked by forensic evidence relating to both John and Patsy!

Neither of which proves who killed JonBenet but strongly suggests they were both invloved in the cover up, and by implication her death?

As I mention before although there were attempts to remove the visible details of the sexual assault, her urine-soaked longjohns and soiled pants left upstairs on the bathroom floor were ignored i.e. of no importance to those faking a crime-scene!

This was no accidental death!


.

 

[Ames]

Okay, so she is wiped down. The blood is smeared. Whhoever is wiping is not doing it very well. They are leaving traces of fibers and blood. And if blood trickled down later, why would anyone expect the stains to match her skin, maybe it did not touch her skin. It trickled onto the underwear and left the skin alone. AND YES THAT IS POSSIBLE. But why is this such a big deal?

WHY would an "intruder" wipe her down anyway?? And in reality, if she was bleeding into panties that were WAAAYYYYYY to big for her (she wore a six, they were a 12!)....then the stains aren't going to match up anyway. The panties were probably not even touching her crotch area...because they were so stinking huge....and they could have also been bunched up.

 

[Ames]

Okay, so she is wiped down. The blood is smeared. Whhoever is wiping is not doing it very well. They are leaving traces of fibers and blood. And if blood trickled down later, why would anyone expect the stains to match her skin, maybe it did not touch her skin. It trickled onto the underwear and left the skin alone. AND YES THAT IS POSSIBLE. But why is this such a big deal?

No, thats because the Ramsey were in a panic..and in a HUGE hurry to get this staged coverup done and over with, so that they could write that bogus ransom letter, and then call the police early.

 

[JMO8778]

No, thats because the Ramsey were in a panic..and in a HUGE hurry to get this staged coverup done and over with, so that they could write that bogus ransom letter, and then call the police early.

or get rid of her body by placing it outside somewhere?
with the staged sexual assault,I just don't see them originally trying to make it appear she'd been abducted and attacked in her own home.but place her outside,and then,the whole world's a suspect.

 

[Ames]

or get rid of her body by placing it outside somewhere?
with the staged sexual assault,I just don't see them originally trying to make it appear she'd been abducted and attacked in her own home.but place her outside,and then,the whole world's a suspect.

Yep...I believe at one point they were going to get rid of the body outside, but just ran out of time...and may have been afraid that someone would see them loading the body, or driving away. Those two things wouldn't look for them, if they had called 911 and reported JB missing...and the neighbors had seen them out driving away earlier.

 

[laini]

IrishMist,

His alibi is not solid. We have only his word that he was in California on December 25, 1996; with no verification of any kind since he was not investigated. Even that info was second hand, communicated to WS by a poster who was defending him and called him in California.

Besides, the over-all picture isn't all that clear-cut since there has never been an investigation into him and the strange organization he belonged to at CU. The person we are alluding to may be perfectly innocent but, because he helped baby-sit JonBenet and drove the children to school, he may have unknowingly been the link between the Ramseys and a zealous member of the politically liberal pro-active organization at CU known as APAC (Asian Pacific American Coalition). According to its by-laws, to earn points and thus maintain good standing in APAC, the members had to individually produce results that benefited the goals of APAC. Among the goals of APAC was political retribution for the unfair treatment of Asian-American females who had been victims of violent crimes in the U.S. It is also extremely suspicious that APAC disbanded just weeks after JonBenet was murdered, even though they had meetings scheduled and speakers lined up for 1997.

Why wasn't any of this investigated by Boulder law enforcement? Why is it being swept under the rug?

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,
I am reading the Police Files book and Patsy is being questioned about who knew about the room in the basement. She mentions "Bob Wallace and his friends". Is this the guy you are talking about? Does anybody know who he is in this story? I am not familiar with that name.

 

[Solace]

Yep...I believe at one point they were going to get rid of the body outside, but just ran out of time...and may have been afraid that someone would see them loading the body, or driving away. Those two things wouldn't look for them, if they had called 911 and reported JB missing...and the neighbors had seen them out driving away earlier.

It takes some kind of person to throw your child away outside. Incredible. If I had done this to my child, I would be so overcome with remorse that I would not be trying to get away, I do not think I would care what happened to me. These two are a different breed. You can glean some insight into John's warped personality with that perennial smile of his, it is constant.

 

[Ames]

It takes some kind of person to throw your child away outside. Incredible. If I had done this to my child, I would be so overcome with remorse that I would not be trying to get away, I do not think I would care what happened to me. These two are a different breed. You can glean some insight into John's warped personality with that perennial smile of his, it is constant.

Like the cat that ate the canary!!!