Prior Vaginal Trauma

[Holdontoyourhat]

Perhaps you should read the autopsy and then do some research on the medical/forensic terminology used in it. There's nothing subjective about tissue collected and analyzed in a lab as evidence in a murder case.

If you choose to confuse yourself with the possibility of the improbable, then here you go: maybe aliens did it. Prove they didn't.

my bold.

Thats what I've been trying to say for five years. You'd think the tabs would just love that.

If you choose to confuse yourself with the possibility of the improbable, then here you go: maybe aliens did it. Prove they didn't.

I'm not confused, and there's nothing you'll say thats going to have an effect.

 

[UKGuy]

Can you expand on that statement, @ UKGuy?

Tadpole12,

Quite simply that the pageants serve an ulterior motive of normalizing the sexualized behaviour of JonBenet.

The Paughs travelled with JonBenet to many pageants. They lived with JonBenet at Charlevoix and Atlanta.

Nedra and Don Paugh encouraged JonBenet to play particular roles e.g. Las Vegas Ziegfeld Follies showgirl, or Shirley Temple. They sometimes chose the music to accompany the role since Don Paugh had a large music collection.

All potentially innocent if there were no prior molestation. But JonBenet's parents and Grand-parents, excluding Burke, were the people with closest access to JonBenet. Don Paugh travelled all the way to Colorado to assist JonBenet in her appearance at the Christmas parade. Despite this focus prior to her death we have heard nothing from the Paughs afterwards.

Here is a hint of Patsy's attitude towards JonBenet at age-4, on the subject of her Halloween Costume:
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/07211998lindawilcoxon-pb.htm

PETER BOYLES: We look at so many photos and videos of this child wearing adult, woman sexy costumes, you know something about some Halloween costumes.

LINDA WILCOX: This particular Halloween costume, it was the Halloween, it would have been 1994 probably. Yeah, the Halloween of '94. And she had this, it was actually kind of cute, it was this little witches costume but it wasn't your standard, you know, black dress, pointy hat, it had orange criss-cross striping and it had a little cape. You know most little kids would say, you know, she said I'm gonna be a witch for halloween but I'm not going to be a bad witch. I'm going to be a good, sexy witch. And this is from the voice of a 4-year-old.



PETER BOYLES: She said, a good, sexy witch at 4?

LINDA WILCOX: It was a witch costume. Most kids would have just said, you know, I'm not a bad witch, I'm a good witch. But her mom is there and then Patsy walked in the room and said, "Yeah, she's gonna be a sexy witch."

.

 

[sogren]

Here is a hint of Patsy's attitude towards JonBenet at age-4, on the subject of her Halloween Costume:
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/07211998lindawilcoxon-pb.htm

Wow! What an interview! The more I read about the Ramseys, the more I believe they killed their daughter. Beth's picture in John's bathroom? :sick:

 

[srvfan]

Whether she was sexually abused prior to the night of her murder has not been proven, only suggested. Regardless, this had nothing to do with her death.

How could you make such a statement? Prior sexual abuse had nothing to do with her death? I disagree. I believe it has EVERYTHING to do with her death. I believe that some kind of incest gone wrong scenario is what occurred.

 

[MurriFlower]

How could you make such a statement? Prior sexual abuse had nothing to do with her death? I disagree. I believe it has EVERYTHING to do with her death. I believe that some kind of incest gone wrong scenario is what occurred.

Yes, well this is my opinion, and as we are oft reminded on this forum, my opinion as well as those who disagree with me and hold contrary opinions, is Constitutionally Protected.

I disagree about incest. I think the abuse, if it occurred, (and I'm not convinced of this at all by the evidence presented on this forum), was unrelated to her murder. MANY females (and not an insignificant number of males) are 'just a little bit molested' but this doesn't lead to their murder in this horrific fashion. No, I think this was something else.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes, well this is my opinion, and as we are oft reminded on this forum, my opinion as well as those who disagree with me and hold contrary opinions, is Constitutionally Protected.

I disagree about incest. I think the abuse, if it occurred, (and I'm not convinced of this at all by the evidence presented on this forum), was unrelated to her murder. MANY females (and not an insignificant number of males) are 'just a little bit molested' but this doesn't lead to their murder in this horrific fashion. No, I think this was something else.

Why then would she even be sexually assaulted at ALL the night of her death? No way anyone will ever convince me that the murderer was some intruder bent on doing that to her, or did it on the spur of the moment, or just as an after thought for fun.

Either the killer is a sadistic child sex predator, in which case I believe he would have taken her away from the house like EVERY OTHER child predator, or it was done to cover up and stage the scene. or it's what started the entire event ( Burke did it and hit her to prevent her from telling and parents staged)

Murdering, sadistic, sexual predators of children view them as objects, they don't lovingly wrap the body, in the child's favorite blanket.

 

[CathyR]

Each criminal has their own "thing" they may murder but not in the same way. When the "object" is dead they have total control of them. Posing them sometimes grotesquely, sometimes lovingly. It depends on what gets them off. The only thing they have in common is that children are the victims. The killer may not have known that was her favorite blanket, just that is was available in the dryer and large enough to conceal her in.
To me a loving wrap is swaddling and she wasn't swaddled. Trisha said dolls were posed around her so the wrapping is not unusual. The guilt felt by this person makes them "restore her innocence" since they know they violated it. Posing the dolls and JBR is the same thing. She was a doll to IDI. You take care of your "toys" and put them where they belong-together.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Each criminal has their own "thing" they may murder but not in the same way. When the "object" is dead they have total control of them. Posing them sometimes grotesquely, sometimes lovingly. It depends on what gets them off. The only thing they have in common is that children are the victims. The killer may not have known that was her favorite blanket, just that is was available in the dryer and large enough to conceal her in.
To me a loving wrap is swaddling and she wasn't swaddled. Trisha said dolls were posed around her so the wrapping is not unusual. The guilt felt by this person makes them "restore her innocence" since they know they violated it. Posing the dolls and JBR is the same thing. She was a doll to IDI. You take care of your "toys" and put them where they belong-together.

JonBenet was also treated as an object (doll if you prefer) by her mother. She lived her life vicariously through JonBenet. So, this does not mean an intruder placed her the way she was found. Could just have easily been her mother.

 

[DeeDee249]

Each criminal has their own "thing" they may murder but not in the same way. When the "object" is dead they have total control of them. Posing them sometimes grotesquely, sometimes lovingly. It depends on what gets them off. The only thing they have in common is that children are the victims. The killer may not have known that was her favorite blanket, just that is was available in the dryer and large enough to conceal her in.
To me a loving wrap is swaddling and she wasn't swaddled. Trisha said dolls were posed around her so the wrapping is not unusual. The guilt felt by this person makes them "restore her innocence" since they know they violated it. Posing the dolls and JBR is the same thing. She was a doll to IDI. You take care of your "toys" and put them where they belong-together.

An intruder would NOT care about taking "care" of her body. Not care about wrapping her up (why would they? Why even hide the body?) How would an intruder know which were her favorite dolls? And why risk going up to her room to get them, especially with a sibling nearby who may have heard her scream or heard other activity. Ot the parents may have still be awake, as well. What intruder would want to take the TIME to go through the dryer, get the dolls, do all that was done? They'd just get the heck outta there FAST.

This is much more a likely scenario when a parent is the perp. A parent who kills a child will often put their favorite things with them. (very often it is a blanket). Patsy described that pink nightie as JB's favorite. Well, a mother would know, right?

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes, well this is my opinion, and as we are oft reminded on this forum, my opinion as well as those who disagree with me and hold contrary opinions, is Constitutionally Protected.

I disagree about incest. I think the abuse, if it occurred, (and I'm not convinced of this at all by the evidence presented on this forum), was unrelated to her murder. MANY females (and not an insignificant number of males) are 'just a little bit molested' but this doesn't lead to their murder in this horrific fashion. No, I think this was something else.

Just pretend that NO one on the forums has ever mentioned sexual abuse. Base your opinion purely on the autopsy report notations of blood, bruising, hymenal abrasion, hyperemia and vascular congestion (this means inflamed tissue) and blood wiped from her pubic area. ALL mentioned in writing.
What would YOU think may have caused these things, based on the report. You don't even have to consider the coroner's VERBAL opinions on the digital penetration. Just the written report.
Don't insult our intelligence by saying "bubble bath" and don't insult JB by saying "masturbation".

 

[MurriFlower]

Just pretend that NO one on the forums has ever mentioned sexual abuse. Base your opinion purely on the autopsy report notations of blood, bruising, hymenal abrasion, hyperemia and vascular congestion (this means inflamed tissue) and blood wiped from her pubic area. ALL mentioned in writing.
What would YOU think may have caused these things, based on the report. You don't even have to consider the coroner's VERBAL opinions on the digital penetration. Just the written report.
Don't insult our intelligence by saying "bubble bath" and don't insult JB by saying "masturbation".

What I was referring to above was in response to posters suggesting that she had a history of sexual abuse and inferring incest by either her father, grandfather, brother(s) or mother, prior to the night of her death. Please read again what I wrote:

Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
Whether she was sexually abused prior to the night of her murder has not been proven, only suggested. Regardless, this had nothing to do with her death.

What I am saying here is any PRIOR abuse that may have occurred (and again I will say this is only suggested, not proven) was not the reason for her death.

The sexual assault that did occur AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER, appears to have been relatively minor, when the extreme violence of the manner of her death is taken into account, so was not IMO the primary cause/motivator.

So, this is why I don't buy the theory any more that she was killed in order to cover up for a sexual assault, regardless of whether RDI or IDI. I think that it was just part of the torture/humiliation that occurred that night - strangulation (slowly), burning (by cigarette/and or electric device), skull bashing, sexual abuse and mutilation, eventually culminating in her death.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Just pretend that NO one on the forums has ever mentioned sexual abuse. Base your opinion purely on the autopsy report notations of blood, bruising, hymenal abrasion, hyperemia and vascular congestion (this means inflamed tissue) and blood wiped from her pubic area. ALL mentioned in writing.
What would YOU think may have caused these things, based on the report. You don't even have to consider the coroner's VERBAL opinions on the digital penetration. Just the written report.
Don't insult our intelligence by saying "bubble bath" and don't insult JB by saying "masturbation".

More nonsense. Are we discussing the same case? You're describing acute injuries and then labelling them as preexisting when really you've no idea about it. I suggest dropping all possible acute injuries from your argument, and what are you left with? Nothing. No known preexisting injury. You're misinterpreting the autopsy report, reading it the way you want to, which is typical for RDI.

Reading stuff and seeing stuff thats not there. Just like the tabloid-hired doctors. The sensationalistic part of this investigation is over however. Nobody attributes JBR's acute injuries to prior abuse except you, so maybe you're just missing the point. And nobody currently considers JBR a victim of chronic sexual abuse except RDI posters on this forum. Thats a dispelled myth from the past.

The FBI stated that there was no indication of prior abuse in JBR's injuries. Do I need to post that AGAIN? THis is becoming trite and redundant.

 

[UKGuy]

More nonsense. Are we discussing the same case? You're describing acute injuries and then labelling them as preexisting when really you've no idea about it. I suggest dropping all possible acute injuries from your argument, and what are you left with? Nothing. No known preexisting injury. You're misinterpreting the autopsy report, reading it the way you want to, which is typical for RDI.

Reading stuff and seeing stuff thats not there. Just like the tabloid-hired doctors. The sensationalistic part of this investigation is over however. Nobody attributes JBR's acute injuries to prior abuse except you, so maybe you're just missing the point. And nobody currently considers JBR a victim of chronic sexual abuse except RDI posters on this forum. Thats a dispelled myth from the past.

The FBI stated that there was no indication of prior abuse in JBR's injuries. Do I need to post that AGAIN? THis is becoming trite and redundant.

Holdontoyourhat,

Here are some references to people not on this forum.

http://www.acandyrose.com/01301997warrant.htm

Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.

Also:-

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's public area having been wiped by a cloth.

e.g. evidence of staging.

Dr. Ronald Wright opined:-

BOULDER -- JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.
Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.
''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.
"She's had vaginal penetration.''
Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.

JonBenet Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation Chapt. 24. states:-

In mid-September, a panel pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed

And JonBenet Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation Chapt. 32. states:-

Detective Harmer presented a surprising anatomy lesson on vaginas to a meeting attended primarly for men. She showed a picture of the vagina of a normal healthy six-year-old girl and contrasted it with a photo of the vagina of jonBenet. Even to the uninformed the visual difference was apparent, and Harmer cited the experts who said there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse although the detectives referred to it only as 'prior vaginal trauma.'

JonBenet's photographs make it evident that not all her injuries were acute e.g. simply sustained at around the time of her death. Regardless of who inflicted them JonBenet's abnormal vagina is direct evidence of chronic sexual abuse

So we have digital penetration and sexual contact. We have JonBenet being wiped down, and numerous experts, including BDI personnel, who viewed the same photographs, noting JonBenet's was internally enlarged, allciting chronic sexual abuse.

There is zero evidence ether linking to or matching any intruder.

All this evidence suggests that this is a sexually motivated homicide.

 

[CathyR]

An intruder would NOT care about taking "care" of her body. Not care about wrapping her up (why would they? Why even hide the body?) How would an intruder know which were her favorite dolls? And why risk going up to her room to get them, especially with a sibling nearby who may have heard her scream or heard other activity. Ot the parents may have still be awake, as well. What intruder would want to take the TIME to go through the dryer, get the dolls, do all that was done? They'd just get the heck outta there FAST.

This is much more a likely scenario when a parent is the perp. A parent who kills a child will often put their favorite things with them. (very often it is a blanket). Patsy described that pink nightie as JB's favorite. Well, a mother would know, right?

The Barbie nightie is there because of static cling not intentionally. The perp may have grabbed the doll or asked JBR which one to take when in her bedroom. She may have been sleeping with it so it was the one taken with her. PEDOPHILES use lures on their victims. That is why the Santa suit neighbor was suspected as well. What 6 yr old is not going to follow Santa and be quiet along the way. "come on honey we don't want to wake your family, take your dolly, blankie what ever you think you will need to go give presents with Santa." Oh santa I'm hungry I need a snack before we get in your sleigh". It wouldn't have to be Santa ( the neighbor, or any other Santa) but someone JBR would not fight going with.
The kidnapping may not have gone right and ended in murder. The kidnappers destination may have only been to the basement as murder was planned once she was lured down there. Only catching an IDI would get us closer to those answer. The posing is part of the perps reaction to the crime.
What their particular "needs" are in the crime. If he murdered her around 12 am he had all night to "play" with her. Even if the parents get up and can't find her he has time to escape as he is in a basement with lots of hiding spaces. He will hear the calls for her and know then he has to get out quick. He could have had his "fun" and been long gone before the parents even knew she was not in bed. Part of the crime is the posing. The wrapping shows he had time to think about it and tried to conceal her. Or the covering is a way to minimize the guilt of having to look at her. In outdoor situations far away from normal public viewing areas, the perp will cover with leaves or other materials, to hide the body from easy view and to minimize the last view THEY have of the crime scene. In these remote locations the concealing is more of an overkill and says more about the psychology of the perp than the need to hide the body. In a way it lessens their responsibility for what they just did. The perp may have counted on the ransom note as a way to prevent her body from being found for awhile. This is all supposing it is an IDI.

I can see very valid points in both camps but more the IDI is a simpler answer and therefore, IMO, a more likely answer. Akems Razor theory used here.
The problem I see with the RDI is is depends on armchair psychology.
The Ramsey's did hire a lawyer. Everyone points to the fact that they believe the Ramsey's did not cooperate with police.
It is a crime to not cooperate and they were never charged with such a crime.
When they called police to their home they had to give statements of some kind. Police did not show up to a home where John and Patsy said our daughter is missing if you want to discuss the matter with us you will have to talk to our lawyer first.
After JBR was found they knew they would be investigated and they are not naive or at least John isn't. They got lawyers. I do not hold that against them as in fact if innocent it makes the police work HARDER it makes them dig for evidence.
Police can't call you in for questioning and go on a fishing expedition, grilling you over and over again on the same points. Hoping you will "change your story". With a lawyer present they ask the question your lawyer discusses it with you and you give an answer or your lawyer points out my client already answered your question at the scene and she/he stands by that answer. If true evidence you committed the crime is found you would be confronted with it and your lawyer would advise you to shut up as you are about to be arrested. None of this happened because no true evidence, not the circumstantial stuff discussed here, was ever turned up on any of the Ramsey's.
The lawyers did their job and the Ramsey's utilizing their constitutional rights is not to be held against them. Those rights are sacred and wouldn't exist if there was no need for innocent people to be protected from a legal system that is no way perfect.
Your right to discuss this case is just as sacred as the Ramsey's getting a lawyer is. Those who point to that as a proof should sacrifice their rights if they expect others to do the same.
So much of the RDI theories here are also dependant on the laymans interpretation of the autopsy reports, Chronic, acute,..... debates on what it means. Don't we have some real law enforcement people and possibly doctors who are members here. Shouldn't we be asking them what it means?
I hate to sumise anyone as a sex offender without proof. It is a horrible thing to say about someone. It reminds me of these cases of cyber bulling by teens. I want some good hard forensic evidence before I say for certain I think a family member is involved. If I am wrong, and a RDI, I haven't lost anything but some time. If I make accusations and theories about the family and they are innocent, a IDI turns out to be true, then I attacked a family who has already lost a family member and victimized them further. To me and my own sense of right and wrong --- that would be wrong.

 

[joeskidbeck]

The Barbie nightie is there because of static cling not intentionally. The perp may have grabbed the doll or asked JBR which one to take when in her bedroom. She may have been sleeping with it so it was the one taken with her. PEDOPHILES use lures on their victims. That is why the Santa suit neighbor was suspected as well. What 6 yr old is not going to follow Santa and be quiet along the way. "come on honey we don't want to wake your family, take your dolly, blankie what ever you think you will need to go give presents with Santa." Oh santa I'm hungry I need a snack before we get in your sleigh". It wouldn't have to be Santa ( the neighbor, or any other Santa) but someone JBR would not fight going with.
The kidnapping may not have gone right and ended in murder. The kidnappers destination may have only been to the basement as murder was planned once she was lured down there. Only catching an IDI would get us closer to those answer. The posing is part of the perps reaction to the crime.
What their particular "needs" are in the crime. If he murdered her around 12 am he had all night to "play" with her. Even if the parents get up and can't find her he has time to escape as he is in a basement with lots of hiding spaces. He will hear the calls for her and know then he has to get out quick. He could have had his "fun" and been long gone before the parents even knew she was not in bed. Part of the crime is the posing. The wrapping shows he had time to think about it and tried to conceal her. Or the covering is a way to minimize the guilt of having to look at her. In outdoor situations far away from normal public viewing areas, the perp will cover with leaves or other materials, to hide the body from easy view and to minimize the last view THEY have of the crime scene. In these remote locations the concealing is more of an overkill and says more about the psychology of the perp than the need to hide the body. In a way it lessens their responsibility for what they just did. The perp may have counted on the ransom note as a way to prevent her body from being found for awhile. This is all supposing it is an IDI.

I can see very valid points in both camps but more the IDI is a simpler answer and therefore, IMO, a more likely answer. Akems Razor theory used here.
The problem I see with the RDI is is depends on armchair psychology.
The Ramsey's did hire a lawyer. Everyone points to the fact that they believe the Ramsey's did not cooperate with police.
It is a crime to not cooperate and they were never charged with such a crime.
When they called police to their home they had to give statements of some kind. Police did not show up to a home where John and Patsy said our daughter is missing if you want to discuss the matter with us you will have to talk to our lawyer first.
After JBR was found they knew they would be investigated and they are not naive or at least John isn't. They got lawyers. I do not hold that against them as in fact if innocent it makes the police work HARDER it makes them dig for evidence.
Police can't call you in for questioning and go on a fishing expedition, grilling you over and over again on the same points. Hoping you will "change your story". With a lawyer present they ask the question your lawyer discusses it with you and you give an answer or your lawyer points out my client already answered your question at the scene and she/he stands by that answer. If true evidence you committed the crime is found you would be confronted with it and your lawyer would advise you to shut up as you are about to be arrested. None of this happened because no true evidence, not the circumstantial stuff discussed here, was ever turned up on any of the Ramsey's.
The lawyers did their job and the Ramsey's utilizing their constitutional rights is not to be held against them. Those rights are sacred and wouldn't exist if there was no need for innocent people to be protected from a legal system that is no way perfect.
Your right to discuss this case is just as sacred as the Ramsey's getting a lawyer is. Those who point to that as a proof should sacrifice their rights if they expect others to do the same.
So much of the RDI theories here are also dependant on the laymans interpretation of the autopsy reports, Chronic, acute,..... debates on what it means. Don't we have some real law enforcement people and possibly doctors who are members here. Shouldn't we be asking them what it means?
I hate to sumise anyone as a sex offender without proof. It is a horrible thing to say about someone. It reminds me of these cases of cyber bulling by teens. I want some good hard forensic evidence before I say for certain I think a family member is involved. If I am wrong, and a RDI, I haven't lost anything but some time. If I make accusations and theories about the family and they are innocent, a IDI turns out to be true, then I attacked a family who has already lost a family member and victimized them further. To me and my own sense of right and wrong --- that would be wrong.

Cathy, how would you think the Santa/Intruder presented himself to JonBenet? Not as Santa or a trusted neighbor/friend and here is why. he left absolutely no fiber/dna evidence behind in her room; therefore he would have had to have been dressed in some kind of full body suit to contain all his trace evidence. I believe this would have scared JonBenet and at that point he lost his willing participant.

 

[LinasK]

The Barbie nightie is there because of static cling not intentionally. The perp may have grabbed the doll or asked JBR which one to take when in her bedroom. She may have been sleeping with it so it was the one taken with her. PEDOPHILES use lures on their victims. That is why the Santa suit neighbor was suspected as well. What 6 yr old is not going to follow Santa and be quiet along the way. "come on honey we don't want to wake your family, take your dolly, blankie what ever you think you will need to go give presents with Santa." Oh santa I'm hungry I need a snack before we get in your sleigh". It wouldn't have to be Santa ( the neighbor, or any other Santa) but someone JBR would not fight going with.
The kidnapping may not have gone right and ended in murder. The kidnappers destination may have only been to the basement as murder was planned once she was lured down there. Only catching an IDI would get us closer to those answer. The posing is part of the perps reaction to the crime.
What their particular "needs" are in the crime. If he murdered her around 12 am he had all night to "play" with her. Even if the parents get up and can't find her he has time to escape as he is in a basement with lots of hiding spaces. He will hear the calls for her and know then he has to get out quick. He could have had his "fun" and been long gone before the parents even knew she was not in bed. Part of the crime is the posing. The wrapping shows he had time to think about it and tried to conceal her. Or the covering is a way to minimize the guilt of having to look at her. In outdoor situations far away from normal public viewing areas, the perp will cover with leaves or other materials, to hide the body from easy view and to minimize the last view THEY have of the crime scene. In these remote locations the concealing is more of an overkill and says more about the psychology of the perp than the need to hide the body. In a way it lessens their responsibility for what they just did. The perp may have counted on the ransom note as a way to prevent her body from being found for awhile. This is all supposing it is an IDI.

I can see very valid points in both camps but more the IDI is a simpler answer and therefore, IMO, a more likely answer. Akems Razor theory used here.
The problem I see with the RDI is is depends on armchair psychology.
The Ramsey's did hire a lawyer. Everyone points to the fact that they believe the Ramsey's did not cooperate with police.
It is a crime to not cooperate and they were never charged with such a crime.
When they called police to their home they had to give statements of some kind. Police did not show up to a home where John and Patsy said our daughter is missing if you want to discuss the matter with us you will have to talk to our lawyer first.
After JBR was found they knew they would be investigated and they are not naive or at least John isn't. They got lawyers. I do not hold that against them as in fact if innocent it makes the police work HARDER it makes them dig for evidence.
Police can't call you in for questioning and go on a fishing expedition, grilling you over and over again on the same points. Hoping you will "change your story". With a lawyer present they ask the question your lawyer discusses it with you and you give an answer or your lawyer points out my client already answered your question at the scene and she/he stands by that answer. If true evidence you committed the crime is found you would be confronted with it and your lawyer would advise you to shut up as you are about to be arrested. None of this happened because no true evidence, not the circumstantial stuff discussed here, was ever turned up on any of the Ramsey's.
The lawyers did their job and the Ramsey's utilizing their constitutional rights is not to be held against them. Those rights are sacred and wouldn't exist if there was no need for innocent people to be protected from a legal system that is no way perfect.
Your right to discuss this case is just as sacred as the Ramsey's getting a lawyer is. Those who point to that as a proof should sacrifice their rights if they expect others to do the same.
So much of the RDI theories here are also dependant on the laymans interpretation of the autopsy reports, Chronic, acute,..... debates on what it means. Don't we have some real law enforcement people and possibly doctors who are members here. Shouldn't we be asking them what it means?
I hate to sumise anyone as a sex offender without proof. It is a horrible thing to say about someone. It reminds me of these cases of cyber bulling by teens. I want some good hard forensic evidence before I say for certain I think a family member is involved. If I am wrong, and a RDI, I haven't lost anything but some time. If I make accusations and theories about the family and they are innocent, a IDI turns out to be true, then I attacked a family who has already lost a family member and victimized them further. To me and my own sense of right and wrong --- that would be wrong.

And if they were really innocent, why did both of the come in full body contact with her corpse, when JB was "discovered"??? Patsy fell all over the body and John carried her up the stairway- talk about contaminating a crime scene!!! And why not take LE's polygraph test, why need to shop around for your own expert???:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

JonBenet's photographs make it evident that not all her injuries were acute e.g. simply sustained at around the time of her death. Regardless of who inflicted them JonBenet's abnormal vagina is direct evidence of chronic sexual abuse.

So we have digital penetration and sexual contact. We have JonBenet being wiped down, and numerous experts, including BDI personnel, who viewed the same photographs, noting JonBenet's was internally enlarged, allciting chronic sexual abuse.

There is zero evidence ether linking to or matching any intruder.

All this evidence suggests that this is a sexually motivated homicide.

The FBI contradicts this by stating that JBR's injuries were not consistent with a history of sexual abuse. Further, they stated that JBR's acute injuries were not for the sexual gratification of the perpetrator. So what you're stating as if its fact isn't really supported by those who would know better.

Also, the photos and their sources are dubious. This is because previous abuse IS NOT presented as fact by the BPD, CBI, FBI, or any reputable source.

I know for a fact that certain doctors were hired by the tabloids and this seems to be where the idea of prior abuse originated. Also a RDI biased detective who quit the active investigation (or was asked to leave?) wrote a book that implied previous sexual abuse.

Obviously RDI is going to cling to the idea of chronic previous sexual abuse come hell or high water. Curious though is how many posters have presented all these unverifiable personal experiences as if they are relevant, in hopes that doing so will promote the 'anybody can do this and then stop at will' theory.

According to just about everything I've read on pedophilia, its not something the person with the disorder can necessarily control.

It would be a lot better for RDI if there were some corroborating evidence of past abuse. As it is, its something RDI touts as fact but its more of a propaganda. Something RDI really wants us to believe but obviously can't prove.

The strongest evidence of who did what, in a criminal sense, is that an unknown male handled JBR's underwear.

 

[DeeDee249]

I have seen the FBI statement on the sexual gratification, which I agree with. But I have not see where the FBI made a statement on the chronic abuse. I don't know how they could make that determination by looking at the body. They made these comments without looking at the autopsy, I suppose. Because forensic experts (and being hired by a tabloid does not make them less expert) DID find evidence of previous abuse, as did the coroner who performed the autopsy.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I have seen the FBI statement on the sexual gratification, which I agree with. But I have not see where the FBI made a statement on the chronic abuse. I don't know how they could make that determination by looking at the body. They made these comments without looking at the autopsy, I suppose. Because forensic experts (and being hired by a tabloid does not make them less expert) DID find evidence of previous abuse, as did the coroner who performed the autopsy.

This is false. The coroner made no such finding.

Do you dispute that an unknown male handled JBR's longjohns?

 

[claudicici]

yes,an unknown male handled jb's long johns,I just doubt it's the same person that killed jb.Why would the unknown intruder take his gloves off only to handle the long-johns? I don't get that.If he was so careless why is his touch DNA not on the RN and various other places?