Questions you'd like answers to...

[UKGuy]

But for people who think it was Burke, why would anyone wrap a cord around their child's neck, violate her with a paintbrush handle and put her body in a freezer just because their 9 yr. old hit her?

Peppermintswirlz,
Because its a staged crime-scene, what you see is not what happened. Even if the case is PDI, its still a setup, evidence has been faked and removed.

Hands up those who think Patsy staged a crime-scene to hide whatever went before, yet she ends up leaving more evidence than if she had left JonBenet in her own bedroom?

So to answer your question, the use of the ligature, the wine-cellar and any other item is to mask or hide what went before, its that simple.

The parents were staging Burke Ramsey out of the case, in doing so they left their own forensic trail, but were successful enough in the staging that many people think the case is PDI with possibly JR being implicated?

On the surface the case looks PDI, dig deeper, check the forensic evidence and it starts to unravel.

.

 

[Userid]

PR would have staged herself out of the picture also, if it was an impulsive rage killing, that she herself inflicted.

If anyone but her was involved, she wouldn't know what she was staging for. She would have called an ambulance, but she didn't, because she knew exactly what happened, and because she was directly responsible. Unless you think her first reaction would be to wake BR up to ask him if he had just killed JBR in the middle of the night, as opposed to calling an ambulance and trying to save her daughter's life, like any innocent (to that point) mother would.

 

[UKGuy]

PR would have staged herself out of the picture also, if it was an impulsive rage killing, that she herself inflicted.

If anyone but her was involved, she wouldn't know what she was staging for. She would have called an ambulance, but she didn't, because she knew exactly what happened, and because she was directly responsible. Unless you think her first reaction would be to wake BR up to ask him if he had just killed JBR in the middle of the night, as opposed to calling an ambulance and trying to save her daughter's life, like any innocent (to that point) mother would.

Userid,
Yo ! In your PDI we do not know what has happened, there is no detail. Does Patsy sexually assault JonBenet, who was the chronic abuser, what role does JR play?

If the case is not PDI, then Patsy has to think either its IDI or its JR or BR? The thing is regardless of which RDI is the correct one, all the R's knew what was going on, they knew who whacked JonBenet?

If the case is PDI then Patsy did a pretty poor staging job, dressing JonBenet in the size-12's then not knowing where the remaining pairs were is hardly attention to detail.

Not to mention implicating BR by dressing JonBenet in a pair of his long johns, not exactly Shirley Temple wardrobe style is it?

.

 

[Userid]

Gone over it plenty of times in other threads.

No, she doesn't sexually assault her.

JR helped with the staging. An additional possiblity: he was in the process of assaulting her, when he was caught red-handed by PR.

No, she doesn't automatically need to think it's one or the other (BDI, JDI). That's the thing. If you found a loved one unconscious, would you automatically believe that one of your family members just killed her? No, you wouldn't, because that's absurd. You wouldn't even think about what happened; you would scream for help and call an ambulance.

 

[UKGuy]

Gone over it plenty of times in other threads.

No, she doesn't sexually assault her.

JR helped with the staging. An additional possiblity: he was in the process of assaulting her, when he was caught red-handed by PR.

No, she doesn't automatically need to think it's one or the other (BDI, JDI). That's the thing. If you found a loved one unconscious, would you automatically believe that one of your family members just killed her? No, you wouldn't, because that's absurd. You wouldn't even think about what happened; you would scream for help and call an ambulance.

Userid,
So JR is the Bad Boy then? He allegedly left his Israeli shirt fibers on JonBenet's genitals. So maybe PR caught him in the act, its been around for a while that theory.

.

 

[k-mac]

Was Patsy sexually abusing JonBenet, I've yet to see a PDI that explains all of this satisfactorly.

.

your obsession with jbr being sexually abused by burke tunnel vision seems to make you unable to see or comprehend what has been extensively discussed and brought to the table thousands of times .
why keep asking ???
your the only person who cant comprehend alternative options outside of sexual abuse.
doesn't matter that you don't agree.
you ignore the post or hit it with a nah......or a ok...so that means its bdi then.blah blah

plenty of experts look at JBRs injuries as non sexual.
these include but are not limited to (off the top of my head) Richard Krugman and john McCann.

the evidence is there. it shouldn't be the forums problem that you refuse to look at it in a open respectful mature mindset.

 

[Userid]

Userid,
So JR is the Bad Boy then? He allegedly left his Israeli shirt fibers on JonBenet's genitals. So maybe PR caught him in the act, its been around for a while that theory.

.

No, PR is. Yes, he left the fibers during the staging.

Who cares how long it's been around? That's irrelevant.

 

[Jolamom]

your obsession with jbr being sexually abused by burke tunnel vision seems to make you unable to see or comprehend what has been extensively discussed and brought to the table thousands of times .
why keep asking ???
your the only person who cant comprehend alternative options outside of sexual abuse.
doesn't matter that you don't agree.
you ignore the post or hit it with a nah......or a ok...so that means its bdi then.blah blah

plenty of experts look at JBRs injuries as non sexual.
these include but are not limited to (off the top of my head) Richard Krugman and john McCann.

the evidence is there. it shouldn't be the forums problem that you refuse to look at it in a open respectful mature mindset.

You make a valid point. You can find experts on just about every piece of evidence in this case that will be willing to stake their professional reputation on completely opposite opinions. Personally, I think you have to decide who you think is in a better position to evaluate all the pertinent evidence and draw a conclusion. I don't think you can be any more certain it is PDI then anyone can be than it isn't. We really don't have any evidence to prove conclusively which Ramsey it was!

 

[UKGuy]

your obsession with jbr being sexually abused by burke tunnel vision seems to make you unable to see or comprehend what has been extensively discussed and brought to the table thousands of times .
why keep asking ???
your the only person who cant comprehend alternative options outside of sexual abuse.
doesn't matter that you don't agree.
you ignore the post or hit it with a nah......or a ok...so that means its bdi then.blah blah

plenty of experts look at JBRs injuries as non sexual.
these include but are not limited to (off the top of my head) Richard Krugman and john McCann.

the evidence is there. it shouldn't be the forums problem that you refuse to look at it in a open respectful mature mindset.

k-mac,
If you consider the injuries non-sexual and have expert opinion to back it up then thats fine and dandy, who can say nay to that?

Apparently Coroner Meyer and Dr. Andrew Sirotnak, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado's Health Sciences Center, who did a second independent examination of JonBenet, confirmed Meyer's verbatim opinion that JonBenet had been subject to Digital Penetration and Sexual Contact?

Presumably you will be able to explain why the Coroner assumed there was Sexual Contact?

Here is the source for the above remarks:
January 30, 1997 Search Warrant, Excerpt

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.

Did Coroner Meyer and Dr. Andrew Sirotnak get it wrong? If so tell everyone why the case is not a sexually motivated homicide?

.

 

[otg]

(rsbm)

plenty of experts look at JBRs injuries as non sexual.
these include but are not limited to (off the top of my head) Richard Krugman and john McCann..

Anyone who makes that statement has either not read what Dr. Krugman stated, or read it and misinterpreted it, deliberately misrepresented it, or simply quoted someone else who did one of those things. But don’t ever include Dr. McCann as one who said her injuries was “non sexual.”

Rather than write it all over again, here is a post with the findings of Dr. McCann:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey&p=10619490#post10619490

...and here is a much longer post with a background on Dr. McCann and why he should be paid close attention to:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?227531-Why-was-JB-killed&p=10165938#post10165938


Dr. Krugman is another story entirely though. Krugman said one thing in public and something else in private to investigators. Krugman was also considered an authority on something he called “toilet rage” because he had documented a case of it, and because his testimony helped convict the parents of an abused child who had died from the injuries she had sustained. So not surprisingly, he believed JonBenet had been abused as a result of a parent who lost control over problems with toilet training. (Steve Thomas bought into that theory and used it in his book.) Can you see how acknowledging that the genital injuries were the result of sexual abuse would contradict his area of expertise?

But Krugman never said she had not been sexually abused -- only that it couldn’t be determined conclusively. The main reason he was noncommittal was because he said the intent of the person who caused the injuries wasn’t known (IOW, if she was abused for sexual gratification or as a means of punishment). He said without evidence of semen, a confirmed STD, the child’s own testimony, or a known history of sexual abuse, it was impossible to determine the intent of the person who caused the genital injuries.

For a more complete understanding of why Krugman had difficulty in deciding on whether or not JonBenet had been “sexually abused” as opposed to “physically abused,” you can read the following post with some of his quotes:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...NING-GRAPHIC-CONTENT)&p=11754979#post11754979

 

[Jolamom]

(rsbm)
Anyone who makes that statement has either not read what Dr. Krugman stated, or read it and misinterpreted it, deliberately misrepresented it, or simply quoted someone else who did one of those things. But don’t ever include Dr. McCann as one who said her injuries was “non sexual.”

Rather than write it all over again, here is a post with the findings of Dr. McCann:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?76520-Patsy-Ramsey&p=10619490#post10619490

...and here is a much longer post with a background on Dr. McCann and why he should be paid close attention to:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?227531-Why-was-JB-killed&p=10165938#post10165938


Dr. Krugman is another story entirely though. Krugman said one thing in public and something else in private to investigators. Krugman was also considered an authority on something he called “toilet rage” because he had documented a case of it, and because his testimony helped convict the parents of an abused child who had died from the injuries she had sustained. So not surprisingly, he believed JonBenet had been abused as a result of a parent who lost control over problems with toilet training. (Steve Thomas bought into that theory and used it in his book.) Can you see how acknowledging that the genital injuries were the result of sexual abuse would contradict his area of expertise?

But Krugman never said she had not been sexually abused -- only that it couldn’t be determined conclusively. The main reason he was noncommittal was because he said the intent of the person who caused the injuries wasn’t known (IOW, if she was abused for sexual gratification or as a means of punishment). He said without evidence of semen, a confirmed STD, the child’s own testimony, or a known history of sexual abuse, it was impossible to determine the intent of the person who caused the genital injuries.

For a more complete understanding of why Krugman had difficulty in deciding on whether or not JonBenet had been “sexually abused” as opposed to “physically abused,” you can read the following post with some of his quotes:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...NING-GRAPHIC-CONTENT)&p=11754979#post11754979

Thanks for the information. Welcome back!

 

[k-mac]

oh of course uk guy would expect me to back up my statement with proof. only yourself is entitled to put whatever unsubstantiated ideas out there.

the point is with the above statement there is insinuations and doubt among the professionals surrounding the sexual assult theory. that's what I take away from it.
but that's fine shoot the messenger.
just be nice if all messengers got shot equally around here

edited to add.....I reread the McCann report and still see exactly the same thing.
physical trauma caused by douching. cruel and sad as it makes me.
that's my opinion so be it.????

 

[k-mac]

You make a valid point. You can find experts on just about every piece of evidence in this case that will be willing to stake their professional reputation on completely opposite opinions. Personally, I think you have to decide who you think is in a better position to evaluate all the pertinent evidence and draw a conclusion. I don't think you can be any more certain it is PDI then anyone can be than it isn't. We really don't have any evidence to prove conclusively which Ramsey it was!

agree 100%
that's mostly my point.
I don't discount any rdi.
think there is validation in all options. even though I lean pdi/ jdi more so than bdi.
I validate all evidence and its implications.
just enough sloppiness to keep us all guessing!

 

[otg]

Thanks for the information. Welcome back!

I never went anywhere, my friend -- just busy with flood repairs. Not enough time to do the things I’d rather be doing. First things first. But some things I just can’t let go unanswered. Denial of what happened is one of those things.

 

[otg]

oh of course uk guy would expect me to back up my statement with proof. only yourself is entitled to put whatever unsubstantiated ideas out there.

the point is with the above statement there is insinuations and doubt among the professionals surrounding the sexual assult theory. that's what I take away from it.
but that's fine shoot the messenger.
just be nice if all messengers got shot equally around here

edited to add.....I reread the McCann report and still see exactly the same thing.
physical trauma caused by douching. cruel and sad as it makes me.
that's my opinion so be it.????

K-mac, don’t be sad over that because Dr. McCann never said anything about “douching.” That’s your interpretation. You’re certainly welcome to draw your own conclusions from the evidence that is available; no one has denied you that. But you can’t just say something that is untrue without trying to offer proof of why you stated it.

Neither of the doctors (TMK) said what you claimed they had said in the post I responded to, and I couldn’t let it go unchallenged because some may not know the truth. Were the Ramseys completely innocent (of actions and of knowledge), why would they deny that their child had been molested? Why instead, when the panel of experts determined she had been molested (regardless of whether it was of a sexual nature or not), wouldn’t the Ramseys have been incensed that it happened and intent on finding out who was responsible for it?

 

[Userid]

K-mac, don’t be sad over that because Dr. McCann never said anything about “douching.” That’s your interpretation. You’re certainly welcome to draw your own conclusions from the evidence that is available; no one has denied you that. But you can’t just say something that is untrue without trying to offer proof of why you stated it.

Neither of the doctors (TMK) said what you claimed they had said in the post I responded to, and I couldn’t let it go unchallenged because some may not know the truth. Were the Ramseys completely innocent (of actions and of knowledge), why would they deny that their child had been molested? Why instead, when the panel of experts determined she had been molested (regardless of whether it was of a sexual nature or not), wouldn’t the Ramseys have been incensed that it happened and intent on finding out who was responsible for it?

Very good questions, especially the last one.

 

[k-mac]

im not sad otg.

I apologise for not making a clear representation of my point.
ive just had a big operation and am on copious amounts of drugs! :-/

ill link a page that has a quick short form of most players opinions I'm just stating and it has been stated before that some of their findings including Krugman and McCann leave the door open on how.
now from where I stand it cant be excluded. the description of the injury and the collective opinion that no penile penetration occurred.
why?
so she was being tortured sexually by something small hard and specific to one area.
wow....why cant anyone see this as a possibility??

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

other than it cuts burke out of the equation

 

[TeaTime]

Patsy didn't even flinch when they told her JBR had been sexually molested. I believe her response was "prove it". Then Nedra's response was that she was only "a little bit molested".

 

[Cottonstar]

UKGuy,

Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain (Maryanne Wolf 2007) is an excellent book! I reexamined Proust & Squid (and a couple of other books) when attempting to decipher the text in the photo.

Since the writer has a clear phonetic understanding of the letter/sound "G," it seems as though "ganta" is the writer attempt to sound out and write a word. If you and I were to sound out the word: Gotcha in a speech pattern close to JB's parents - the word "gotcha" does sound as though it would begin with the letters/sound "ga" (with the a being the O in gotcha being a short O (aw, au).

The "nta" looks to be the writer's attempt of sounding out and writing the sound "cha."

It looks as though the writer sounded out "gotcha" (gaw - cha), and, came up with "ganta."

Even if we sound out "ganta," it could sound like gotta / got to.

If the words were written by JB, I hope that it illustrates JB being a 6 year old child having fun writing:
I have two boyfriends.
Gotcha Good.
I have several friends.

With this, FNS is assumed being the word "friends."

However, FNS could be another word entirely.

With the above, "I have to boy fns" is assumed as being a statement: I have two boyfriends. However, it could also mean "I have to boy fns" with the "I have to" meaning something one has to do (i.e., I have to take out the trash). Or, in terms of the note, "I have to be o y fns."

Thank you for all of your comments - especially commenting about the book Proust and the Squid.

I am not sure if the note was written by JB. Was the picture of the note taken in JB's Boulder CO bedroom by LE? If so, when? Does it belong to the Crime Scene Photos that were taken of the R's Boulder CO home by LE before 6 year old murder victim JonBenet Ramsey was "found" in her home by her father?

The Murder of Six Year Old JonBenet Ramsey is still so very heartbreaking. After 20 years it seems as though those fighting for Justice For JonBenet Ramsey have more questions than questions - which is another heartbreaking aspect of this case.

All of the dedicated people on this forum deserve an enormous "Thank You" for keeping the memory of Six Year Old Murder Victim JonBenet Ramsey alive, and, for working hard to get justice for a 6 year old child that had their entire life taken from her: her voice, her future. We may not know the specifics that led to the murder of Six Year Old Murder Victim JonBenet Ramsey. However, we know that JonBenet Ramsey was murdered and deserves justice.

Yes, this photo shows material on JonBenet’s bed. The photo was taken after JonBenet was found. It is not from the original crime scene photos taken on the 26th.

In my opinion, this piece of paper is too perfect. There are possible hints of staging within the note.
CS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flourish]

I have 2 boyfriends
Santa could
I have some/5 (?) girlfriends

I have no idea. My degrees are in early childhood education and related and this is written using "invented spelling," which is typical of her age group. However, this specific note feels weird to me somehow, but IDK if I can pinpoint why beyond the obvious--it may have been written by a child who was soon thereafter horribly murdered and the subject matter is disturbing in light of what we know or suspect. Hmm.