Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[ATasteOfHoney]

....and the unusual marks on the side of the neck that appear like blackish burn marks look like the prongs that a stun gun makes.......so sad.

 

[deca]

About this "playing". Were any more details given about this? For example: they had a flashlight and some books under there or they were lying down vs. sitting up under the covers- anything?

I can see a bunch of abuse scenarios but I am leaning towards JR was abusing her and BR began abusing her. That is why the protectiveness towards BR, the weird stuff that happened on the 23rd, the general attitude of "circle the wagons", etc.

 

[SunVenus]

....and the unusual marks on the side of the neck that appear like blackish burn marks look like the prongs that a stun gun makes.......so sad.

I think Lou Smit's theory of a stun gun being used has been pretty well ruled out by Kolar's resaerch.

Still, the household & it's inhabitants was abusive: physically, emotionally, sexually, mentally & spiritually. It disgusts me.

 

[DeeDee249]

Yes, odd isn't it? You'd think she'd have said something... but for all we know, maybe she did. But maybe she was embarrassed too. Sexual matters make many people uncomfortable, and would the housekeeper have been willing to say to her employers: "umm, I think you need to have a frank birds & bees discussion with your kids". I'd like to think that had it been me, I'd have spoken up-- I am fairly "clinical" about sex and not shy about such matters... but to an employer? Especially ones that prided themselves on an appearance of moral rectitude & overt Christian values? And in an environement of such tension with focus on "go-go-go important family on the move" and PRs recovery from cancer and so on? I just don't know. Maybe she (the housekeeper) sensed-- intuitively-- it would cause a tempest in the household. And looking back, perhaps related sexual conduct did cause the ugly, ending tipping point.

But yes, as you point out, we have that confirmation of a known sexual aspect between JBR & BR. With that & other innuendos, statements, the deliberate sexualisation/objectification by PR of JBR in pagentry and so on, it paints a dysfunctional picture of the family in matters of sex, sexual boundaries & sexual conduct.

LHP did not say more about it. We don't know whether she told Patsy. LHP planned to write a book, but never did. I am sure she was intimidated into not writing it. She had asked a judge to be allowed to discuss her testimony before the Grand Jury, but was denied. I don't think she could have been legally prevented from writing a book, but she could have been barred from discussing that GJ testimony. She had plenty of material for a book anyway, so I can only imagine how she was intimidated into not proceeding with it. Libel laws protect only the living- anyone may write whatever they wish about a dead person, but there are still two living Rs left.
A curious point- a dictionary in the R master bedroom was open to the page that had the word "INCEST" on it, and the corner of that page was folded down to point to that word. Coincidence? Well..you know what they say about coincidences- there are none.

 

[UKGuy]

Those pajama bottoms MAY be BR's, but they have never been proven to be. Just because they seemed too big for JB doesn't mean they weren't hers. I don't recall wether those soiled pajama bottoms made into an evidence locker, but it would be a simple matter to test that fecal material. They have JB's DNA , not sure whether they ever were allowed to get BR's.

DeeDee249,
I agree, this might just be a factoid, which I think originates from Kolar's book. If Kolar is referencing them, then I reckon they made it to the evidence cage. Also they may have been determined as belonging to BR, but this has never been disclosed publicly.

My understanding is that these pajama bottoms are distinct from the soiled pants on the bathroom floor?

Apart from the fecal stains on the pajamas alleged to belong to BR, the inside of them will contain his touch-dna, and next to none of JonBenet's. So determining ownership should not be difficult?

All the above, if true, along with LHP's claims about Burke and JonBenet playing beneath the sheets, seem to add up to some form of dysfunctional relationship between Burke Ramsey and his sister?


.

 

[Darlene733510]

I wonder I'd they took BR's bedding to check for evidence? Who knows what would have been found. Probably no proper testing would have been done on it anyway. So much pertaining to this case is sealed, and there is probably a lot that we have never even heard of. Exposing it would tell the world how this case was handled by irresponsible people, who most likely wanted a favorable or monetary reward(graft) from JR. The GJ alone was most likely given distorted testimony, with some of the important witnesses not allowed to testify, like the housekeeper, who really had a lot of insight, and who was a witness as to what was going on in that unusual family.

 

[midwest mama]

DeeDee249,
I agree, this might just be a factoid, which I think originates from Kolar's book. If Kolar is referencing them, then I reckon they made it to the evidence cage. Also they may have been determined as belonging to BR, but this has never been disclosed publicly.

My understanding is that these pajama bottoms are distinct from the soiled pants on the bathroom floor?

Apart from the fecal stains on the pajamas alleged to belong to BR, the inside of them will contain his touch-dna, and next to none of JonBenet's. So determining ownership should not be difficult?

All the above, if true, along with LHP's claims about Burke and JonBenet playing beneath the sheets, seem to add up to some form of dysfunctional relationship between Burke Ramsey and his sister?


.

Yes, the PJ bottoms on the bedroom floor were different than the bottoms referenced as found in the bathroom. Koldkase questioned Kolar about the PJ bottoms on Trisha's last radio show with him, and he verified that he understood the PJ bottoms to be Burke's.

 

[Ausgirl]

Wait - BOTH kids were bedwetting? This is an actual fact, not hearsay?

If that -is- a hard fact, and physiological causes were ruled out, I would be hard pressed not to think that both kids were being abused/molested.

Which then leads me to wonder - who had access to both kids, on a regular basis? If it was not the parents themselves, it's someone they maybe don't want to believe could harm the kids.

As for "soiling" - it's pretty normal for kids to leave the odd skidmark in their pants, nothing sinister in that, eh. It's a bit different to actually poo-ing in bed or clothing. I'd want to know the facts there before pondering it more.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, the PJ bottoms on the bedroom floor were different than the bottoms referenced as found in the bathroom. Koldkase questioned Kolar about the PJ bottoms on Trisha's last radio show with him, and he verified that he understood the PJ bottoms to be Burke's.

midwest mama,
Thanks for that. Definitely seems like BR had issues away back then.

You know, I just wonder if all this fecal staining and soiled pants etc, reflects some kind of ongoing anal abuse?

How about BR whacking JonBenet as he is molesting her, because she pooped on him?

What a family!


.

 

[UKGuy]

Wait - BOTH kids were bedwetting? This is an actual fact, not hearsay?

If that -is- a hard fact, and physiological causes were ruled out, I would be hard pressed not to think that both kids were being abused/molested.

Which then leads me to wonder - who had access to both kids, on a regular basis? If it was not the parents themselves, it's someone they maybe don't want to believe could harm the kids.

As for "soiling" - it's pretty normal for kids to leave the odd skidmark in their pants, nothing sinister in that, eh. It's a bit different to actually poo-ing in bed or clothing. I'd want to know the facts there before pondering it more.

Ausgirl,
Yup, bedwetting and some kind of fecal focus, or it was directly related to some kind of abuse?

The bedwetting was regarded as part of the developmental process, but the fecal staining and pooping in the bed, well thats different.

Holly Smith, BPD Sexual Abuse Head, checked JonBenet's underwear and noted the fecal staining, she thought it might be a red flag?


.

 

[midwest mama]

Wait - BOTH kids were bedwetting? This is an actual fact, not hearsay?

If that -is- a hard fact, and physiological causes were ruled out, I would be hard pressed not to think that both kids were being abused/molested.

Which then leads me to wonder - who had access to both kids, on a regular basis? If it was not the parents themselves, it's someone they maybe don't want to believe could harm the kids.

As for "soiling" - it's pretty normal for kids to leave the odd skidmark in their pants, nothing sinister in that, eh. It's a bit different to actually poo-ing in bed or clothing. I'd want to know the facts there before pondering it more.

Quotes from housekeepers refer to the kids' issues. LHP reported poo in JB's bed the size of a "grapefruit". I assume she meant it was a loose spot that size, because a small child leaving much more than that would be rare.

Here's something from PMPT, pg 337 that caught my attention, from Linda Wilcox, another Ramsey housekeeper: When the police interviewed me, they asked if the kids wet the bed a lot. I said yes. Detective Harmer asked if I thought that was unusual, and I had to say, "Not really. Not at that age." Burke wore Pull-Ups until he was six, and JonBenet always wore them. But I also told the police it was curious to me that Burke stopped wetting the bed when he stopped being the focus of Patsy's attention. And that was when JonBenet became a chronic bed wetter. But you know if you have little kids around that age, they are bed wetters. When I left in September of 1995, they were both still wetting their beds.

BBM. Burke would have been 8 years old at that time. Though he must have been out of pull-ups, was he also still having night time accidents?

 

[Ausgirl]

Quotes from housekeepers refer to the kids' issues. LHP reported poo in JB's bed the size of a "grapefruit". I assume she meant it was a loose spot that size, because a small child leaving much more than that would be rare.

Here's something from PMPT, pg 337 that caught my attention, from Linda Wilcox, another Ramsey housekeeper: When the police interviewed me, they asked if the kids wet the bed a lot. I said yes. Detective Harmer asked if I thought that was unusual, and I had to say, "Not really. Not at that age." Burke wore Pull-Ups until he was six, and JonBenet always wore them. But I also told the police it was curious to me that Burke stopped wetting the bed when he stopped being the focus of Patsy's attention. And that was when JonBenet became a chronic bed wetter. But you know if you have little kids around that age, they are bed wetters. When I left in September of 1995, they were both still wetting their beds.

BBM. Burke would have been 8 years old at that time. Though he must have been out of pull-ups, was he also still having night time accidents?

Thanks for that! I was aware JonBenet had issues with bedwetting and wore pullups.. I was NOT aware Burke had the same problems, nor about the fecal issues.

Now, I know kids can be messy and some kids are shocking for not wiping their bums properly after the toilet, so I am not going to leap immediately to 'anal abuse'. It could just be neglect to teach him how to do it properly.

However, that BOTH kids were still in pullups at age 6, that both bed-wet, both had poo stains in their clothes and beds... it suggests to me that either physically or emotionally, something was not at all well in that family.

That's a red flag, right there, above and beyond the high drama of this case. ANY two kids in any one family with those issues -- I have to looik at that sideways. I'd be really concerned for the general well-being of those children.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks for that! I was aware JonBenet had issues with bedwetting and wore pullups.. I was NOT aware Burke had the same problems, nor about the fecal issues.

Now, I know kids can be messy and some kids are shocking for not wiping their bums properly after the toilet, so I am not going to leap immediately to 'anal abuse'. It could just be neglect to teach him how to do it properly.

However, that BOTH kids were still in pullups at age 6, that both bed-wet, both had poo stains in their clothes and beds... it suggests to me that either physically or emotionally, something was not at all well in that family.

That's a red flag, right there, above and beyond the high drama of this case. ANY two kids in any one family with those issues -- I have to looik at that sideways. I'd be really concerned for the general well-being of those children.

JB's problems went beyond "skid marks" from not wiping properly. That is common, and all of us here who are parents have dealt with this issue when our kids were young. But JB pooped in her pants. And in her bed, and someone pooped on a box of candy. THIS is a problem. Also, JB was fully potty trained (NO wetting or soiling) for THREE years and then she began to wet and soil again. Her problems seem to coincide with the developing "mega-JonBenet" personae that Patsy's friends were horrified about. When Patsy began to transform JB into this "Hollywood/Vegas showgirl" and teach her to prance around like she was a 26-year old - that is when her wetting and soiling began- and possibly the abuse began?

 

[Ausgirl]

But JB pooped in her pants. And in her bed, and someone pooped on a box of candy. THIS is a problem. Also, JB was fully potty trained (NO wetting or soiling) for THREE years and then she began to wet and soil again.

Damn. If those were my friends/neighbours/kid's school friends and I heard about that? And it had been going on for YEARS? I'da called CPS, is what. If there's reliable witnesses to this, and/or parental admissions, etc, I think they ought to be gathered in one place for review.

Because really, I had to tune out of this case for the levels of crazy some theories reached, in the general media, etc. But this one issue, IF it is hard fact, is highly indicative that abuse and/or severe neglect (in some important areas but not others) was actually happening in that home.

Which supports some of the theories I do think are feasible, and not others.

Is there a thread where all this info is collected, on this specific subject? I'd really like to read that, if so.

 

[midwest mama]

Damn. If those were my friends/neighbours/kid's school friends and I heard about that? And it had been going on for YEARS? I'da called CPS, is what. If there's reliable witnesses to this, and/or parental admissions, etc, I think they ought to be gathered in one place for review.

Because really, I had to tune out of this case for the levels of crazy some theories reached, in the general media, etc. But this one issue, IF it is hard fact, is highly indicative that abuse and/or severe neglect (in some important areas but not others) was actually happening in that home.

Which supports some of the theories I do think are feasible, and not others.

Is there a thread where all this info is collected, on this specific subject? I'd really like to read that, if so.

I just Googled this up and it looks interesting:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-32601.html

I'm going to take time to read through it too!

 

[dodie20]

Wait - BOTH kids were bedwetting? This is an actual fact, not hearsay?

If that -is- a hard fact, and physiological causes were ruled out, I would be hard pressed not to think that both kids were being abused/molested.

Which then leads me to wonder - who had access to both kids, on a regular basis? If it was not the parents themselves, it's someone they maybe don't want to believe could harm the kids.

As for "soiling" - it's pretty normal for kids to leave the odd skidmark in their pants, nothing sinister in that, eh. It's a bit different to actually poo-ing in bed or clothing. I'd want to know the facts there before pondering it more.

yes, it appears that both children had wetting and soiling issues. In BR's psychological interview, the dr asked him about his bedwetting, and although he said it was a long time ago, she seemed to believe he was lying, because she got the information from social services. Somebody in an earlier post, said that aspergers could explain BR's problems, but considering that JB suffered from the same issues, I don't think aspergers, (unless JB had it too), is a viable answer. I mean, what are the odds of 2 siblings suffering from the same unusual problems, but for unrelated reasons? IMO, there was something sinister going on...obviously, because JB wound up abused and brutally murdered. MOO.

 

[Darlene733510]

Remember when they found the dictionary in the parents bedroom, and it was open to the page that gave the definition of the word incest? Certainly JR and PR knew the meaning of the word. Who else would want to look up this word?
Perhaps a child who heard the word mentioned by one of his parents. My scenario is that PR caught JR molesting JB, and there were accusations that what he was doing was incest, and an argument ensued, and BR heard it. At age 10 he would know how to look it up and would be curious about all the big fuss over one word

 

[DeeDee249]

Remember when they found the dictionary in the parents bedroom, and it was open to the page that gave the definition of the word incest? Certainly JR and PR knew the meaning of the word. Who else would want to look up this word?
Perhaps a child who heard the word mentioned by one of his parents. My scenario is that PR caught JR molesting JB, and there were accusations that what he was doing was incest, and an argument ensued, and BR heard it. At age 10 he would know how to look it up and would be curious about all the big fuss over one word

Supposedly the page was not only open to where that word (incest) was described, but a corner of the page was turned down to point directly at it. Not sure if this is accurate or if it was a first -hand account.
I can totally see a parent SHOWING this page to a child in a scenario where the child is told that a specific activity is "incest"- and not knowing what that word means, is shown the word in a dictionary.

 

[Darlene733510]

I agree that a parent might show a child that word, but for what reason? Possibly when children are caught playing doctor? Did he hear it from one of his friends, and ask about it?
How many children that age would even know about the word "incest"?

 

[BOESP]

I no longer have Kolar's book to double-check but didn't he say the boxed candy in JonBenet's bedroom was smeared with fecal material rather than saying someone "pooped" on the candy?