Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[DeeDee249]

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"?

They WERE caught "playing doctor" by the housekeeper. And we don't know how many times he may have been caught "playing" with his sister by his parents or other people. Someone may have said "you can't so that- it's INCEST". Or maybe his parents simply told him that word and its meaning. He might not have been familiar with that word as part of his normal vocabulary, but there is no reason to assume his parents would not have explained it to him.

 

[DeeDee249]

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?

I believe you are correct.

 

[Ausgirl]

I have to admit to a deal of scepticism when it comes to a dog-eared page with probably three dozen words on it being held up as evidence of incest. Sorry, but it seems an extremely thin thread to be holding onto, there.

The fact that both children suffered symptoms of severe anxiety (at the very least) is rather telling, however. Based on that, I don't think the family dynamic was anything like that which has been portrayed by the parents. Therefore, there's good reason to look into what that dynamic actually was, whether the Ramseys themselves were abusers (mental, emotional, or physical) or somebody close to the children on a regular basis (with the parents in abject denial).

I found it interesting that someone said JonBenet's bedwetting ceased while Patsy was ill - can that be verified?

Also, if both of my children were still requiring diapers every night, age six (dunno about America, but I can tell you that in Aus, this is NOT considered normal at all), I'd be frantic in having them both assessed for -why-. I don't know how many doctors/specialists/psychologists PR might have consulted about this issue, but one would think an affluent mother with genuine concern for her kids would have sought whatever resources she could to help them.

Did she?

 

[Flatlander]

Since we are on the subject I have always thought it curious that PR's father Don Paugh had a home in Boulder, that he was there on the 23rd, that he had given PR the book something along the lines about how Johnny can't tell right from wrong, that he had the float built for JB during Christmas, that the immediate departure according to JR was to Atlanta and not to MI? That perhaps DP had molested PR and even PAM. Maybe PR turned into a a molester of her own children. Garbage seems easier if it simply rolls down hill than fixing the problem and not letting it roll right onto your own children. Maybe it was PR but maybe it started and continued with DP. Add maybe just maybe ... PR knew DP was meolesting JB and JB was fixing to talk? Just stating something to be considered. Didn't Nedra make a statement something along the lines that JB was only a little abused??? Can't find that in my book and I'm tired. I'm sure there is someone here that will give their honest opinion and assessment of this theory.

 

[deca]

Since we are on the subject I have always thought it curious that PR's father Don Paugh had a home in Boulder, that he was there on the 23rd, that he had given PR the book something along the lines about how Johnny can't tell right from wrong, that he had the float built for JB during Christmas, that the immediate departure according to JR was to Atlanta and not to MI? That perhaps DP had molested PR and even PAM. Maybe PR turned into a a molester of her own children. Garbage seems easier if it simply rolls down hill than fixing the problem and not letting it roll right onto your own children. Maybe it was PR but maybe it started and continued with DP. Add maybe just maybe ... PR knew DP was meolesting JB and JB was fixing to talk? Just stating something to be considered. Didn't Nedra make a statement something along the lines that JB was only a little abused??? Can't find that in my book and I'm tired. I'm sure there is someone here that will give their honest opinion and assessment of this theory.

I think that theory is very plausible- but what do you make of JR going along with the staging? Even if PR did all the staging herself (unlikely) JR would have known or suspected what happened. Why would he cover up for her or DP? Curious about your opinion.

 

[UKGuy]

I think that theory is very plausible- but what do you make of JR going along with the staging? Even if PR did all the staging herself (unlikely) JR would have known or suspected what happened. Why would he cover up for her or DP? Curious about your opinion.

deca,
Irrespective of culpability the R's had to cover up. They knew, because of the chronic molestation something had to be done, hence the wine-cellar staging, and not a bedroom staging.

When you add up the evidence and consider the crosspointing defense, BDI is the most consistent theory, else why would both parents sign up to the RST defense etc.


.

 

[deca]

deca,
Irrespective of culpability the R's had to cover up. They knew, because of the chronic molestation something had to be done, hence the wine-cellar staging, and not a bedroom staging.

When you add up the evidence and consider the crosspointing defense, BDI is the most consistent theory, else why would both parents sign up to the RST defense etc.


.

Well put.
Because of just that I am BDI. I am just curious about the PDI, JDI or RDI or Ramsey Friend Did It theorists' opinion on why they think an innocent party would cover up for someone else.

If it was all PDI, including the molestation- why would John cover? Same goes if it was all John- why would Patsy cover? Maybe there is a good reason- I just can't come up with one.

 

[DeeDee249]

Well put.
Because of just that I am BDI. I am just curious about the PDI, JDI or RDI or Ramsey Friend Did It theorists' opinion on why they think an innocent party would cover up for someone else.

If it was all PDI, including the molestation- why would John cover? Same goes if it was all John- why would Patsy cover? Maybe there is a good reason- I just can't come up with one.

That's been tossed around for a while. Each of them had to have something they needed to keep hidden. They each had something to lose, something that made it mandatory to cover for the other person. There was the molestation- and SOUND evidence that it had happened at least once before that night. While most look to the obvious (the father), mothers can also be guilty of this, though it is rarer. Patsy was said (no conclusive evidence) to use a douche on JB because she soiled her pants. A douche wand is about the size of a finger and certainly could cause damage in a child's vagina. But the erosion looked to the coroner like digital penetration.
At the end of that night they had a dead/dying little girl who had been poked in her vagina with enough force to make her bleed. SOMETHING caused this and it was not bubble bath, soiled/wet panties, or self-inflicted. It was something inserted in her vagina, and with enough force to cause bleeding and bruising. There was also a bruise on the labia, most likely from hard pressure of a hand against her, holding whatever was being forced inside her (even if it was a finger on that hand). If their son was responsible, that is reason enough why BOTH parents would cover it up. If it was a parent, lets say Patsy using the douche, JR would possibly agree to cover it up if he had been the molester. If JDI, that is harder to reconcile Patsy agreeing, so there had to be something that she did that caused some of her injuries.
But IMO the simplest reason for both parents covering up is BDI. I usually come back to these two principles- KISS and Ockham's Razor.

 

[midwest mama]

Snipped
... If their son was responsible, that is reason enough why BOTH parents would cover it up. If it was a parent, lets say Patsy using the douche, JR would possibly agree to cover it up if he had been the molester. If JDI, that is harder to reconcile Patsy agreeing, so there had to be something that she did that caused some of her injuries.
But IMO the simplest reason for both parents covering up is BDI. I usually come back to these two principles- KISS and Ockham's Razor.

Can we push this thought a bit further - to include the idea of the most likely parent to have previously sexually molested his daughter making his wife THINK her son had caused JB's injuries that night? Since both of them had probably accepted BR had psychological issues that might one day lead to this result (the books they received as gifts, the sealed medical records, the scatological behavior) Patsy would have believed John if he blamed Burke for what happened.

Remember it was John who was supposedly heard chastising Burke as Patsy had made the call. It was John who made arrangements to get Burke out of the house quickly. According to the R's, there was little conversation with Burke about his sister's death, but IIRC, Burke said his Dad told him about his sister.

I just wonder if Dad thought Burke could be well-managed enough throughout his life to never realize his own Dad could have been the one to try to set him up.

I have little doubt old lizard lips would think twice in trying to get away with implicating his son. I think that in his mind, he would have never expected Burke, or anyone else for that matter, would ever have to know he had sacrificed BR to Patsy. IMO, if he was physically molesting his daughter, he had the capability to emotionally molest his son. :cry:

 

[otg]

deca,
Irrespective of culpability the R's had to cover up. They knew, because of the chronic molestation something had to be done, hence the wine-cellar staging, and not a bedroom staging.

When you add up the evidence and consider the crosspointing defense, BDI is the most consistent theory, else why would both parents sign up to the RST defense etc.
.

Keep in mind that, while the R's may have been aware of some of the prior sexual aspects (for lack of a better descriptive term), they might not have been aware of the extent of it, and therefore, may not have been aware of the existence of evidence of it. It seems (in your scenario), they attempted to hide the evidence of the acute sexual injuries -- probably thinking (or hoping) it wouldn't be discovered.

This is the reason I can't subscribe to the belief that the acute injuries were done deliberately simply to hide the evidence of chronic injuries.

UKGuy, I've been meaning to say for some time now... Since you left your neutral position on which of the R's is responsible for what happened, you've certainly become the most vehement proponent of it. Of course, you know, I agree with you, and I'm not suggesting in any way that it should be toned down. I guess it's natural when one has an "aha" moment after being noncommittal for a time, that this is the reaction. Probably like when SuperDave realized he was mistaken in his support of R innocence :wink:. BTW, is SuperDave the former Dave who posted in the swamp at one time? How 'bout it, SD -- you told me you used to be on the other side. Was that you?

 

[UKGuy]

Keep in mind that, while the R's may have been aware of some of the prior sexual aspects (for lack of a better descriptive term), they might not have been aware of the extent of it, and therefore, may not have been aware of the existence of evidence of it. It seems (in your scenario), they attempted to hide the evidence of the acute sexual injuries -- probably thinking (or hoping) it wouldn't be discovered.

This is the reason I can't subscribe to the belief that the acute injuries were done deliberately simply to hide the evidence of chronic injuries.

UKGuy, I've been meaning to say for some time now... Since you left your neutral position on which of the R's is responsible for what happened, you've certainly become the most vehement proponent of it. Of course, you know, I agree with you, and I'm not suggesting in any way that it should be toned down. I guess it's natural when one has an "aha" moment after being noncommittal for a time, that this is the reaction. Probably like when SuperDave realized he was mistaken in his support of R innocence :wink:. BTW, is SuperDave the former Dave who posted in the swamp at one time? How 'bout it, SD -- you told me you used to be on the other side. Was that you?

otg,

Keep in mind that, while the R's may have been aware of some of the prior sexual aspects (for lack of a better descriptive term), they might not have been aware of the extent of it, and therefore, may not have been aware of the existence of evidence of it. It seems (in your scenario), they attempted to hide the evidence of the acute sexual injuries -- probably thinking (or hoping) it wouldn't be discovered.

The extent was likely to be wide. Did the parents have knowledge of this, I would suggest yes. There could be many reasons to assume this, one is the island of privacy placed around the childrens medical records. Another might be what friends had told them?

If the acute injuries were inflicted to mask the chronic injuries this might make the assumption of BDI less probable, and make it more likely it was JDI.

Hopefully I am simply reflecting the new evidence which has become available. The probability of BDI has slowly increased over the years as the evidence accumulated. Previously I thought BDI to be the least likely, until I thought both PDI and JDI seemed to be inconsistent, and with the apparent legal silence surrounding Burke Ramsey, this seemed push BDI to the top of the list.

As usual I must offer the legal disclaimer that I am discussing theories, and debating allegations that are in the public domain, and that I have no evidence to demonstrate that any Ramsey killed JonBenet.

 

[midwestphd]

Misdirection or framing of one Ramsey by another is something I've been mulling over as well.

Another WACKY scenario might be that BR and JBR were up to something in the basement (or even in the kitchen). BR hits her on the head, discovers she's unresponsive, and then alerts one of the parents. OR, he leaves her there and goes back to bed. PR wakes up to take JBR to the bathroom and discovers she's not in bed. She wakes JR and they find JBR with the head injury. They know BR is responsible and decide to cover it up.

Interestingly, if BR has gone back to bed after the head bash, the cover up could also have been a kind of brainwashing of BR. Is there a chance in *#!^ that BR inflicted the head blow but that PR and JR brainwashed him into thinking he was not responsible? I know the head blow was not the actual cause of death, but hopefully it's clear what I'm getting at here. JR and PR come upon a scene that they know is caused by BR, but they see a way to craft a narrative that tells a different story. This would actually explain why the Ramsey's say over and over again the media that they are not responsible--it is part of the false narrative they've constructed to conceal the truth, both from the police, and from BR.

You'd think that BR would put the pieces together after all these years...but brainwashing is a powerful thing.

 

[UKGuy]

Misdirection or framing of one Ramsey by another is something I've been mulling over as well.

Another WACKY scenario might be that BR and JBR were up to something in the basement (or even in the kitchen). BR hits her on the head, discovers she's unresponsive, and then alerts one of the parents. OR, he leaves her there and goes back to bed. PR wakes up to take JBR to the bathroom and discovers she's not in bed. She wakes JR and they find JBR with the head injury. They know BR is responsible and decide to cover it up.

Interestingly, if BR has gone back to bed after the head bash, the cover up could also have been a kind of brainwashing of BR. Is there a chance in *#!^ that BR inflicted the head blow but that PR and JR brainwashed him into thinking he was not responsible? I know the head blow was not the actual cause of death, but hopefully it's clear what I'm getting at here. JR and PR come upon a scene that they know is caused by BR, but they see a way to craft a narrative that tells a different story. This would actually explain why the Ramsey's say over and over again the media that they are not responsible--it is part of the false narrative they've constructed to conceal the truth, both from the police, and from BR.

You'd think that BR would put the pieces together after all these years...but brainwashing is a powerful thing.

midwestphd,
Yes, entirely possible, since we know BR has knowledge of what took place but does not wish to talk with the police.

In this context it could also be PDI, something along the lines of ST's theory, with a physical assault fueled by anger, the rest all staging, with BR told some bogus story?

So in a sense knowing whether JonBenet was sexually assaulted prior to her death is an important part of deciding which theory to support.


.

 

[OpenMind4U]

otg,


The extent was likely to be wide. Did the parents have knowledge of this, I would suggest yes. There could be many reasons to assume this, one is the island of privacy placed around the childrens medical records. Another might be what friends had told them?

If the acute injuries were inflicted to mask the chronic injuries this might make the assumption of BDI less probable, and make it more likely it was JDI.

Hopefully I am simply reflecting the new evidence which has become available. The probability of BDI has slowly increased over the years as the evidence accumulated. Previously I thought BDI to be the least likely, until I thought both PDI and JDI seemed to be inconsistent, and with the apparent legal silence surrounding Burke Ramsey, this seemed push BDI to the top of the list.

As usual I must offer the legal disclaimer that I am discussing theories, and debating allegations that are in the public domain, and that I have no evidence to demonstrate that any Ramsey killed JonBenet.

Sorry for insertion into yours and otg conversation....just couldn't compose myself when I read the above statement. Like otg, I'm the strong believer that acute injury was NOT 'staging' and has nothing to do with 'staging' for two simple reasons:

- how the 'stager' knows that one pock into vagina would covers the chronic injuries? Does one pock is enough? Why not make multiple, more severe damages to make sure chronic injuries are destroyed?....;
- whiping off the blood, cleaning, changing her bottoms cloths, destroying the 'weapon' which made such injury - all points to hiding this injury not exposing it!...

JBR case is about sexual abuse first and murder second. The acute injury was part/continuation of chronic injuries. JMOO

 

[BOESP]

Do Colorado courts differentiate between child abuse and child sexual abuse? TIA

 

[UKGuy]

Sorry for insertion into yours and otg conversation....just couldn't compose myself when I read the above statement. Like otg, I'm the strong believer that acute injury was NOT 'staging' and has nothing to do with 'staging' for two simple reasons:

- how the 'stager' knows that one pock into vagina would covers the chronic injuries? Does one pock is enough? Why not make multiple, more severe damages to make sure chronic injuries are destroyed?....;
- whiping off the blood, cleaning, changing her bottoms cloths, destroying the 'weapon' which made such injury - all points to hiding this injury not exposing it!...

JBR case is about sexual abuse first and murder second. The acute injury was part/continuation of chronic injuries. JMOO

OpenMind4U,
I tend to agree with much of what you say. Although the staging might include the acute assault, since the person who inflicted it might not be the same person who might want JonBenet dressed, i.e. Patsy, the staging might be messy and not as linear as our respective theories?

.

 

[otg]

otg,

The extent was likely to be wide. Did the parents have knowledge of this, I would suggest yes. There could be many reasons to assume this, one is the island of privacy placed around the childrens medical records. Another might be what friends had told them?

Depending on exactly what knowledge they had and what they were faced with at the moment the decision was made to try and cover it up, I agree. But we don’t (and probably never will) know this. That, of course, is why you and I have to use the words "may", "might", and "could" in our posits. Both speculative theories of their knowledge are certainly possible. I even question whether or not the parents were aware of the head blow.

What if (as I have speculated in other posts), JonBenet had the cord tied loosely around her neck to a fixed object with what we know to be a slip knot (or at least a knot that became one when collapsed) when the blow was struck? If the parents found her like that, they might have thought she simply slipped causing the cord to tighten and strangle her to death. Depending on what they were told, they very well could have not even been aware of the blow to the head. Even the coroner was unaware of it until her scalp was peeled back.

If the acute injuries were inflicted to mask the chronic injuries this might make the assumption of BDI less probable, and make it more likely it was JDI.

Agreed.

Hopefully I am simply reflecting the new evidence which has become available. The probability of BDI has slowly increased over the years as the evidence accumulated. Previously I thought BDI to be the least likely, until I thought both PDI and JDI seemed to be inconsistent, and with the apparent legal silence surrounding Burke Ramsey, this seemed push BDI to the top of the list.

[FONT=&quot]I really wasn’t questioning your reasons, UKG -- simply an observation.

[/FONT]

As usual I must offer the legal disclaimer that I am discussing theories, and debating allegations that are in the public domain, and that I have no evidence to demonstrate that any Ramsey killed JonBenet.

Nor I.

 

[otg]

Sorry for insertion into yours and otg conversation....just couldn't compose myself when I read the above statement. Like otg, I'm the strong believer that acute injury was NOT 'staging' and has nothing to do with 'staging' for two simple reasons:

- how the 'stager' knows that one pock into vagina would covers the chronic injuries? Does one pock is enough? Why not make multiple, more severe damages to make sure chronic injuries are destroyed?....;
- whiping off the blood, cleaning, changing her bottoms cloths, destroying the 'weapon' which made such injury - all points to hiding this injury not exposing it!...

JBR case is about sexual abuse first and murder second. The acute injury was part/continuation of chronic injuries. JMOO

I agree with all you said, OM4U. And feel free to insert any time. Were it a private conversation, it would have been in PM instead of here. I hope by discussing it here, others will join in and add to the conversation -- even if it is an opposing view. And, OM, you always add logic and clear thinking to any discussion. I look forward to your posts.

 

[midwestphd]

I even question whether or not the parents were aware of the head blow.

I wonder about this too.

 

[OpenMind4U]

OpenMind4U,
I tend to agree with much of what you say. Although the staging might include the acute assault, since the person who inflicted it might not be the same person who might want JonBenet dressed, i.e. Patsy, the staging might be messy and not as linear as our respective theories?

.

IDK. All of us, RDI, have more than one theory. Even GJ who has better exposure to the actual facts couldn't determined who did what.

I'll be honest, sometimes, on the back of my mind, I could see Patsy, as crazy as she could be, loosing her last hope to leave in perfect world through JB, seeing the 'damaged goods' of her priceless gem - becomes the religious maniac: in the stupor from the horror she go's into religious trance of sacraficing. I'm not religious person. My knowledge of the rituals are limited to documented examples on the net and books in library. But strangulation, binding and virginity (or punishment as the ABSENCE of virginity!)...could draw posible scenario for another theory. The only hole will be: what role JR plays in it? Because I'm sure, prior 'finding' her at 1pm - he knew what happened.

jmo