Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[BOESP]

As far as I know, JAR's duvet has never been liked to fibers found on JB. There WERE "dark" fibers found on her, and the duvet/comforter was also dark-colored, but officially there was no evidence they were found on JB. There was no mention of dirt on the duvet and the only substance mentioned was JAR's dried semen.

I just revisited acandyrose.com: http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-inventory.htm

In addition to the comforter and bed linens on JonBenet's bed being on the list as shown at acandyrose, a black comforter and black sheets were also listed.

 

[BOESP]

<snip>

Either way, I think BOESP idea of CS is very interesting idea to consider.

It has been stated many times by LE, Kolar and other officials that we, public, doesn't know a lot of stuff. And whatever we THINK we know - is not true. So, I'm very much opened for any possible ideas.

So far we know only one thing for sure: without turning light in WC nobody would be able to see JB's body. And JR 'found' her before turning light. Means: he knew she's in WC before 1:00pm.


jmo

Good morning OM4U - just wanted to say I posted a link that shows the crawl space but I don't have a theory based on the crawl space having anything to do with JonBenet's death. I must give credit to another poster but I can't remember who it was. Thank-you though for at my age, any hint that I still "think" is a compliment. :winko:

 

[Whaleshark]

Precisely. None of us "know" anything.

So why should another poster's opinion or theory be the subject of derision and snark?

I'm not being snarky.

If they are psychopathic enough to participate in mutual sexual molestation rituals with their own daughter, with Patsy willingly giving her to her husband, and abusing her too... All the while putting up a perfect front, allowing people in their homes, acting as if all is well, portraying the perfect family model, running for public office, and able to cover it all up until something went wrong...

... They are psychopathic enough to cover for Burke if he did something to JonBenet as well....

And to say that they would have been all loving and it was all Burke and that they would have had to turn some switch on to be psychopathic to do all that, and this scenario is eliminated because there was no previous sign of psychopathy, is not only assuming what you think is the only way a BDI scenario could have happened - therefore it didn't - is also assuming that they actually were the perfect family if it was a BDI, therefore they would not have done this psychopathic response...

The point is in your fallacious argument, not in me being snarky. How can you assume that if Burke is responsible in some way the parents must not be psychopaths, but in order for it to not be Burke, and therefore obviously the parents, it is because they are very sick psychopaths?

And you cannot presume to know what they did behind closed doors, as you point out, and most of you know, it's not like most deviant pedophiles, abusers and especially those who need to put up a front of normalcy are advertising their abhorrent behavior!

The point is, you can't eliminate a BDI scenario based on the parents' behavior and classification of psychopathy, and what it would require to do this behavior if you are saying they are sick enough to do the behavior themselves. Then by that, neither scenario can be eliminated.

 

[otg]

There are many variations on any one RDI, IDI, JDI, PDI, BDI theory. Not all posters who have declared their leaning (and that's all it can be until this is actually "solved") agree with one another on the exact details or even the major parts of what might have happened. I have for a very long time been in the BDI leaning area. But as I have stated before, I hope I am wrong. If I find information that I believe points away from him as the person who caused all of this to happen -- I will welcome it and jump for joy. But I have to say also that I don't want to believe either parent could be capable of causing this either. I'd like to believe that some evil, disturbed intruder did this -- but the evidence just isn't there despite the obvious attempt to create it.

Regardless of which person started the events that led to JonBenet's death, I do not believe that anyone put a cord around her neck to "finish her off" or "sacrifice one child for another". I know that when Kolar's book came out and the information that she "may" have been alive for up to two hours was discussed, I had to consider it. But other forensic pathologists have ardently disagreed with that time interval. I'm not a pathologist, but I do not agree with the 45 to 120 minute estimate. I believe there were things that were overlooked by the good doctor who came up with that time estimate -- information she was not familiar with or was not even aware of. But I'll save that for another discussion some other time.

The point is that just because I believe with the information available now that "BDI", I don't believe he is, or was, evil. I don't believe her death was intentional on anyone's part -- his, or his parents.

 

[midwest mama]

Snipped
But I have to say also that I don't want to believe either parent could be capable of causing this either. I'd like to believe that some evil, disturbed intruder did this -- but the evidence just isn't there despite the obvious attempt to create it.

The point is that just because I believe with the information available now that "BDI", I don't believe he is, or was, evil. I don't believe her death was intentional on anyone's part -- his, or his parents.

Respectfully, otg, if you think only if an intruder who was evil and disturbed could have done the crime, why do you not feel it possible that two other people who really might have done the crime were not evil or disturbed enough to kill her intentionally?

I see no reason not to believe there is a 50/50 chance her murder was intentional. I do agree with you, that if she was killed intentionally by Burke, (did you hear Bob C's comment on Tricia's show about the Ramsey kids having to be separated during a vacation?) Burke truly was, at the time, suffering from a mental/emotional illness.

As for the parents, to think they appeared to be too normal in real life to have been capable of such, I mention the likes of Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and I'm sure there are several others who shocked the world. Isn't is easy to think a couple of intelligent, well-respected individuals of society would be quite capable of keeping those secrets of their children being "just a little bit molested" as Grandma Paugh remarked?

Sorry, no passes for either Patsy or John when it comes to thinking of them only capable of an accidental death. Even though it's what I want to believe and find out, one day is true, as well. It will validate me remaining optimistic always in the genuine goodness of humanity.

 

[UKGuy]

There are many variations on any one RDI, IDI, JDI, PDI, BDI theory. Not all posters who have declared their leaning (and that's all it can be until this is actually "solved") agree with one another on the exact details or even the major parts of what might have happened. I have for a very long time been in the BDI leaning area. But as I have stated before, I hope I am wrong. If I find information that I believe points away from him as the person who caused all of this to happen -- I will welcome it and jump for joy. But I have to say also that I don't want to believe either parent could be capable of causing this either. I'd like to believe that some evil, disturbed intruder did this -- but the evidence just isn't there despite the obvious attempt to create it.

Regardless of which person started the events that led to JonBenet's death, I do not believe that anyone put a cord around her neck to "finish her off" or "sacrifice one child for another". I know that when Kolar's book came out and the information that she "may" have been alive for up to two hours was discussed, I had to consider it. But other forensic pathologists have ardently disagreed with that time interval. I'm not a pathologist, but I do not agree with the 45 to 120 minute estimate. I believe there were things that were overlooked by the good doctor who came up with that time estimate -- information she was not familiar with or was not even aware of. But I'll save that for another discussion some other time.

The point is that just because I believe with the information available now that "BDI", I don't believe he is, or was, evil. I don't believe her death was intentional on anyone's part -- his, or his parents.

otg,
That the parents were indicted, and that all those involved, including Steve Thomas, have overlooked this makes you wonder why?

There are many BPD officials who have no love for the Ramsey's, so why the silence?

The GJ would have been able to work out mostly what we have, i.e. abuse, head blow, followed by staging of sorts, including the ransom note etc. Given the complexity it is patently not all the work of a nine-year old boy, so the parents had to be indicted.

Is it BDI because AH knew the truth, so decided not to file, or is BR innocent and simply covered by default with legal protection, due to his age?

.

 

[otg]

Respectfully, otg, if you think only if an intruder who was evil and disturbed could have done the crime, why do you not feel it possible that two other people who really might have done the crime were not evil or disturbed enough to kill her intentionally?

[FONT=&quot]I don’t. And actually, you prove the point I was trying to make (albeit perhaps unsuccessfully). We can’t put everyone within a(n) _DI camp in the same group as to motivations, reasons, or circumstances and assume that if they believe “_DI”, they must think that person was “whatever” (use any word you’d like for the “whatever” -- evil, disturbed, perverted, sick, sociopathic, psychopathic, uncaring, unloving, scheming, lying, unnatural, indecent...). We all manage somehow to come to different conclusions based on what information we have, or that seems important to us.
[/FONT]

I see no reason not to believe there is a 50/50 chance her murder was intentional. I do agree with you, that if she was killed intentionally by Burke, (did you hear Bob C's comment on Tricia's show about the Ramsey kids having to be separated during a vacation?) Burke truly was, at the time, suffering from a mental/emotional illness.

[FONT=&quot]I wouldn’t attempt to put percentages on any of it. I think (and this is only my opinion based on what we’ve heard) the entire family was under a lot of stress. I’m not a mental health specialist of any sort, but I see some of the signs of dysfunction and suspect there are even more that we still don’t know about.[/FONT]

As for the parents, to think they appeared to be too normal in real life to have been capable of such, I mention the likes of Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and I'm sure there are several others who shocked the world. Isn't is easy to think a couple of intelligent, well-respected individuals of society would be quite capable of keeping those secrets of their children being "just a little bit molested" as Grandma Paugh remarked?

I don’t agree with anything you say there. I just didn’t articulate it in my previous post as well as you just did.

Sorry, no passes for either Patsy or John when it comes to thinking of them only capable of an accidental death. Even though it's what I want to believe and find out, one day is true, as well. It will validate me remaining optimistic always in the genuine goodness of humanity.

(Anne Frank?)

No one gets a pass from me either, mw mm. Maybe my wanting to believe a family member incapable of intentionally doing that skews my deductions. Believe me -- I recognize that possibility. But I still believe BDI. And it seems as we find out more and more over time, growing numbers of people are beginning to realize it as a distinct possibility, whereas before I was in a very small minority of people who saw it that way. But again, if you notice, I never use the word “murdered” when I write about JonBenet’s death simply because I don’t think she was. The only crime committed that night (IMO) was the cover-up of the events leading up to her death.

But, hey, we can disagree and still have meaningful, positive, constructive conversations. At least I can hope for that also.

:seeya:
​

 

[DeeDee249]

I think OM4U was talking about the duvet cover being/not being in the suitcase when FW moved it that morning, not JB being in the suitcase. So if FW thought it felt empty (no duvet) then where was the duvet at that time and when/how did it get back into the suitcase?

The duvet/comforter may have been light, so when the suitcase was picked up it felt empty. FW did not open it, so he really can't say for sure that it WAS empty. So we have to assume the duvet was still inside.

Still. my evaluation is correct either way. The body just couldn't have been moved around that much (from place of death to crawl space to WC) without it being apparent by a second or third livor pattern and/or breaking of rigor in some areas.

 

[midwestphd]

I struggle with the timing if it was a PDI/JDI intentional murder. They were leaving early the next morning. It does not seem like a good time to commit a homicide. If someone was planning to kill her and make it look like IDI, it's still a weird time to do it. IMO.

 

[OpenMind4U]

[FONT=&quot] respectfully skipped

No one gets a pass from me either, mw mm. Maybe my wanting to believe a family member incapable of intentionally doing that skews my deductions. Believe me -- I recognize that possibility. But I still believe BDI. And it seems as we find out more and more over time, growing numbers of people are beginning to realize it as a distinct possibility, whereas before I was in a very small minority of people who saw it that way. But again, if you notice, I never use the word “murdered” when I write about JonBenet’s death simply because I don’t think she was. The only crime committed that night (IMO) was the cover-up of the events leading up to her death.

But, hey, we can disagree and still have meaningful, positive, constructive conversations. At least I can hope for that also.

:seeya:
​

O my dear otg! You're voluntary placed yourself in the 'target' position because after above BBM statement I'm expecting alot of posts (ARROWS) going in your direction.

IMO, any intentional action(s) which leads to the death (due to cover-up or not) is MURDER!

EXCEPT .......

1. What do we have?

Based on authopsy photo, we can see two lines on JB's neck area. One is WHITE, blanched, 'V'-shaped. Like DeeDee teached us many times, 'when skin is blanched, it takes on a whitish appearance as blood flow to the region is prevented'. Means, whatever causes to make this line was already there when JB's heart stopped pumping the blood. Almost no bloody abrasions around this line. Agree? So, let's call this 'V-line'.

The second line where rope is visible is perfectly round, with alot of bloody abrasions among the circle of the neck. Means, JB was alife, her heart was pumping the blood when rope was tide. Agree? Let's call this 'B-line'.

2. What COULD this mean?

It could mean few things but I'll address the 'except' scenario here.

Let's say JB was siting on the chair, binded with ropes loosely attached to the chair and her neck. There are two loops. One loop has the slip-on knot. Another doesn't. When the head blow happens behind, her body moves forward and as you pointed earlier, the partial hanging occurs with one of the loose loop. Here is your 'V-line'.
At the same time, as body was moving forward, the rope with the slip-on knot was tides strongly around her neck causing deadly strangulation. In 5-10 seconds, JB is dead. Here is your 'B-line'.

***** Alot of dog-owners will understand what I mean by slip-on knot. During the dog training, this dangerous IMO choker (therefore it calls 'choker'!) is often used to keep dog at bay. *****

3. Where is the 'cover-up'?

IMO, the 'cover-up' consist of two steps:
- removing the rope which caused 'V-line';
- removing the rope which caused 'B-line', replace with garotte-like attachment in exect position where original/slip-on rope was...or re-make the knot with adding garotte-like attachment...re-engeneered to purposely achive the grotesque effect.

If above is possible then 'cover-up' was NOT lead to the murder. The DEATH was accidental, not intentional!.....OK. I'm done with my creative 'except' scenario....Now, I'm the 'target'.

JMO

 

[midwest mama]

Oh OM4U and otg, you both are so vibrant and full of such stimulating thoughts and theories. I love it. :loveyou:

But, without a homicide, how is BPD able to keep the case open as a "Murder Investigation"? And, because I know you have read so many of the books, why do the detectives who were active on the case refer to JB's death as Murder? I kinda have to allow for their experienced pronouncement on this case.

But I love to read everything you both post, always! :seeya:

 

[Whaleshark]

People still get found guilty for negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter ...

Just saying.

 

[OpenMind4U]

people still get found guilty for negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter ...

Just saying.

absolutely!!!!!!!!

 

[OpenMind4U]

Oh OM4U and otg, you both are so vibrant and full of such stimulating thoughts and theories. I love it. :loveyou:

But, without a homicide, how is BPD able to keep the case open as a "Murder Investigation"? And, because I know you have read so many of the books, why do the detectives who were active on the case refer to JB's death as Murder? I kinda have to allow for their experienced pronouncement on this case.

But I love to read everything you both post, always! :seeya:

MM, thank you!...like I said, it was just 'creative' scenario which I believe COULD be possible....however, to answer your above BBM question: because JB didn't die from the natural causes and she didn't strangled herself to death purposely (suicide)...means this case is homicide, means someone/something else causes her death, means MURDER......:seeya:

jmo

 

[Whaleshark]

....right, but to otg's point, or someone else's point... Accidental murder can still be at fault murder, as in negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.

Therefore, murder does not necessarily have to be intentional for it to be prosecuted against.

 

[otg]

As for the parents, to think they appeared to be too normal in real life to have been capable of such, I mention the likes of Ted Bundy, John Gacy, and I'm sure there are several others who shocked the world. Isn't is easy to think a couple of intelligent, well-respected individuals of society would be quite capable of keeping those secrets of their children being "just a little bit molested" as Grandma Paugh remarked?

I don’t agree with anything you say there. I just didn’t articulate it in my previous post as well as you just did.

My bad! :blushing: (How embarrassing.) I meant to say, "I don't disagree with anything you say there."

 

[otg]

(snipped)

But, without a homicide, how is BPD able to keep the case open as a "Murder Investigation"? And, because I know you have read so many of the books, why do the detectives who were active on the case refer to JB's death as Murder? I kinda have to allow for their experienced pronouncement on this case.

I&#8217;ll be a little more precise on the subject/terminology (since OM4U is concerned about my possibly being an archery target). As you astutely point out, mw mm, even &#8220;the detectives who were active on the case refer to JB&#8217;s death as Murder.&#8221;

Murder (according to the definition at Wikipedia) &#8220;is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).&#8221;

The one thing that makes this form of homicide (the act of killing a human being) rise to the degree of murder is &#8220;malice aforethought&#8221; (except in certain cases where it is done during the commission of another serious crime -- this is where the rule of felony murder comes into play). So we should understand exactly what &#8220;malice aforethought&#8221; means. But this post would be even more excruciatingly long and boring if I went into all the discussion and really impressive Latin words and phrases (if you care to look into them yourself: mens rea; actus reus; actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, or "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty") that go into legal definitions of malice aforethought. And even then, we wouldn&#8217;t have a complete picture because of the variances between different legal jurisdictions. But very basically, malice aforethought refers to premeditation and intent.

However, the word murder is oftentimes used loosely even by legal authorities -- perhaps because of other less-legal definitions, one of which is based on the apparent viciousness, cruelty, or barbarity of the result (which is certainly present in JonBenet's case). Perhaps they have used it because murder is the ultimate crime they would like to prove, and therefore are investigating. Short of that, I think they would settle for a conviction on second-degree murder, manslaughter, or even negligent homicide if that were the best they could get. Murder and homicide are often (though incorrectly) used interchangeably. That is why I try to avoid using the word murder since I believe the circumstances of JonBenet&#8217;s death do not constitute murder.

Let me give three examples of different circumstances that each lead to the same final result: a dead person with a horribly mutilated body.

Situation-1
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. John has words with Fred. John hates Fred. Fred hates John. John wants Fred dead. John waits for Fred to pass by the shredder on his way to the lunchroom and then lunges at him pushing him over the guardrail and into it. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

Situation-2
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. One day, John and Fred get into an argument by the plastic shredder. Fred shoves John. John then shoves back at Fred. Soon they are shouting at one another and a crowd forms around them. Finally, John yells, &#8220;I&#8217;m gonna kill you,&#8221; and grabs Fred by the shoulders pushing him over the guardrail and into the plastic shredder. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

Situation-3
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. One day, John and Fred are joking around. They know they&#8217;d be in trouble if the boss found out, because &#8220;horseplay&#8221; is not allowed around the dangerous machinery they have at the factory. But they start pushing at one another, laughing all the while. One push by John happens right as Fred is standing by the guardrail in front of the shredder. Fred loses his balance and falls over the guardrail and into the plastic shredder. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

In each of the above examples, the end result is the same: Fred is dead and dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin. But is each incident a case of murder?

In JonBenet&#8217;s death, she appeared to have been brutally and viciously attacked and murdered. But after arriving at what I believe actually happened, I can&#8217;t use the word murder to describe her death. I agree with Dr. Henry Lee in his assessment that it looked like a domestic accident. But that's JMO.

 

[midwest mama]

My bad! :blushing: (How embarrassing.) I meant to say, "I don't disagree with anything you say there."

:therethere:Perfect doesn't exist in a real world, in spite of the title chosen by Mr. Schiller. And you're waaaaaay too smart to even think that it should! ::bow:

 

[midwest mama]

(snipped)

I’ll be a little more precise on the subject/terminology (since OM4U is concerned about my possibly being an archery target). As you astutely point out, mw mm, even “the detectives who were active on the case refer to JB’s death as Murder.”

Murder (according to the definition at Wikipedia) “is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).”

The one thing that makes this form of homicide (the act of killing a human being) rise to the degree of murder is “malice aforethought” (except in certain cases where it is done during the commission of another serious crime -- this is where the rule of felony murder comes into play). So we should understand exactly what “malice aforethought” means. But this post would be even more excruciatingly long and boring if I went into all the discussion and really impressive Latin words and phrases (if you care to look into them yourself: mens rea; actus reus; actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, or "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty") that go into legal definitions of malice aforethought. And even then, we wouldn’t have a complete picture because of the variances between different legal jurisdictions. But very basically, malice aforethought refers to premeditation and intent.

However, the word murder is oftentimes used loosely even by legal authorities -- perhaps because of other less-legal definitions, one of which is based on the apparent viciousness, cruelty, or barbarity of the result (which is certainly present in JonBenet's case). Perhaps they have used it because murder is the ultimate crime they would like to prove, and therefore are investigating. Short of that, I think they would settle for a conviction on second-degree murder, manslaughter, or even negligent homicide if that were the best they could get. Murder and homicide are often (though incorrectly) used interchangeably. That is why I try to avoid using the word murder since I believe the circumstances of JonBenet’s death do not constitute murder.

Let me give three examples of different circumstances that each lead to the same final result: a dead person with a horribly mutilated body.

Situation-1
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. John has words with Fred. John hates Fred. Fred hates John. John wants Fred dead. John waits for Fred to pass by the shredder on his way to the lunchroom and then lunges at him pushing him over the guardrail and into it. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

Situation-2
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. One day, John and Fred get into an argument by the plastic shredder. Fred shoves John. John then shoves back at Fred. Soon they are shouting at one another and a crowd forms around them. Finally, John yells, “I’m gonna kill you,” and grabs Fred by the shoulders pushing him over the guardrail and into the plastic shredder. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

Situation-3
John and Fred both work in a factory where one of the machines is used to shred plastic scrap. One day, John and Fred are joking around. They know they’d be in trouble if the boss found out, because “horseplay” is not allowed around the dangerous machinery they have at the factory. But they start pushing at one another, laughing all the while. One push by John happens right as Fred is standing by the guardrail in front of the shredder. Fred loses his balance and falls over the guardrail and into the plastic shredder. Fred dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin.

In each of the above examples, the end result is the same: Fred is dead and dies a terrible, violent death. The only thing left of Fred is bits of flesh, bone, and blood scattered throughout the shredded plastic scrap collection bin. But is each incident a case of murder?

In JonBenet’s death, she appeared to have been brutally and viciously attacked and murdered. But after arriving at what I believe actually happened, I can’t use the word murder to describe her death. I agree with Dr. Henry Lee in his assessment that it looked like a domestic accident. But that's JMO.

I could agree with you and Dr. Lee both, if it wasnt' for the reports of a period of time lapsing between the head bash and the strangulation. Enough of a time lapse that there was bleeding under the skull, and elsewhere, even though it was somewhat minimal to what it might have been. But I think I understand that a slower heartbeat due to the depth of unconsciousness that might have been in might have accounted for respiration and heartbeat slowing down?

No matter who was the one who applied the ligature to the point of strangulation, that indicated to me there was intent to end JB's life. No matter who was the one who, upon discovering JB in a near lifeless state, even if the ligature was already applied loosely around her neck, did not immediately call 911 or involve someone who would have, but went ahead and pulled that ligature tight enough to finalize her breathing, that said "intent" to me. But, that's JMO.

Sad and despicable thing is a beautiful young girl died needlessly, and no one has been brought accountable for it after 16 years. :furious:

 

[deca]

I could be wrong- but I thought if someone died while you were committing a felony- then it would be murder even if you didn't intend to kill them. If that is the case, wouldn't killing someone while you were committing felony child abuse be murder?
IDK- I guess a technicality.