Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[madeleine]

amazing

J. RAMSEY: We think it was a pedophile, we think it was a male. There are several key pieces of evidence that we think will lead us to the killer, male, pedophile.
---
KING: If it was a pedophile, was your daughter sexually abused?

P. RAMSEY: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that.

J. RAMSEY: We don't know.
-----
KING: Have you talked to them about -- do they send you the autopsy reports?

J. RAMSEY: No, no.

P. RAMSEY: No.
-----
KING: But they haven't told you anything about -- you have not seen the death certificate?

J. RAMSEY: No.

P. RAMSEY: No.

-----
KING: But you don't know if any sexual activity took place?

J. RAMSEY: It's not clear to me that there was. We don't know. It's one of those questions you don't want to know the answer to, frankly.



--------------

read this interview a few times.....the more you read the more ridiculous it sounds and it IS

it was a pedophile but no,she wasn't sexually assaulted ...
this entire interview is just SPIN

 

[questfortrue]

If one accepts the BDI theory, it’s been my thought that the staging covered 2 issues they faced:

1) BR being taken away.
2) Discovery of prior sexual abuse by one of the grown-ups.

Some people have pointed to the fact that JR had no history of molestation. (At least, noone in the prior family reported it.) This is not necessarily been proven one way or another. Also, incest used to be thought of as a subcategory of pedophilia. Now, some believe it to be major sign of familial disfunction.

What led me to believe JR had perpetrated abuse on JB was a photo I saw of her. http://www.myspace.com/jonbenetramsey_love/photos/11602228#{"ImageId":11602226} If she had been just playing “doctor” games with her brother, would there have been so definite a portrayal of “grown-up” knowledge in her face? MOO. Some think this was attributable to PR “sexualizing” her. Also, JB freely went into her brother’s room to sleep after she had wet the bed. She had another bed in her own room. It speaks of a trust between JB and BR.

Lastly, JR’s reaction in the interview to the prior vaginal trauma is very telling:
It seems to me that JR “disappears” like the Cheshire cat, leaving only his façade/words, hiding the rest of the substance of what he thinks or feels when questioned about this vaginal abuse. His statement “I don’t understand or read anything about it (abuse),” because there are certain facts he can’t bear to know. And, he knows nothing about the treatment for vaginitis; according to JR, that was all PR’s domain.

A lot of fathers would have responded with absolute outrage over the thought of someone violating their young daughter. Where is the outrage?

 

[Darlene733510]

We all pray that this case will one day be re-opened. If it is, I think that JR, BR, and their
attorneys will somehow make PR the scapegoat. She is gone and there is no person to defend her. We can only hope that there is evidence we don't know about, and people who would have the courage to come forward, so that we will finally have justice for JBR. I think AH kept a lot of evidence from the GJ, and by doing that he said the case could not be tried.
At least the GJ said both parents were guilty, and for this reason I think we should have a new GJ hear the case, with all the evidence withheld by AH.

 

[UKGuy]

If one accepts the BDI theory, it’s been my thought that the staging covered 2 issues they faced:

1) BR being taken away.
2) Discovery of prior sexual abuse by one of the grown-ups.

Some people have pointed to the fact that JR had no history of molestation. (At least, noone in the prior family reported it.) This is not necessarily been proven one way or another. Also, incest used to be thought of as a subcategory of pedophilia. Now, some believe it to be major sign of familial disfunction.

What led me to believe JR had perpetrated abuse on JB was a photo I saw of her. http://www.myspace.com/jonbenetramsey_love/photos/11602228#{"ImageId":11602226} If she had been just playing “doctor” games with her brother, would there have been so definite a portrayal of “grown-up” knowledge in her face? MOO. Some think this was attributable to PR “sexualizing” her. Also, JB freely went into her brother’s room to sleep after she had wet the bed. She had another bed in her own room. It speaks of a trust between JB and BR.

Lastly, JR’s reaction in the interview to the prior vaginal trauma is very telling:
It seems to me that JR “disappears” like the Cheshire cat, leaving only his façade/words, hiding the rest of the substance of what he thinks or feels when questioned about this vaginal abuse. His statement “I don’t understand or read anything about it (abuse),” because there are certain facts he can’t bear to know. And, he knows nothing about the treatment for vaginitis; according to JR, that was all PR’s domain.

A lot of fathers would have responded with absolute outrage over the thought of someone violating their young daughter. Where is the outrage?

questfortrue,
Well nobody in the Ramsey household had any history of molestation. Yet JonBenet was sexually assaulted and it is alleged there is evidence of chronic abuse, i.e. erosion.

Assessing the opinions and speculation aired on WS, I reckon it was either JR or BR or both, albeit at different times.

An outside runner is PDI, but she does not have a coherent story to tell, and falls down on critical evidence. She appears not to know JonBenet was dressed in the size-12's.

Considering the forensic evidence: Patsy's fibers were found on the ligature and on the underside of the duct-tape. JR's shirt fibers were found on JonBenet lower torso. This seems to suggest both JR and PR played a role in staging the wine-cellar crime-scene.

Would a mother kill her own daughter to assist only the father, or are both parents assisting BR?

BR is linked to the fake crime-scene because his touch-dna is on the Pink Barbie Nightgown, along with a bloodstain determined to be JonBenet's.

So if the Barbie Nightgown played no role in the death of JonBenet, why is BR's touch-dna on it? Some even think the Nightgown arrived in the wine-cellar accidentally.

This leaves open the possibility that BR removed the Pink Barbie Nightgown from JonBenet, possibly redressing her, i.e. size-12 underwear.

James Kolar has not told us if BR's touch-dna was not found on the size-12's, or actually that of any other Ramsey. You might expect to see PR's touch-dna on the size-12's, but I do not think she redressed JonBenet. So that leaves JR, is his touch-dna absent? Does Kolar address this issue?

Finding unknown touch-dna on crime-scene artifacts is not quite the same as telling us, no Ramsey touch-dna was found at the crime-scene.

Was BR's pajamas dna tested, how about his bedsheets, were there any fibers common to BR found on JonBenet' size-12's?

Presumably BR would know where to find the size-12's and the longjohns, or was it the pink pajama bottoms which became bloodstained by blood seeping from JonBenet, so had to be removed, along with the rest of the underwear?

Was it JR who redressed JonBenet in the longjohns, wiping away blood using his black shirt, thereby leaving fibers?

What is the status of the pants found lying on the floor in JonBenet's bedroom, do they belong to BR or JonBenet? There is another pair lying on the bathroom floor.

BDI would allow multiple staging to take place as each of the Ramsey's fixed what they think are mistakes commited by others. Leaving the forensic trail we see, and account for any one of the Ramsey's not knowing the full story, except for the Kidnap Scenario.

Also if BR is not involved why did the parents enlist him in their staging, telling to return to bed and fake being asleep?

Then approximately one hour after the 911 call, BR is relocated to Fleet White's house. Here I'm assuming only BR knows he was wide awake, so he plays his role out, and slowly fades from view.


So it appears all three Ramsey's were involved in staging the death of JonBenet. The central question now is: why was BR recruited, this seems to contradict any notion that he was relocated so to avoid him becoming embroiled in the investigative aftermath?


Summarising:

1. BR was taken away, but to the White's.

2. The sexual assault was hidden to make the staging appear consistent with a bedside kidnapping.



.

 

[Bayareamom]

I'm just finishing up re-reading PMPT. In all my readings of late, I have not yet read (or maybe I did and I just don't remember) that John's shirt fibers were found on the inside of JonBenet's size 12's. Did this information come out during a report made public? Source please?

Just for the record, I DO believe those of you that state the above is FACT, but I've not read this anywhere for some reason...

 

[Nom de plume]

We all pray that this case will one day be re-opened. If it is, I think that JR, BR, and their
attorneys will somehow make PR the scapegoat. She is gone and there is no person to defend her. We can only hope that there is evidence we don't know about, and people who would have the courage to come forward, so that we will finally have justice for JBR. I think AH kept a lot of evidence from the GJ, and by doing that he said the case could not be tried.
At least the GJ said both parents were guilty, and for this reason I think we should have a new GJ hear the case, with all the evidence withheld by AH.

:goodpost: Darlene!

 

[UKGuy]

I'm just finishing up re-reading PMPT. In all my readings of late, I have not yet read (or maybe I did and I just don't remember) that John's shirt fibers were found on the inside of JonBenet's size 12's. Did this information come out during a report made public? Source please?

Just for the record, I DO believe those of you that state the above is FACT, but I've not read this anywhere for some reason...

Bayareamom,
The fibers are cited by a witness during the autopsy and as Coroner Meyers verbatim remarks. This is up on acandyrose.com on one of the search warrants.

Also during an interview JR is asked why his fibers should have been found where alleged.

Fiber analysis by BPD match them to JR's Israeli manufactured shirt.

That the fibers actually originate from JR's shirt is contested by JR and LW.


.

 

[BOESP]

Here you go, Bayareamom. This is from a John Ramsey interview/depo in Atlanta, August 2000:

21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is
22 our belief based on forensic evidence that
23 there are hairs that are associated, that the
24 source is the collared black shirt that you
25 sent us that are found in your daughter's
0058
1 underpants, and I wondered if you --
2 A. ********. I don't believe that.
3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to
4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to
6 disgrace --
7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I
8 think you are. That's disgusting.
9 MR. WOOD: I think you --
10 MR. LEVIN: I am not.


You can find the entire deposition here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/2000ATL-John-Interview-Complete.htm

 

[Bayareamom]

Wow! Thank you for your responses. I'll have to look this up (and read through this particular deposition all the way thru).

 

[Bayareamom]

"21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is
22 our belief based on forensic evidence that
23 there are hairs that are associated, that the
24 source is the collared black shirt that you
25 sent us that are found in your daughter's
0058
1 underpants, and I wondered if you --
2 A. ********. I don't believe that.
3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to
4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to
6 disgrace --
7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I
8 think you are. That's disgusting.
9 MR. WOOD: I think you --
10 MR. LEVIN: I am not.
11 MR. WOOD: Yes, you are.
12 MR. LEVIN: And the follow-up
13 question would be --
14 MR. WOOD: Posing the question in
15 light of what I said to you yesterday is
16 nothing more than an attempt to make a
17 record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a
18 disgusting fashion points what you might
19 consider to be some finger of blame at this
20 man regarding his daughter, and you ought to
21 be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce.
22 You knew we weren't going to
23 answer the question. Why don't you just
24 give us the report, and we'll put it out
25 there for someone to look at and tell us
0059
1 what it says and see how fair and accurate
2 you have been.


QUESTION: HAS the above fiber evidence allegedly found in JonBenet's underwear the police were speaking about, been officially verified as fact? I'm not seeing this. I am seeing that the police have 'stated' that these fibers were found, but I've not seen any official report as stating this as FACT.

 

[Bayareamom]

Because again, Mr. Levin is stating it is THEIR BELIEF based on forensic evidence, that the source is the collared black shirt that was sent to them.

That's a little different than stating this is FACT and then showing the official report to Wood. I can certainly understand Wood's position with this issue. If this belief is based on FACT, let's see the official forensics report.

So - question: Where is the official report re: the above? Anyone?

 

[BOESP]

Bruce Levin was a lawyer with the DA's office, not a police officer. I'm not sure about disclosure laws in Colorado but I seriously doubt this was a smoke and mirrors question. I also doubt if the forensic report is available to the general public.

 

[Bayareamom]

Yes, but BOESP, this alleged fiber issue re: John's shirt cannot therefore (in my own mind) be information that is considered factual. If I were Ramsey's attorney, just as Lin Wood did, I would have stated that if you want my client to respond to this info., give us a copy of said report.

They wouldn't do that, for whatever reason.

So - to me - this information lies within the realm of probability, NOT based on fact.

I don't believe Kolar brought this up in his book, at least, I don't recall reading it. Has this information about fibers from Ramsey's shirt been stated anywhere else in any other writings? I have read just about every 'major' book on this case and other than in this deposition, I've not seen this information anywhere else.

 

[BOESP]

Yes, but BOESP, this alleged fiber issue re: John's shirt cannot therefore (in my own mind) be information that is considered factual. If I were Ramsey's attorney, just as Lin Wood did, I would have stated that if you want my client to respond to this info., give us a copy of said report.

They wouldn't do that, for whatever reason.

So - to me - this information lies within the realm of probability, NOT based on fact.

I don't believe Kolar brought this up in his book, at least, I don't recall reading it. Has this information about fibers from Ramsey's shirt been stated anywhere else in any other writings? I have read just about every 'major' book on this case and other than in this deposition, I've not seen this information anywhere else.

I know Wendy Murphy has publicly commented on the black fibers.

Based on the above deposition, we don't know whether eventually the report was turned over to Lin Wood or not and Wood didn't state that he would let Ramsey answer the question even if the forensic report was submitted. He blustered that the defense team would send any such report out to whomever to be looked at.

Again, I have no clue about Colorado law but I find John Ramsey's responses, on the whole, as totally off the wall for someone being interviewed about his daughter's death. Most fathers are begging to be asked the hard questions so the investigation can move on (if the father has no guilty knowledge). Ramsey comes across as defensive in a guilty kind of way and the Grand Jury did vote to indict him and Patsy and that fact was, more or less, kept under the table.

I think we have differing viewpoints, prosecutorial vs defensive.

 

[UKGuy]

Because again, Mr. Levin is stating it is THEIR BELIEF based on forensic evidence, that the source is the collared black shirt that was sent to them.

That's a little different than stating this is FACT and then showing the official report to Wood. I can certainly understand Wood's position with this issue. If this belief is based on FACT, let's see the official forensics report.

So - question: Where is the official report re: the above? Anyone?

Bayareamom,
Absence of evidence is not proof none exists. Why would BPD make such a claim, particularly if it was incorrect and addressed to the person alleged to have worn the shirt?

JR would knew whether BPD are correct in their belief, which they base on forensic evidence, and him on personal experience.

PR's fibers were also found on JonBenet, and entwined into the knotting on the ligature.

I predict BR's fibers will pop up in some unexpected location.

We also do not know where other fibers were found or touch-dna was deposited. There simply comes a point where the totality of what is circumstantial evidence presents a prima facie case.

James Kolar is obviously bound by Colorado and BPD disclosure laws, since some of the more important forensic evidence, whch although we have never seen it, can presume exists, since tests on other items have never been revealed. e.g. Ramsey touch-dna on the size-12's or longjohns, i.e. is it present, if so why, if it is absent, how does PR's version of events then stand up? Also is JonBenet's touch-dna on the size-12's where you would expect it?


.

 

[madeleine]

Also is JonBenet's touch-dna on the size-12's where you would expect it?


.

If JB put those huge panties on by herself like PR claims then JB's touch DNA MUST be on it,right?If it's not then they got a problem,but in this case they will probably claim the intruder changed her panties ...

 

[UKGuy]

If JB put those huge panties on by herself like PR claims then JB's touch DNA MUST be on it,right?If it's not then they got a problem,but in this case they will probably claim the intruder changed her panties ...

madeleine,
Well they have to make some claim about the intruder, but according to the Ramsey version of events, JonBenet dressed herself in those size-12's, neither JR or BR's touch-dna should be on those size-12's, to date this information has never been revealed.

In theory both JonBenet's and Patsy's touch-dna can be on those size-12's. JR's should not, he has already rubbished any fiber link from his shirt, so if JR's touch-dna is on the size-12's, then its game over for him. He has a defense but if the fiber evidence stands up then he is on weak ground.

If Patsy's touch-dna is not on those size-12's or in minimal amounts on the longjohns then the JR conspiracy comes into play.


.

 

[BOESP]

Because again, Mr. Levin is stating it is THEIR BELIEF based on forensic evidence, that the source is the collared black shirt that was sent to them.

That's a little different than stating this is FACT and then showing the official report to Wood. I can certainly understand Wood's position with this issue. If this belief is based on FACT, let's see the official forensics report.

So - question: Where is the official report re: the above? Anyone?

Bayareamom, I was half asleep when responding last night. First, let me say that I didn't post the link because I wanted to defend (or offend) anyone. I was replying to your request for more information. I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything.

I think I mentioned that I am not familiar with Colorado law, however, the deposition was taken in Georgia. Also, I suspect that Georgia law is very similar to Kentucky law (where I live) when it comes to standards of evidence. If so, in Kentucky, a deposition is a sworn document for use in court. In Kentucky, that means no intentional distortion of the facts are allowed.

 

[Bayareamom]

I was a little sleepy as well, so please accept my apologies for thinking that you possibly felt this deposition somehow proved the 'fact' that John's fibers were found on the inside waistband on JonBenet's size 12's.

On the other hand, here is what I've just read in PMPT last night and thought I would pass it on:

I am at the point in the book which discusses the police department's presentation before the DA's office re: their case findings. This presentation was conducted at the point in time in which the decision would be made to either take the case to trial, or take the findings, etc., before a Grand Jury.

Dr. Henry Lee and Barry Scheck attended this presentation. I believe it was after Steve Thomas' portion of the presentation - concerning DNA evidence - that Scheck made the following statement (some of this is paraphrased):

"You can't have your cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, you state that the DNA evidence is weak. But on the other, you state that the DNA evidence has exonerated all these people."

Lee and Scheck were there to view, with a critical eye, the presentation of the Boulder Police Department. Lee and Scheck viewed this presentation from the perspective from the defendant's point of view.

I recently read a comment on another thread, wherein I essentially got somewhat called on the carpet for stating that the Ramsey Team was simply doing its JOB re: its clients. BELIEVE ME, I do understand the frustration when it does appear as though someone (one or both of the Ramseys) got away with murder (and just so you all know, I DO feel this way. From what I've read and understand, I do believe that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter and both she and John participated in the cover up at some point).

But having said that, as much as I feel the frustration on so many people's part re: this case, when I stated that the police department DID NOT DO ITS JOB with the forensic evidence, etc., on this case...

....this is a fact, not some biased interpretation of the evidence at hand.

That crime scene was botched from the very beginning, i.e., too many folks allowed into that home, John and Fleet being allowed to walk through that home, etc., parents not being separated and questioned the day that JonBenet's body was found, clothing worn the night before and the day after not being handed over, etc., so forth. The Boulder Police Department had what - perhaps only 11 homicides under its belt at the time of JonBenet's murder. Even cops who have loads of homicide investigation experience - say in Los Angeles - can lose a case, as in the OJ Simpson trial debacle.

A critical ear and eye were what Lee and Scheck provided during that presentation and they gave the police department personnel an earful when the presentation was over. They poked holes into the department's presentation, which is what they NEEDED to do because those same holes would be exposed during a trial.

Sorry to say, the Boulder cops DIDN'T HAVE A CASE; the DNA evidence was too weak in many cases and opportunities were missed re: forensics evidence in those very first few moments after that 911 call came in from Patsy.

That 'fact' about John Ramsey's shirt fibers having been found on the inside of JonBenet's panties is not based on any official report as far as I can tell.

Dr. Henry Lee stated (PMPT) he did not believe the fibers from Patsy's jacket were AN EXACT MATCH on that duct tape, as the police wanted them to accept during their presentation. There were too many ways, according to Lee, those fibers could have found their way onto that tape (transference from fibers on the blanket onto the tape). Additionally, those fibers could have possibly been from another garment, etc.

Remember - Levin stated to John Ramsey during that deposition that it was the police department's BELIEF that the fibers found on the inside of the size 12's were from John's high collared black shirt. BELIEF, NOT FACT. I actually DO see that this was perhaps a smoke and mirror question/statement provided to John during that deposition (and I don't believe they received the response from John they were perhaps hoping for, either).

 

[BOESP]

Well, Lin Wood did his job and a good one at that. What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander. I see JonBenet as the victim, not John Ramsey. I see it as Bruce Levin having tried to do a good job too.

I can't imagine the courts allowing a deposition to be entered if it was built on underhandedness. We discussed this here years ago about who was allowed to lie or stretch the truth in interviews, interrogations and depositions. Best I remember Colorado doesn't accept falsehoods from lawyers. Seems like someone here mentioned that a lawyer caught doing that could be disbarred. However, police interrogators were allowed more leeway but not under oath.

Dr. Henry Lee's specialty is blood-spatter evidence, not fiber analysis. He isn't my favorite "expert" either, especially after seeing his version of events in the Michael Peterson case.

I lean toward Patsy too. I also know that the police always get blamed when a case has problems and especially if the SODDI defense won't fly. Regardless, Linda Arndt, James Kolar and Steve Thomas each came to a different conclusion based on, mainly, the same evidence. Calling them incompetent whether nicely, directly, or backhandedly doesn't make the Ramseys innocent, imo. Seems to me that three cops each concluding a Ramsey did it should speak volumes.

The DA's office is what kept the adult Ramseys from being prosecuted and after a Grand Jury indictment at that.