Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[Bayareamom]

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

COMPLETELY agree with the above statement.

Yes, Lin Wood did his job during that deposition, which is what he is supposed to do for his client. To do otherwise, would be to disregard his oath as an attorney re: the representation of his clients.

Levin 'tried' to do his job, but was somewhat thwarted by Wood. Guess one could say that Wood had the upper hand with most of that deposition, at least from what I could glean when I read through the entirety of that thing, yesterday.

Believe it or not, I have true sympathy for the Boulder cops on this case. As Thomas stated, their attempts with just the basics re: investigatory issues such as acquiring certain phone records and/or receipts, were met with skid marks via the DA's office. I can't imagine how frustrating this must have been for the cops when they were simply trying to do their jobs. On the other hand, some of Eller's tactics come to mind as well. I didn't agree with some of his tactics, but hey...I guess he did what he felt he needed to do.

There was a fair share of incompetency ALL AROUND on this case, BOESP - NO ONE should get a pass on this one, from Alex Hunter, all the way down. Too much leaking of evidence and other factors with this case, to the media, can be blamed on all sides. Ethical boundaries were an issue all around - at some level.

In the end, all that ensued played into the hands of a very well off couple whose daughter was found murdered in their own home.

I'm sure lessons were learned here, by all involved.

 

[dodie20]

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.

Here's something to consider. Linda Arndt was one of the 1st people to study the Rs, so her opinions on JR, should carry a lot of weight. But, the last I read, she didn't seem quite as convinced? Did I misjudge her responses? Also, I mentioned in another thread that Kolar seemed to suspect BR, but was told he did not. He had simply laid out the evidence against all of the Rs. So, that leaves Steve Thomas's theory of PR being the perp. As far as I know, he has never back pedaled in his belief. So, even though it looks like all 3 came to different conclusions based on the same evidence, really, IMO, it looks like Steve Thomas is the only one who seems sure of his conclusions. moo

 

[Bayareamom]

JMHO, Dodie, but I didn't view Arndt's impressions as something I would have considered to have borne a lot of weight. Perhaps that sounds harsh, but my impressions of Arndt came off a little differently once I viewed her interview on Dateline (or whatever TV show she was on). I think Linda is a very good-hearted person and I believe that SHE believed, what she was saying re: JR's behavior. But you cannot judge someone's guilt or innocence by a LOOK. Linda said she looked into Ramsey's eyes and just KNEW he was the killer, but this was WAY before any sort of investigative work had been done.

Not a good thing for a detective to say, IMHO; not exactly an objective opinion. People do have varying degrees of emotional outlet when under severe forms of stress. Linda should have kept this 'opinion' to herself and and as a professional, allowed the evidence trail to lead where it led, presupposing any assumptions as to guilt.

If you had been accused of a crime, would you really want a detective involved with your case who claims to know one's innocence or guilt simply by a LOOK? I know I wouldn't.

I think you are correct re: the varying conclusions based on the same evidence at hand. I do believe that Thomas never, ever changed his conclusions after all these years. He still stands by them. Personally, I think of all the cops/detectives on this case - from what I've read - Thomas stands out as the one I most admire. I'm sure many of Boulder's finest performed fine jobs during the investigatory process, but Thomas really stands out in my mind.

This case took an enormous toll on all the individuals involved. It's very sad to see the way that it all ended.

 

[Bayareamom]

Dodie,

Just wanted to say that in assuming someone's guilt or innocence via a look they may give you, I started thinking of our little ones and/or even our pets. They can and do obviously give themselves away as to guilty behavior, with a simple look. I've seen this in my own home...it always cracked me up.

But in this type of a situation, this look issue as to guilt or innocence, is SO inappropriate, for any number of common sense reasons. There's a lot of nuance here, I know...

 

[BOESP]

Here's something to consider. Linda Arndt was one of the 1st people to study the Rs, so her opinions on JR, should carry a lot of weight. But, the last I read, she didn't seem quite as convinced? Did I misjudge her responses? Also, I mentioned in another thread that Kolar seemed to suspect BR, but was told he did not. He had simply laid out the evidence against all of the Rs. So, that leaves Steve Thomas's theory of PR being the perp. As far as I know, he has never back pedaled in his belief. So, even though it looks like all 3 came to different conclusions based on the same evidence, really, IMO, it looks like Steve Thomas is the only one who seems sure of his conclusions. moo

I pretty much agree with everything you said above Dodie. Also, Linda Arndt was a specialist in sex crimes, which gives her an edge in this case. I'm unaware of her current opinions. Wish she'd write a book.

I read Kolar's book. Based on that and what I've heard in his video interviews, I'm not sure what to think since he never directly states his viewpoint.

Based on studying the depositions, videos of the Ramseys, the autopsy report, and reading the major books (including Kolar), I think Thomas's theory makes the most sense.

Regardless, I can not fathom any reason being good enough for not getting emergency medical attention for JonBenet unless you are trying to evade the consequences of your actions for a child you think is already dead or dying.

 

[BOESP]

Dodie,

Just wanted to say that in assuming someone's guilt or innocence via a look they may give you, I started thinking of our little ones and/or even our pets. They can and do obviously give themselves away as to guilty behavior, with a simple look. I've seen this in my own home...it always cracked me up.

But in this type of a situation, this look issue as to guilt or innocence, is SO inappropriate, for any number of common sense reasons. There's a lot of nuance here, I know...

I think Arndt pulled together everything she had seen and heard up to the point John Ramsey brought JonBenet upstairs. I just assumed her wordage of looking him in the eye and just knowing was her particular way of speaking. The show where she said that was scripted so there had to be some kind of agreement beforehand about what to say and how to say it.

Also, while I agree Arndt made errors, she was there for hours for a kidnapping not a homicide and was told by brass to treat the Ramseys as victims, not suspects. Her specialized training probably guided her in making her assessment and we really don't know what all she did see and hear. Statistics are also on her side.

 

[Bayareamom]

I'm not BLAMING Arndt for drawing the conclusions that she did, necessarily, and absolutely - stats are on her side. But what I am saying is that, as a professional, she should have known better than to have made this sort of remark (as to John's guilt or innocence) simply by looking into John's face.

This is not appropriate and it wouldn't bode well ON RECORD, come a trial. This is BIAS, obviously. And even if this bias was borne out to be true, you cannot use this sort of bias in a court of law. Not and get away with it, at least.

Look, the DA had to have an unbiased police department investigating this case for him, BEFORE/IF he took this thing to court. Hunter had to ensure that ALL HOLES were PLUGGED as regards whatever way he decided as far as how he was going to present his case in trial, if it ever came to that.

So when you've got a police department ALREADY determined that this was NO INTRUDER case, then you've got issues re: the investigatory process.

You have GOT to keep an unbiased and open mind during the investigative process. Unfortunately, several folks on the 'intruder did it theory' side, and 'ONLY the parents could have done it,' side, had their noses so out of joint that they could not maintain an open and unbiased frame of reference during the investigation process.

This bias issue impinges on the legal tactics that Hunter would have needed to use, during a potential trial. And it was this very reason as to why Hunter hired Scheck and Lee; he needed unbiased, critical feedback as to the investigation process conducted by the Boulder police department.

He got it; he was not only told by Lee and Scheck that he didn't have a case, but he was told this by several employees within his own office as such.

The initial stages in the beginning of the investigatory crime scene was damaged beyond all repair, unfortunately. In the end, Hunter decided foregoing a trial, with the possibility that perhaps more evidence later on in the future might propel this thing to trial. The LAST thing Hunter would have wanted, given everything they'd been through with this thing, was to have ended up with a hung jury.

 

[Nom de plume]

JMHO, Dodie, but I didn't view Arndt's impressions as something I would have considered to have borne a lot of weight. Perhaps that sounds harsh, but my impressions of Arndt came off a little differently once I viewed her interview on Dateline (or whatever TV show she was on). I think Linda is a very good-hearted person and I believe that SHE believed, what she was saying re: JR's behavior. But you cannot judge someone's guilt or innocence by a LOOK. Linda said she looked into Ramsey's eyes and just KNEW he was the killer, but this was WAY before any sort of investigative work had been done.

Not a good thing for a detective to say, IMHO; not exactly an objective opinion. People do have varying degrees of emotional outlet when under severe forms of stress. Linda should have kept this 'opinion' to herself and and as a professional, allowed the evidence trail to lead where it led, presupposing any assumptions as to guilt.

If you had been accused of a crime, would you really want a detective involved with your case who claims to know one's innocence or guilt simply by a LOOK? I know I wouldn't.

I think you are correct re: the varying conclusions based on the same evidence at hand. I do believe that Thomas never, ever changed his conclusions after all these years. He still stands by them. Personally, I think of all the cops/detectives on this case - from what I've read - Thomas stands out as the one I most admire. I'm sure many of Boulder's finest performed fine jobs during the investigatory process, but Thomas really stands out in my mind.

This case took an enormous toll on all the individuals involved. It's very sad to see the way that it all ended.

I have to disagree with you about LA. I will admit, she comes off as a bit "intense" I guess is the best word I can use. Still, she was the one there observing behavior. As you have said yourself, we have to trust our instincts. I think that is exactly what she was doing. I don't believe she meant the look literally, but the gut instinct that look triggered in her. To my knowledge she didn't publicly state this until much later. The fact that she felt this way about John before any evidence had been collected (evidence that IMO points straight to him) tells me she has pretty good instincts, but that's JMO. I think any good detective learns to trust their instincts. She wasn't a rookie at the time, and while BPD didn't have much experience with homicides, I'm sure she had dealt with enough criminals of one sort or the other to have developed that instinct.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a detective forming an opinion as to my guilt or innocence based on my demeanor, behavior, statements, body language or facial expressions. I beleive guilt has a way of showing itself and if I'm innocent none of those things will show guilt. On the other hand, if I were guilty, it would worry me a lot!

Being employed by defense attorneys IIRC, your perspective is from that angle. My perspective is from the LE side of the aisle. I have three family members in LE. One Police Chief, one Sheriff, and one homicide detective, all with over 25 years of experience. They all say the same thing: It's not like TV. Typically, there's no huge mystery. In 99% of the cases they handle with known suspects, they know right away which suspect is the guilty party, because they give themselves away. It's either something they say, something they don't say that they should, questions they don't ask, knowledge only the guilty party would know, conflicting stories, changing stories, body language, and yes sometimes even a look. It doesn't mean that they don't investigate, or gather evidence, but they almost always know where that evidence is going to lead them from square one. They say the hardest thing they face is finding all the evidence needed to charge and convict the guilty party. With all the CSI type shows on TV juries want all kinds of DNA type evidence or they won't convict even when the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. All that being said, I realize that evidence is evidence, and it must be followed wherever it leads.

I would be willing to bet that every one of us here came to a pretty fast conclusion about who we thought was guilty. It's only human nature. Detectives are just human beings with the same instincts and tendencies as the rest of us. It was LA's opinion and gut instinct that John was the guilty party, and I can't fault her for having an opinion whether she's right or wrong.

 

[Bayareamom]

Nom,

I completely agree with EVERYTHING you've just said! Really! My 'angle' as it were, is from the DEFENDANT'S point of view, in a TRIAL. If I were on the Prosecutor's side, as Hunter would have been, you have GOT to have an unbiased as possible PRESENTATION of evidence, as you can have. Especially so with THIS case!

THAT'S where I'm coming from. Other than than, ABSOLUTELY - instincts DO count for a LOT, don't they. It's one thing, though, IMHO, to feel the way Arndt did, it's another to state that belief, openly, even given the time away from the case, at the time she made that very public statement.

Even though Linda made that comment some time down the line after the investigation had gone on ad nauseum, the fact is that this case IS STILL OPEN, so you really don't want to add an element of bias in case there is an upcoming trial looming in the future.

Of course, this case is so old by now, that I guess it really doesn't matter at this point. And just so you know, I disagreed with all those of whom wrote books and various articles on this case. As I've stated in prior comments, if I had MY way, I would disallow ANY evidence to be made public UNTIL a trial had commenced. I believe this is how they handle cases/trials in Britain, if memory serves.

To my way of thinking, this preserves the fundamental right TO ALL in maintaining true perception of innocence, prior to a pending trial.

 

[Bayareamom]

Also, one clarification. My issues with Linda's 'belief' or instincts as pertains to John's guilt or innocence, isn't because she USED her instincts. On the contrary, good detectives MUST use their instincts in the overall investigatory process.

But using those instincts and not knowing when to withhold those thoughts from public purview, is another issue.

So yes, Nom, I completely understand that behavioral traits play into the role that detectives must assess when commencing with investigatory work, but that wasn't my issue with Arndt.

 

[DeeDee249]

I pretty much agree with everything you said above Dodie. Also, Linda Arndt was a specialist in sex crimes, which gives her an edge in this case. I'm unaware of her current opinions. Wish she'd write a book.

I read Kolar's book. Based on that and what I've heard in his video interviews, I'm not sure what to think since he never directly states his viewpoint.

Based on studying the depositions, videos of the Ramseys, the autopsy report, and reading the major books (including Kolar), I think Thomas's theory makes the most sense.

Regardless, I can not fathom any reason being good enough for not getting emergency medical attention for JonBenet unless you are trying to evade the consequences of your actions for a child you think is already dead or dying.

Arndt specialized in rape and sexual assault cases, so she had a natural bias towards seeing women as victims of men's violence. That perhaps colored her opinions on whether Patsy was responsible in any way.
As for her book- she had stated she planned to write one and was saving a lot of her observations for that, I am sure- remember she also was present during the autopsy and saw/heard everything that the coroner did and said.
But she also sued her superiors at the BPD. claiming she was made a scapegoat for the failures of the BPD. I am pretty sure a settlement was reached, as there was no public resolution of this suit, and many times a settlement will include agreeing to not make public comments or write a book.
And your last sentence hit the nail on the head- for they are exactly the reasons why I believe help wasn't sought.

 

[wengr]

Imo Arndt got a raw deal. Sure in retrospect her actions were not ideal, but with benefit of hindsight the actions of many people were less than ideal. As to her moment with JR over the body, I give her opinions a good amount of weight. She was there, and she is trained to observe. I think however her observations led her to an understandable but in this case incorrect conclusion.
Imagine, being over the body, looking at the sole adult male resident who has just "discovered" the body and realizing that he has been lying to you all day. It only makes sense that she would consider him as the perpetrator. I suspect it simply and quite understandably did not occur to her that he could be lying and also actually not have been the killer.

 

[BOESP]

Why isn't it possible that Patsy Ramsey struck at her husband when she found him assaulting Jon Benet, and unintentionally hit the little girl causing the head injury..? This would have given John Ramsey the opportunity to tell Patsy that she had killed the child, and would have given her the motivation to write the ransom note. He then realized the child was still alive and strangled her after Patsy went upstairs.

This sounds logical and fits the information available to the public. It fits statistically too.

The one thing that doesn't quite fit is the suppressed Grand Jury indictment (if given correctly in the news). Would Patsy have been suspect because she had guilty knowledge or suspicion of what was going on yet she chose not to report it?

You recommended James Kolar's book in another thread here, saying that book is the best on this case in your opinion. Some think he favored Burke as abusing and/or killing JonBenet, so that does not fit with your above thoughts. Was Kolar trying to tell us that Burke was abused and Burke could, if he so chose to do so, file charges against his abuser?

 

[dodie20]

Imo Arndt got a raw deal. Sure in retrospect her actions were not ideal, but with benefit of hindsight the actions of many people were less than ideal. As to her moment with JR over the body, I give her opinions a good amount of weight. She was there, and she is trained to observe. I think however her observations led her to an understandable but in this case incorrect conclusion.
Imagine, being over the body, looking at the sole adult male resident who has just "discovered" the body and realizing that he has been lying to you all day. It only makes sense that she would consider him as the perpetrator. I suspect it simply and quite understandably did not occur to her that he could be lying and also actually not have been the killer.

Right. I give her credit for her instincts. She knew JR wasn't a surprised, devastated father. Something was wrong with him, she understood it, and she reacted to it. As far as PR was concerned, I do believe Arndt was with JR at the critical moments, so her judgment of PR wasn't as honed in. In other words, PR wasn't in her face. But, how could she understand that maybe both parents were responsible? or all 3 of the family members? or that there was staging within staging? What she based her opinions on, came from what she witnessed. And what she witnessed, was JR bringing his murdered daughter up from the basement. moo

 

[UKGuy]

Imo Arndt got a raw deal. Sure in retrospect her actions were not ideal, but with benefit of hindsight the actions of many people were less than ideal. As to her moment with JR over the body, I give her opinions a good amount of weight. She was there, and she is trained to observe. I think however her observations led her to an understandable but in this case incorrect conclusion.
Imagine, being over the body, looking at the sole adult male resident who has just "discovered" the body and realizing that he has been lying to you all day. It only makes sense that she would consider him as the perpetrator. I suspect it simply and quite understandably did not occur to her that he could be lying and also actually not have been the killer.

wengr,
I agree. Also we do not know if when LA befriended Patsy if she was working for the BPD. BPD employed numerous tactics to catch the Ramsey's out, hidden microphones, cameras etc.

Linda Arndt, given her specialized training, would have known immediately that the killer finds the body in the majority of cases. Its no wonder she considered JR a prime suspect.

Two women who had training relating to sexual abuse have both been banned from disclosing information regarding JonBenet's murder. Coincidence or design?


.

 

[ukrberserker]

Sad to say, half the people in this case. BR was having fun with sis. I think JR caught them at it also, and had his go at her too. PR and her corporal cleansing, possibly DS at the Christmas party. JAR may have had a go at her on one of his weekends home from college, that would explain the semen stained blanket in the suitcase. Seems she was passed around to a lot of people. Guess it was a family tradition.

 

[midwest mama]

Sad to say, half the people in this case. BR was having fun with sis. I think JR caught them at it also, and had his go at her too. PR and her corporal cleansing, possibly DS at the Christmas party. JAR may have had a go at her on one of his weekends home from college, that would explain the semen stained blanket in the suitcase. Seems she was passed around to a lot of people. Guess it was a family tradition.

The highest percentage of votes in this poll go to JR. This takes the term of "molestation" (with regard to JR) into the realm of pedophilia. Interesting also is the wide circle of agreement that JB's murder was a sexual crime.

There are several well-known cases of pedophile crimes where additional family members are known to be perpetrators. It is also a fact that families that are keen on pedophilia tend to marry others within the family structure - not necessarily relatives, but sometimes in-laws.

Hmmm, JR gets most votes of who molested/abused JB, a child whose murder was said to be a sexual crime, and whose father married his mother-in-law, who had a son who exhibited encropresis, and another son whose semen-stained comforter was found along with a Dr. Seuss book in a suitcase he used going back and forth to college.

The same JR whose oldest daughter was rumored to have attempted suicide after telling people about memories linked to be abused during satanic rituals, and then tragically dies in an accident, leaving behind a father who was so saddened by her death for so long, that he admitted to using presciption medications afterward and up until the death of JB, while also admitting that he also still had periods of weeping sorrowfully at losing the daughter whose photo collage was in his bathroom, and who said that JB was a gift - a "replacement" for Beth, IIRC.

OMG, the total sickness and dysfunction that was in that family. :moo:

 

[jujube]

The highest percentage of votes in this poll go to JR. This takes the term of "molestation" (with regard to JR) into the realm of pedophilia. Interesting also is the wide circle of agreement that JB's murder was a sexual crime.

There are several well-known cases of pedophile crimes where additional family members are known to be perpetrators. It is also a fact that families that are keen on pedophilia tend to marry others within the family structure - not necessarily relatives, but sometimes in-laws.

Hmmm, JR gets most votes of who molested/abused JB, a child whose murder was said to be a sexual crime, and whose father married his mother-in-law, who had a son who exhibited encropresis, and another son whose semen-stained comforter was found along with a Dr. Seuss book in a suitcase he used going back and forth to college.

The same JR whose oldest daughter was rumored to have attempted suicide after telling people about memories linked to be abused during satanic rituals, and then tragically dies in an accident, leaving behind a father who was so saddened by her death for so long, that he admitted to using presciption medications afterward and up until the death of JB, while also admitting that he also still had periods of weeping sorrowfully at losing the daughter whose photo collage was in his bathroom, and who said that JB was a gift - a "replacement" for Beth, IIRC.

OMG, the total sickness and dysfunction that was in that family. :moo:

It's such a coincidence that you posted this because Patsy's dad always set off my hinky meter. I saw him in various home videos and my internal alarm would sound. Also, the way Patsy defended her family was overkill which made me think that she had a family secret.
This is only my opinion.

 

[UKGuy]

It's such a coincidence that you posted this because Patsy's dad always set off my hinky meter. I saw him in various home videos and my internal alarm would sound. Also, the way Patsy defended her family was overkill which made me think that she had a family secret.
This is only my opinion.

jujube,
Any journalist worth their salt, would recognize right away that what really makes the JonBenet case so popular is not her death, but the incestuous theme that runs through nearly every theory published.

.

 

[Nom de plume]

jujube,
Any journalist worth their salt, would recognize right away that what really makes the JonBenet case so popular is not her death, but the incestuous theme that runs through nearly every theory published.

.

I think the first thing that caught everyone's attention was how beautiful she was, and that she was in pageants. The 90's didn't have Honey BooBoo, etc. Then there's the fact that it happened in "Perfect Town". The ridiculous story of an intruder, and the fact that is was so transparent added to the mystery. Toss in the incest/molestation/ongoing abuse factor and it's the crime of the century. (Or one of the top 5 anyway.)