Who molested/abused Jonbenet?

[dodie20]

BR was sound asleep.

Which is why you heard his voice early next morning on the 911 call saying "what did you find?".

Proof positive he hadn't been schooled, or involved at any stage, in my opinion.

:cow:

I'm not sure he was sound asleep, but I doubt he was in the middle of all the commotion. Didn't he admit to hearing voices and the house creak at some point? And then he said he faked sleep that morning. IMO, it sounds like he knew something was going on but decided to stay in his room. If that was his voice on the 911, his questions point away from him knowing a thing. He wouldn't have had to ask what they found.

 

[madeleine]

Unless the person had on gloves I'd expect the DNA of whomever put the ligature on JonBenet to be on the rope. I have no idea if the rope has been tested for DNA. We do know it has been publicly reported that many fibers found entwined in in the ligature were consistent with fibers from the jacket Patsy wore to the White's Christmas party.

I wouldn't assume anything about Patsy wearing gloves or not. Somewhere I read that latex gloves were found (iirc) in the bathroom adjoining the bedroom across the hall from JonBenet's bedroom. I believe Patsy stated she had used them either the 24th or 25th when she colored her hair. (See post #517 at Knowing all you know today about this case who do you think really killed JonBenet? - Page 21 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community)

I just know that Steve Thomas stated he believed Patsy was the responsible and he believed the trauma (or at least some of it) came when Patsy subjected JonBenet to some form of corporal cleansing. The ligature has to fit into his theory somewhere. I may be all wet but I see it as logical the rope could have been used as a restraint device in some manner.

Maybe that's why the basement was chosen,so JB won't be heard by BR and JR?
But I am thinking,if JB wet the bed and went to tell PR..JR would have woken up?

 

[madeleine]

I have my JDI alone/PDI alone theories but they were probably both involved somehow.I mean,yeah,I could understand lying to police to protect your partner but they didn't stop here,they went on national TV and backed each other up,this is different IMO and it tells me they are both GUILTY.They just don't act like one is the guilty party and the other one was just collateral damage because he/she found out the truth too late.

 

[bayouland]

I have always wondered if the "cleansing" was PR's sick thinking that she might be able to advance the maturity of JonBenet and give her an advantage in pageantry.....

I can't believe I just posted this....I can't help it, winning was everything to PR.

 

[Chelly]

BR was sound asleep.

Which is why you heard his voice early next morning on the 911 call saying "what did you find?".

Proof positive he hadn't been schooled, or involved at any stage, in my opinion.

:cow:

Perhaps BR was involved before he went to sleep.

 

[tiredblondy]

It's time JR tells the truth. I have always suspected PR. I'm sure she gave both children enemas and didn't she give JBR douches? I don't know for sure but I think she was the abuser and JR ignored it as long as possible. I think she had some mental problems. If JR wants to vindicate BR it's time he told the truth, otherwise this is going to haunt BR all his life. Just my opinion!

 

[cattlekate]

NO ONE molested Jon Benet! It was just her picking at herself to help with her constipation. She was constipated because of her mom's anxiety genetics and her mom's busy schedule for Jon Benet to be "perfect." She wet the bed because her filled-up colon was pressing against her bladder. She picked at herself in all areas to try to help the constipation issue. No one sexually molested Jon Benet EXCEPT Patsy in her delusional psychosis after her killing her child. JMHO.

 

[lawstudent]

The most logical thing to me would be Patsy bizarrely douching her due to the chronic incontinence. Patsy being obsessive about her hygiene etc. and having mental health issues. That would be why she kept minimizing the molestation - she knew she'd caused damaged, and didn't want to admit to it, but wanted to explain it away because it was such an awful thought - so just "minor damage". Maybe there never was molestation - that'd make the case much easier IMO. The sexual element of this crime confuses me.

 

[FrayedKnot]

I'm sorry, but fecal and bladder incontinence at the age of 6, combined with her alleged (by friends and family members) hyper sexuality just SCREAM sexual abuse.

And then there's her murder which just amplifies all of it.

WHO did it? iDK. But I have had strong feelings about all three of the surviving Ramseys who lived in that house.

A six year old who who wets and soils her clothing and linens to the point she wear pullups is NOT NORMAL. Sorry, but it's not.

 

[ElleElle]

madeleine,
The masking of any sexual assault is a big clue. Consider JonBenet's homicide as the real deal e.g. intruder makes an unseen entrance into the Ramsey household, enters JonBenet's room, sexually assaults her, then strangles her using some cord he brought for that purpose. Then he thinks I'll need some time to return back to base so I'll hide the body in the basement, and write a bogus ransom note, this should give me a few extra hours to shower and burn my clothing etc etc.

But JonBenet is found secluded in the wine-cellar redressed in clean size-12 underwear underneath a pair of white longjohns.

No psychopath is going to bother redressing and wiping down JonBenet. The sexual assault is the last thing on his mind, he knows that will be discovered, because he knows there will be a post-mortem investigation, so hiding it is redundant!

Now a corroborating piece of evidence is the Ramsey testimony. They say changed JonBenet's clothing upon return from the White's.

They placed the longjohns on her, which indirectly suggests hiding her genital injuries was very important to the person conducting the wine-cellar staging.

Otherwise she could have been left as per the former psychpathic scenario, e.g. bottomless and obviously injured.

In an alleged RDI someone chose to mask the injury and incorporate dressing JonBenet in the longjohns as part of their version of events the night before.

But the size-12's gave the game away, big time, so much so the Ramsey's found the remaining size-12's in a packing crate at a much later date. Even they knew how important the size-12's were.

So its entirely possible that PR killed JonBenet as per Steve Thomas' theory, but that JR has something that requires to be hidden, so he amends Patsy's preferred staging to one that suits his agenda?

Yet from memory Coroner Meyer explicitly said that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted prior to her death e.g. not merely vigorously cleansed?


.

Excellent informative post! :seeya:

BBM~ Why is the "size 12" important to the scenarios you are proposing?

I followed this case and read the book, but not this deeply. TIA.

 

[Linda7NJ]

madeleine,
The masking of any sexual assault is a big clue. Consider JonBenet's homicide as the real deal e.g. intruder makes an unseen entrance into the Ramsey household, enters JonBenet's room, sexually assaults her, then strangles her using some cord he brought for that purpose. Then he thinks I'll need some time to return back to base so I'll hide the body in the basement, and write a bogus ransom note, this should give me a few extra hours to shower and burn my clothing etc etc.

But JonBenet is found secluded in the wine-cellar redressed in clean size-12 underwear underneath a pair of white longjohns.

No psychopath is going to bother redressing and wiping down JonBenet. The sexual assault is the last thing on his mind, he knows that will be discovered, because he knows there will be a post-mortem investigation, so hiding it is redundant!

Now a corroborating piece of evidence is the Ramsey testimony. They say changed JonBenet's clothing upon return from the White's.

They placed the longjohns on her, which indirectly suggests hiding her genital injuries was very important to the person conducting the wine-cellar staging.

Otherwise she could have been left as per the former psychpathic scenario, e.g. bottomless and obviously injured.

In an alleged RDI someone chose to mask the injury and incorporate dressing JonBenet in the longjohns as part of their version of events the night before.

But the size-12's gave the game away, big time, so much so the Ramsey's found the remaining size-12's in a packing crate at a much later date. Even they knew how important the size-12's were.

So its entirely possible that PR killed JonBenet as per Steve Thomas' theory, but that JR has something that requires to be hidden, so he amends Patsy's preferred staging to one that suits his agenda?

Yet from memory Coroner Meyer explicitly said that JonBenet had been sexually assaulted prior to her death e.g. not merely vigorously cleansed?


.

Excellent post!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[ElleElle]

I'm sorry, but fecal and bladder incontinence at the age of 6, combined with her alleged (by friends and family members) hyper sexuality just SCREAM sexual abuse.

And then there's her murder which just amplifies all of it.

WHO did it? iDK. But I have had strong feelings about all three of the surviving Ramseys who lived in that house.

A six year old who who wets and soils her clothing and linens to the point she wear pullups is NOT NORMAL. Sorry, but it's not.

BBM~ IMO, JR was the abuser and PR was the one forced to write the ransom letter. Perhaps deep down Patsy was envious of JBR and in a way wanted her to go away, and let the abuse happen?

 

[fedfan4life]

I don't think BDI makes sense one little bit.

No sane parent would stage and murder their dying child to cover up for another.

There is just zero logic to that, especially when JB was her mother's favourite toy and any 9 year old who hurt his sister is unable to be held legally responsible anyway.

JR was a very successful business man. He didn't do one single thing he didn't plan to do. The convoluted "kidnapping" theory was his brainchild. A chitty and hastily thought out brainchild, but one invented under pressure by someone who thinks they're pretty smart and is probably running on adrenaline.

What you've got to remember about these narcissists, is they think everyone else is incredibly stupid and they can fool everyone. What's sad is, they often succeed, for a while anyway, especially if they have money and can afford fancy lawyers and PR and political pressure.



:moo:

Yes it is perfectly logical if one is able to overcome the preconceived notion that a child is incapable of harming another child. And, the fact that both adult Ramseys are clearly narcicicstic makes a cover-up in this case all the more likely.

 

[fedfan4life]

Yes, he believed PR was the culprit and he along with just about everyone else, seemed to think JR was some kind of bystander that got involved after the fact. But I'm not so sure they ever really excluded him. When they were all on Larry King together, there was a little exchange between ST and JR that made me think they weren't as sold on JR's innocence as we were led to believe. JR-" What did you find in our background that would demonstrate that we are capable of this crime"? ST-" I gave you a pass, John. Unless you want to say otherwise, I don't think you were involved". IMO, this doesn't sound like ST was convinced of JR's innocence. A 'pass' is not exoneration and then he gave him an opportunity to open up. Then PR said, " We, he said we". (and really, what was the point in her repeating the 'we'? And then JR being JR, stuttered around with, " I'm asking about, you accused Patsy of murder, me of complicity". Considering that JR wasn't seen as a suspect, it was weird that he included himself in the 'we'. What would have made more sense would have been for him to distance himself from the crime and defend PR ...because there really wasn't much to defend himself from. But, by his own words, this was a 'we' crime, not a 'she' crime and PR made a point to reiterate the 'we'...just in case ST missed it the 1st few times JR said it? moo

Does this not make it abundantly clear that these two people would in no way be willing to protect one another for nothing more than one another's sake? There had to be a common goal, and them caring about the other was clearly not it.

 

[Estelle]

OpenMind4U,
Of course JR knew where to look, it was probably his plan to put JonBenet into the wine-cellar, you reckon Patsy would want her baby dumped in there?

I think JonBenet was living in a culture of abuse, with her pageant role seemingly normalizing it all. Eventually someone went too far and killed JonBenet, and since the R's had money they were able to buy off justice.

If the indictment process and all the information is made public via a FOI there will probably be a media feeding frenzy, with calls for JR to make statements etc.


.

I have gone back and forth on this between P and J, and I've just now decided that it was BOTH.

All we need to do is flip through these threads to see that male/female pedophile teams are scarily COMMON. Now the idiots are posting it online they're being caught, but back before the internet was available pedos probably took their own home movies and photos....my point is, they have always existed in secret, just not at the level we know about these days.

I do not find it difficult at all to believe that J was the molester, and P possibly held the camera/obeyed orders/joined in willingly.

It would explain the grooming of a baby into a Las Vegas Showgirl... to please or excite the man.

We know P and J's sex life was non-existent (despite P insisting it was active and healthy) so it makes a sick type of sense to think she groomed her beautiful mini-me to fulfill that part of her marriage....and perhaps her own sick needs.

:sick:

I agree with everything that I have bolded as this makes sense to me.

Original copy of the indictment.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/178967764/JonBenet-Ramsey

Also here:

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Media/Opinions.cfm

Has anyone been able to post the originals on this thread?

I cannot convert this into text to paste here. Can anyone help?

 

[Estelle]

On the child abuse charge,

the grand jury wrote that the Ramseys

"did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey."

On a second count of accessory to a crime,

the grand jury wrote that each parent

"did render assistance to a person" with the intent to prevent their arrest or prosecution, knowing they had committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ents-released-article-1.1496411#ixzz2itjhfCxI

IMO their son, Burke, is innocent. I wonder if he still talks to his father and how close they are now.

 

[lawstudent]

The child abuse charge would be written differently if it was based on a beating or molestation, right? Like the charge would be assault leading to death or sexual battery on a child. So what are they getting at? What "situation?" I guess the situation is the part that has the foreseeable consequence of death, so possibly it indicates the parents inflicted injuries as punishment or as a result of molestation which resulted in death. Or that they ignored her injuries and staged the crime, resulting in death, if Burke did it.

 

[questfortrue]

For new sleuthers there’s additional forensic opinion regarding sexual abuse in the Bonita Papers on the website ACR. It will provide good background for anyone unfamiliar with JB’s molestation indications, particularly from Dr. John McCann, a nationally recognized expert on child sexual abuse. Kolar also has good summary detail. But there’s another report about this topic in a book by Cyril Wecht (Mortal Evidence.) Though I don’t know that a good number of forensic pathologists agree with him on his opinion that the ligature (garotte) came first and the head strike second, some do, and his review of her injuries in this book contained some nuggets for considering.

Wecht’s conclusion was absolute that she had been molested both the night of her death and had also shown pathologically verified signs of chronic molestation. The degradation to her hymen alone was convincing to him. The difference between chronic and acute definitions has been explained thoroughly by OTG in another thread, so I won’t go into it. But my post is to share some knowledge I’ve read about her injuries.

JB had a slight piece of some sort of foreign material in the vagina, some thought was a tiny piece from a paintbrush. (From Kolar’s book, it’s notated that the doctors felt that the paintbrush had been inserted just prior to her death.)

She also had “circumferential” congestion in the vessels of the vagina and vaginal wall. It indicated to him that whatever caused the mark had moved in a circular motion. Like Coroner Meyer he postulated a finger. Also, within her vaginal vault, was “birefringent foreign material”, a substance that commonly contains silica found in such things as talcum powder. (PR used to use desitin cream, not a powder, on JB for her ‘diaper rash’.) Wecht's feeling was that she was penetrated by someone wearing rubber gloves. His conclusion - and one can take it for how any of it fits in the various theories here - is that combined with the cleaning and redressing and the probability of the use of rubber gloves, he was steered away from a juvenile molester. Of course, Wecht was not evaluating the business of adult cleaning and staging, but he provided some additional clues about her injuries and further evidence of the participation of an adult.


In this totally confusing case, the only thing I personally am certain of, is that she was molested/corporally cleansed or whatever one wants to call it, by one of the 3 others in the home prior to all of the other horrors. moo

 

[Estelle]

For new sleuthers there’s additional forensic opinion regarding sexual abuse in the Bonita Papers on the website ACR. It will provide good background for anyone unfamiliar with JB’s molestation indications, particularly from Dr. John McCann, a nationally recognized expert on child sexual abuse. Kolar also has good summary detail. But there’s another report about this topic in a book by Cyril Wecht (Mortal Evidence.) Though I don’t know that a good number of forensic pathologists agree with him on his opinion that the ligature (garotte) came first and the head strike second, some do, and his review of her injuries in this book contained some nuggets for considering.

Wecht’s conclusion was absolute that she had been molested both the night of her death and had also shown pathologically verified signs of chronic molestation. The degradation to her hymen alone was convincing to him. The difference between chronic and acute definitions has been explained thoroughly by OTG in another thread, so I won’t go into it. But my post is to share some knowledge I’ve read about her injuries.

JB had a slight piece of some sort of foreign material in the vagina, some thought was a tiny piece from a paintbrush. (From Kolar’s book, it’s notated that the doctors felt that the paintbrush had been inserted just prior to her death.)

She also had “circumferential” congestion in the vessels of the vagina and vaginal wall. It indicated to him that whatever caused the mark had moved in a circular motion. Like Coroner Meyer he postulated a finger. Also, within her vaginal vault, was “birefringent foreign material”, a substance that commonly contains silica found in such things as talcum powder. (PR used to use desitin cream, not a powder, on JB for her ‘diaper rash’.) Wecht's feeling was that she was penetrated by someone wearing rubber gloves. His conclusion - and one can take it for how any of it fits in the various theories here - is that combined with the cleaning and redressing and the probability of the use of rubber gloves, he was steered away from a juvenile molester. Of course, Wecht was not evaluating the business of adult cleaning and staging, but he provided some additional clues about her injuries and further evidence of the participation of an adult.


In this totally confusing case, the only thing I personally am certain of, is that she was molested/corporally cleansed or whatever one wants to call it, by one of the 3 others in the home prior to all of the other horrors. moo

I am new to this thread but not to sleuthing. I look at everything from a psychological point of view.

From reading this, it seems obvious that BR did not molest/corporally cleanse JBR. I do not know why posters still blame him.

Psychologically speaking, if JR is a control freak, he would have been the dominant person in that house. What he wanted, went.

Why does PR seem to be crazy? IMO she could have been an abused woman herself and could have lost interest in sex as a result.

So she created an attractive substitute in JBR - a "doll" for JR to "play" with.

After he "played" with JBR, who IMO was the one who molested her, PR corporally cleansed her due to her guilt in giving JR permission.

Wecht’s conclusion was absolute that she had been molested both the night of her death and had also shown pathologically verified signs of chronic molestation.

So this chronic molestation could have gone on for years.

But on the night of her death when JR did it yet again (his DNA was found on the Size 12 panties), JBR at last objected to it in no certain terms and threatened to tell others about it. She was now 6 years old and had had enough of it all.

IMO the Ramseys then decided that they could not let their "dirty little secret" get out, so JBR had to die so she was strangled by one with the co-operation of the other to cover up.

They then decided to stage it as an abduction so one of them hit her over the head once she was dead (as if the abductor did it), then JR forced PR to write the ransom note otherwise he told her he would tell police that she did it. I think JR must have had intentions of hiding the body so it could never be found but PR dialled 911 so JR put her body in the wine cellar. Gloves were used which accounts for little DNA being found.

This is my opinion only and as I have not read everything on this case, there are probably things I have stated here that you do not agree with or do not fit with the facts. Therefore, I am curious to know what they are.

 

[Estelle]

It's time JR tells the truth. I have always suspected PR. I'm sure she gave both children enemas and didn't she give JBR douches? I don't know for sure but I think she was the abuser and JR ignored it as long as possible. I think she had some mental problems. If JR wants to vindicate BR it's time he told the truth, otherwise this is going to haunt BR all his life. Just my opinion!

I agree with you. What is their relationship like these days? Has BR ever given any interviews. It is time he stuck up for himself too.